User Reviews

The Deadly Intruder is an 80's horror film which stars Danny Bonaduce in a very small role. The story is typical for slasher flicks, a man (whose face we don't see) escapes from a mental institution and over a period of time commits a few murders in a small town. The film centers around a lonely young woman who becomes romantically interested in a man who is new in town. They and two other friends have dinner on night while a drifter/homeless man lurks outside stalking the group. During the dinner, about two or three murders occur. They are sort of random murders and seem out of place to the rest of the film.

The homeless man eventually breaks into the woman's's house late at night and holds her hostage on her property. He seemingly just wants someone to talk too. Now he may be a creep, but is he the escaped mental patient? Maybe, maybe not. There are some good twists to the movie, but it's all out of place at times. The film doesn't know if it wants to be a crime thriller or a slasher. The conclusion where the killer's identity is revealed to us is done good though. The killer comes undone and starts losing it in a very creepy way. Molly Cheek, who is likely best known for her role in the American Pie films, does well in the lead role.

This is just one of many lost slasher films from the 80's. It was distributed by Thorn EMI Video and will probably never get a DVD release. The picture quality is very bad. During the first ten minutes, I had no clue what was going on. The nighttime scenes are dark and even the daytime scenes are dark. But this little unknown slasher isn't the worst I've seen. It's actually got potential and a good story. There is some nudity but very little gore. If you're a serious horror fan I say seek this one out. Otherwise, you probably won't get much out of this hard to find movie.

5/10

"Deadly Intruder" errs dangerously close to becoming the dullest slasher movie ever made. It sort-of redeems itself with some twists on the tired formula at the end of the movie, but these are too little too late, and are handled so badly that you might miss them, even if by some miracle you are still paying attention.

The movie's opening is singularly underwhelming. The entire thing is filmed at night, and so dimly lit you can't really understand what's going on. I got that we are witnessing an escape of some kind, but beyond that, you're on your own. It looks like one of the easiest escapes I've ever seen in a movie, but maybe I just couldn't make out the difficulty.

We then see some murders in suburbia, where people don't lock their doors. We see a woman drowned in a sink, her bathrobe coming open to show one of her breasts.

Then we get some random scenes of suburban activity, filled with people who make no impression on the audience whatsoever. If the ridiculous lighting didn't lose you, these boring scenes probably will.

One of the women we have been introduced to has a mysterious vagrant show up on her front door and scare her a little bit. Is he the escaped man from the beginning of the movie?

The movie does have one kill that actually brought out feelings in me other than boredom. A man is shown working on a car, lying underneath it. The killer lowers the car onto the man, crushing him. This actually disturbed me a little bit, so credit to the filmmakers for that one, I guess.

The movie strays from the typical slasher path toward the end, after giving us one of the lamest body-double nudity scenes I've ever seen, where a naked woman plays the lead actress from the neck down and there is little attempt to convince you that you're looking at the same person. It just leaves you wondering how much they paid the naked lady to do that... and why they really bothered.

Where it gets different is when the lead actress is taken hostage. I'm not sure if I've seen that in a slasher before. There is also a surprise ending that is more confusing than anything. The characters aren't drawn well enough for you to really be surprised. It feels like an interesting ending squandered by a filmmaker with no idea how to use it.

Remember the 80's? Stop pretending you don't. Back when having a VCR was still such a novelty that you'd practically rent anything to watch on it? Back when you still had time to watch movies? Back when you were on a first name basis with the staff at the corner video store as you went for your daily fill of six tapes a day? Back when you made more money on unemployment insurance while sitting home on your duff with a pack of cigarettes and bottle of Jack Daniels than any minimum wage "customer service representative" job that Manpower offered you? Remember? Yeah, me neither.

Anyhow, DEADLY INTRUDER is a passable horror-thriller that still strangely lingers in the memory, even though I haven't seen it in well over fifteen years. Yes, this was another of the countless films I watched in that dark winter of 1987 when I was living on pogey and a six-film-a-day habit after being laid off from my warehouse job. I find it funny in that reflecting on that miasmic year of obsessive movie watching, that the ones which I remember with most clarity were mediocre or just plain terrible. I wonder what Freud would have said about that?

At the time of this film's making, the slasher genre was thankfully drawing to a close (even though the movie-going public knew that about four years prior to when film producers wised up)-- so much so, that I doubt this even got a theatrical release, yet went straight to the video stores. This is not a bad fate, really, and for a 99 cent rental, you really can't go wrong with this antiseptic, nearly bloodless, cardboard, yet somehow engaging, and rather tasteful genre effort.

Remember in the 1980's when veteran stars were still alive and able to find work? Remember in the 1980's when stars of any stripe could probably find a couple of days on a B movie in exchange for some ersatz marquee value? Hence, for the former, Stuart Whitman once again phones in his performance as his usual sheriff, whose role in films of this ilk acts as a needless venue because they always show up too late to blow the killer's brains out. For the latter, we have former child star and (then) current Betty Ford denizen Danny Bonaduce in a supporting role, who hangs around long enough to get his head smashed through a TV screen in a scene which is pretty darn satisfying.

All right, so this generic film has something going for it after all. Otherwise, this by-the-numbers production features a rather bland, obsessively jealous psycho who kills anyone whom he fears may be endangering his relationship with his current girlfriend, who lives in a typically rural pad, antiseptic to a fault, replete with wood paneling and shag rugs. Hmmm... wonder what Freud would've said about THAT? In the opening scene, we've already discovered what the film's criminal of passion did to his last paramour.

