Clair Denis again revisits her theme of estranged fathers, men who follow their own bliss in determined fashion, heedless of the emotion toll on their family but while Nénette and Boni from the earlier film live in a narrow world of Marseilles, our examination of Louis Trebor in The Intruder takes us from a remote location along the French-Swiss border to half way around the world, to Korea and Tahiti. Again the film begins in mid stream, with Louis, in his sixties, coping with an ailing heart while attempting to maintain a high level of fitness. We learn that Louis is no stranger to violence as his cabin is the location for smuggling and gunfire a regular occurrence. Louis sleeps with a large knife under his pillow with rifles nearby. Denis is in no hurry to move the action along, and we must patiently build our understanding of Louis from his daily activities and the few people he deals with along the frontier including a son, Sidney (Grégoire Colin, almost unrecognizable with long hair and a wisp of a mustache) who rejects him as a "lunatic":, shown as a dedicated father of two. There are many brief scenes which, while seemingly unrelated, build up an impression of Louis and his milieu. Ms Godard's camera work is exhilarating here. The controlling metaphor is Louis's heart transplant for which he goes to Korea and then to Tahiti to search for another son, not found, and where Louis's new heart rejects him just as Sidney rejected the old. We are accustomed to brief scenes in Denis's film which are inexplicable: Nénette astride Boni feeding with a spoon; a drive by shooting of Boni's father and then the briefest of images of Boni with a gunshot wound in the head; a scene of Louis in a morgue with a cadaver with the scar of a transplant but the body of Sidney. The implication, of the last two, is a rejection, real or imagined, by a father, kills something indefinable in a son.

... just look at the poor Robert Webber character (great performance, once again!) who tries to wrestle a sub machine gun from one of the terrorists. Everything in this movie seems to be a little wrong. The biggest mistake in my opinion is the effort to give the action a firm footing in the actuality of the early 1980ies (the fundamental difference between this flick and the far more fantastic, ironic and therefore timeless Die Hard). The story comes through as a failed attempt to glorify the SAS commandos. Ideas like when a commando shouts heads down" all good guys do it and all bad guys don't so that they can blast away ad lib (with a good conscience), that the main character does not get mown down by the gas masked commandos although he wears the same clothes and carries a weapon from their arsenal just seem to be unlikely and make it hard to take the movie seriously. And it just happens that it tries to be more than just fun. Don't talk about the toilet-mirror-signal episode ...
I don't mind the criticism of the Pacifist movement as a shield for evildoers and the arguments between the peace fanatics and the settled, even headed representatives of power in this movie. But the political comment is rather lame and uninspired. This is insofar regrettable as the movie features an early performance of Judy Davies. She plays the main fanatic and seems to have done extensive studies on the subject". Anyway, her performance is a notch above that of the others and somehow I feel the movie let her down.