The Strangers: Prey at Night

"The Strangers: Prey at Night" is another unoriginal and stupid slasher, with a storyline that is on the shelf of any mediocre screenwriter ready to be reprocessed and usually said "based on true events". The most impressive is that even this type of storyline is able to produce good and scary low-budget slashers, such as the French-Romanian "Ils" ("Them" - 2006) or the Austrian "Funny Games" (1997) by Michael Haneke. Both films are tense and make the viewer nervous with the frightening atmospheres. The cruelty in "Funny Games" is impressively cold and therefore horrifying.

In "The Strangers: Prey at Night", there is no character development or motive and the situations are stupid with many cliches. The family splits in the beginning, aware that their relatives have been slaughtered, instead of immediately driving to the police station. The father sees what happened to his wife, but does not shoot the killer. The survivors have many chances to leave the camping area and to possess weapon, but are surprised in the most clichés situations. The police officer has his throat cut in another typical clichés, when the good girl believes that is safe. Advice when most needed is least heeded, but do not spend your time watching this movie. There are much better options in the genre. My vote is three.

Title (Brazil): "Os Estranhos: Caçada Noturna" ("The Strangers: Prey at Night")

Let me be clear I HATED The Strangers (2008) and certainly didn't expect them to make a sequel a full decade later.

I'm not entirely sure what it was about the first movie, but it just came across as entirely one sided devoid of purpose and basically plot torture porn and that did nothing for me.

This time around we see a family set up camp in a trailer park only to come under siege by the same three masked psychotics. Among them the stunning Christina Hendricks and former child star Bailee Madison.

Thankfully what we're presented with isn't so one sided and does have a plot. Sure the plot is the time honored generic slasher one but it's a plot all the same.

So what does it have going for it? Well for a start the soundtrack is great as is the score. It fits the movie perfectly and is refreshingly retro. Ontop of that we have some great cinematography, the movie certainly has style.

So it looks great, it sounds great and we have Hendricks on board. So what went wrong? Well other than it being generic, Hendricks isn't the big character you'd imagine so forget about her being the leading lady. To make matters worse it falls into many of the standard slasher pitfalls so we've seen the majority of it before.

This is a vast improvement over the first movie, but it's still just another slasher.

The Good:

Christina Hendricks

A few decent shots

Fitting soundtrack

The Bad:

Christina Hendricks is wasted

Generic stuff

Things I Learnt From This Movie:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who awkwardly laughs when in pain

If they keep up with the improvements they might have an average movie eventually

Definitely worth a watch. The direction, the soundtrack, the dread and twists all make this a very thrilling watch underrated for sure!

Ten years ago as an impressionable teenager, I saw "The Strangers" at a midnight showing with one of my best friends. To date, it stands as the most taut moviegoing experience of my life. After nearly a decade of production hell, the sequel-"The Strangers: Prey at Night" has finally come out of the woodwork. This followup has the same trio of villains pursuing victims in cat-and-mouse games, but this time it's an entire family staying at a deserted resort who are the target.

Perhaps I'm biased because I truly love the original film, but I found "Prey at Night" to be a significant letdown as a followup to Bryan Bertino's 2008 film, which was a masterful exercise in tension. I was skeptical of a sequel even being possible given how well Bertino exercised his formula in the first film-what else could really be done? "Prey at Night" essentially takes the formula of the first film, dresses it in de rigeur '80s style (complete with an exclusive '80s soundtrack), and amplifies the gore. It's mostly in good fun-but it's also completely devoid of suspense, tension, and unease.

There are a few sequences that are masterfully-executed-including a protracted sequence in a neon-lit swimming pool, and a mother-daughter attack in a trailer- but the in-between that stitches these better scenes together is repetitive and predictable, and the cinematography often gives the feel of a made-for-TV movie. The characters are also an issue in that they feel too much like stock characters; the lead being a chain-smoking bratty teenage girl running around in a Ramones t-shirt, followed by her likable brother, and two hip parents who are in the process of carting little-miss-trouble off to boarding school. In spite of the contrived characters, the acting is fairly good from all involved, including the actors portraying the three strangers.

There are a few moments of true tragedy and true catharsis in the film which are well-orchestrated, but I cannot help but compare "Prey at Night" to its predecessor. This sequel is a very different film that has its hits, but it frankly has more misses. As a frivolous run-of-the-mill slasher, it's rather enjoyable, but it lacks the emotional gravitas that made the first film so arresting and nerve-shredding. 5/10.

I'm so often a lot kinder on films then many reviewers, but this was a genuinely terrible movie. The first one was successful in that it had a degree of subtlety, the couple were quietly terrorised, it built a tension, and had you feeling unnerved. This was a blunt, brash, dreadful attempt to drag further life out of a franchise long since past its sell by date. One or two good scenes I guess, but the Strangers literally became super villains.

It's a disaster. 3/10