I was under the impression that it was a remake, especially since it uses the "inspired by true events" claim. Yet none of the reviews I've seen have referred to this. At the Onion's AV Club, Scott Tobias refers to the film's "unacknoweldged debt to THEM", but somebody in the comments claims that The Strangers was written first.

SPOILERS FOR BOTH FILMS, POSSIBLY

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

SPOILERS

I've not seen ILS, but I'm told that the Big Twist is that the mysterious masked killers who torment and ultimately kill the couple are children. Is this true of THE STRANGERS, as well? The reviews don't really hint at this.

From interviews I have read with the director of THE STRANGERS, he has based his film on the murders done by the Manson family. Hence the "inspired by true events" line in trailers.

Re: The Spoiler that I doubt is a Spoiler.

The actors that play the masked intruders are in their twenties. Just sayin'...

Sounds like FUNNY GAMES to me.

FUNNY GAMES - Now With Less Harangue!

I read two good reviews for it in the Times and the News here in The Apple, and you all know how my heart was broken by THEM/ILS. I remain hopeful. And I am looking forward to getting the FUNNY GAMES remake on disc, as I rarely go to the movie theatre anymore, due to... to THEM, all around me!

I just got back from seeing THE STRANGERS. It ain't exactly original, but it left me a quivering lump of tension. In a way, you could describe it as a "light" version of FUNNY GAMES - there's no harangue, but it strikes a small but effective cautionary note re: gun ownership - but it's almost as anti-entertaining. If I thought it was about anything other than its own desire to scare, it would be one of my favorite films of the year. Most films with similar plots are about the North's fear of the South - or Western Europe's fear of Eastern Europe, as in THEM - or urbanites' fear of inbred rednecks. Here, the killers truly are complete ciphers. I'm curious if anyone else who's seen this can find much subtext to it.

It's been a while since I've seen a horror film in a multiplex on opening weekend. I should've been prepared for the teens who laughed at inappropriate moments (such as every 30 seconds of the first reel), talked back to the screen, took cell phone calls, etc. But in such a somber and atmospheric film, they really were a mood killer.

I must say, I'm very sort-of interested in this. :) Is it like VACANCY? (I would assume it's its own thing, too but curious about reference points.)

It's like VACANCY in that it's about a young couple, but the plot is much thinner and more cryptic. FUNNY GAMES and THEM are probably the closest reference points.

SPOILERS GALORE...


Something strangely familiar with many of the shots and scenarios in THEM.

Girl frightened by a bloody meaty mess hitting the window in a shot that looks very, very familiar to me.

They are trapped in a house surrounded by Hooded assailants.

Towards the end of the movie the decision is made to run out of the house and into the woods, victims are surrounded by atmospheric spooky sounds.

Their car disappears during the attack and later while running through the woods they come to stumble on it.

Hmmm...fascinating.

Well, I haven't seen Vacancy, Ils, or even the other movie that Sal is alluding to (although I keep meaning to), but I was pleasantly surprised by The Strangers. Um, maybe not pleasantly... I'm not a big fan of people-on-people horror, but the flick definitely delivered on what it promised.

I felt that it was a surprisingly effective piece of work, and that it evoked the essence of '70s horror without being a hamfisted caricature (the way these things end up with Rob Zombie and Eli Roth at the wheel). Speaking of those two, I also appreciated that when it could have went with the torture porn, it instead maintained restraint. If Bertino had eliminated all the f-bombs and pulled a PG-13 rating, this might have redeemed the concept of a PG-13 horror flick.

As in, a PG-13 horror film that was actually scary.

What I also found refreshing about it was that it was just a lean, mean horror machine. Sparse dialogue, sparse characterization and more than a little ambiguity. Sometimes ambiguity is nice. Most of the time I don't need things spelled out for me like I just wandered away from listening to Rush Limbaugh.

Not a lot of dead weight in the first act, just set up the protags and get the menace rolling in the first fifteen minutes (and I felt that the young couple were joined at a perfect moment, vulnerable and isolated while in the same car... thinking that they were at the worst moment of their lives, but still a short drive away).

