MovieChat Forums > Intruders (2011) Discussion > Terrible! (Spoilers)

Terrible! (Spoilers)

posted 13 years ago by Mongster
39 replies | jump to latest

I was going to write a review for this title, but decided I didn't want to waste in excess of the 100mins I already have on this derivative, convoluted mess of a film.

I have no idea how this script was even greenlit, as it contains zero character development, gigantic plot-holes and absolutely no tension whatsoever.

For those who have already seen or do not care about spoilers, here are just a few of my problems with Intruders;

The "twist", as much as it was, could be spotted about 15 minutes into the movie. We see a young boy and his mother in Spain and are given no connection with the British story, so an assumption must be made. The only assumption to make is that the boy grows up to be Clive Owen's character (another telling sign was the 1970's wardrobe in the Spanish story).

Why was literally nothing explained in the movie? We are never sure whether what we are seeing is a dream, a memory or an actual event. Is Owen's wife the actual mother of his daughter? If so, why does she display absolutely no concern or connection with the girl?

Why did Owen see his workmate with no face? Did his workmate die in the accident? We are never told.

Why did the boy write the Hollowface story in English? Why did he hid it in the tree? How did the girl find it? In fact, why does the girl see Hollowface at all if it was simply a figment of Owen's imagination?

Why was the priest even involved in the story? The mother clearly knew the truth, so what did she hope the priest's intervention would achieve?

Why is Hollowface so terrible at his job? He appears in both children's room several times and accomplishes nothing? Or is it because Hollowface is not literal, only a figurative extension of the father's repressed memories? we are lead to establish this ourselves.

Why did every single scene that raised some tension suddenly cut to another scene? Why did Owen's character not recognise Hollowface from his youth? Why did he not explain this to his daughter? Why did nobody communicate with each other?

Why? Why? Why?

There are many more problems with Intruders I cannot think of off the op of my head. Except one more, actually - why Intruders, with a plural? I only ever saw one on screen.

Atrocious screenplay, plodding direction, dull cinematography and sleep-inducing performance, except for Ella Purnell. She was the only outstanding thing in this movie, and I'm sure will go onto greater projects. And halfway during the movie, they mute her character, rendering the movie utterly pointless.

"There is an ampoule. Take it?"

[–] preparewar 13 years ago

Wow. I thought I was an idiot. Thanks for the self-esteem boost. The fact that people were so confused by this film shows the sad state of horror fans these days.

[–] Mongster 13 years ago

Excuse me, are you implying I'm an idiot because I didn't grasp anything of value from this vacuous screenplay?

Are you also trying to imply this was a deep story with resonant metaphors and many layers to be unpeeled?

Actually, don't do me the courtesy of answering, as your post of "Wow. You are all idiots" elsewhere on this board renders your opinion irrelevant.

"There is an ampoule. Take it?"

[–] fluffchop 10 years ago

Just confirming YES YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!! This movie was crap.

---
Scientologists love Narnia, there's plenty of closet space.

[–] Mongster 13 years ago

Thank you, jokeritt. From someone who rates 'Martyrs' as one of their favourite movies, your opinion is well received. ;)

"There is an ampoule. Take it?"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mongster 13 years ago

Eh? On the contrary, I think 'Martyrs' is one of the best horror films of the past ten years. Ditto with 'Haute Tension'.

I think you must have misread my post.

"There is an ampoule. Take it?"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Mongster 13 years ago

No worries. I'll be sure to check out The Divide.

"There is an ampoule. Take it?"

[–] nrkist2424 13 years ago

He is turning your sarcasm back on you sir. Intruders is definitely in, "WTF happened during the production of this movie?!" category. There is no way the thing we are seeing is what the producers thought they were funding, or the actors/director/writer thought they were creating...

As to The Divide, watch at your own risk. It's awful. If you thought this was a mess, just imagine if the writer/director just takes 6 weeks worth of sick days and lets the actors figure the script and plotting out and b-film crew go wild with silent montage set-peices. It's a really good example of how a director can allow control to be supplanted by his actors. It's actually really ironic...but not intentionally so.

[–] DannX68 12 years ago

You like Haute Tension? And thought THIS movie wasn't explained properly?? Sorry, your opinion is invalid.

...just sayin'...

[–] GardenStatement 13 years ago

"Why was literally nothing explained in the movie? We are never sure whether what we are seeing is a dream, a memory or an actual event. Is Owen's wife the actual mother of his daughter? If so, why does she display absolutely no concern or connection with the girl?"

GS: I agree that there was not a good connection between mother and daughter but rest assured everything is explained. Clive Owens is the Spanish boy, who repressed a memory of his father trying to kidnap/reclaim him as his own after getting released from prison. Then, his repressed memory created this monster character that had no face but wore a hood because that's all his memory would allow him to remember (a person trying to break in and hurt his mother and him). The psychiatrist or whoever that was explained that sometimes people with a close bond share hallucinations. This is what happened with the daughter. When she found his writings inside the tree and said his name, the bond was created, allowing her to experience the same hallucinations.

