jotix100
David Bailey, a well known photographer, tried his hand at directing by turning Brooke Leimas' novel, which we read some time ago, into a mystery film. The screen play is by Jamie Brown, and it appears his adaptation is the basic flaw with the finished product.We are given a premise that has been used before with better results. The second wife who comes to live in an unhappy place where the ghost of a dead woman comes back to haunt the new wife and make her life impossible. After all, even from a grave, don't play with a woman's sense of possession, she will come back to haunt whoever dares.Stella, who is only seen by Catherine, a French young woman who has married Nick, a composer of music for the movies. Everything seems to go bad when strange things are happening in the couple's apartment. It doesn't help that most of Catherine's new friends seem to be in some sort of conspiracy of silence and will not tell her anything about the past and what kind of marriage Stella and Nick had together.Charlotte Gainsbourg is an actress that deserves better. Her Catherine shows some good moments, but like everyone else, she is bogged down by a scenario that doesn't make much sense. Natassja Kinski, plays the enigmatic neighbor that seems to know what is behind the things Catherine seems to be experiencing, but doesn't tell her. The rest of the cast don't have much to do.
chuckewe
After reading one of the other reviews, I opted to give this film a try. Boy was I disappointed. My Dish network guide which only gives ratings up to four stars, gave this one a 2+ star rank. After watching it, I can only shake my head and wonder why. The premise of the movie, a woman coming into the police station and confesses to crime which occurred two years earlier. The hook, she couldn't have done the crime as she claims she just committed the crime the day she walks into the police station.I don't want to disclose the ending, or be a spoiler, so I won't go there. But suffice it to say there are so many red herrings, convoluted twists, and down right silly plot lines, that the films surpasses the point of absurdity. You find yourself not caring any longer about the characters, and only wishing the film would end. This film tries to breach a number of different genre's including mystery, thriller, horror and science fiction. Sadly, the mix rather than becoming an intriguing stew, becomes a weak broth leaving the viewer unfulfilled.
FilmFlaneur
'The Intruder' is the second film by London fashion photographer David Bailey (his first: the obscure 'Who Dealt' was made for TV in 1993). Rather ostentatiously, Bailey's still photographs add a calculated touch of class to the somewhat anonymous and cavernous modern interiors in which much of the action takes place. How ironic then, that this silent clutter of his more successful art on walls and furniture makes the weakness of his motion picture even more disappointing! Mostly told in a single long flashback, while a shocked Catherine is questioned by police, this is a low budget scare story which falls short of being really frightening.
As Catherine, actress Charlotte Gainsburg proves simply too weak a presence to make a persuasive narrator of events. Her somewhat tremulous voice-over at the beginning lacks any sense of horror or conviction. Part of the blame can be found in the script, which leaves Catherine's character weak and undeveloped as a victim. As Nick's benighted wife, one feels she is merely a cipher for the terror that the director seeks to impel upon the audience, rather the source of any paranoia herself. What suspense there is in the film springs not so much from her dread of the supernatural, but from the much less interesting enigma of her husband's past romantic life, and how it affects the present. Catherine is left adrift, ultimately until the audience's only interest in her springs from deciding whether she will wind up alive or dead.'The Intruder', despite the quantum mechanics mumbo-jumbo introduced to explain the goings-on, is at heart a ghost story, Nick's huge apartment the 'haunted house'. (At one point Catherine actually uses candles to light her way in a darkened room). Such narratives rely a great deal upon sustained tension wrought through carefully created atmosphere. In his attempt to manipulate mood, right from the opening scenes, Bailey introduces a solo saxophonist who repeatedly plays a lonely vigil, outside of the main plot and characters. His presence is never logically explained and with each repetition of this scene, it seems more and more superfluous. In addition this musician is patently unaffected by the snow, which falls almost continuously outside as events unfold inside. Whenever we are within sight of a window, inevitably there are thick flakes falling. No doubt the snow intends to suggest a sense of coldness and isolation surrounding the characters. Instead, it draws attention to the set-bound nature of much of the action, quickly becoming a symbol of creative laziness.There are odd moments of genuine menace and danger, indicative of the better film that might have been. Catherine vainly searching for Rosebud (her cat)in Nick's vast apartment for instance, or the death of Daisy as Catherine rushes up stairs in answer to her frantic phone call for help. Here Bailey utilises space and motion effectively, creating dread. Even the final confrontation (shot using an unusual optical 'smearing' technique) is reasonably tense. At too many other points however, matters fall down badly. Particularly ineffective is the role to given to a janitor heavy, whose 'menace', filmed with risible over-emphasis by Bailey, appears instead bathetic. 'Somethings in life are beyond our control' he intones, as if fiddling with the lock on Catherine's door makes him the key to all that transpires (he is not).Practically all of the action supposedly occurs inside the same apartment building, where most of the characters live. Yet by the end of the film, we still no real evocation of the building or location, and this poor sense of place is a continuing handicap (perhaps stemming from uncertain location work). Compared to, say, the mise-en-scene demonstrated so successfully by Polanski in 'Rosemary's Baby', a far more successful tale of terror, the difference is revealing.. In Polanski's work, the indentification between tension and living space is absolute. In 'The Intruder' this unifying sense of place is palpably missing.Other plot elements appear, tantalise the audience with their possibilities, and then languish. Nastassje Kinski (the only 'big' name in the cast) who plays Badge, a friend of Nick, gives Catherine a job. In a couple of scenes together, there is a hint of supressed lesbianism. The failure to develop Badge as a predatory female, while it might show admirable restraint by the script writers, leaves her character hanging in mid air. A similar feeling of underdevelopment attends the introduction of twins in the film. Catherine and Jim are introduced to two at the start of the film. Later, Catherine discovers that Nick's first wife Stella was half of a pair of identical twins as well, and visits the surviving sister. And with this intriguing echo, the idea is dropped. But then why introduce it at all?The coda of the film, which takes place at the conclusion of Catherine's flashback, is predictable. There's no point in spoiling what drama the film still possesses at this point, but needless to say that the resolution - or not - of Catherine's ordeal is hardly original. But that is the trouble with this film: it simply can't deliver enough original terror or suspense to prove memorable. In short, an exercise in supernatural terror which should have worked out more.
