362 - The Strangers review

If "Psycho" were released today, it would be under the pretense of being based on a true story. Its source material was inspired by the grisly exploits of (the unfortunately real) Ed Gein, but there was no Bates Motel, no shower murders, and no motherly corpses.

So when "The Strangers" opened with a statistic about violent crime and an assurance that we were watching a true story, I was skeptical. After the movie, I went home and began browsing for the "true story" I was promised. Apparently, writer-director Bryan Bertino based the screenplay around two things: 1. The Manson killings. 2. A creepy but non-fatal childhood incident. Hmm. Sort of like saying that "Forrest Gump" is based on a true story because there are mentally handicapped people who have run very fast.

Though it might be a cynical marketing ploy (as opposed to an offbeat joke like in "Fargo") to call the story true, "The Strangers" is a lean, effective horror-thriller for those interested in the genre. It's one of those flicks where the protagonists are stalked by seemingly omnipotent villains intent only on terrorizing them and drawing blood. The knifing-bags are Kristen (Liv Tyler) and James (Scott Speedman), a couple on the outs staying in a country home for the night. When James goes out to buy cigarettes, ominous sounds start taunting Kristen, banging on the doors and windows. Soon after, she spots the culprits, three masked creeps who move with the speed and quietness normally only associated with Navy SEALS, ninjas, and Batman.

Things go from bad to worse when the villains begin slinking through the house, destroying the phones and writing threatening messages on the windows. These moments are scary but often rely on much-ridiculed horror film logic; are we really supposed to believe Kristen and James won't try harder to escape, or that a curious passerby would just walk into the house without announcing his presence? Yes, we are if we want the film to continue.

Bertino does manage to translate universal fears into some powerful imagery. One particularly chilling scene has Kristen watch as the invaders casually stroll around the home, manipulating furniture and household objects as if intoxicated by their total hold on the lives of their victims. The attackers offer no explicit motives nor obtain any apparent gain other than the ecstasy they derive from terrorizing others.

This is where I searched for a sort of deeper meaning than what was readily discernable; is the film commenting on the manner in which unspeakable, seemingly random and faceless violence can shatter our existence without warning? Perhaps some claptrap about peculiar post-modern cruelty?

No, I don't think so. What we're left with at the close is the bloody aftermath of a horrific evening. Perhaps it was fun for the antagonists as well as the audience, but it ultimately means nothing more than that. We ultimately learn so little about each of the characters that their arcs could be described on the back of the movie ticket, and the plot could be thoroughly summarized in two short paragraphs. I can acknowledge that this serves people looking for exactly what it provides, but what about everyone else?

So if you're no stranger to this sort of film, you should enjoy it. If not, then you might not want to get acquainted.

2.5 out of 5