In Their Skin

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.

I hadn't heard of this movie until I was scrolling through an online site, so I thought I'd kill a bit of lockdown time and watch it. Starts with a scene on a bridge, a guy in his underwear struggling to get away from someone. He falls and is killed by an unknown assailant. Cut to the Hughes family travelling to their vacation cottage, clearly struggling after the death of their young daughter. Quick stop at a gas station and the attendant tells them they're early, the usual families aren't due for a couple of weeks but one or two have arrived.

Early next morning Mark Hughes hears a noise and goes outside to find a family outside his house, they explain they are leaving him some firewood. Mark is initially rude to them, but softens and caves in to their suggestion they call back later for a meal.

What then ensues is pretty predictable, the pushy Father, the timid - mentally challenged even - wife and the creepy son, try to find out about the loves of the Hughes. As the evening progresses tempers become frayed and the Hughes ask their guests to leave. Following that we're talking a straight home invasion movie. There is quite a bit of brutality, a pretty gross forced sex scene (because everyone is watching) and a couple of revelations.

It's very predictable, and you kind of wonder why the Hughes would even invite these awful people into their home. The Hughes' son is a drippy, teddy bear clutching nine year old who clearly has issues, whilst rhe son of the other family is quite possibly the oddest, creepiest bad actor ever.

I enjoyed it, probably wouldn't hurry to watch it again but it's a good movie. Selma Blair and James D'Arcy outact everyone else on the screen.

The only difference between this movie and Funny Games is in this movie it is a psycho family, some nudity and sex scenes and a few more gunshots. Other than that I couldn't believe this movie script didn't get thrown out as a complete knock off of Funny Games.

Now if you have not seen Funny Games, then I suggest you pick your villain. If you want to see two psycho young men torture a normal wealthy family, go see Funny Games. If you want to see a psycho lower class family torture a normal wealthy family, see this movie.

Both movies have great casts and great acting but I would have to give this film a slight edge in that category. However, when it comes to the disturbingly psychopathic factor in the villains, I give that edge to Funny Games.

All in all, don't waste your time like I did with this movie if you have seen Funny Games. Definitely a good experience I imagine for those who haven't.

It definitely stands out in home invasion subgenre. Creepy atmosphere from beginning to the end, unsettling for the viewer.

Lead actors played their characters very well and were convincing in their portrayal of a grieving family. I like the grayish tone present in the entire movie, it is almost black and white. The only thing that I don't find very convincing is how our main characters weren't more careful from the beginning. I mean, those intruders who presented themselves as a family were very awkward from the beginning, I wouldn't let them in in the first place... Overall, very nice movie that is sadly underrated and not very known, but it is definitely worth a watch. Don't expect a lot of blood, the atmosphere is really scary itself and also the constant suspense, you won't be able to take your eyes of the screen.

In Their Skin (formerly "Replicas") is Regimbal's directorial debut, but armed with a strong cast and a solid screenplay, he creates a web of worthwhile scenes that will stick with the viewer. Perhaps misguidedly toying with the horror genre early in the film, he chooses the focus on the drama, the characters and story and let you decide if you are endeared, amused, scared, uneasy, entertained or otherwise.

Regimbal stays with this beautiful ambiguity for most of the feature and gets fine-tuned performances from his story and character-driven cast that allows for the "replicas" to reveal themselves slowly, but surely. The suspense is high and the dark humour as well. A beautiful piece with a slow burn pace. We left the Montreal FantAsia screening and director Q&A with more questions than answers, but with deep satisfaction of exploring a compelling concept with complexity, dexterity and depth.