In Their Skin

Funny Games. Cherry Tree Lane. Them. The Strangers. All part of this trend of 'home invasion' films where the 'nice' family is held hostage my nasty intruders in the comfort of their own home.

If you've seen any of those then you've basically seen 'In Their Shoes.' Here we have the 'nice' family who we are supposed to be able to relate to, being tortured in their holiday home by the 'nasty' family.

Even if you know nothing about this film, you'll guess what's coming. For most of us our 'Spidey senses' would be tingling when a family of over-friendly simpletons come delivering wood in the small hours of the night. However, the nice family are too nice for their own good and invite them in for tea. Big mistake.

The first half of the film is basically 'character building.' We - the audience - can see the other family are basically nut-jobs and know what's coming. You can pretty much skip the first 50 minutes before the violence starts. Then, when it comes, it's all what you'll expect from a home invasion film.

If you've never seen one of these types of movies before, then you might find it pretty intimidating and scary. However, I've seen all the movies I've mentioned, therefore I've basically seen this one. The whole 'home invasion' genre is currently a bit stagnant. No film-maker seems to be able to introduce anything new to it, therefore this is just more of the same.

http://thewrongtreemoviereviews.blogspot.co.uk/

OK! From the off I have to say I'm hardly the right person to take as gospel as regards a review for yet another home invasion movie. I have grown increasingly jaded with this sub-genre of horror, it seems that every year a handful of these type of movies get trundled out and suckers like me keep watching in the hope of finding a gem amongst the rough rocks.

In Their Skin isn't a gem, in fact it's not exactly a must see frightener, but it at least tries to add something to an already stagnated sub-genre of film. Namely an identity theft angle that veers away from the usual "oh they are just psychos or hoodies" line of thinking.

There is a raft of reviewers out there in internet land drawing comparisons to this being a Funny Games knock off. Now regardless of how I personally feel about Hanneke's work, is that what people are doing now? Fans of his film(s) expecting a Selma Blair, Joshua Close, Rachel Miner and James D'Arcy starring movie to take home invasion horror to a new level? When it's directed by an unknown? Really?

For an hour writer and directer Jeremy Power Regimbal favours the slow burn approach, and it works because the cast are very committed, and in the case of adult villains D'Arcy and Miner there's some bona fide creepiness about their respective mannerisms. It's only when things shift away from rumbling unease into psycho/sexual territory that the fledgling director loses control and sinks to formula conventions to get his shock and awe.

Not a must see, but in the context of boorish fodder like The Strangers, or higher budgeted fluff like The Purge, then this is well worth a look by those not expecting a whole new dimension of home invasion horror. It does have merits that doesn't waste your time, and beside which, James D'Arcy in this looks uncannily like Norman Bates, so that has to warrant a look! 6/10

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.

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.

"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.