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-

[–] sandifay62 12 years ago

I guess some people didn't like it as much as they thought. They probably thought it would be more violent or gory. It's more of a psychological horror with supernatural elements than a full on monster or haunted house movie. I guess with Clive Owen in it, they may have expected more action as well. I thought it was really good. It reminded me of Paperhouse. My only issue is that they could've mad the mom less of a cold b!tch. Lol

It was a creepy horror movie. As far as I'm concerned, it did it's job really well. But I love all kinds of horror movies, gory, sick, funny, understated. over-the-top, and psychological.

[–] barrin21 9 years ago

It's rated low because it's a *beep* movie not because it lacks gore and action.

[–] Eve_of_Destruction 9 years ago

Opinion is a wonderful thing.

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

That's what I liked about the film---it's more psychological horror than anything else, but it does have its genuinely creepy moments, and frankly, it was nice to see a horror film that didn't use over-the-top amounts of gore to supposedly scare you with--or in that case, very little gore at all. Now that's what I call a real horror movie---not all this overly gory-a** BS they have today.

[–] msyndergaard 12 years ago

The only major problem with it is the pacing. I don't mind slow movies, and the problem with Intruder isn't that it's slow. When I say the pacing is off I mean that it ramps up and then cuts to a fluff scene and repeats several more times. The entire first hour of the movie was padded by a good 30-40 mins. I like movies that slow. This movie builds tension then fizzles it only to build it again with no real payoff until the end. But by the end nobody cares because the audience has been exhausted by the first hour. It's like a novice driver who keeps hitting the gas and slamming the break repeatedly.

This could have been a good short film.

[–] HorusEye 12 years ago

Why is frontal nudity disturbing?

[–] AssetsonFire 10 years ago

The children! THE CHILDREN!

~.~
There were three of us in this marriage
http://www.imdb.com/list/ze4EduNaQ-s/

[–] cheesido 12 years ago

This movie is not great but it's ok, I agree it's underrated, it should be at least 6.5
Over 7.0 would be too much imo

[–] Psychological_Gold 12 years ago

Personally, I thought it was kind of terrible. It's not even a horror movie for pete's sake, though it often pretends to be one for some reason. And the ending, WTF? Beyond lame.

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.

[–] WarpedRecord 12 years ago

I'm no fan of Nolan or Tarantino and I barely tolerate Scorsese these days, but I just found this film flat despite the intriguing story. 6/10 stars from me.

[–] StrontiumAE 12 years ago

I thought it was good. Not all horror films need to be supernatural. It was a nice psychological thriller that doubled as a non supernatural horror. The twist is, you only find out at the end the movie is not a horror. People are conditioned into thinking horror must = ghosts, monsters and gore. Horror simply needs to be horrifying, and this film worked. 7/10 for me.

http://www.1971-reviewae.com

[–] sleepingtiger (712) 7 years ago

Exactly! Horror has many different facets,too.

[–] Scooby52 12 years ago

Personally I found it a bit boring. I don't mind slow paced films, but they need to keep you gripped. A great psychological thriller can be slow paced but still offer some thrills along the way. This one didn't I'm afraid.

I found the concept intriguing, the performances were solid, but overall it didn't scare me once and in fact I found the Hollow Face scenes rather cheesy. I didn't see the twist coming which was a positive but there are obvious flaws in this film which make it a simple 'ok' rather than good or great. I gave it a 6 out of 10, which is enough for me to recommend it with caution, but it's not really that much higher than a 5.3. You yourself only gave it a 7 (theoretically), so you must surely understand if others were just slightly less impressed than you were.

Interesting you bring up directors like Nolan and co. If it was better directed it could have been a great movie and that's why the names you mentioned are so well respected.

I love psychological thrillers so that's why I rented this. I've seen some great ones, I've seen some poor ones, this one fell into the middle of the pack.