Réplicas

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.

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.

(2012) In Their Skin PSYCHOLOGICAL THRILLER

Starring Joshua Close who was also credited for writing the story along with the director Jeremy Power Regimbal. He plays Mark along with his wife (Selma Blair) and son settling down into a remote home somewhere along the highway. And suddenly get imposed upon by another family unexpectedly named Bobby (James D'Arcy) and his wife and kid, and then the next thing you know this dysfunctional family started terrorizing them for no apparent reason. Low budget and has been done before from such movies as "The Strangers", "The Last House On The Left" to "Funny Games". Do we really need to see a much lower budget variation of those movies.

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/

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.