"Why did Owen see his workmate with no face? Did his workmate die in the accident? We are never told."

GS: Either you didn't pay attention at all or you are the type that needs everything spelled out literally in movies. They hinted MULTIPLE times that the co-worker died. Since he died in the hands of Clive Owen, it triggered the memory of him letting his father/hooded guy/guy with no face die on the fire escape that night i.e. he didn't remember his father's face, so his repressed memory saw it as a man with no face. When a similar incident occurred at work, the same thing happened.

"Why did the boy write the Hollowface story in English? Why did he hid it in the tree? How did the girl find it? In fact, why does the girl see Hollowface at all if it was simply a figment of Owen's imagination?"

GS: The boy, at one point, translates the mother's boyfriends English into Spanish for her. He knows English. Clive Owen speaks perfect English. I'm not sure how she found it, maybe the psychic/shared bond between father and daughter. Again, I already explained (and the movie did too) how the girl saw Hollowface. They both had the shared disorder and she found the book, said the name, and triggered the disorder.

"Why was the priest even involved in the story? The mother clearly knew the truth, so what did she hope the priest's intervention would achieve?"

GS: Again, pay attention next time you watch a movie and want to go to a message board to trash what you didn't pay attention to. The priest was called over at first to try and rid the demon as the mom thought it might help. She knew he was hallucinating some repressed memory and wanted it to stop. When it didn't work, the mom was disinterested in him from thereon. Instead, he was a nosy priest and the older priest even told him to leave them alone, but he was nosy and kept trying to help.

"Why is Hollowface so terrible at his job? He appears in both children's room several times and accomplishes nothing? Or is it because Hollowface is not literal, only a figurative extension of the father's repressed memories? we are lead to establish this ourselves."

GS: Yea he can never harm them because he is a hallucination. Their imagination would never harm them, unless the nervous system is so overcome by it that it sends the body into shock, as it did to the girl multiple times in the movie.

"Why did every single scene that raised some tension suddenly cut to another scene? Why did Owen's character not recognise Hollowface from his youth? Why did he not explain this to his daughter? Why did nobody communicate with each other?"

GS: Communication may have moved the plot along too fast for what the director wanted to achieve so we can only guess. Clive did not know it wasn't real. He thought it was real for sure. So why worry his daughter that there is a monster that cannot be defeated living inside their house in the dark. Or maybe he just didn't want to admit to himself that it was back.

GS: For the record, I thought this movie was just ok. I just want to make sure that you aren't trashing a movie for strictly not paying attention/being uninformed.

[–] Mongster 13 years ago

"Again, pay attention next time you watch a movie and want to go to a message board to trash what you didn't pay attention to."

I believe I paid attention to the side-story of the priest very well. It was a diversion by the writers to throw us off the scent of the obvious twist, by making us believe the boy may be possessed or haunted by an actual, supernatural figure. It was lazy.

The core story was rather interesting, but the execution, both in script and direction, was terrible.

"There is an ampoule. Take it?"

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] racnauj 13 years ago

no, it wasn't terrible. all the "Plot holes" you mentioned where not, you just didn't get it, so you come here and talk *beep* too dumb...

[–] veo 13 years ago

You keep talking about paying attention. I'm sure the guy you answered to had paid attention, but the thing is: all those things in your answers don't explain the movie, they just detail some scenes. I mean, what was the sense of this movie?
Let's see it that way: in Spain, as a child, he represses memories of his convict father. He goes to England and his daughter finds his note in the tree. So she has the same hallucinations, bla bla, and then they hug and the repressed memory "is finally free".
OK, so what? What's the point? What was with that "parents protect their kids" stuff? Etc.

Gognitti bailed. I made like Chow Yun-Fat.

[–] arriva 13 years ago

There's one MAJOR problem with your explanation. The mother of the boy DID see hollowface in the church they came to seek help. Fast forward to 1:02:20 (DVD Release) to check it out.

We are clearly being shown hollowface from the mother's POV.

[–] sebacba 13 years ago

There's a folie a deux between the mother and the son. That's because the theory it's explained right before that scene you mentioned.

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Reply To " GardenStatement » Tue Apr 3 2012 01:01:27"

Excellent answer, saves anyone else having to do it.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] coco_la_nata 13 years ago

Thank you for your questions/explanation. Originally I thought I might be the only one not understand the whole film. And after reading your review, all doubts were made clear. Thanks again.

Be polite or ffo kcuf, please!

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] MrBelette 13 years ago

"How did the girl find it?"

What do you mean how ? We see the girl climbing the tree to get the cat back and finding the story hidden by her father as a child, while losing her bracelet in the hole. What else do you want for an explanation ?

[–] bens123 13 years ago

I enjoyed the film personally and it all made perfect sense and everything connected fine for me by the end :) To each his own. I'm glad it went with the psychological element rather than going for more literal horror Elm Street type thing which I find incredibly boring.

[–] xauyala 12 years ago

What do you mean how ? We see the girl climbing the tree to get the cat back and finding the story hidden by her father as a child, while losing her bracelet in the hole. What else do you want for an explanation ?

