THE STRANGERS Review

Reader Comments

1. Bench2020 05/30/2008 @ 5:03am

   Bit thrown by this - I was sure ‘The Strangers’ WAS a remake of ‘Ils’.  Looking at imdb, it gives Bertino sole writing credit, and there’s not mention of a connection except in its association with Roy Lee. Anyone know what happened? Wonder if the ‘Ils’ team wanted their name taken off it.

2. Kurt Halfyard 05/30/2008 @ 7:03am

   “and the official site doesn’t reveal any more information about the “true” circumstances, which might add a plaintive edge to the proceedings.”

   I’ve seen a number of people comment on whether or not this is a true story, to which I respond (without having seen the movie, because it is irrelevent to this argument) that Who Cares?  The only difference between a fictional film and one ‘based’ ‘inspired’ etc. by a true story is that the names or places may remain the same.  The minutae of how a film is constructed and the choices on what the filmmakers choose to show and how to frame, light, construct the story makes everything fictional and skewed.  There ain’t no object truths in film stories, only relative ones that affect the viewer.  So it’s a moot argument and I have no Idea why this bothers people (Like the Coen’s amusing pranksterism with Fargo).

3. sarkoffagus 05/30/2008 @ 7:29am

   Thanks for the review. I’ll just wait for DVD.*

   *This comment is based on actual events.

4. Kurt Halfyard 05/30/2008 @ 7:31am

   sark! 

   LOL.  that was almost a coffee-spitting moment there.

5. dullboy 05/30/2008 @ 8:25am

   Bertino was interviewed for the Austin Chronicle, and he states that it was “inspired” by someone knocking on his door late at night when he was a kid, along with the Tate/Labianca murders.  Just as Kurt pointed out, Fargo did this (for comedic purposes, IMO), as have many torture-porn flicks for exploitative reasons (and even they stole that from better films of the 70s like Last House on the Left).

6. dullboy 05/30/2008 @ 8:26am

   Link to that Chronicle interview:
   http://www.austinchronicle.com/gyrobase/Issue/story?oid=oid:629431

7. Kurt Halfyard 05/30/2008 @ 8:34pm

   Just got back from The Strangers.  I dug it.  issues like sound cues and telegraphing of some scenes are very, very minor gripes, the film easily overcomes these tiny weaknesses.  Because I don’t want to bother puttnig up a Third (!) review of this film here at Twitch, I’ll just link to my ‘extended thoughts’ on the film which have been published over at http://www.rowthree.com here

8. Brad 05/31/2008 @ 2:26am

   I was hoping this film was gonna knock it outta the park but it appears like o
   a fair amount of hype has pushed this film too much. I’m happy to see such varied reviews, all with awesome pros and cons. Thanks for the link Kurt. I think I’ll lower my expectations and either wait for a rainy day...or a rainy dvd.

9. Canfield 05/31/2008 @ 7:33am

   I usually don’t post to fellow critics reviews but I think a public dialogue about this might prove interesting for all. And this seems as good as any place to kick something like that off since our reviews of The Strangers differ mainly in the way we use the film to further certain critical goals. We seem to disagree on whether or not the film “works” as art and entertainment.This is largely subjective. I sat in a roomful of Chicago critics who all pretty much agreed that despite it’s lack of originality The Strangers used the tools of cinema well to generate suspense etc.

   And of course the films intended mainstream audience will likely not have seen Ils, High Tension, Inside and likely had limnited access in most parts of the country to Funny Games US.

   Here are some other thoughts

   I think that film, like all art forms, offers an important path of sifting through big questions. My point is that just because a film doesn’t offer anything original doesn’t mean it’s not potentially an important part of this vital dialogue.

   It’s this dialogue that critics by and large ignore in the reviewing of film. We focus on aestethics, film history, technique, etc. But frankly, those questions are categorically less important than the things even bad films are often “about.” The chance they ofer us to focus on these deeper things is far more interesting to me than the way a film is lit, uses sound cues, etc.

   And, not to say that you did this in your review but isn’t it a fundamentally more mature form of engagement to comment on these things, think them through, offer those thoughts up, rather than simply focus on whether we found a particular film “entertaining” enough or aestethically pleasing enough to draw us out. Deep calls to deep as the saying goes and truth is truth to paraphrase Augustine.

