User reviews

After years of debate, the courts have finally ordered the desegregation of the nation's schools. A small (and fictitious) Missouri town must deal with the issue as black students go to the previously all white school for the first time.

Enter Adam Cramer (Shatner), a representative from Washington of the Patrick Henry Society. He claims to be a social worker, but it turns out that this society is a racist organization opposed to desegregation. Cramer hopes to interfere with the court-ordered policy and begins to stir up the community with fiery rhetoric and bold tactics. Cramer soon discovers that the mob he has helped create is beyond is ability to control.

"The Intruder" is a little known film written by Charles Beaumont (a core writer for "The Twilight Zone" and a screenwriter for many of American International's classic 1960s horror films) and directed by Roger Corman. It shouldn't be little known. This is arguably the best and most important film ever made by Corman and perhaps by Beaumont as well. Shatner puts in a sterling performance as the racist Cramer and the supporting cast, which included both veteran actors and local citizens from the town of Charleston, Missouri (where it was filmed), is also excellent. Corman and Beaumont took on some seriously volatile subject matter and used both tact and intelligence to tell a story and send a message. For those who are more sensitive to racist language or who are caught up with political correctness, "The Intruder" might be somewhat abrasive or uncomfortable to watch. Personally, I think that this would be ideal for viewing in high schools and colleges that are studying the subject of racism and integration in the United States. Regardless, for those seeking a well made, well acted film

I watched this for free at YouTube. I was expecting cardboard characters and clichés from the mouth of a virtually unknown William Shatner.William Shatner is brilliant. Charleton Heston or Burt Lancaster or Gregory Peck could not have done better.

In a confrontation scene between Shatner and Leo Gordon the tension builds to a magnificent and believable ending. Each actor and actress is wonderful. The local townsfolk come across as the real thing.

This is a movie about racism that does not have a filter. Nothing is corrected to protect the ears of the viewer and listener. Not all white folks are bad or stupid or anything. This was an era. These are the kinds of people we might find dealing with a national issue. Some of the people black and white wanted integration and some were opposed and some were violently opposed.

I don't think there is a more accurate movie about the times represented here. There are bigger budget movies.

This one is too bold for TV. Maybe the internet will bring it back to some top ten lists. Well worth watching.

Also known by the more appropriate title 'I Hate Your Guts', this is probably Corman's best film, and takes its visual, stylistic and thematic cue from the work of Fritz Lang, especially 'Fury'. This may sound like an unintelligent, superficial comparison; sure, they're both lynch-mob films, but how can you compare the rigorous intellectual austerity of the German with the sensationalist populism of Corman? Maybe, and this is a film where Corman repeatedly grabs you by the collar and thumps you in the guts, never letting up on the violence or shock, while Lang would keep a more intense distance; but they both achieve the same ends with different results.

This is Corman's most painstakingly worked-out film, which is why it is so powerful, suggesting, like Lang, a set of mathematical propositions that seem simple but, add up to a theorem that seems to negate mathematical principles of logic, order etc. As in a Lang film, there is no 'hero' to root for - the lead here is a sinister right-winger linked to the KKK who arrives in an archetypal Southern town to stir up race hatred. He is given the conventional Hollywood hero treatment: the opening credits set up his point of view, establishing his way of looking at the world.

But even over these credits, Corman confuses us. At first we think he's a solitary figure, it is him alone we see entering the town and looking at it. Then he comes out with a woman and child, and we assume he's a family man, but that turns out to be wrong too. So, in these opening scenes we are presented with a lead character in the conventional manner, but, unconventionally, we are unable to get a grip on him.

Similarly, in spite of the title and the menacing opening music, Cramer's good manners and charm continue to suggest him as a hero, even though he is trying to stir up racist feeling, especially when compared to the next significant male character, a loud braggart who appears to be raping his nymphomaniac wife. In this first third, there are no sides drawn, we might almost be watching a racist film, such is Cramer's conventional heroic status. He even seems a movie star, with his dark shades and good looks, which Corman plays on ironically in the scenes of demagogary and when his 'fans' protest his jailing.

Like Lang, Corman switches point of view disturbingly and decisively. This opening out of point of view makes clear the issues, and in a way that conventional Hollywood cinema of the time could not conceive. The reason films like this were considered 'B' or exploitation is because they were telling truths that official Hollywood didn't even know existed. How many contemporary Hollywood films were even dealing with these issues, never mind as provocatively and intelligently as this one? When they finally got round to it, it was cosy liberal kramergloop.