That tree was not supposed to be in Spain?

[–] Soodinum 11 years ago

Reply To "xauyala » Sun Aug 12 2012 15:29:53"

"That tree was not supposed to be in Spain?"

Not if you paid attention, no.

'Then' and 'than' are completely different words and have completely different meanings.

[–] elmo66e 13 years ago

(sorry about crappy english, it´s really rusty, haven´t been practising it for a long time)

I read some of your posts, but didn´t see anyone writing about this one, so I did. If I´m just repeating something that has already been written, then sorry for the waste of time.

This was an ok movie, not too scary, not too good, but I liked the psychological side of the story. I gave this 6/10.

But the reason why I decided to write this was, that until almost the very end I felt the reason behind this all was or could be different, and even a bit darker, than what the movie decided to go with.

I had a feeling that child abuse, in a pedofilian, incestian way, would go a very long way to explain the things happening in the movie.

As we know, people who have been abused as a child sometimes have a tendency to repeat that to their own children. And I thought that could have been put in the movie quite beautifully to make things make sense. Atleast I thought that would have made more sense than the way the movie decided to go with. So, with the way the movie handled the ending and explanations I felt a bit let down.

[–] Raver-Gone-Mad-3001 13 years ago

Thank you OP! It is a terrible movie utter mess! I give it a 3 and that is still very generous!

[–] Cops69 13 years ago

First post got a lot of things write. This movie is the definition of crap

[–] dolenraug 12 years ago

I didn't bother to read the whole thread, so if anyone else already covered my sentiments, I apologize. I'm writing this after only reading the OP's comments/questions, and I'm offering what I think are the fairly obvious answers that were apparently too difficult for a few of you to suss out.

Clive's wife IS the girl's mother, but A) it's about the common ground of the "nightmare" between father and daughter; B) it's not her story; and C) they have to create a distance between the characters so people really wonder if Clive is crazy or what's actually happening.

For the question about why Clive's coworker had no face -- this is pretty simple. His coworker dangling from the beam reminded him of his father dangling from the scaffolding as a child (a repressed memory -- or rather a memory he was convinced was actually just a nightmare. And because his father was the source of the Hollowface "nightmare", it started triggering the repressed memories.

The boy obviously knew English and his mother did not (at least not well) -- as is explained when the man at the farmhouse asks to talk to the boy's mother and the boy relays it to his mother. When his father shows up (during the revelations at the end), he speaks English. That would make it very likely that the boy is bilingual. He hid the paper in the tree because he'd finished the story (finally ridding himself of Hollowface) and as a symbolic act, he disposed of the "physical portal" -- think of it like he got the genie back in the lamp and, by finishing the story, he'd sealed the lid on it. Then he buried the lamp (put it in the tree). His daughter found it, as is very CLEARLY shown, because the cat was nosing around the hole. They share the image of Hollow because it's Clive's story that his daughter finds and then they create the burnable scarecrow out of materials that create that shared imagery. Clive made it look that way, probably subconsciously, because it was Hollowface all over again, and it was right after the memory was reawakened since it was the night after the work accident (see the paragraph above).

The boy was led to believe the attack on his mother by Hollowface (aka, his father) was all a nightmare. Whether it was denial or misdirection or whatever, she wanted spiritual help and was probably hoping the priest would be able to convince her son that the "monster" in his nightmares couldn't hurt him. The priest even mentions a "placebo" to the older priest, and I think that's where the mother turns as well: let the priest "exorcise the Hollowface demon" so to speak.

As for the next question, whether he's a manifestation from the imagination or actually just a shared figment of the imagination, he is still somewhat controlled by the imagination/mind. Clive saves his daughter by basically telling her that she can fight him off because he came from their thoughts -- mind over matter, if you will. The fact that every time Hollow shows up and Clive is there to defend his daughter is one or both of them putting mind over matter into effect -- whether they know it or not, their physical resistance symbolizes them trying to dispel a spiritual/paranormal/psychological aggressor.

Again, it's called repression. The mind locks away terrible events to prevent further trauma. The psychiatrist lady even says that she'll need to see the daughter daily so they can work on preventing the daughter from re-living the events.

Not trying to be a jerk, but I think the movie offers more than enough information to piece it together, but it has enough faith in its audience that it doesn't feel the need to spoon feed it to them. I get the impression that OP was hoping for mindless horror and was shocked when he/she actually had to think and work on some of the details.

Oh, and I just finished watching this for the first time (at about 1:30 am) and I had no problem piecing it together. I'm not saying it's a great film, but it's nowhere near as atrocious or full of plot holes as OP is making it out.

P.S. Sorry that those paragraphs ramble on. It's late and I don't feel like making them more concise -- I just wanted to answer the OP's questions as thoroughly as possible, even if it meant repeating myself.

My reviews and more random musings @
http://asinynepov.blogspot.com/

[–] lathe-of-heaven 12 years ago

You make some good, salient points here; please see my comment below that is in reply to the OP...

I have over 4000 films, many of them very rare and OOP. I LOVE to trade. PLEASE ASK!