Intruder (2008) User Reviews

Amateur hour, but -

[harperken80 · 21 December 2009]

This movie's WAY too smart for its own good. The basic story involves a mentally disturbed young woman and her companion being terrorized by a brutal predator on Halloween Night. Plot-wise it's "been there, done that". Unlike the original – superior – Spiegel film from '89 (which this is not in any way a remake of), the director is clearly trying to put a good deal of depth into this film (next time, let's have a little less character development and more decapitations, ce va?)

To give credit where it's due, there's a solid amount of craft involved here. The director has a good visual style, and the performances are strong (unlike most low-budget slashers). There are some solid suspense scenes, and a decent amount of gore and nudity (more of the former than the latter). There's also a sex-murder scene that is one of the more stylish and effective I've seen in recent memory (and includes a shot you would only expect to see in a gore-porn film).

The film never really transcends its budget. The fx are mostly (reasonably effective) flash cuts, and a few of the shots don't match (particularly in the first act). The sound design stands out as quite strong, but some of the elements are tinny and distractingly under-recorded.

Still, Intruder will hold novelty if you're into atmospheric horror on a budget. The principals are talented people, and I get the impression that novice filmmaker Caiafa probably has a really good film in him (he comes across as intelligent in the informative DVD director's commentary). It moves at a gazelle's pace (the 85 min running time felt like a half hour), and has a few superb scenes. But as far as killer clown exploitation goes, I'll take my blood and guts without the side of drama, thank you very much!

• Saintthomas1985 (check out all my reviews!!!)

Very Bad Indeed

[rosscosjunk · 1/10 · 4 January 2010]

In contrast to the "main" review on this movie with regard to the below average IMDb rating, I would have to strongly disagree.

I find it very difficult to imagine how it's even scored 3.8 (current score at the time of writing this comment).

This movie is the absolute definition of "amateur" in every sense (right down to the movie poster). The acting, if it can be called that, is terrible. The story / plot is none existent and I have seen much finer movies produced by young students.

I could only manage to watch 20 minutes of this movie (and I try very hard to watch an entire film before forming an opinion). I fast forwarded beyond this and found no redeeming sections in the entire film.

To the Director: Please "attempt" to learn your trade (Or employ someone who has) before attempting to release another movie. You will not make any friends with this, therefore I can only imagine you are out to either rip people off or make enemies (In the first case, shame on you, in the second, I hope you used a false name).

Quirky...

[geraldblake12 · 7/10 · 31 October 2009]

When I saw the preview on vod I expected a standard low-budget, high-cheese distraction. Like most people, I enjoy the occasional bad movie. Surprisingly, what I got was possibly the oddest slasher film I've ever seen.

The film begins with a mentally ill young woman (a smoldering performance by newcomer Christena Doggrell) and her boyfriend (Jack Reiling) going to a secluded estate for a little r & r. There is an inciting incident that is the quirkiest gear shifter you'll see in a horror film all year (not to mention possibly the most brutal "cat scare" in horror movie history).

We then have some nicely acted and tense scenes, lush exterior photography that beautifully captures the autumn vistas, and a trip to the cemetery that yields a fairly severe sex/ murder scene in the form of a flashback. There's also a bit of self- destructive behavior by the troubled protagonist that had the girl I was watching it with squirming on her lazy-boy.

The second and third acts are remarkably low-key and tense. The movie often veers off into territory you wouldn't expect from a flick about a killer in a clown mask and trench coat.

On the downside, the film isn't nearly graphic enough for the modern slasher fan, and the otherwise solid photography suffers from excess grain that makes the image a tad soft (I'm pretty sure this was shot on 16mm, an anomaly in the digital age). The meager budget often reveals itself, particularly in the effects, which are presented mostly in quick edits, indicating that not a lot of money went to the make-up department.

Still, Intruder stands out as a cut above the direct to cable/DVD stuff you typically come across. It has a powerful undercurrent and a sure - handedness about itself that impressed me. And the shock ending is the kind that doesn't hit you until after the credits start to roll.

Solid Micro-Cinema for the indie-set

[jakehmltn1987 · 8/10 · 5 January 2010]

First off, I LOVE no-budget indie films. Most of them suck, but occasionally you find a gem, or at least one dynamic enough to keep your interest. This film falls into that category.