And while I generally don't like loud noises used to get the jump out of the audience, it worked here. Maybe because of the assured use of ambient noise and the welcomely minimalist soundtrack. And granted, a lot of Old School horror tropes get trotted out here, but in context they work.

The only thing I was disappointed about was...

[MINI-SPOILER]

...with the first reveal of one of the invaders looming in a dark entrance behind Tyler's character.

[/MINI-SPOILER]

Well, judging from the reactions of my date and the rest of the audience, it was damned effective. A lot of gasps... even some moans. It didn't work for me because, well... I saw the god-damned trailer. So I'm sitting there going, "Well, this is where that happens."

Glad it worked for the rest of the crowd, though. They also must not have seen the poster for the movie... because marketing also uses that shot for the freakin' poster!

Damn.

I don't know if it was the director's intent, but I was getting the vibe (maybe planted by Ian's original post) of it being an exercise in generational antipathy, as in "Kids these days..."

Of course, every generation hits the point where they view the kids of their grandchildren's age with resentment and a little fear (but not their own grandkids, because... well, their grandkids were brought up right), but this felt a little bit like the middle generation was cut out... so that Generation X views Y with more than a little uneasiness.

Which makes sense, because teenagers today seem wired a little different. And they won't get off of my yard when I yell at them. They just stand there...

... staring...

... waiting.

Actually, if The Strangers reminded me of anything, it was Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13. Just without a catalyst.

Audiences were not "estranged"--the film pulled in over $20 million this weekend. Between that and SEX AND THE CITY there's life left yet in R-rated movies.

Thanks to a severe storm power outage at work, I had an afternoon to kill and, with no electricity at home, drove out of my power grid locale to a nice cool theater and a 2:30 afternoon showing of this.


***************SPOILERS*************

What movie is Sal alluding to if not ILS or VACANCY, FUNNY GAMES (which I've seen the original version of years ago and have slowly developed a grudging respect for it, although I don't know if I'd ever need to see it again in my life)?

I'd say THE STRANGERS is like VACANCY in that it's a modern horror film that is more interested in tension and suspense than sadism and grue, although in both cases there's flirting with those extreme edges. I imagine that, much like VACANCY, this is an aspect that should be more clear in the advertising than it is and so some potential, older audience numbers are lost as people who have no inclination to see something like SAW or HOSTEL stay away from the less "torture porn"-esque VACANCY or STRANGERS due to this lack of advertising clarity (although how you'd do that, I admit, escapes me. But then I'm not a promotions guy)

On the other hand, THE STRANGERS is a dark bummer of a film and could be considered nihilistic ("because you were home" she deadpans), so maybe that all works out anyway.

But, I liked it. Sure, I'm not likely to sit and watch it again anytime soon but I agree with Craig, who really nailed it, it's just an effective, lean engine of a suspense thriller, albeit with a 70's "hopeless" tone that bodes ill for the turn out of events. And Craig, you're absolutely right, this is a perfect example how this much vaunted "70's horror revival" approach is best handled by close attention to tone and pacing and not outrageous set-pieces or surface, clunky "look, it's the 70's" moments.

Not a great movie, but that too seldom found thing - a good solid movie.

As for subtext - well, the single word of "Manson" sums it up. It's basically a Manson clan film (again, though, without the love beads and faux-death-hippie posturing a lesser writer would have used), with the attackers doing Family-style "creepy-crawlies" stuff (that's what they called it, right? When they used to sneak into wealthy homes while the owners were asleep and move things around, etc.?) on an innocent couple for no good reason. And they certainly aren't kids (by which I mean children), more like late teenagers. I'm interested to see ILS now to see how they handle that aspect, here it's pretty effectively done as neither a "climactic pay-off" ("YOU! But you're just..." kinda hokum) or no revelation at all. But they are, as Manson had it and to paraphrase, "the children of suburbia rising up and killing the adults" without emotion or affect. They're even disguised as a grotesque parody of a nuclear family - Dad in business suit, blonde Mom and cutesy-poo Daughter.

