MovieChat Forums > Intruder (1989) Discussion > Wait- Are some of you ringers?!

Wait- Are some of you ringers?!

posted 14 years ago by JBoze313
19 replies | jump to latest

I'm so very confused. I see many messages here praising this film as one of the best slashers in horror history.

I have to respectfully ask, how much are you guys getting paid to peddle that nonsense?

This movie is horrid in every aspect. The "fun" camera shots are lame- they are the shots that need to be left with high school mass media classes. Do you insert a star wipe just because it's available? No, you skip it, because it's a dumb transition. So too you should skip the ridiculous angles and camera shots here. What purpose does a POV shot from a rotary dial phone serve? It didn't create tension, it didn't move the story along...in fact, all it did was make me laugh.

The acting is horrendous on every level. The dialogue is over the top and unfunny. The kills aren't put together well- this guy has super human strength (ugh) apparently, and nothing can kill him on top of that. The victims are unbelievably stupid, and please, how do you get stuck in a grocery store with literally 30 exits?! Yeah, Jim, we've fashioned the windows here to be unbreakable, not even massive fire extinguishers will bust 'em!

There's no tension built up here, there's no real storyline, no development in story or characters, no arc, no real climax...it's simply, a kill here, a kill there, some head sawing here, some killing there. There's not a moment of fear to be found in any of the 87 mins. So, what's the point? Inventive kills? Yeah, I have to hand it to the filmmakers there- they thought of some interesting ways to murder rubber heads that only vaguely resembled the characters!

I'm just befuddled with all of this. The glowing reviews, the numerous "forgotten gems" lists this film appears on. This one is a stinker through and through, and I've no explanation of the praise here and elsewhere.

[–] BoKnows105 14 years ago

If being a fan of low-budget slashers is a ringer, then count me in. I think it's the last great 80's slasher. Those camera tricks were just that. Tricks. It's an easy way to hide the non-budget that this film had.

[–] JBoze313 14 years ago

Hey, I like low budget horror as much as the next guy, but low budget need not mean bad acting, poor special effects, over the top dialogue, stupid characters doing ridiculous things, cheesy stereotypes, etc.

I thought the camera angles made it look even lower budget personally. They stuck out like a sore thumb to me.

[–] FrightMeter 14 years ago

Can't please everyone.

I do think this is one of the better slasher films of the 80's.

Visit http://www.frightmeter.com for more horror reviews and horror awards!

[–] orchidclub 14 years ago

I agree with you... this really wasn't very good. I can't exactly put my finger on why, though. I mean, technically, it's no worse than a lot of the 80s slashers that I love. I guess I'm just not a fan of the too-obvious humor found in this and most of Sam Raimi's films (especially Drag Me to Hell). Intruder would have been more enjoyable, and less annoying, if they had stopped trying to be so irreverently funny and whimsical, and focused on making a good, scary horror film. There were a couple of decent scares, but that's about it. The rest of the movie was boring, and I didn't care about any of the characters -- which, to me, is essential for a good slasher film, even more than decent special effects. In order for those effects to truly work, you need to have some investment in the people getting killed. That did not happen here despite the skilled early effects work of KNB. It's a shame they weren't devised for a better movie.

[–] r_freeman 14 years ago

I thought it was a turkey too. Why the hell is Raimi in this?

[–] jeffeastwood2000 14 years ago

Raimi is in it cuz the director was a friend of his.

[–] TheBeardedWonder 14 years ago

Agreed. One of the best slashers of the 80s? In what way? The characters are boring, and not nearly over the top enough to be a 'well that was fun watching them die' kind of flick. The makers think the movie is really funny, but it's not. The shots worked sometimes, but yes most of the time it was just a cheap gimmick to make you forget how terrible what's happening on screen is.

Oh, some orange blood dripping onto a light bulb, how scary! Oh, now blood is dripping down a ladder! Also, does ANYONE in this frickin' store work without headphones on?! This is the same 'teens wandering around in the dark' crap we've seen forever...

I am also confused by all the love this movie gets. Oh well, can't like every movie... at least the gore was well done. Beyond that this isn't worth watching a 2nd time, barely even worth a 1st watch.

"Did you mean for all those words to come out like that or did they just fall out randomly?"-H.H.

[–] DeadpoolX 13 years ago

Honestly, of all the film genres to get snobby about - 80s slasher films? Seriously? NONE of them are good! That's part of what makes them enjoyable! Gratuitous gore, nudity, teenagers acting unreasonably stupid, killers with absurd motivations - I don't watch these movies for their originality or cinematic merit. They're junk food. Something to put on when you're writing a paper. I thought this one was a pretty fun watch, overall. Nothing great, but you can tell they had fun making it. Not a bad waste of 90 minutes.

[–] Smug_Grinch 13 years ago

Some of the best slasher movies were made on shoe-string budgets with a 30-day shooting schedule. And they usually come with built-in cheese, tongue planted firmly in cheek. Even Friday the 13th Part 3 had a decent budget at the time and some of the lamest dialogue and backstory I've ever heard! This one did a great job with the material provided. And I thought the supermarket environment was one of the more original ideas.

I like cheaper budget horror flicks. The effects are physical, not that CGI crap that everyone wants to use nowadays. It feels more visceral with physical effects. I know I sound like a cantankerous old man, but I'm only 36 and I 'remember the days when' horror movies like this were flying off the shelves at the video store. Add the Uncut DVD to your collection.

===

If something's too good to be true, it's best to shoot it just in case.

[–] AngelinaJolieIsHot 13 years ago

movie was a piece of crap

[–] phatpaidx 13 years ago

This movie was better then all the cgi wankfests coming out these days. I'll take "crap" like this any day of the week over modern hollywoods boring cgi'd up abercrombie model always has a happy ending borefests anyday.

Oh well...people think every effin movie has to have a 50 billion dollar budget with the writings of shakespear behind it... and the harshest critics havent even made/directed their own movies so who the hell are they.. nobody thats who.

[–] Jellybrother 13 years ago

I wish I'd get paid for praising this movie. Can I apply somewhere?

Seriously, I enjoyed. It's a fun slasher-flick, with some memorably (sp?) disgusting killings and a hilarious bad guy. It's not great art, it's not even a great movie, but I found it to be one of the most entertaining slasher movies I've seen.

[–] Mr_Blonde3 13 years ago

It's not the best slasher film ever, but I enjoyed the hell out of it. Plus, I I worked in a small town grocery store like the one in the film when I was in school, so the atmosphere was fun (A killer in a grocery store? Tell me another movie where THAT happens. LOL. Plus, we had a big box crusher that would jam up and someone would have to go in and wedge things down. Even though it was shut off, there was still that wondering of..What do I do if the thing starts by accident?

What sells the film for me are the familiar faces. Dan Hicks, Eugene Robert Glazer, Sam Raimi, Ted Raimi, and blink-and-you'll-miss-him Bruce Campbell. It's like an "Evil Dead" reunion.

Sure it's campy, sure most of the acting sucks, but it's still entertaining, has good gore effects, and lets Dan Hicks run wild. I own the edited VHS and the unedited DVD and I believe I got my money's worth.

I love to love my Lisa.