There is no flip solution here - the moral centre is a moderate racist who is nearly killed for his growing ethical awareness (the newspaper editor) - other liberals are shown to be almost criminally useless. Corman asks questions with no easy answers - how do you enforce progressive laws? how do you hold back a mob without becoming as reactionary as them? Cramer, influenced by Lenin as much as Hitler, makes his appeals to democracy and freedom, and Corman forces us to admit that he is right, to reconsider what we mean by these concepts. This is a stunning film, full of tense calm giving onto explosions of harrowing violence, with an insight into its roots in sexual neurosis, including a sequence where the KKK come into town like an invading army, a huge cross like a tank turret, ready to be burned; a lynch sequence as shocking as Huck Finn or 'The Ox-bow Incident'.

Along with the unusual, Langian clarity of the monochrome imagery, note the grids on or around Cramer - crossed telegraph wires, the bars of the hotel lobby etc. - culminating in the demand for the accursed rapist behind a grilled window, like a frothing beast; or the childlike immaturity of the racists, whose hatred centres around the school's swing. The frightening 'speech' scene, outside a monumental civic building, in Nuremberg-like lighting, is more potent than anything in 'All the King's Men'.

With 100 times the budget ($80K) of Roger Corman's The Intruder, lesser directors have created thousands of films with less than a hundredth of the intelligence, sensitivity, entertainment-value and raw power of this film. Charles Beaumont, the unfortunately short-lived author and screen-writer, was contracted to produce a screenplay from his novel (and appeared in the film as the beleaguered but morally just principal of a newly integrated school), a young but accomplished William Shatner was hired, and a few veteran character actors were brought on board. Most of the actors and crew were locals who, according to Corman, didn't know very much about what they were getting into. The rest is legend.

Corman indulged in a form of guerilla film-making to make a statement that he felt needed to be made. Corman, the cast and the crew were thrown out of two locations, worked under constant threat of physical violence, and wrapped this lean, tight, morality play in a grand total of three weeks. Most of the cast had literally NO acting experience. Does it show? Occasionally - but in the end the odd representations of some of the extras in the mob only adds to the film's realism.

The Intruder is a story which examines the ease with which a charismatic leader with a pernicious all-consuming hunger for power can exploit fear to rally otherwise normal people into irrationality, violence and hatred. William Shatner stars as Adam Cramer, a northern hate-monger who has just arrived in the small southern town of Caxton to sow the seeds of racial violence just as the town has begun to integrate its schools in compliance with federal law. Cramer preaches non-violent resistance, but is unwilling to stand in the way when his followers escalate the issue in their own way. His powerful and dramatic speaking ability and his cunning turn most of the town's white minority against their black neighbors, culminating in his orchestration of a vicious frame-up of an innocent student.

Cramer is, in one way or another, behind almost everything that happens in this film. Yet the film does not permit facile scape-goating of this single sociopath. Rather, it indicts ignorance in general, and racism, hatred and intolerance much more specifically. Amazingly, it does so without exploiting stereotypes of southerners, yankees, blacks, whites, or anybody else. The Intruder deals with its subjects without reducing them to anything that could be wholly represented or analyzed in the hour and half of intense drama the film gives us. Instead, the Intruder leaves its subjects wide-open and raw. If you view this film about once every 6 months, you might just take something different away from it each time.

I do not believe the rumor that Roger Corman has ever, in any way, suggested that William Shatner's performance destroyed this film's box office potential. In interviews, Corman has consistently given Shatner a great deal of praise for his award-winning portrayal of evil incarnate. And rightly so. Shatner is nothing short of incredible in this film. He clearly dedicated everything he had to this film, and it shows. Other noteworthy performances are given by Frank Maxwell, Robert Emhardt and Charles Barnes.

The film is pristinely directed - lean and economically edited, even for Corman. The cinematography is straightforward and clean. And the locations are entirely appropriate - another Corman trademark.

Possibly the best truly low-budget film I have ever seen. Would-be film-makers, even some established big-budget purveyors of modern junk-food-film should learn a great deal from a careful study of the Intruder.

Roger Corman's "The Intruder" is both fascinating and frustrating to watch. Fascinating because you suddenly realize what a great and promising "serious" film-maker that was living in the young Corman, and frustrating because the movie was so provocative it scared Corman's investors and was such a financial failure that it discouraged the producer/director from ever trying to make a real serious piece of fiction again.

