“The Strangers” (2008) is yet more evidence that horror movies can be formulaic, yet effective. This is a very scary movie to which I’d give an 8 out of 10.

It’s strictly by the numbers. Masked psychotics wielding axes and knives terrorize an innocent couple in an isolated location. There are severed phone lines, bad guys appearing out of nowhere behind our protagonists, and even gratuitous underwear shots. There’s even a scene in which one character hides in a closet and stares out between the slots of one of those blinds-type doors. Then the predictable happens. Where have we seen all this before? Everywhere.

Yet it’s still a frightening movie – thanks to some slick directing and camera work. It works. If you want a scary movie, this delivers. There’s also some cool cinematography – especially with the use of color in rendering the immense forest around the story’s isolated cabin location. Decent fright-flick!

There were three criticisms I had of this movie:

1) When a deep-voiced male narrator assures us seriously in a prologue that this story “is based on true events,” this is a cliché. It was pretty cheesy when it was done in “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre” way back in 1974. It also insults our intelligence; we know that claims like these are rarely true.

2) I occasionally dislike female characters who become weak and panicky when imperiled. Once you fall in love with Ellen Ripley or Sarah Conner, the portrayal of weepy scream-queens seems vaguely sexist, and these characters are harder to care for and root for. And I have female friends (including a few NRA members) who, although afraid, would probably @#$% a brother up if attacked like this.

3) I had the same concern about this movie that I had with “The Devil’s Rejects” and “Wolf Creek” (2005), and it’s a little hard to explain … Yes, I really like horror movies. And some of my favorites contain a lot of explicit violence. But there’s a very fine line between a decent horror story and a faux snuff film. If we are presented with very little story, and are merely shown innocents being attacked with little hope of recourse … I dunno. It feels gratuitous. I’m no Puritan when it comes to violent content. But if that’s ALL there is, I feel guilty in a way. (Am I a psycho or voyeur for viewing this?) I feel … “healthier” if I am watching a movie that contains violence, but allows the good guys at least a CHANCE to fight back and maybe even prevail. (Think “Aliens” (1986) or “28 Days Later” (2002).)

All in all, though, this was a good movie.