v_k1989 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.

gcg837979 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.

rosscosjunk 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).

slasherphile 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.