I agree with another comment that the film offers a quite different image of an immigrant shown usually in films. But I want to make a step further, it is a racist image. Obama (whatever his name is) represents a threat to others. Sometimes we find it justified (when he revenges killing the "bad" guys) sometimes unacceptable ( the case with Agnes), but is a threat. Lot of times his look is threatening, without a specific reason and this is the whole idea I think. When you look at him wandering around without prospects what do you think? that he must be expelled, he must be sent back to his country. Unfortunately this is the point of view of the majority in real life...

I saw this film as part of the Rotterdam Film Festival 2012, in a venue that was fully booked (375 seats). I would not be surprised when this resulted from the high praises in the festival brochure. Who can resist words like "intense, consistent crossover between social drama, revenge film and Lynch-like trip" and not being tempted to go and see what it is all about.The opening scene on the nudist beach was described in the same brochure as "hypnotic". We were warned beforehand about frontal nudity (I can deal with that), but that was not all. The very beginning of the scene provided for even a deeper insight (literally!). I still fail to see the relevance, even in hindsight, albeit some reviewers explain that our own life started from a woman's womb, and that on its turn connects with the fact that all life originated from the sea, the same sea where the African immigrants are stranded and where we see them suddenly appear in this beach scene. I don't see it. Anyway, I found the explicit nudity a bit of a stretch, over-the-top and unnecessary. But I seem to be alone in this.Our main character Amadou demonstrates several examples of daring maneuvers to get into people's company. It leads to uncomfortable moments (for us viewers), but for some reason or other he never fails. In other words, he has his way with people (men and women) and uses that "instrument" effectively. He is full of initiative, and very different from the usual immigrant who we often see portrayed as lost in the big city.The story gets us into unthinkable dwelling places in Brussels, where "a place to live" certainly can be considered a misnomer. One is reasonably safe there as long as one pays. But we can only guess what happened with his wounded mate Sakia, who was not able to work and pay for himself. When Amadou makes trouble about Sakia's disappearance, he is thrown out and at the same time looses his job and income. In view of the latter I cannot understand how he can say that he is 4 months in Brussels when phoning home. It remains very unclear how he can have survived that long without income or shelter.I observed a few other inconsistencies in the story. I don't consider this a reason to discourage seeing this film, given a lot of very good moments to compensate. It is not a thriller nor a whodunit, and the dramatic development is the only thing that counts here.Further, I want to question a trifle detail in the scene where we enter Brussels and we see the environment mirrored. This may have some higher purpose, but it went past me (maybe just a gimmick, to get reviewers started).The ending of the film leaves us wondering how much of the final scene was real and how much fantasy. Scary when real, though devoid of blood or other visible proof of a fatality. (This may be vague, but I want to prevent spoilers.) It can be intended as home work for us viewers, in that we try to read between the lines and construct our own interpretation out of what we saw. I guess that this not a loose end, but deliberately left open by the film makers.All in all, there are two things worth remembering. The first one is the compelling sound track that appears from time to time, to support the scene at hand. The second thing to remember is the strong presence of our main character Amadou. It is not clear to me how he does it. He always succeeds in drawing attention to himself, even in peaceful situations. Yet the feeling is even stronger in hostile situations, where you see immediately that he is "there" in the center of our attention. What is his secret??

I agree, "The Invader", had such a sophisticated beginning, I just would like to add that the first shot actually is not a mere provocation, but it is actually a pictorial quotation, which is echoing French realist painter Gustave Courbet's "L'Origine du monde", the origin of the world, in detail (I leave the implication open for interpretation). The starting scene showing the African refugees, struggling for their lives when they are being washed ashore on the relaxed European nudist beach, while they are exposed to the strangely intense and almost devouring observation of one female nudist, is so ambiguous and meaningful, anticipating what is going to happen later in the movie: some people struggle for a decent existence, while they are being exploited by those who have it all.What was really striking and interesting was how the angle of the movie seemed to change several times, eventually choosing to show a somewhat peculiar but also refreshingly new aspect of the refugee subject matter, which in a way makes it hard to label the movie - an interesting aspect in itself. The last scene was almost as tricky as the first one and leaves the movie open to several interesting interpretations. Warmly recommended!

If the opening shot of a director's first feature film can be considered a statement, Nicolas Provost has made his point. I won't spoil the fun by telling what the shot consists of, but this is what Provost tells the audience: here I am, I'm not afraid of controversy, and I don't care what others think. Not only the opening shot, but the complete opening scene shows what kind of a film maker Provost is. It's a beautiful scene, in more than one sense, that tells a whole world without words. There's no dialog in the scene, but the meaning is all the more powerful. This may sound as if The Invader is a difficult and hard to understand film. It is not. It is crystal clear and very straightforward. Basically, it's a big city thriller about an illegal immigrant. The way Provost handles the theme of illegal immigration, is very interesting. Most recent European films about this theme show the immigrants as poor, helpless, desperate people who should be pitied. Le Silence de Lorna, Illégal, Lichter and In This World are cases in point. The Invader is completely different. African immigrant Amadou is a proud man, who doesn't let himself be humiliated by anyone. He hopes to make it in Brussels by using his guts and his charm with women. If necessary, he lies, steals and even kills. Amadou can be very charming one moment, but very threatening the next. The story is set in Brussels, which is shown in beautiful photography, with its sleazy as well as its glamorous sides. While telling Amadou's story, Provost doesn't shy away from violent and erotic scenes that some may find controversial. Sex, race and gender are prominent themes. This is a daring and noteworthy debut film. I'm already looking forward to Provost's next movie.