In Their Skin

A lot of the press for this seems to be categorizing it as a "home invasion" thriller, and while it certainly fits the profile, I kind of like that I came into it (without having dug my way into the "R" section of the program yet) thinking it was going to be something a little more fantastical. That's fine; it had me looking at the characters for signs of weird behavior which was awarded in spades. No matter what's actually going on, this is a tense little movie that establishes its atmosphere early - and finds ways to balance gloom and something intrusive while doing so. Director Jeremy Regimbal does a pretty nifty job of playing the two families in the movie as mirror images of each other, showing them tightly wound and then letting loose in the final act without ever letting the tension go slack. Good stuff.

Take one part of (ANY) home invasion flick. Throw in a bit Tony Perkins, a-la 'Psycho'. Get Ms. Blair, for the 'young' (a-hem!) horror-flick ...je ne c'est quoI ('I don't know)- quality. Get someone who went to 'Acme Film School (found on a book of matches), and throw it in the 'film-o-matic'®, and you'll have a film, which is 'perfect'. 'Perfect' for what? Perfect to convince people this (it had to be straight to video) cheese-ball is 'something they heard others' thought was good'. Then, they'll watch it, and they'll swear it was one of a fist-full of different films. But, it wasn't - any of them, though it has a bit from each, and by this point the maker's of this have your money. If - I-F this film had been real life, it's hard to get over the fact that, yes; people in a situation like this would be scared, but, at the same time, every opportunity they had to either escape, or turn the tables on the 'baddies'. they literally just sat their. Like the proverbial 'sitting ducks'. THe one interesting actor (James D'Arcy), is so busy chewing the scenery, I don't know if he thought it'd be better playing it over the top, or the director WANTED iit. Everything in this makes one scratch their head, and say; "I SWEAR I saw', or, 'I SWEAR I know that actor...' Yes - even the people in this 'seem to be', such as Joshua Close, who bears quite a resemblance to Ryan Gosling. All-in-all, the actual films this 'Frankenstinian monster'-films, that this one steals from, are better - by far.

Mark and Mary and son Brendon retreat to the family's remote holiday house in order to recover from a tragedy, only to find that the new neighbours have it in mind to find out as much as possible about them, kill them, and steal their identities. This film has a good cast (albeit the two male leads are each playing the part the other should have played), good performances, and an intriguing (if underwritten) character in the baddie's "wife". On the other hand, it has a very slow start, a plot we've seen a hundred times, victims who annoyingly fail to take advantage when they have the upper hand, a climax which is over and done with in no time flat, and a desaturated colour palette. Is the good sufficient to outweigh the negative? That's your decision. For me, it was borderline.

"In Their Skin" follows a fairly common premise among post-millennial horror films: a family vacationing in a remote summer home find themselves trapped and preyed upon by a group of killers. Here, the family is an unsuspecting wealthy couple who has just lost one of their two children; playing counterpart is another family who yearns to live as them. While the central premise of the film is certainly straightforward and unoriginal (comparisons to "Funny Games" and "The Strangers" are inevitable), the spin here with the antagonists attempting to simulate lives of opulence and wealth is certainly different; the problem is that this central difference does not necessarily elevate the film's other shortcomings. Things start out fairly standard, and suspense is built tenaciously over the first forty-five minutes to an hour quite impressively. The problem? It disappears once the antagonists take full hold. This could partly be a scripting issue that leaves the film feeling uneven, but it's also an issue of performances— as good as James D'Arcy is, I had trouble believing him in this role, especially as the film progressed; Joshua Close's performance was slightly more believable, but even still, both of the male leads seemed miscast. Selma Blair and Rachel Miner however both work really well in the film; Miner is especially phenomenal here. The film ends with the suggestion of a family restored, but the details of the horrendous events that precede it seem undercooked by the end. Overall, "In Their Skin" is an unusual mashup of home invasion thriller conventions with vague social commentary and a problematic chemistry among the cast. The first half of the film is remarkable in building a sense of realistic suspense, but the film dovetails into mediocrity once the villains take charge. While not a bad film by any means, it still leaves a great deal to be desired in terms of scripting and casting. Worth a watch for the moody cinematography and applause-worthy buildup of tension no less. 5/10.

