MovieChat Forums > Intruders (2011) Discussion > Warning! This movie is not a horror mov...

Warning! This movie is not a horror movie!


For those of you who are looking for a scary movie, this isn't it. It's not a horror movie... If anything, this is very similar in genre to "The Orphanage." It does have elements similar to that of a horror film, but is not presented that way at all. I wish I say that it was just mis-marketed, but it really wasn't. The trailer was a fair representation of what the movie was and would be. It was just too little of the movie for us not to expect the film to be a scary one... Do yourself a favor, and know going in that what you are about to see, while is a good movie, is not a horror film and you will be horribly disappointed if expecting one.

reply

well i sort of have to disagree.
I just saw this movie without having any knowledge what it was about and was sufficiently horrified.
Perhaps not in the sense that if you expect lots of gore and blood, but the scary atmosphere is certainly palpable trougout the movies.

reply

[deleted]

Seriously? The Orphanage is probably one of the most effective horror movies I've ever seen. You're telling me the "knock on the wall" scene wasnt scary? My god!

reply

[deleted]

The Thing was scary?

reply

[deleted]

He calls someone else a pussy, then claims The Thing was scary?

I must agree the Thing was not even remotely scary. I fell asleep in fact.


reply

I must agree the Thing was not even remotely scary. I fell asleep in fact.


The messages have been deleted here so I am not sure which movie you mean..
But my guess would be that you mean The Thing remake (from 2011, http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/?ref_=nv_sr_2). The other remake by John Carpenter (from 1982, http://akas.imdb.com/title/tt0905372/?ref_=nv_sr_2) is a very scary movie (there is basically a consensus in this).
I'll recommend anyone to see it.

reply

I'd honestly have to agree with everyone else, The Thing was a great movie, especially of it's time, and it is most definitely a classic. But scary? If you think the thing is an intensely terrifying / scary film, than I don't think you have any room to be calling anyone a pussy.

reply

Never thought the thing was scary neither~ lol~ in fact, you are the pussy!hahahahah

reply

Greatest IMDB Fail

reply

The acting in that knock on the wall scene was terrible. The movie The Orphanage is terrible, but this one is much worse.


I agree about John Carpenter's The Thing being a horror movie. Those spanish movies pretend to be horror (and don't get me wrong, [REC] was a great spanish horror experience, but... Intruders? The orphanage? no thanks...)

reply

[deleted]

Let's clarify something... If a movie doesn't have hot blonde women with big tits and little-to-none acting talent who get stabbed to death by some masked maniac killer and die on a pool of their own blood, that doesn't mean it's not a horror movie!

reply

True, but really hair color has nothing to do with it. They will use ANY hot woman to die in a horrible bloodbath, it's all just part of that stupid "torture porn" genre they call horror.

reply

I think guitarraelectrica was describing the slasher movies that were so typical of the 80's, but yeah, torture porn, like Saw for example, is another subgenre of horror. There are many subgenres of horror. A quick look at wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horror_film#Sub-genres) reveals a whole list. What the article doesn't list is, well, different types of horror (or different types of fear). One type for example makes you jump in a suddenly scary moment (a large part of American horror falls in this category). Another type (mostly Asian horror) can scare the hell out of you for extended periods (a slowly approaching ghost as in the Grudge). Other types can make you feel miserable or depressed for days or longer, or intrigue you because of an interesting idea, or make you laugh, or avert your eyes in disgust, or confuse you. The list goes on and on.

...And still most people think that horror has to involve blood and/or jumpy moments. Sigh. Oh well, their loss :)

reply

Not disagreeing with the review of really bad horror genres but since The Thing was mentioned, I'd just like to remove that from any bad mouthing going on in this thread. The Thing is one of my favourite movies, All of them. John Carpenters especially which I can watch today and there's nothing scary at all about it, it's just a joy to watch how great special effects could be pre-CGI. When I first saw it though, it did scare me up to a point. It's a very tense movie. A bit like Alien which also both delivers on the visuals but also makes great use of tension to put the audience ill at ease.

So many horrors today are about torturing human beings. It's literally disturbing to see them coming one after the other.

Many will see it as a bit of a stretch to defend The Thing and put down things like Saw and the like but I see a clear distinction in that great movies, like The Thing and Alien, kill humans as a consequence of the action. Garbage like Saw and the hundreds of copycat movies kill humans for the sole reason of being gratuitous and pornographic in their depiction of killing humans. To further my point, you could remove all the scenes where people were killed and just imply it in Alien and The Thing and the movies would still work. Do that with these torture porn flicks and there would be nothing left to see.

*head detaches, rolls upside down, sprouts legs and walks off to the next thread that looks interesting*

reply

LOL!

reply

I completely agree with the OP. This should not be marketed as a "horror" movie, because people going to see this to get their pants scared off will be disappointed. By "horror" I mean movies whose main purpose is to scare you, including supernatural ghosts as well as slasher movies. It IS however an excellent psychological thriller.

It has a few mild scares and is overall creepy, but it's not that bad, and the main draw for me was the story, which is very good. I would also compare it to The Orphanage, but also The Devil's Backbone. It is very similar to both. If you thought those were scary, then you will be scared by this, but there are much scarier movies out there if that's your thing.

reply

Well, I'm glad there was someone who understood what I was trying to convey with my warning. I wasn't trying to steer people away from the film. If anything, I think they should give it a fair shake. I just don't want people going in expecting the typical genre fair, and end up unfairly bashing the film after because it's not what they expected.

reply

I don't think you're entirely understanding what I'm trying to get across. I'm not insulting this movie. If anything, I'm insulting the horror genre. My comparison to "The Orphanage" should hopefully help those view this film in a more positive light. Like "The Orphanage," "The Sixth Sense" or "The Others," the film does have scary elements and a scary atmosphere, but I consider them not only to be effective ghost stories, but more importantly, effective dramas... More so than horror films. While this movie might not be in the same league as those films, I think it wasn't meant for the typical horror audience... and by that, I mean those expecting to see something in line with a "Scream," or "Saw" or "Grudge" film. This is something entirely different.

reply

This is going to blow your mind but... this film, along "The Orphanage," "The Sixth Sense" and "The Others" are actually horror films. Just because they are not of the visceral kind of horror doesn't mean they aren't well, horror.

This "psychological thriller" thing should stop. Horror is a wide genre with no limitations.

"jluis1984 works in mysterious ways" http://w-cinema.blogspot.com/

reply

So because there is no gore that means it's not a horror film? Listen, I understand what your getting at in terms of it being very psychological, somewhat slow-paced and different from what us horror fans are used to seing these days, but to say that because YOU didn't think it was scary means that it's not a horror film is just ignorant and somewhat arrogant as well. Let me guess, Pontypool wasn't a horror movie either right? Just because a movie is slower than normal and makes you think rather than shriek, doesn't mean it can't be considered horror. I actually WAS expecting a traditional horror film going in, but was pleasantly surprised by what I watched. I was not dissapointed like you say I would have been.

reply

[deleted]

i actually find da Saw moviez funnie so does dat make them comedies?

I live, I love, I slay, and I'm content

reply

Saying this is a horror movie is just being argumentative. We all agree on this thread it is a very good psychological thriller but THIS IS NOT A HORROR MOVIE. The director himself said this is not a horror film. Where I disagree with the OP is about the marketing, I feel they were trying to promote/pass off the movie as a horror. Obviously that was the studios' decision but this is an important thread because people will go into this expecting more traditional horror fare.

"Yes, I'd like a cheeseburger, please, large fries and a cosmopolitan!"

reply

[deleted]

[deleted]