SERIOUSLY. This is what the crap Hollywood still puts out?

The thing I enjoyed most about the film is the fact that it doesn't shy away from being a super-sized-cliche;

Yes, absolutely, there is fun to be had, as well as many, many things to go boom, all amid an atmospheric urban jungle.

Story: It's very simple but honestly that is fine.

We guessed it was going to be bad, but we were enjoying a tipple and wanted something lightweight to watch. Firstly the acting was appalling - two trees would have been more convincing. Then there's the direction - sudden glimpses of scary imaginary things - all the clichéd shock stuff that became annoying many decades ago.Then we come to the script and the story-line. The whole set-up just would never have happened. We sat there laughing that - no, he wouldn't have done that and no, that bit makes no sense and why didn't she do such and such. Nonsensical from beginning to end. Suffice it to say that it went downhill as it continued. The reason I didn't give it one star is that we got some entertainment value from picking every scene to pieces. Trying to think if I can say something good about it - nope, I can't.

The acting is wooden, the film recycles every dull horror cliché in the book, and the story makes no sense from beginning to end. The dialogue is completely implausible, and the only reason to watch this dog of a film is to laugh at its ineptitude. I would have no hesitation in including this film in a top ten of the worst I have seen in the past decade.

To be honest, I only watched this flick due Sarah Butler who I was going to meet two days after seeing this flick. This is some kind of erotic thriller and not really a horror although the beginning do offer a bit of horror. But once Emily (Estella Warren) is rescued from her abductor she went off to an island with her husband Robert (William Baldwin) to take some rest but one night Sarah (Sarah Butler) appears covered in blood. Robert, being a psychiatrist decide to take her in at home. It's from that moment that the stranger is within the house but it's also a point were we do have a lot of blah blah and I can't say that the acting was convincing by Baldwin. The horror comes back in when Emily is starting to hear a baby and is seeing the death body of a close friend Sophie (Katia Winter). Slowly we do start to know that Emily had an affair with Sophie's boyfriend. Yes indeed, Basic Instinct (1992) isn't far away. There's nudity from Estella Warren and from Sarah Butler (gratuitous when showing her titties) to satisfy the Kleenex boys. Who's Sarah and why did she pops up and who's the kidnapper, that's the main question in this flick. But the magic from Basic Instinct isn't there. Therefor it moves to slowly and there isn't really any suspense. It's only the last 20 minutes that the horror (on a low base)comes back but by then it's a bit too late. Gore 0/5 Nudity 0,5/5 Effects 0/5 Story 2,5/5 Comedy 0/5

Stilted acting, an unconvincing storyline, a script that could have been written by a fourth-grader, hackneyed horror film tropes (zombie imagery, etc), and phony picture-perfect makeup/costume design are all topped-off with a distractingly pervasive soap operatic soundtrack. The cover blurb states that this film is "A dark and twisted psychological thriller!"; however, the "psychology" of it all is pretty rudimentary.On the other hand, the cinematography is well-done despite the very low budget. No matter how limited the scope, there is some nice Balearic Islands scenery, and Sarah Butler, as tormented house-guest "Sarah," strips briefly in order to spice things up. Finally, there is some attempt at a twist, even if it's not a terribly original one, at the end.THE STRANGER WITHIN is reminiscent of some of the corniest suspense films of the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Indeed, it echos the title of a 1974 TV movie which apparently has a similar conflict and must have inspired this one.