I typically don't read don't read reviews of a film, or even know what the synopsis is, until I seek the flick itself. I'm a horror nut so if the film is horror that's good enough for me. Like anyone else, I like to be surprised. A lot of times the studios or promoters miss their own mark and market the film as what it's not. For instance, I stayed away from "Enemy At The Gates" because it seemed to be just a sappy love story with war in the background. It wasn't. I've been looking for extreme horror lately and I kept on seeing this title pop up so I decoded to check it out. Just the title alone, "In Their Skin" sounds like it'd be a companion film to "Martyrs," So I rubbed my hands in anticipation, turned down the lights, and put this on. Boy, was I disappointed. Firstly, it was shot on digital media. The look and sheen of the movie was so smooth that everything looked plastic. The mother was an awful actress with horrible makeup. I'm not saying that everyone else was Academy award but she was a low point. The plot is a complete ripoff of "Funny Games" so it gets zero points for that. And, even though the movie looked cheap, I kept on thinking, "I guess they poured all their budget into the upcoming special fx which would be the intruders making "Martyrs" of the family.." Boy, was I wrong. No one had their skin removed. I was robbed! Nothing of the sort happened. The reason I gave this 2 stars, despite the massive holes & horrible script, is because I felt sorry for all those involved in it's creation, from the actors to the director to whoever made the film look as pale and lifeless as a corpse. "In Their Skin" is recommended viewing if only to show film students how to not make a movie. The 2 stars is also for the fact that they did make a movie. When was the last time I made one?

This skin crawling little creeper leaves a lasting impression. It utilises the same "parents grieving for a dead child and on a retreat to heal" motif as DON'T LOOK NOW, DEAD CALM and ANTICHRIST. But this is little more than an angle on which to hang the disturbing and hyper-tense drama. Successful career couple Mary and Mark, along with their eight year old son Brendon, decamp to their luxurious family cottage in the wooded middle of nowhere following the death of their daughter. From the off, with Mary being watched by someone in the woods, the atmosphere is one of unnerving discord. Things quickly escalate when "neighbours" Bobby, Jane and their son, Jared, invite themselves to dinner. Seems the neighbours are not so friendly; in fact, they are itinerant wanderers who kill others and take on their identities and possessions until it's time to move on to the next unfortunate family. Each performance is pitch perfect and the sense of creeping unease and foreboding is almost palpable. Bobby (James D'Arcy) is a criminally insane sociopath capable of extreme violence and brutality. He wants to play with his victims before taking them out. Psychologically, sexually and physically. His adopted wife and son are thoroughly indoctrinated and submissive acolytes, utterly entrenched in his psychotic ideals of achieving a perfect life. The tension is skilfully ratcheted up in a slow burn by first time director Regimbal, from the increasingly uncomfortable dinner sequence to a suspense-filled climax. This is one of those films that will have you on the edge of your seat, willing the victims to do something, anything, to fight back against the increasingly dire circumstances that threaten to overwhelm them. Performances are effective and emotionally convincing all round. Audience sympathies are never divided, for the antagonists are irredeemably cruel, inadequate psychopaths in pursuit of a twisted dream and the protagonists anguished and grieving innocents struggling to come to terms with tragedy. It's a powerful and provocative piece of work that stands head and shoulders above most of the phony schlock horror out there, and for this reason alone deserves attention.

Home-invasion thriller is nothing new. We have seen them before in movies like STRAW DOGS (1971), right down to FUNNY GAMES (2007) and THE STRANGERS (2008). As formulaic or shopworn that particular subgenre is, home-invasion thriller can still be a gripping cinematic experience if done with the right level of skill and intelligence. Fortunately, first-time feature director Jeremy Power Regimbal's IN THEIR SKIN (formerly known as REPLICAS -- which sounds too sci-fi for me) manages to give this an otherwise same-old genre thriller with a disturbingly edgy undertone and particularly heighten the movie with compelling performances by its leads. The setup is familiar: upscale couple Mark and Mary Hughes (Joshua Close, Selma Blair) are trying to overcome their grief after the recent death of their young daughter in a car accident. They decide to travel to their family's country home with 8-year-old son Brendon (Quinn Lord) in hope to spend some quality time together. After a strange encounter with a mysterious truck that pulls up to their property's gate before driving away, the couple are woken the following morning by neighbors Bobby (James D'Arcy), Jane (Rachel Miner), and their 9-year-old son Jared (Alex Ferris). Apparently they brought over firewood as a kindly gesture to welcome them as new neighbors. Although Mark is feeling weird with their off-putting behaviors, he ends up reluctantly agrees to invite them over for dinner that night. So far, so good until Bobby becomes so persistent on asking deeply personal questions, which made both Mark and Mary uncomfortable. The supposedly pleasant dinner turns even more disastrous when their son Jared puts a knife to Brendon's throat when they argue over a video game. Mark feels something is not right, and force them to leave, even though the neighbors have been repeatedly apologize. Then that same night, it doesn't take long before Mark and Mary find themselves under siege, with their dog apparently shot somewhere in the dark woods. This time, the same neighbors forcing their way back into the house. A violent cat and mouse ensue, and the neighbors begin to reveal their true motivations. Soon the Hughes learn that their neighbors are one bizarre, yet psychotic family intends to get rid of them and assume their identities. Director Regimbal does a good job building up the slow-burning tension piece by piece, while the sudden shock of unflinching violence is cleverly done in a restrained manner without relying heavily on elaborate gory set-piece to make its point. Co-star Joshua Close, who also writes the screenplay, gives an equally thought-provoking storyline that builds on the characters' psychological depths as well as playing the cards right on its genre convention. Meanwhile, Keith Power's bone-chilling score and Norm Li's darkly atmospheric cinematography are equally well done to provide the necessary claustrophobic feel required for this kind of genre thriller. Above all, it was the cast that gives this movie an extra edge. Both Joshua Close and Selma Blair give emotionally compelling performances here, while James D'Arcy makes a truly creepy psychopath here. His particular scene, which is nevertheless the movie's centerpiece, involves him forcing the couple to have sex in front of him, before proceeding for a near-rape sequence between him and Mary. Rachel Miner, in the meantime, is equally creepy as a meek invader who has a disturbing mind on her own. While there are times this home-invasion thriller does relies too much on its genre convention to get everything goes around, IN THEIR SKIN remains a solid little thriller nonetheless. Again, kudos goes to Jeremy Power Regimbal, who made a good impression with his directing debut. He is certainly a bright filmmaker to look for in the future.

