MovieChat Forums > Intruders (2011) Discussion > 5.3 ? Underrated don't you think?

5.3 ? Underrated don't you think?

posted 12 years ago by wildmustang_rider
31 replies | jump to latest

I don't know about you guys, but this movie is way too underrated on IMDb, 5.3 ? you gotta be kidding me right? i have seen lot of movies which are above 7 but most of the viewers said they didn't like it that much.

But I think this movie was well written, directed and well acted by the major actors. May be viewers would have understood the story clearly if:

1.If One or two more minutes of scenes were shown to let us know Juan and his mother got in England and how he became Juan to John

2.If Little more about the person talked in English with Juan's mother at the kitchen and was holding her in bed, was his (Juan's) step dad, the night Juan wrote it down and hid it inside the tree (later found by his own daughter). It explained why John (Clive) didn't visit mother while his daughter and wife were there and didn't call him Dad on the phone.

3.If We could see John's mother telling him what really happened at that night. (with full audible narration in english) and telling him it was his father.

4. And finally, If the whole movie dialects were spoken in English, I mean come on you can't expect everyone to read the subtitle while watching Juan's part of the movie (as they were speaking in spanish)

**** Ohh by the way, the parent having sex with full frontal nudity was unnecessary and the daughter seeing her mom nude and 'not' being scolded for opening the door without knocking was disturbing.

I have read all the discussions written by you guys, and I respect everyone's points of view. I have read the comments and agreed with few. But what makes me sad is the rating :-( . I am seriously having doubts of IMDb's ratings.

What if the movie was directed by Christopher Nolan or Quintin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese? (With the same screenplay). No offense to anyone here, but I have seen a lot viewers giving 10/10 or 8/10 to the "Big Shot" movies (Whether they liked it or not).

Even the most hated horror movies are sometimes rated above 6.5 .

So please, can anyone explain me, why this movie's rating is only 5.3? why not at least 6.5 or more? (I have voted 10/10, normally i would have given 7/10 but I want to see this movie gets higher rating, so it's my little contribution. HUHH!!)

-Miraz-

[–] theunbeholden 10 years ago

Definitely underrated. Its basically like a good version of They, Shadow People and Pulse. All of which where wasted potential, by-the-numbers horror movies minus gore but with some good visuals. This movie actually has some depth, good performances and something besides the visuals. I'd give it score of 6-7.

When it's all said and done, you're left with a mostly boring psychological "thriller" (in quotes because it's not thrilling in the least) with an obvious twist.

Having fear for his daughter, the fear that theres no one that can help, and ultimately no medication that can either, with a monster that is stealing faces. Yes you do see something coming, but not necessarily what it will be.

Intruders shows how the girl actually has power by writing what happens, as did her father, ie the boy in the beginning, but not exactly what it means.

It was a nice psychological thriller that doubled as a non supernatural horror.

This is part of what makes this type of rare film great. It blends supernatural, with non-supernatural by questioning what is real. It did that with the footage scene, and its also something that was done well with Tale of 2 Sisters (although that movie is in a completely different league). That one also was supernatural at first and then made us question whether the ghost was real or whether shes just crazy until a little scene towards the end. Tale of 2 Sisters was much scarier though and alot more sad because it dealt with death in such a in your face way, after having us struggle with the girl's emotional problems & creepy scenes throughout the whole movie culminating into a violent/depressing finale.

[–] Kawada_Kira 10 years ago

It's 5.4 now. I still think that's too low though. I gave it a 7 myself. I was really surprised when I saw that rating. I mean sure, it's not the best movie i've ever seen, but i've seen some real sh!t garbage movies that were rated higher than this, and this was a pretty decent movie. I found it really creepy and unsettling, it really held my attention. I found it satisfactory. Anything less than a 6 is total BS.

The people, and the people alone, are the motive force in the making of history.
-Mao Zedong

[–] 10 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Kari Hakkinen 9 years ago

Way better done than what the final result is.

Your Rating: 5/10.

[–] solarwind102 9 years ago

You mean overrated? I thought this is one of the worst horror movies I've seen. Literally no redeeming value, wish I've never taken the time to watch it. 3/10

[–] mikke73 8 years ago

And this is why it has a low rating. People keep making the mistake that this is a horrow movie, and then rate it as such. Kinda like rating Fight Club 3/10 because it wasn't a good martial arts movie.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

The problem there is this is not a horror film. It's a psychological thriller masking as a horror film. The father and daughter were experiencing the disorder mentioned in the film - Folie à deux - perhaps even the mother and boy, though most likely the mother was simply traumatized by the intruder incident and the boy started hallucinating after.

[–] Stoshie 8 years ago

Yes, I think it was underrated. It wasn't great by any means, but it was better than most horror movies made these days. I'm long tired of the gore and violence types of movies (though I do still watch them) that seem to dominate the genre. It was nice seeing something that was a bit different from the norm. It's worth at least a 7.

[–] vicky_lc2001 (1907) 7 years ago

I agree, 5.3 is very very low and I simply watched this for Bruhl but was surprised by how much I liked it. I gave this a 7/10 rating. I find horror films are often underrated so usually for me a 6/10 horror film is usually a good film, so this having a measly 5.3 rating is simply unjust. With other films I usually prefer something that's at least 8/10 though sometimes I will watch a 7/10 if I like the story/actors involved. With tv shows, I have a higher rating expectation and will watch them if they're at least a 9/10 rating.

I also don't agree with your issue with the subtitles, I liked it and it helped distance the the boy from the adult. Of course I figured it out halfway through but I thought it was a very good attempt.