   We live in a culturee of distraction, spending billions on entertainment rather than the obvious needs of society around us. What we need are critics who are first and foremost engaged with how film fits into those goals, those discussions. Otherwise all this aestethic assessment leads to men serving art, instead of men serving one another. To paraphrase another favorite thinker of mine Art without love is dead.

   This is in no way a specific calling of account to Peter (any more than it is to myself or any other person who wants to swim in the critical stream) but it is a challenge to respond to the question of how aestethics and engagement are both worthy critical tools in assessing a films importance.

10. Peter Martin 05/31/2008 @ 7:39pm

    We take different critical approaches, Canfield, and that’s one of the things I appreciate about writing for Twitch. I think that benefits our readership, which tends to be well educated in international cinema. It’s a fine thing to write about the deeper subjects that films might provoke, beyond the film’s own intrinsic quality, but in this case I did not feel THE STRANGERS merited that weight. It is, admittedly, better than woeful efforts like PROM NIGHT, ONE MISSED CALL (remake), or THE EYE (remake), but it did not drill into my psyche. Theoretically, you could write wonderful critical essays about any of these films—the latter two films, especially, with their depictions of the deceptive dangers of personal technology and body integrity—but I have not done so. Does that make me and/or my reviews fundamentally less mature and shallow than you and yours? Maybe so. Perhaps I’ll consider this more carefully when I see THE FOOT FIST WAY and KUNG FU PANDA and try to engage those films on a deeper level.

    Of course, any critical evaluation will be subjective, and highly personal; believe me, I am accustomed to being in the minority more often than not. I’d prefer to write an entirely positive review—it’s much easier for me to extol the virtues of a movie than point out its flaws—but I feel it’s even more important to explain why something did not “work” for me, and to wrestle with my own subjective view. Though I often encourage people to seek out a movie I really liked, I usually don’t intend to discourage anyone from seeing anything. I’ve been writing about movies long enough to know that something that I think fails on every count will turn out to be someone else’s favorite.

    Evidently my review conveyed the idea that the film’s lack of originality was what bothered me the most. If so, that’s my failure as a writer. As you know, most movies are not true “originals,” but the ones that are most successful, in my mind, are those that add fresh twists or new insights to material that may be well-known to the viewer; at minimum, they cause the viewer to think in different ways. I did not feel THE STRANGERS achieved any of these goals. Sorry: no dread for me. As always, your mileage may vary.

11. Brad 05/31/2008 @ 9:03pm

    The hard thing to grasp is that films are enjoyed on a simple, basic level by the majority of viewers.
    Put enough colour, explosions and vacant ‘stars’ in a production and you’re almost there.

    Now, I’m not saying that the readersjip of Twitch are above this, I’m sure we all have our guilty pleasures or safe films [return of the living dead part 2] but I think reviews are much like films...personal.

    If I want a deep, thoughtful review about the balance of social calm VS natural motives...I’ll try and find one but more often than not...the films I watch just don’t merit it...even thouh some/ most Japanese films are very thought provoking.

    Twitch gives a great many varied opinions such as with this film and I think it’s invaluable...and sometimes funny as hell.
    Add some ninjas and you’re away.

12. Canfield 06/01/2008 @ 7:23am

    Peter

    Great thought through response. I really feel like you tackled my post. It’s so hard these days to find someone who will enter in and dialogue. Of copurse I’m not surprised having read a lot of your stuff. BTW in no way did I think your take on The Strangers was immature. Your comment about Kung Fu Panda and Foot Fist Way gave me a big smile and a chuckle this morning.

    We ALL suffer under the weight of our perspective and the need to wrestle with it and our reactions to the culture around us not least in part because deep down we know we don’t have final answers to a lot of the questions raised by the culture we consume, and the state of the world around us. Wrestling with our own reactions is a big part of what any critic does. Really in many ways its exactly what I do as well. I just feel compelled to ask slightly different questions. There’s no moral state of excellence implied by that.

    One of the things I write about from my perspective is the way that people demonize “entertainment.” My library is FULL of guilty pleasures. As always happy to be part of the team and dialogue.

Post Your Comments

• Next Entry
• Previous Entry