While watching the movie I couldn't help but think if the script had been written by a board member and posted here, it would have been torn to pieces.

No foreshadowing ( they didn't meet and piss off someone at the party earlier, someone who then had a grudge and came for payback) and no motivation ( no scene where the guy mumbles though his flour sack about WHY he's terrorizing the couple).

The plot is there it's just not a standard 3 act structure, no final act where the couple turns the tables. Act one is all character, act 2 is the attack.

But still for me it was a well made, suspenseful thriller. I like how it tapped into what for many people is a basic fear or dread, the home invasion - the POUNDING on the door in the middle of the night. That was unnerving.

The first act is pretty much useless. I would've loved to see the party, and then them go home. The way it was presented doesn't do anything for me.

I didn't care if either one lived or died. There was no reason for me to care about any of it. That's why I don't like tihs movie.

One of the girls does say their motivation: "You were home".

It's something, but not enough.

I also thought it was very, very predictable. Of course the guy was gonna shoot the other guy!

LOL! Shooting his friend had to happen. It completely shot the characters' nerves and made them make some horrible decisions. Basically, I think it's accurate to say that it "opened the door" for the killers to off 'em.

I agree the characters were not developed enough, but I liked the way it was done for two reasons: 1. It's a hell of a lot more character developent than we will EVER get in a Horror movie recently released, and 2. Presenting it as subtly as they did never broke the silent, gloomy atmosphere of the movie.

I think the film did an amazing job at building suspense. I did not think the scares were cheap. Sure, they were "BOO!" scares--but they're not cheap if they're well-done. The movie actually built suspense and released it little by little perfectly to the point where every scare worked. Those are not cheap scares. It is a sign of excellent writing/directing. Unfortunately, the plot had to be sacrificed. This is because the suspense is intensified if we remain in a single location throughout the whole film.  

The film had next-to-no plot, but it was unnerving and scary. Would you prefer it if had next-to-no-plot and was a turd at the same time?

As for the motive, I liked it a lot. Instead of some cheesy "I am your brother's cousin's cousin and I killed you because (insert silly reason here)!" ending, it kept it simple and, with a single line of dialogue, made the entire thing work.

ABS, I know "Because you were home" was not enough of a motive. But seriously, did you ever stop to think if the psychopaths actually *cared* if they had enough of a reason to do what they did? Hell no! The couple here was as confused as you are. Which brings me to another point of excellence in this film--the movie is told ENTIRELY from the couple's point of view (except that one bit  with the friend, which was used to move the film further).  What they don't know, we don't know.  

Quoted from ReaperCreeper The film had next-to-no plot, but it was unnerving and scary. Would you prefer it if had next-to-no-plot and was a turd at the same time? As for the motive, I liked it a lot. Instead of some cheesy "I am your brother's cousin's cousin and I killed you because (insert silly reason here)!" ending, it kept it simple and, with a single line of dialogue, made the entire thing work. ABS, I know "Because you were home" was not enough of a motive. But seriously, did you ever stop to think if the psychopaths actually *cared* if they had enough of a reason to do what they did? Hell no! The couple here was as confused as you are. Which brings me to another point of excellence in this film--the movie is told ENTIRELY from the couple's point of view (except that one bit  with the friend, which was used to move the film further).  What they don't know, we don't know.

Actually, "because you're home" is enough motive.
Take the horrid example  of Rob Zombie, who took the brilliant, mysterious. frightening "boogeyman" of Michael Myers , who had no motivation, who was simply pure evil personified in Carpenter's Halloween, and developed a ridiculous back story for Myers in his remake to attempt to explain WHY Myers is what he is. Why the need to explain? Of course, Zombie isn't the best example since he's a horrid writer anyway, but the point is the same.

Some things happen with no motive. We see it in life. There are mindless pointless killings. There are thrill killings that happen for no reason other than the joy of the act. The simple line " because you're home" is infinately more chilling than taking half a page of dialogue to toss out some rationalization. And Like you said , the story is told from the couple's point of view, so we don't get to hear any motive there may be.

This isn't an approach that is going to work every time. You have to have the right story told the right way. Then it can work.

In the end, the movie clicks for some people and not others.

Is there anybody on this thread who has seen BOTH "Strangers" and the French film, "Ils"?

I have not made up my mind about seeing this  -- because the more I read, the more it sounds like a total rip-off.

Is there somebody out there who can give me a comparison?

That's been an ongoing semi debate it seems. The official word is that The Strangers was written in 2004 ( the first draft in Oct 04) and sold to Rogue at that time, with the writer hired to direct in '06. That would make it highly unlikely if not impossible for it to be a rip off of "Ils (Them)"  ( which supposedly wasn't ever shown in the U.S. until 2007) although they are alike it seems.