But for a movie this quick and lean, there's really not a lot of time or opportunity for thick subtext (what was the line about TEXAS CHAINSAW - "can only be read as a dark fairy-tale or a wrong-headed polemic for vegetarianism"?).

A completely indulgent and ridiculous aside - I'm not a picky movie person, generally. I don't sit there and think "that couldn't happen" or "why would they do that" and end up ruining my own enjoyment of a film. It's a little tougher in films like this because they really are playing on such a closed space and moment in time, a small canvas, that little details get heightened. I just wanted to ask - did anyone think it was an odd choice that when the wife calls the husband on the house phone we don't hear his voice/end of the conversation (which I can accept as a directorial choice to heighten her isolation) BUT then we do hear the click as the phone goes dead - I'm not saying it was a big thing, but it really stuck out to me. Just seemed weird and kinda easy to want both effects although they are logically exclusive. Anyway, just wondering.

Is he a French Actor? :ph43r:

I really disliked this film.

EDIT : SPOILER WARNING







SPOILERS!!!!












I haven't seen ILS yet, but I did see VACANCY theatrically and THE STRANGERS feels like a cheap wannabe even to that film (which was not a boxoffice success). I liked VACANCY quite a bit, for its simplicity and focus on suspense instead of gore, but most of all because the two main characters are smart and do everything they can to survive and don't react in dumb movie cliches (like "stay here, I'm going out to the barn to use the radio - you'll be safe here"). I don't remember one moment of stupidity by the two leads in VACANCY (except they let that gas station attendant mess around under the hood - dumb, so yes, every film has its faults), but THE STRANGERS has too many moments of stupidity and simply becomes unbelievable. It also focuses way too much on the ear-shattering audio jolts (you see, audio jolts are scary) than on any real suspense. The build-up is decent and the pounding on the doors is also good (although it was done better in VACANCY), but once the horror stuff begins, it's so by-the-numbers and derivative that I became quite bored after a while. Why didn't Liv just call 911 when she first heard the pounding? I sure would have. Nope, just calls her boyfriend. They know these killers are preying on them, but they still just hang around the house peeking around corners to see it the killers are there. Why not just take the rifle and make a big run for it. You have a gun at least. They just wait around as sitting ducks the whole time (unless he has to go to the barn to use the radio, or go to the car to get his cellphone - geesh). I've heard the argument "well, you wouldn't know how logically you'd react in a terrifying situation", and that's somewhat valid, but in a film, if the characters are not completely on top of it and acting smart, it just becomes a screenwriter's machinations to propel the plot instead. I can't say I hated "THE STRANGERS" - it's well made and technically tries to do what it can with the thin material, but in the end, it's just a sub-par unconvincing thriller in the VACANCY mold. Oh, another reason why I liked VACANCY was that it didn't bow down to the dumb usual horror cliched shock ending and ended on a calm realistic note - no sensation. THE STRANGERS does the exact opposite and it's baffling how they left that in. Is that supposed to be an audience pleaser? Oh, and the Christian bicyclists and "next time it'll be easier" stuff was so laughable it made me ill.

VACANCY didn't win over a ton of critics or moviegoers, that's for sure, but it looks like a masterpiece in comparison to this. Just my two cents. Wait and rent it on netflix if you must.

The Strangers script was originally optioned before Them was produced. So no, it's just a coincidence that they came out relatively close together.

It'd take a little more than kids dickin' around to get me to call 911. And up to a certain point, that's all it would look like. By the time that the couple realized how messed up the situation was, the phones were out of the picture.

But that sort of bugs me. Another one of those things that's subjective. Some folks'll like it, some won't. I glad I saw it in a theater.

(general spoilers)







i agree with the poster above. VACANCY is like citizen kane compared to THE STRANGERS.