"The Intruder" is so harrowing, frightfully realistic and effective that had it gained the success and attention it deserved Corman today would be up there with names like Norman Jewison, Sidney Lumet, Milos Forman, John Schlesinger and other great film-makers of his generation!

The atmospheric use of real southern locations just adds to the drama, and the racism portrayed by many of the actors feels almost to close to comfort. One final note: Anyone who still considers William Shatner a grade-b actor should also try and get a hold of this film to witness a fine actor in good form.

Watch this if you can, one of the greatest unsung movies of the 1960's!

The Intruder is an amazing film. I would recommend seeing this movie at least once in your life. William Shatner plays a charismatic bigot who comes to a small southern town to get the locals to rise up against racial integration.

The acting in this movie is great. Shatner's performance won him a few awards at film festivals and is stellar. The story itself is well written and directed. He and Roger Corman did an interview on the DVD which is quite interesting. The cast and crew themselves dealt with a lot from the local population while shooting this flick.

Once again, I highly recommend picking this one up for your collection. Or at least rent it.

I don't know how I stumbled upon this film but I'm sure glad I did.

It talks about a young man, a missionary of sorts, who comes to a small Souther Town representing what is basically a racist organization. He and most of the townspeople are against the desegregation of schools.

The film is an excellent portrayal of racism in the South, showing how people felt. It has an extremely realistic feel to it, sometimes an almost documentary feel.

The most surprising thing is that this was directed by the king of low budget horror, Roger Corman. However if you look at this film, it will remind you nothing of his previous work, but instead shows a more serious side of him.

A hidden gem, see it.

Roger Corman's "The Intruder" (1962) may prove something of a revelation for those viewers who are used to thinking of William Shatner as nothing more than a self-parodying, space-trucking blowhard. Shatner is simply superb in this picture, and gives one of the finest performances I have ever seen him essay. His Adam Cramer, when we first see him, appears to be a polite, well-mannered and chivalrous gentleman. One would never know that, as a representative of the Patrick Henry Society, he has come to the small Southern town of Caxton to stir up riots against the new school integration laws. His Cramer has loads of snake-oil charm, is a mesmerizing orator and is suavely seductive with the ladies; no wonder that he soon has Caxton eating out of his slimy hands. Five years before he ever sat in the captain's chair, Shatner is truly a wonder to behold here, and his ranting speech before the Caxton courthouse may be the finest work of his career; better, even, than those final two minutes of "The City on the Edge of Forever." Trekkers may perhaps understand me when I say that his Adam Cramer is hardly an E Plebnista performance! The film's other three professional actors are also very fine, and indeed, even the large cast of nonactors seems very authentic. Though set in the Deep South, Corman (who directs extremely imaginatively here, by the way) has since revealed that the picture was actually filmed in Mississippi County, Missouri (to avoid trouble with locals, although that trouble came anyway), and that, typical for this director, the film was shot in only three weeks and for the price of only $80,000. Despite that, the film seems very well made. It is, famously, the only picture of Corman's that ever lost money, but nevertheless carries an emotional charge and important message almost five decades later. And Shatner, in his first starring role, an Oscar-worthy one, is largely responsible for that charge. This is a great film.

Competently directed by Roger Corman (on a shoe-string budget of just $90,000) - 1961's "The Intruder" actually turned out to be a helluva lot better than I had at first anticipated.

This fairly intense social-drama about seriously stirring up bitter racial hatred in small-town America stars a youthful, 30-year-old (pre-Captain Kirk) William Shatner as the smooth-talking, white-trash social reformer, Adam Cramer.

For the most part - I'd say that "The Intruder" (filmed in stark b&w) was at least worth a view.

William Shatner gets off the bus in the small southern town and rents a room at the hotel. He's open and friendly, and talks to just about all the people downtown, all of whom are White, and isn't it terrible that they're integrating the schools. Soon he's holding mass open meetings in which he talks about facts and how integration will mongrelize the country, which is just what the communists want. They're funding it through a Jewish front, and he has proof.....

With a screenplay by Charles Beaumont from his own novel, Roger Corman tries his hand at making a socially conscious film about racial hatred. It's almost a spell-binding effort by William Shatner. It was also a very rare flop by Corman, and he blamed Shatner for it; on one reissue, it was retitled I HATE YOUR GUTS

There's a Rodgers & Hammerstein song from SOUTH PACIFIC that insists "you have to be taught to hate and fear." That's not true. We hate and fear the strange, the different, the other. It's not an intruder that makes us hate other people. It doesn't have to be drummed in our dear little ear. We do it because we don't understand it and therefore it might be a threat. And until we come to accept that this meanness, this anger, this hatred isn't an intruder, it's us talking to ourselves, then we can't do a darned thing about it.