The Strangers was shot in Oct 2006, so it would be a huge rush to write, submit, get a green light and rush into production after seeing a foreign film from the same year.

Also the movie sat on the shelf for a long time, being originally touted for release in mid early-mid 2007.

So it seems to be a huge coincidence.

They share a lot of similarities, but there is no twist in The Strangers at all. I don't think they ripped each other off--it seems, like Mike said, that it was just a huge coincidence. But the fact remains that they ARE pretty similar.

--Julio

I watched "Them" last night, and from what I've read about "The Strangers", the only similarities between them is that they're about two people in a house being terrorized.

"Them" didn't seem to be too big on character development either, and on the whole I found it to be rather "blah".  I'm curious to know what the twist in "Them" is supposed to be, though.  If it's what I think it is, I wouldn't really call that a twist.

Quoted from Shelton I'm curious to know what the twist in "Them" is supposed to be, though.  If it's what I think it is, I wouldn't really call that a twist.

Spoiler for "Ils"




It is the age of those who are terrorizing the couple.  But yes, the way they handle it, it is more of a "revelation" than a real "twist".

After wathcing it, I thought they could have done much more with that particular angle than they did.  Had they really explioted that, it might have made for a more interesting film.

A movie isn't real life. I watch the news. Real life sucks.

This movie would be a lot better if it said something about our culture - about this random thrill killings. It doesn't. He just puts it out there. There's no theme, no truth, no anything. Just these events that are "based on a true story", which is just lazy. People take the "ripped fromthe headlines" approach all the time, but they still manage to say something. They make a statement.

I'm not saying all movies should have some life changing, mountain moving theme. But I want to get something out of a movie. Something that makes me think. This movie would've been a great way to say something about the world we live in, where people just randomly kill other people. Sure, this movie is shocking and scary and it throws one of my biggest fears in my face, but what's behind that?

I predict this movie will be forgotten a year after the DVD comes out. It's superficial and pointless.

Quoted from ABennettWriter It's superficial and pointless.

This is how I felt after reading the screenplay.

I'd like to see a good home invasion movie that doesn't take place in Saskatoon. Most people going to see these movies live ten feet next door to someone, and those people have a neighbor on the other side, and so on... and so on...

In Hollywood horror movies, everyone seems to live way down in Bum Fuck Egypt. How are we supposed to relate to that?

Quoted from Sham I'd like to see a good home invasion movie that doesn't take place in Saskatoon.

Funny Games.

Quoted from James McClung Funny Games.

And Extremities!

Quoted from Shelton And Extremities!

Ooh. I remember Extremities. I'm gonna go watch it right now. Thanks for reminding me of it.

So, I was pretty excited for this movie, hoping that I'd go to get creeped out, scared, sit at the edge of my seat towards the end of the movie.

I was wrong. And I feel jipped.

It started out really cheesy with the whole voice over deal. I mean, WE CAN READ. We're not stupid. Yeh, the voice should make it scarier, but it didn't. My friends and I were laughing at the beginning when he was talking. Then when the movie actually began, I started to get bored because there was nothing happening and they were just standing there crying and being quiet, and I was like, "Wow, you're boring."

Then when "the strangers" came in I was like, "Good, now we get to see some action."

Yet again, I was disappointed.

Most of it was just walking into the house, staring at a chick, and disappearing as they turn around. That got extremely tiring after a while because that's all they were doing. Then once they finally actually started to chase the people around, you know, mess with them a bit more hardcore...ly, it was still really boring because nothing actually had happened.

Then the ending was nearing, and I wasn't at the edge of my seat. I wasn't shaking. I didn't feel any sympathy for the characters. I wasn't scared. Then they died. And I was like, "Is that it?? I sat here for an hour and a half FOR THAT??!??" I felt really ripped off. They led me on, and ended it with a giant flop.

So in a nutshell, and in my opinion, this movie is a boring, very, very slow, quiet, non-creepy, predictable piece of work that lasts for an hour and a half and didn't even come to satisfy the scare I wanted when I walked into the theater. I would like to have my hour and a half back so I am going to save that for The Happening which I hope will not be a disappointment like this movie. And it's just as bad since I had to sit through that trailer for QUARANTINED. People actually said that that movie looked good. I really wanted to stand up in the theater after that and tell them that it is a remake and that they should take a look at the original first and then think about seeing that movie. But I'll save that for another thread.

The only thing that actually scared me about this film was the fact that stuff like this actually happens.

Sean