The Strangers Prequel Panned by Critics

“Because you were home” was shocking justification for a deadly home invasion in 2008’s The Strangers — but it sounds like critics can’t justify a less-scary retread. Critics have published their reviews for The Strangers: Chapter 1, the first in a simultaneously-shot Strangers prequel trilogy slashed into three parts. The horror-thriller, from filmmaker Renny Harlin (A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master, Exorcist: The Beginning), debuted Thursday at 21% “rotten” on Rotten Tomatoes — lower than the original (49%) and its decade-later standalone sequel, The Strangers: Prey at Night (40%).

In the new movie, a young couple (Riverdale‘s MadelainePetsch and Cruel Summer‘s Froy Gutierrez) is forced to spend the night in a remote cabin after their car breaks down in an eerie small town. Panic ensues as they’re terrorized by three masked strangers who strike with no mercy and seemingly no motive, beginning a cat-and-mouse game that will unfold over an entire trilogy.

Chapter 1 “serves as little more than a rehash of the original movie that not onlyfails to replicate what made that film work, but also actively madedecisions that resulted in a distinct step backward for the series,” ComicBook’s Patrick Cavanaugh writes in a 2/5 review, calling the slasher “redundant” and a “rudimentary rehash of plot points from the original movie.”

“We had to keep in mind that this is one story arc. It is one 4.5 hourmovie, and the first movie is a first act,” Harlin told ComicBook. “It sets up the characters, andthe terror, and the killers, and our main character, who will survive thefirst movie, but then go on a journey for the next two.”

But is The Strangers: Chapter 1 all set up and no payoff? Here’s what critics are saying:

Deadline: “The Strangers: Chapter 1 is everything wrong in the horrorgenre. The film suffers from zero build-up, a lack of atmospherictension, and an overreliance on cheap jump scares. The characters make aseries of poor decisions, a hallmark of lazy writing that propels theplot forward with little regard for logic or audience engagement … a reboot must offer something compelling. The Strangers: Chapter 1 is a film that should not exist, as the original already achieved what was necessary to be entertaining and memorable.”

TheWrap: “While we wait for the Strangers to show up, nothing happens. Oh sure,there are incidents. The car breaks down and they have to find anAirbnb in a small town. He loses his inhaler. She has trouble findingvegan food, because there are no vegans in [checks notes] Oregon. But that’s not drama and it’s not even conflict. It’s tedious filler. Maya and Ryan are some of the lousiest horror protagonists in recent memory … Nothing matters until the killers attack, and they don’t attack for avery long time. And when they do, their victims aren’t allowed to actlike human beings. And somehow it gets worse because the killers arejust going through the motions. It’s a pat retread of all the violencefrom the original film, with no emotional investment and no creativityin the mayhem department.” 

Variety: “Given that, at its core, this new installment has almost the exact sameplot as its predecessors, one could make a convincing argument thatsuch a tale doesn’t need to be stretched across three movies à la TheHobbit. Time will tell, but for now there’s enough reason for devoteesof the series to be cautiously optimistic — and even a little curious —about the next two chapters.”

Inverse: “Harlin’s film thinks it’s ‘improving’ on the original by filling in blanks that are blank for a reason, scrubbing away what The Strangers fans hold dear about Bertino’s remarkably revolting mirror to humanity. Instead, The Strangers: Chapter 1mimics Bertino’s home invasion beats with far more rigidity than anyornamental homage. It’s a remake, and quite a flimsy remake. WritersAlan R. Cohen and Alan Freedland seek more than inspiration from The Strangers,which is a shame because they carelessly misunderstand what makesBertino’s unquestionably superior post-9/11 horror flick a maliciouspowerhouse. The Strangers: Chapter 1 overexposes, underdelivers, and replaces despicable bleakness with formulaic predictability akin to The Strangers 2.0 (but worse).”

New York Times: “The hapless script —written by Alan R. Cohen and Alan Freedland and based on the original —offers nothing fresh in a tiring 91 minutes, and nothing daring tojustify a new Strangers film, let alone a new series.” 

Chicago Sun-Times: “The Strangers: Chapter 1is a well-paced, 91-minute thrill ride that provides a steady helpingof jump scares while ending on a note that has us eagerly anticipatingthe next chapters in the saga.”

IndieWire: “Yes, the masks are great.And yes, home invasions will always be scary. But when it comes tomessing with genre classics, your answer to ‘Why remake a near-perfectfilm?’ can’t be ‘It was here.’ … This good-but-not-great spinoff has the dusty aftertaste of astudio-driven double-dip. It’s the same thing you’ve seen before onlyless mournful and more business motivated. Think Stranger Danger Lite:all the silent mocking and bursts of violence, now with half theemotional investment.” 

The Strangers: Chapter 1 is in theaters Friday.