The Hughes' cottage vacation is violently interrupted by a family on a murderous and identity-stealing journey, in search of the "perfect" life.The Hughes' cottage vacation is violently interrupted by a family on a murderous and identity-stealing journey, in search of the "perfect" life.The Hughes' cottage vacation is violently interrupted by a family on a murderous and identity-stealing journey, in search of the "perfect" life.
- Director
- Writers
- Stars
- Awards
- 2 nominations total
- Director
- Writers
- All cast & crew
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
Featured reviews
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Did you know
- TriviaSelma Blair was pregnant during filming.
- Crazy creditsIn the part of the end credits sequence before the comprehensive lists of cast and crew begins to scroll, the lines of text of the credits are ever so slightly tilted counter clockwise.
- ConnectionsFeatures Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter 2 (2007)
- How long is In Their Skin?Powered by Alexa
Details
- Release date
- Country of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Replicas
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $4,000,000 (estimated)
- Gross worldwide
- $106,919
- Runtime
- 1h 37m(97 min)
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 2.35 : 1
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content