The Intruder

source: The Intruder

Watched this a few days ago & found it overall to be pretty dry & uninteresting. The film centers around a married woman who not long after getting married starts to see cracks in her hubby's past. The previous woman he was with starts to "haunt" their flat & move things around etc. But there's a more deeper mystery to this story as the film unfolds. I found the film to be pretty dry in all honesty. I usually like thrillers but this lacked the punch most thrillers of today usually have. Although there was some sinister moments in this 1hr & 30min film, I still couldn't help but feel the film felt dull & lacked emphasis. Overall it was watchable, but was pretty dry sadly. 4/10

David Bailey, a well known photographer, tried his hand at directing by turning Brooke Leimas' novel, which we read some time ago, into a mystery film. The screen play is by Jamie Brown, and it appears his adaptation is the basic flaw with the finished product. We are given a premise that has been used before with better results. The second wife who comes to live in an unhappy place where the ghost of a dead woman comes back to haunt the new wife and make her life impossible. After all, even from a grave, don't play with a woman's sense of possession, she will come back to haunt whoever dares. Stella, who is only seen by Catherine, a French young woman who has married Nick, a composer of music for the movies. Everything seems to go bad when strange things are happening in the couple's apartment. It doesn't help that most of Catherine's new friends seem to be in some sort of conspiracy of silence and will not tell her anything about the past and what kind of marriage Stella and Nick had together. Charlotte Gainsbourg is an actress that deserves better. Her Catherine shows some good moments, but like everyone else, she is bogged down by a scenario that doesn't make much sense. Natassja Kinski, plays the enigmatic neighbor that seems to know what is behind the things Catherine seems to be experiencing, but doesn't tell her. The rest of the cast don't have much to do.

After reading one of the other reviews, I opted to give this film a try. Boy was I disappointed. My Dish network guide which only gives ratings up to four stars, gave this one a 2+ star rank. After watching it, I can only shake my head and wonder why. The premise of the movie, a woman coming into the police station and confesses to crime which occurred two years earlier. The hook, she couldn't have done the crime as she claims she just committed the crime the day she walks into the police station. I don't want to disclose the ending, or be a spoiler, so I won't go there. But suffice it to say there are so many red herrings, convoluted twists, and down right silly plot lines, that the films surpasses the point of absurdity. You find yourself not caring any longer about the characters, and only wishing the film would end. This film tries to breach a number of different genre's including mystery, thriller, horror and science fiction. Sadly, the mix rather than becoming an intriguing stew, becomes a weak broth leaving the viewer unfulfilled.

It was a nice movie in the beginning. It was teasing enough to keep watching Although it was a bit too dark; it was as if it was always night and the lights were off all the time. But when the end was approaching there were too many errors in the story to enjoy it any more. The ending was really unsatisfied because of the errors in the story.

A man (Charles Powell) and woman (Charlotte Gainsbourg)meet after the latter is the victim of a purse snatching. They quickly fall in love and decide to marry. Before the marriage, however, the girl shoots a female intruder that has broken into their house. Strangely, the intruder looks just like her new fiancé's former girlfriend who was herself shot and fatally wounded by an intruder in the same house several years earlier. It quickly becomes unclear who the real "intruder" is. I have to confess that I would watch the lovely French actress Charlotte Gainsbourg trimming her nose hairs for two hours, and here she demonstrates her usual inability to keep all her clothes on for an entire movie (a trait inherited perhaps from her equally yummy Britsh mummy Jane Birkin, who did the first full-frontal * scene in a mainstream movie with "Blow Up" in 1966). This is actually a pretty interesting and entertaining movie though. It's hard to say too much about it without giving away the major plot points, but suffice it to say that while this movie seems to start out as a typical lame erotic thriller, it takes some interesting metaphysical turns. It's a little too ambitious for its own good perhaps, but that's a lot better than most of these kind of movies which usually don't have an original thought in their head. The acting is also quite good, especially some of the supporting cast like British thesp. John Hannah, cult fave Molly Parker, and even Natassia Kinski in an extended cameo(thus you have the sexy daughters of the two most infamous rakes in Europe, Serg Gainsbourg and Klaus Kinski, together in one movie). I don't want to rave unreservedly about this perhaps, but it certainly is a worthwhile little thriller.

I can't imagine, how this film could manage to gather the actresses like Charlotte and Natasha but meanwhile to make up such a meaningless story. Calling itself a thriller, it was just able to produce a minimal atmosphere that a typical thriller movie needs, and the ending is absolutely disappointing. I think, the script writer must have lost his last little bit creativity and logic to write down such a ridiculous bedtime story. Besides, there are too many useless roles and branch plots. Give me the scissor, I will cut it from 90 min to 30 min, without making the movie worse. All in all, this time travel stuff is not an easy cake, the logic behind these kind of movie is questionable. The only way to let the audience forget asking why this why that is a good, captivating plot. But this film has definitively not one.

This film is yet another example of the less than adequate sound quality in many imports. This film has dialogue that counts, it deserves theatrical level sound - not the shoddy system that is all too common in Two Left Feet Corp. imports. There is a nice streak of relativistic sci-fi, and as in Event Horizon et al - it's amazing how all arguments about relativistic time can be solved by folding a piece of paper! If Only! The acting is reasonable - except for the worst impression of a lawyer I have ever seen! I think that this guy had the script in his lap! Oh Well - if nothing else on the shelf grabs you - this is worth the rent - but rental ONLY!

I cannot comprehend how films this bad get made, what with all the time, money and effort that goes into film-making. Didn't anyone (the director, the producer, the editors) WATCH the film??? Couldn't they SEE how bad it was??? It contains some of the WORST acting I have ever seen. Reminded me of one of those "adult" films that Showtime broadcasts late at night. Just simply awful. I still can't believe that Nastassja Kinski agreed to be a part of this. Fortunately for us, David Bailey hasn't directed another feature-length film since! Avoid this piece of crap at ALL COSTS. Better yet, BUY every copy you can find, both the VHS and the DVD (I guarantee you this will be in the El Cheapo Clearance Dump Bins all over the world), and destroy them to spare the rest of humanity from this atrocity...

There is sufficient tension generated in the film to make one want to watch it through its end, even if the explanation is pure science fiction. Nastassja Kinski has a nice role in which she can appear to be glamorous and rich. She plays it straight because there is no other way to play it. The bulk of the picture is told in flashback, right from the beginning with numerous red herrings that seem to have been in season. Now, let's see, how did that blood end up on Catherine's face? That is the key to the movie. Or as Sherlock Holmes would say: when you have eliminated everything else, what is left must be the truth?