With the commercial world's mindset to do countless retreads of the same formula, I guess one cannot fault DEADLY INTRUDER for being much more than that, as that's all it was created for, and that's all we should expect to pay for, I guess. Thinking of this film out of the time for which it was created, it almost seems quaint to think about its "HALLOWEEN-on-the-brain", right down to the blue slick cinematography and the pretty cool electronic score that is not a little reminiscent of John Carpenter's tenure as a musician (so cool in fact that I held my little Radio Shack tape deck up to the TV's speaker to make myself a copy of it). And where would an 80's slasher flick be without leaving the door open for a sequel? For such a throwaway yet genial flick, this seems preposterous I'm sure, but hey, it worked for SLEEPAWAY CAMP, didn't it? Roger.

The Deadly Intruder is just about everything you'd expect from an 80's slasher movie with none of the fun. The whole thing is a bit of a slog with no suspense or scares to speak of. One would think that, if you were going to make a tension free slasher, you'd sprinkle in some gore or some element of fun camp to liven things up. Unfortunately, The Deadly Intruder gives us nothing to work with.

The characters are paper thin, the actors try their best, the cinematography is impossibly dark, and the only pleasure to be found throughout the run time is when Danny Bonaduce shows up. Even then, we're just excited because someone else we know has been duped into being associated with this movie.

Maybe this is one of those movies that a cleaned up Blu-Ray transfer would help, but I highly doubt it. It's long OOP, but not really worth finding.

This film got lost in the glut of slasher flicks that avalanched into the vid stores back in the merry old 80's.

Mental hospital escapee tries to survive outside. And you just KNOW he's going to revert to his old homicidal ways. And of course you've got your lone cop trying to find him before he does.

The dark atmosphere helped a lot here. One got the impression one saw more in the shadows. I kept thinking I missed a few clues.

The acting itself was so-so at its best, but no one was bad, so I guess that's a plus.

The cover art on the video box sucked me in back in '88 or so when I saw this. I never regretted it. There's so much drek from when video got huge. This one is worth remembering.

I'll admit this movie isn't original or special, but it has stuck with me since I saw it a long time ago (back when I was watching every horror movie available, so I have seen a lot). Basically, a girl is being stalked by a serial killer that is loose in a small town. There is a drifter wandering around, engaging in violent behaviour, as well as a mysterious newcomer that may be too nice. All in all, it's passable fair if you like the old 80's horror films (although this is more of a thriller than a horror). I must say, I really enjoyed the ending, and the very last shot of the film before the credits roll is excellent.

The usual nutcase escapes from the usual mental hospital, and the usual Mayberry cops do their usual bumbling as the usual idiots are massacred in the usual style while the usual blonde in the usual peril screams her head off.

The only remotely UNusual distiction of this love-crazed-maniac throwback is the false-protagonist "twist" near the end, and you'll probably see it coming by halftime. There aren't even any especially potent kills in this supplementary, cliché-ridden offering from the high tide of the 80s slasher epoch. The fact that it reaches to Danny Bonaduce for star power should be telling enough that you'll keep your expectations low.

A forgettable, but yieldingly watchable side-dish. 3.5/10.

THE DEADLY INTRUDER (1988)

The setup is fairly simple as a group of friends are stalked and murdered by a mysterious killer before and after a dinner party. It all leads up to a predictable but well done twist and finale. There's not much new here but it's done pretty well. I'm not gonna lie the movie is very low budget and suffers from its constraints but still offers some decent, retro genre fare.

6/10

My review was written in March 1985 after watching the movie on Thorn EMI video cassette.

Deadly dull sums up "Deadly Intruder", an underdeveloped horror picture made last year and too weak for theatrical use, going directly into the home video market.

Stale premise and predictable twist concerns a psycho, escaped from an institution, on the rampage in a small town while local cop (Stuart Whitman, in for a couple of scenes wearing a beard) and his men haplessly try to catch him. A drifter (played by screenwriter and co-producer Tony Crupi) kidnaps the heroine (Molly Cheek), and is mistaken for the real psycho.

Relying on the stalker formula, pic repeatedly sets up situations of gore and mayhem yet tastefully avoids showing the carnage on screen. However, homevideo fans will appreciate the inclusion of several nude scenes, including one of the heroine that is photographed (head always out of frame) as if a body double was being utilized.

John McCauley's direction is mediocre, offering little style and relying upon a self-written musical score heavily indebted.to the repetitive keyboard figures favored by Italian rock group Goblin and America's John Carpenter.

This movie was made back in the early 80's, and while it has elements of Halloween, it does not measure up to the standard Halloween set in the slasher/horror genre. But I'm not going to compare this movie to Halloween, because it is an altogether different movie in its own right, with its own atmosphere and tone.

The first 15 minutes are all you really need to see of this movie, and really, it is because of the first 15 minutes I remembered this movie to begin with. A psycho escapes from the sanitarium in the middle of the night to begin what psychos do best - stalk. Early the next morning, he slips into a woman's kitchen while she is getting her breakfast ready at the sink, and proceeds to kill her by drowning her in the sink. This scene alone is among the most violent and realistic drowning scenes I've seen in any movie, and - let this be a fair warning - the woman's bathrobe becomes undone during the attack and her breasts are exposed. Honestly, this scene is really the only memorable scene in the entire movie. After that, the movie is rather slow and boring, with an attempt at character development and an interesting ending. As far as slasher movies go, this is a bit slow moving and doesn't really have much suspense. And for all you gore fans out there, don't bother with this movie, as there really isn't any notable gore.

I gave this movie 7 stars out of 10 only because the first minutes contain some of the most disturbing, cold-blooded, and violent attacks toward women I've seen in film. It was meant to grab your attention, and it certainly did.