User Reviews

First off, I know this film has been compared to a lot of other similar movies but, since I haven't seen any of them, I will be judging this one on it's own merit. It's not very good. 'In Their Skin' presents us with a professional couple attempting to move past a recent family tragedy. Together with their 8 year old son and faithful golden retriever they retreat to a pretty spiffy, secluded home in the woods. What follows is a good 25 minutes of awkward PG-13 sex, minimal plot advancement and lots of moody scenes that all pretty much say 'I blame you for the pain I'm in'. Dry stuff. Finally (thankfully!) a trio of creepy neighbors appear and the thrilling really begins! Sort of. Here's the problem - If the invaders were just that, home invaders victimizing the people they randomly came across then fine, o.k., simple but plausible. But no. Instead, we are asked to believe the main villain played by James D'Arcy who, I'm just going to say it, is basically impersonating Bruce Dern throughout most of the movie, which is fine, but we already have a Bruce Dern, we are asked to believe he is actually attempting some complicated identity theft scheme that was worked out way in advance. And this is idiotic. Like most junior Mansonites these three all have problems with impulse control and clearly don't have the means or follow through to execute such a long term plan. I will admit the pacing does improve in the 3rd act and there are some tense moments but they are too few and too far in between. A lot of film school students might tell you otherwise, but there is nothing deep or introspective about a series of meandering scenes that lead to an arbitrary climax that could have occurred 40 minutes sooner. And just to save me the time of adding a note under the IMDb 'goofs' section I'll end with a simple question. How did they finally call 911? Check out 'Cabin In the Woods' More thrills, a few laughs, much better choice!!

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.

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.

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.

"In Their Skin" is another movie that came and went without anyone paying too much attention to it and while it's not likely to win any Oscars it's still a pretty good genre picture, in this case 'the family menaced in their home by malevolent neighbours'. The couple are Joshua Close, (he also wrote the script), and an excellent Selma Blair and, let's just say, they aren't wanting for a penny while the vicious couple who treat them very badly indeed are Rachel Miner and a very creepy James D'Arcy. If the film has a fault it's that D'Arcy and Miner are such obvious nut-jobs from the first time we see them any self-respecting couple who meets them should run in the opposite direction as fast as possible and anyone who's seen either version of Michael Haneke's "Funny Games", (both vastly superior to this), should know what to expect. Still, this delivers the requisite frissons and chills and should make you think twice before spending your vacation in a lonely house in the middle of nowhere.

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.

After the accidental death of their six-year-old daughter, the Hughes family escape their busy upscale suburban life and head to their isolated cottage for some quality time.

An evening with their friendly neighbours is suddenly interrupted when one mans obsession with perfection escalates into a violent struggle.

This forces the families to go beyond what they ever thought they were capable of in order to survive.......

First off, never get friendly with a man who drops off wood for no reason outside your door at an unearthly hour. He is going to be a nutter.

Secondly, you are going through the grieving process, why invite a family round for dinner?

This, and many other questions go unanswered in this mundane, wannabe house invasion thriller, which tries to hark back to Funny Games, and Desperate Hours, but just becomes desperate.

The characters are boring, wholly unlikable, and bitter, and by the second act, you couldn't care less who survives and who buys it.

The acting is mundane, Blair looks like she's been dug up, and the rest of the cast falter.

Stick with Haneke's Funny Games, either version is better than this.

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.

...despite a somewhat suspect plot that raises a few too many questions that aren't satisfactorily addressed, "In Their Skin" manages to transcend its flaws to deliver a reasonably creepy psycho-thriller. Primarily it's the third act where everything falls apart. Premise: a young yuppie family has retreated to a summer home to work through the grief of losing a daughter, only to be tormented by an invasive mirror family of head cases who want to usurp their identities. We get to know our protagonists in Act I, we meet the antagonists in Act II, and things play out in the closing Act III. All well and good; classic Syd Field stuff. The cast is mostly on the ball, the lensing and lighting well done, effective helming from its tyro director/co-writer; there's much to like in this film.

However, as mentioned, things fall apart as what started out as a slow- burning tension builder devolves into a disappointingly routine assault on our protagonists, replete with numerous stupid moves on the part of characters who've apparently never seen movies like this one before. The most egregious failures involve a lack of explanation/willing suspension of disbelief concerning the antagonist "family." They simply don't behave like real people; they're authorial constructs only. They have no real background, no internal consistency, and it doesn't take an audience long to figure out they have no likely future, either. One can only wonder how this trio's leader subverted his followers into his dementia.