As a white Northerner at 15, I had no idea in 1960 of what rude realities awaited me as I hitchhiked through the South that summer. In Birmingham I was thrown into the two worlds of black/white; I was escorted out of the black's bathroom at the bus station, kindly - gently - but firmly. I witnessed prayer-sayers at street corners extolling salvation and gateways leading away from oppression, people coerced to sit in the crowded back of the bus... whites throwing epitaphs at anyone black who happened to pass by... By the time I reached New Orleans, I had had a complete education in racial prejudice and hate. I was stunned.

So forty years later I watched the Intruder. It left me cold and I begin remembering that trip to the South so long ago. Sitting here in my easy chair in South Carolina today, I can say that some things have changed and some things haven't.

The movie, at least from my experience, presents a milieu that is faithfully true of the South in the early '60's. Of course, it descends from that point into the murky depths of the manipulation of fear and hatred within the human spirit. It is a raw, dramatic expose - hard to watch at times. And I can't respect enough that this movie is so cutting edge and so truly represents the attitudes and motivations of folks during those days.

For the adventurer who has a curiosity of how life was in that period, and for the psychology buff who is interested in the roots of human nature, this movie is a must.

dnk

I first took interest in searching this film out after reading brief

descriptions of the plot in film magazines such as Filmfax, if for no

other reason than to witness a strange and lost acting performance by a

young William Shatner. William Shatner, Captain Kirk himself, an

otherwise ridiculed actor infamous for his choppy delivery and over the

top hamminess, playing a white supremicist?! Produced and directed by

Roger Corman?! The description was too good to be true, and after

locating the recently released DVD I was prepared to view some fun,

campy, unintentional low budget laugh-riot. What a got was much much

more.

This is easily the finest film Roger Corman's ever made, not to mention

the finest acting performance of William Shatner's career. Anyone who

makes fun of Shatner's acting ability should see this film, not to

mention most of his early-pre Trek performances in the Twilight Zone and

other early television roles. The man's a superb actor! The film is jaw

droppingly shocking and daring, especially when you consider that it was

released in 1961. No doubt segregation was a touchy topic at the time,

but few directors would have had the balls to release this film, and it

took a maverick like Corman to do it. There's no sugar coating of the

subject of racism here, this is hard raw drama that pulls no punches

with a superb script by Charles Beaumont. The dialogue is powerful and

biting, with racial slurs sprinkled throughout and the violence and

imposing threat are portrayed in a realistic and frightening manner.

Unfortunately, while society has arguably come a long way since 1961,

our "political correctness" of late has so homogenized our acceptance of

challenging subject matter that we try to sweep it under the rug and

pretend it never happened instead. Given the power of this film, it's no

wonder that a fantastic and thought provoking film like this has little

chance of being seen on network or cable television today. Offensive or

not (it's funny but the people who seem to be most offended by this film

are white), this film represents an important part of our American

history, and thus should be preserved and viewed for generations to come

so that we never forget. But for now, The Intruder will have to settle

for the title, "cult status" until modern society is ready to view

Roger Corman is most famous for making cheap movies that turned in a big profit. As you might expect, therefore, a vast number of these were absolute rubbish that made you wonder how they ever managed to make a penny, let alone a profit. It is highly ironic therefore that The Intruder is both Corman's first non-profit making film, and one of his very best. Most of Corman's films, while at times entertaining and fun to watch, don't have much in terms of substance; but this is not the case with The Intruder - a film which both entertains and makes you think. The film focuses on Adam Cramer - public speaker and devout racist, dedicated to turning small towns across America against the idea of social integration. The courts have ordered the policy, and so Cramer sets out about inspiring hatred to create a mob to put an end to social integration by brute force. All is going well for the man and his hateful agenda, but when events start to escalate, he finds that the mob he has created is stronger than its leader.

I know that this film didn't cost much to make because it was directed by Roger Corman, but if you didn't know that; you'd never have guessed. There are no big stunts in the film, but the production values are surprisingly high and the acting surprisingly good. The Intruder is bolstered by an excellent performance from William Shatner. Corman apparently blamed the poor box office run on Shatner - but I have no idea why! Shatner does a great job of providing a great portrait of his character - suitably slimy, yet obviously cowardly beneath his confidant public persona. Perhaps the best thing about this film is its simplicity. Bigger films such as American History X have attempted to make a point about racism with not as much success as Corman has here. The scenes that show the crowds really getting behind Cramer's words of hatred are poignant indeed, and the conclusion to the tale both makes a point about bigots and provides a suitable conclusion to Adam Cramer's character arc. Overall, The Intruder is one of the best and most though-provoking films on the tentative subject of racism that I have ever seen, and it comes highly recommended to all!