THE STRANGERS is full of false scares that had the youngish crowd i saw it with all a "titter" with fright...

about half way thru the movie i felt that i knew how it was going to end, and at that point all the tension left my body.

most horror filmakers of today have just moved on to the "everybody dies" sort of situation. at that point, movies of this type cease to have any tension. if you know (or get the feeling that) everyone is going to die, then what's the point in watching the movie?!

just to see people die?

Have you tried Hare Krishna?

SPOILERS

Unless I'm completely misremembering, or there are two films called THE STRANGERS out there, the movie didn't end this way. The actual last moment ending may have been gratuitous, and so it still tonally fits what you're saying, but that's not actually what happens at the end of the movie.

Or is the lack of a healthy, whopping comeuppance on the bad guys? Is that the reason to watch a movie, just to see righteous violence perpetrated on those who deserve it (because we all know that's different than sadistic violence perpetrated on the innocent)? If so, SAW awaits.....

Luckily, I didn't feel like I knew how it was going to end at any point - so I enjoyed it as a suspense film. YMMV.

I mean, don't get me wrong, it's a massive BUMMER of a film and that may not be to everyone's taste (or even mine, depending on the mood. Usually, I like at least a drop of the fantastique in my horror brew. Heck, much like FUNNY GAMES I'll probably never need to watch it again) but there's not much difference here from LAST HOUSE ON THE LEFT or sundry 70's grimness.

So, whether this movie is actually *successful* on its own terms or not, I'm curious about it, since there have been reactions from both critics and 'forum folk' that indicate the director may be someone to keep an eye on. So, while I'm hopeful that I'll just plain like it, I'm going to be seeing it at some point regardless of the odds.

Here's my question. I could see it at full price this week, at a DLP house with decent-to-good visual presentation and intimate, though extremely well-balanced sound (and good soundproofing from adjacent houses to boot). Or, I could wait a few weeks and see it for a dollar, with mediocre-to-poor presentation, but hey - at least it's in a theater. Or... wait for DVD. With TV speakers, as my receiver's in storage.

I guess it comes down to this: how important is quality of sound to the effectiveness of this film?

I think that the director put a lot of thought into the sound design. While there's a tendency to fall back on the ol' smash the piano keys to get jolts, there's also some more subtle stuff at work.

I'd wait for the dollar theater. I saw it with perfect surround sound and the aforementioned audio jolts are so extreme and repetitive that they sound ridiculously loud and gimmicky. I don't think you'll lose anything by seeing it at the dollar house. Maybe it will sound better that way and won't bust your eardrums.

The direction is OK - it's not a badly made film except for the reliance on audio jolts to get a reaction. It's the usual hand-held shaky-cam approach which adds nothing. I never felt one bit of suspense so maybe the director should try a drama or comedy next time.

And as for the comment about when to call 911, if grown-up "kids" are pounding on my door at 4am at my house in the middle of nowhere after I already told them once to get lost, I damn well would have called 911 immediately. No question whatsoever. And apparently that would have been the smart thing to do for these characters as well. Duh.

i don't know, i felt the actual ending had more of a Carrie quality to it...

my feelings about the movie were negative, probably because i had just seen THEM/ILS and both movies had a similar ending.

THE STRANGERS did have a few things going for it in my opinion. the use of sound WAS pretty interesting. the skipping record was great, and i wish it had gone on for a longer period of time.

the stupidity of the characters completely took me out of the movie.

one character has a shotgun. then his friend arrives early to pick him up. as soon as that guy's jeep showed up, i KNEW that guy was going to get a facefull of bullets from his friend!

THEN the couple leaves the room, allowing the psychos to pick them off.

these are things that take me right out of a movie. if they had stayed in that room, or any room with their backs against a wall they may have survived.

there are films with this type of ending that work (HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER), but this one just didnt do it for me...

Brian DePalma has announced he will direct a film incorporating both THE STRANGERS and THEM/ILS, to be called THEM STRANGERS ON A TRAIN. :)

Update: Mark Cuban's forcing De Palma to change the title to REROUTED.