I don't think William Shatner is completely to blame- as director Roger Corman did- for the box-office failure of The Intruder. It's got a ham-fisted message going on, however very topical at the time and somewhat ballsy for an otherwise B-movie director to try and tackle. Surely some of the blame then can be placed on some bits of the script (i.e. the scene between Shatner's Adam Cramer and the one guy in the motel room, I forget his name, who shows how chicken he really is with a gun, is poorly written and executed all around), and for some of the likely rushed shots done by Corman on his usual peanuts budget and schedule (8 days for $10 grand a piece).
This being said, it is worth checking out years later, and not simply because of Shatner acting like a cross between Charlton Heston and, well, classic Shatner. He's a convincing lot of ham-bone, and yet at times he does become sort of convincing in this part of a zealous racist riling up a small Southern town against the blacks (which, at the time, wasn't hard at all to do with mob mentality included). While he isn't given much anyway with such a one-note character, he puts his all into it, and however campy one might peg him he isn't a chump in the part. Kudos should also go to a more than decent supporting cast of character actors all also doing their best for decent material.
To Kill a Mockingbird or In the Heat of the Night comparable? Maybe not quite, though it is at the least an important little piece to see alongside the others as an example of 'message' going by way of low-budget entertainment. It's predictable stuff meant to rile up the change that (thankfully) came around in the 1960s in the US. On those grounds it succeeds its ambitions.
This being said, it is worth checking out years later, and not simply because of Shatner acting like a cross between Charlton Heston and, well, classic Shatner. He's a convincing lot of ham-bone, and yet at times he does become sort of convincing in this part of a zealous racist riling up a small Southern town against the blacks (which, at the time, wasn't hard at all to do with mob mentality included). While he isn't given much anyway with such a one-note character, he puts his all into it, and however campy one might peg him he isn't a chump in the part. Kudos should also go to a more than decent supporting cast of character actors all also doing their best for decent material.
To Kill a Mockingbird or In the Heat of the Night comparable? Maybe not quite, though it is at the least an important little piece to see alongside the others as an example of 'message' going by way of low-budget entertainment. It's predictable stuff meant to rile up the change that (thankfully) came around in the 1960s in the US. On those grounds it succeeds its ambitions.