The masked killer genre typically caters to people in need of cinematic comfort food. It has to be simple, bland, and go down easy without too much of an aftertaste.

With that in mind, Intruder may prove to be a tough sell for slasher fans. This Halloween-based thriller is not cinematic Doritos. It has a spook-factor I haven't experienced from a micro-cinema horror in a while, and revolves around an intriguing, if over-thought, protagonist. Occasionally, elements are introduced that seem out of place and disturbing, creating a disjointed feel that unnerved me. The performances are VERY STRONG, from the female lead to the supporting characters, many of whom leave in impression with only a single scene.

In terms of kills, the film puts most of its eggs in the suspense basket, making the actual "money stuff" more of a period than an exclamation point. Intruder actually manages to ratchet up a considerable amount of tension; rare for a grade "z" indie. Yes, there certainly is a "cheese factor", and yes, the zero-budget seams are more than apparent, but that's inevitable in this sort of movie.

Being that the film is (sorta) structured as a murder mystery, the "end twist" is a bit of a head-scratcher. However, it had an impact, unlike most horror film endings, which all too often fall into the paint-by-numbers category.

The DVD supplements are excellent. The deleted scenes are intriguing, and the blooper reel is actually funny. There are two audio commentaries, both of which kept my interest and managed to avoid being self-congratulatory.

Overall, I liked Intruder enough to pick up a copy from amazon after renting it. It's a thinking person's slasher (if that exists), and has a number of remarkable elements. If you can only tolerate well-budgeted spfx fests with name actors, you will not find much to enjoy, as this is a maiden effort with more than its share of flaws. If, on the other hand, you tend to give low-budget horrors a chance, you'll dig the atmosphere and scares, and find it worth a look.

7 1/2 STARS.

NOT A REMAKE, but interesting nonetheless.

[gcg837979 · 6/10 · 6 January 2011]

I watched this on Netflix VOD thinking it was a remake of the 1989 Scot Spiegel film. I didn't pay attention to the plot summary, and viewed if for the better part of ten minutes before realizing it bore no resemblance to the previous movie. In fairness, there are about ten movies called "Intruder" or "The Intruder" on IMDb, so I suppose it's my bad.

This film was a curious entry into the slasher sub-genre. It had no budget and an unknown cast, but pulled off some nice, tense moments. There's a quirky suicide motif running through the movie that felt completely out of place and disjointed, but gave the movie an eerie feel that mislead me into thinking it was going to be smarter than it really was. Strange.

Ultimately, Intruder (2008) is a slam dunk if you love those back of the shelf grade z blockbuster flicks, but be warned if you expect splashy effects and production value from your entertainment, as you will find neither.

Nice change from the common serial slasher form!

[yjk · 9/10 · 5 January 2010]

To be honest, I'm not a horror genre\slasher film enthusiast but a student of mine recommended INTRUDER to me so during the most recent storm that buried the east coast I thought I'd stay home and give it a whirl. The first thing that struck me about INTRUDER was that it had a slick visual style to go along with solid editing. The film wasn't inundated with buckets of blood but rather kept my interest with its psychological motif. The acting was more accomplished than the usual low-budget horror film and it was clear to me that the director has talent. If you're going to give INTRUDER a go, keep an open mind because there is more beneath the surface of this film than the traditional low-budget horror works that get churned out on a daily basis. It was a very nice surprise.

Fun Slasher Flick!!

[v_k1989 · 8/10 · 14 January 2011]

I enjoyed this low-budget movie. The killings, score, and story were all old school and fun to watch. The performances were solid and the ending had a nice twist.

The "killer clown" thing didn't really work for me (I'm not a fan of the whole clown slasher bit), but the gimmick wasn't over-used. The movie probably would have worked just as well if the killer wasn't wearing a Halloween mask.

The gore scenes were well done - with one that stands out as one of the most disturbing I've seen in a slasher film. The cinematography, while dark and grainy, was well done and nicely edited together.

It takes place mostly in one location, which can be annoying, but the filmmakers smartly segment the film so that each major sequence occurs in a different part of the house. Nice.

I personally like homemade flicks and cut them a good deal of slack, so keep that in mind if you're considering the film. It's a solid no-budget horror, but only if you're into that sort of thing.