An interesting film by Roger Corman touching upon the social struggle of black people in a small (fictional) all-white Missouri town in the early 1960s. STAR TREK's own William Shatner is pretty powerful playing a seemingly peaceful traveling representative of the Patrick Henry Society who, in reality, is a bigot who's opposed to desegregation and then tries to rile up the racist citizens against the blacks, through a series of dishonorable ploys and schemes. It's a very strong film about prejudice and would rate easily as one of Roger Corman's best pieces of work, though it's often forgotten and seldom-seen.

*** out of ****

In 1962 Roger Corman made "The Intruder". It wasn't just the most controversial film he ever made but one of the most controversial films ever made in the US. The subject was racism and he made it quite early on in the growth of the Civil Rights Movement. Even today it still packs a considerable punch. The Intruder of the title is William Shatner, a handsome, smiling stranger in a white suit who arrives in a small Southern Town preaching racism and hate, (it's not just African-Americans but Communists and Jews who are grist to his mill), and it's a much more terrifying film than any of his Poe adaptations.

Shatner gives a great performance in a great film but who might have guessed it. Corman was King of the Z-Movies and for many Shatner would never be more than Captain Kirk, a role he was still to play. Needless to say, the film virtually disappeared without trace and it's seldom revived but it showed Corman really was a film-maker to be taken seriously. It may still be only a B-Movie but it's one of the greatest B-Movies ever made.

"The Intruder" is a good movie, only great, if you compare it to some of Roger Corman's other films. The flames of racism are happily fanned by William Shatner, and this drama does not pull any "not politically correct" punches. I would classify this as a perfect double billing with another tense racial drama "Paris Trout". Probably more of a curiosity than anything else, "The Intruder" is worth a peek. There are some fabulous 1950s cars, reasonable acting from many "non-actors", and good location photography. The only downside would probably be that once you have seen it, I doubt you would be in any hurry for repeat viewings. - MERK

As uncomfortable as it is, I think it's a good movie.

'The Intruder' is basically your standard story of how dangerous mob mentality can be, especially when coupled with ready-made white supremacy. It is a bit white saviour-y, though I did like how Charles Barnes' Joey had his own moment in the face of adversity.

I enjoyed (from an acting viewpoint, of course) the performances onscreen of Frank Maxwell and Leo Gordon, Robert Emhardt plays a bad guy well too. The most eye-catching member of the cast is obviously William Shatner, in one of his earliest film roles. He puts in a positive showing, the character is certainly, erm, interesting and I'll remember him.

William Shatner (Captain Kirk!) had done mostly television for the past ten years prior to Intruder. Here he's Cramer, new guy in town. He meets up with a local, and they start planning on how to fight the new ruling on integration. Cramer is such a class act, he dates the high school girl. and then he makes a play for someone's wife. he's a real winner. about 25 minutes in, we learn that he claims to represent a group which says the communists are behind integration, and should be stopped. he stirs up the crowd, and when they terrorize a black family driving through town, the sheriff and Mr. McDaniels finally step in. Obviously this issue will force everyone to choose sides. even husband and wife. the paper is owned by the folks who don't believe in integration. and here come the kkk. It's pretty well done. shows what happens when one person stirs up a crowd; the crowd takes on the mob mentality and makes bad decisions. and this was all six years before MLK was shot. Shatner already has the larger than life personality, which he will make famous in Star Trek, a couple years later. Directed by the amazing Roger Corman; had made films in many different categories. some worked and some didn't. Story by Charles Beaumont. they had worked together on four films, but sadly, Beaumont died very young at 38.

Shatner plays an operative from an unknown organization dropped into a small town which is adjusting to government-imposed integration laws. His goal: spread hate. He essentially plays Satan, which is interesting on a dramatic level. The best scenes are where Shatner is alone with each of the characters, seducing them into indulging their weaker impulses. Theres moments where his eyes literally look like a snakes; it's truly a great performance (and reminds me of some of the right wing agitators you see online today.)

Ultimately however, the film is guilty of what it condemns which is instilling hate in your heart against a people you likely know nothing about.