I'd say that pretty much everything about this film was done badly. Most of the time I was confused about what was going on and why these things were happening. Nothing was explained in much detail, and alongside that, the plot was weak, and it was easy to guess what was coming. Not so much a horror, more a thriller. Even that would be pushing it. The story line had a lot of potential, the intruding family had potential, but did not come across as intimidating or scary in any way. If anything the child was more scary. Unfortunately, this film was overall a flop.

Mark Hughes (Josh Close) travels to his isolated cottage with his wife Mary (Selma Blair) and their son Brendon (Quinn Lord) to recover from the loss of their little daughter. In the morning, Mark wakes-up with a family dropping wood on their porch. Bobby (James D'Arcy), Jane (Rachel Miner) and their son Jared (Alex Ferris) tell that they are neighbors that brought the wood to welcome them and Bobby asks if the HMark wouldn't like to have dinner with them. During the dinner, Mark has an argument with Bob and expels him and his family from his house. Soon they find that their house is under siege of Bob and his family that invade the house. When Mark's brother Toby (Matt Bellefleur) arrives in the house to visit his brother and his family, Mark and Mary learn how insane the psychopath Bob is. Michael Haneke's 1997 "Funny Game" is one of the most disturbing movies that I have ever seen. Living in a big city where we see violence on the news everyday, that sadistic movie really scared a lot since the plot is realistic and totally believable. In 2007, there was a stupid and unnecessary remake also by Michael Haneke spoken in English. "In Their Skin" is rip-off of "Funny Game" with good performances but with flaws in the story. First, I do not understand how vulnerable the American residences are, with glass windows and no protection in a situation of burglary like the Hughes cottage is. But the worst is why a man in possession of a revolver inside his house would leave his wife and son alone in the house expecting to escape from an armed psychopath. But the situation is not totally impossible to happen. My vote is six. Title (Brazil): "Em Sua Pele" ("In Your Skin") Note: On 03 Sep 2022, I saw this film again.

Quite a typical movie; nothing unique about it. It's been done before - there are several movies with the same premise out there that are more griping, more elaborate, more realistic, and much better paced. It was not bad at all, but nothing spectacular, either. I found it difficult to believe that a suburban family of limited means and probably below-average IQ were able to come up with such an elaborate identity-theft plan. The bad guy just didn't have what it takes to pass for a twisted genius. The wives and the kids were great, but I thought the husbands were miscast. Frankly, I think they should have swapped places. The bad guy would have been more convincing as the protagonist and vice versa. The antagonist's wife was an interesting character thought, and I feel it should have been explored to a greater extent; they could have done a lot more with it. Selma Blair was a delight to watch, even though her character was dull and a bit one-dimensional (it was written that way; not the actress's fault). Kind of reminded me of "Dead Calm" with Nicole Kidman (also a very average movie with a similar plot) - she was playing the same exact character. Like I said, a rather forgettable movie that lacks depth and substance, but it's not unwatchable, so, if you have nothing better to do, go ahead and see it.