Ultimately, "In Their Skin" fails to pack the punch of progenitors like "Funny Games" or "Last House on the Left." It's not a terrible watch, but it's far from essential, or even recommended. Check out one of the two I just mentioned instead.

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 is another home invasion film. Mark (Joshua Close), Mary (Selma Blair), and their son Brendon (Quinn Lord) get away to their summer home when their daughter is killed in a car accident. While at their retreat they meet Bobby (James D'Arcy), Jane (Rachel Miner), and their son Jared (Alex Ferris). They get together for dinner where Bobby asks all kinds of questions and exhibits a high creep factor. This aspect was done very well as you can sense the creepiness in scene and characters.

There is of course the later hostage situation and from the title and write up you know that these people want to take over the lives of the occupants. They did a lot to try to set this up, but I just didn't feel it like the creepiness. The problem with this film is that it lacked character. The characters were creepy, but were not colorful. Because the family was so bland, with Selma Blair looking gaunt, like a heroin addict, I didn't really care if they lived or died. In fact I was hoping they got knocked off early because they were boring. View at your own risk.

Parental Guide: F-bomb, sex, nudity (Selma Blair).

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.

This is NOT a Funny Games knock off as implied by another review. Funny Games was making more of a statement with the fact that people love horror movies and they don't care who it is, who they are, they just seem to want to see people get murdered.

This movie was completely different. There was no statement about society being made here. The story is of a couple and their son, who go away to their cottage home for a getaway following the death of their daughter, which is still a fresh "wound"...

Then the main family gets a knock early in the morning from very peculiar and nosy imposters who are way too interested and eager to learn all about the family. The family figures this out and ask them to leave. This is where the movie turns violent.

Rachel Miner is fantastic in this movie role. There is a scene where Selma Blair is crying hysterically on the floor and Rachel is mimicking her every move. It is extremely frightening. I watch horror and gore movies all the time, but this movie left me unsettled, frightened, checking every lock and covering the windows. I have ONLY 2 criticisms for this movie. The first is that Rachel Miner's character talks about her life before her husband so briefly, I felt there should have been more to that, in order to care about a character, we must know about a character and in this case we knew too little.

The second criticism is that the main character/homeowner/father had the gun pointed on the imposter guy a few times. He always held the gun on him, he should have shot him. Don't you hate it when people in movies don't shoot? I know I do.

My score is 9. Not perfect. But almost.

Like them or not, I have to support movies like this. Nowadays, 95% of all horror movies involve ghosts, possession, exorcisms, haunted homes, found ghost footage, etc. Not all home invasion thrillers are great, but at least they fall in the crispy 5% of horror I enjoy.

In this movie's defense, it came out in 2012. Before, during and especially since that time, there have been many home invasion thrillers. I'm okay with that as long as they're made right. Most, if not all, feature a minimal budget and shooting in all-but one location and not rely on cheap "ghost" scares, it's a positive for the producers.

Since I disavow ghosts, spirits, haunted hotel rooms, etc, the real scary movies are the ones that could really happen. Such as home invasions. This one isn't so much a twist on the H.I. subgenre, but it does contain some incredible cinematography, acting, dialogue and frights.

Yet another shattered family mourning the loss of a child excludes themselves in a cabin in the woods. All-but immediately, the creepy neighbors with no sense of timing, introduce themselves and invite their way into our hero family's home for some quality dinner time. It doesn't take a genius to figure out this isn't gonna end well.

While the movie's not perfect and the last third is whack, the build-up and fright-factor is on high-alert. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed other home invasion films more, but the good here severely outweighed the bad and is a total recommendation for fans of the subgenre.

***

Final thoughts: It's August. We're not even half-way through (tomorrow'ish) and I cannot stop thinking of my favorite month of the year: October. I just adore everything about that month leading up to my favorite holiday and an entire 31 days of horror movies. Since I'm so restless for my favorite month to arrive and my craving to see new-to-me horror movies was seriously strong, I turned to a fantastic guide to horror movies: The Fright File, by Dustin Putman, a friend of mine.

This great movie review book has all the classic horror movies, like Halloween and the Scream series, but it also contains more evaluations from Dustin on lessor known gems, such as this one. I probably would never have heard of this thriller if not for The Fright File book.

If this sounds like a commercial and endorsement for 'The Fright File: 150 Films to See Before Halloween,' you are smart. Now go to http://www.thefrightfile.com/book/ and get your copy today. Especially now so you'll have time before October really hits and you should be able to find/purchase most of these movies.