In Her Skin

This a powerful movie with a long lasting impression. I think Simone did a fantastic job with this story. She kept to the actual events of what happened to Rachel, her family, friends as well as Caroline without glorifying it, sugar coating it and hollywoodising it. It is real and it is raw. This is what happened and this is how the people involved experienced it. The acting is fantastic, the way the scenes flow and the cinematography is excellent. Along with the true story there are messages to take from it, one being involved and recognizing mental illness, as we know is a massive and growing problem in the community.

Based on a true story of a 15 year old Rachel Barber's abduction in Australia, In Her Skin is disturbing to say the least. The movie chronicles the real events that happened before, after, and during this tragic abduction and the many different lives it touched.

Rachel Barber goes missing and everyone that knew her knew something was amiss but the Barber family was forced to wait 48 hours before the police would get involved. As her parents frantically look for her and blanket the neighborhood with pictures, we get to see glimpses of her past and the pasts of many people involved in this case .It soon unfolds and the truth is revealed in this psychological thriller that keeps you on the edge of your seat.

Guy Pearce and Miranda Otto translate incredible emotion and anger as Rachel's parents but for me the standout here was Ruth Bradley as Caroline Reid. Sam Neill also played an overwhelmed, distant parent of Caroline very well as this movie moves swiftly and smoothly through the horrifying truth of this well directed and acted film.

I watched this film on demand and was impressed with the overall production. In Her Skin reminded me a lot of The Lovely Bones, which I also enjoyed, that starred Mark Wahlberg. This movie is definitely worth a watch in my opinion

The title it played in Germany at the Fantasy Filmfest. A very strange little movie, that is very dark and will very likely appall a lot of people (if they don't know what they're in for especially), because of it's theme, but also because of it's graphic nature (at times, not that often, but still quite disturbing).

The actors involved in here are all good, Guy Pearce giving a better performance (there must be a better script at hand I reckon) than in "Don't be afraid of the Dark". One of our lead actresses has to go to really tough places and she manages to do so very convincingly. Not for everyone and I'm not sure "enjoy" would be the right word to use after watching it, but this is a really good work of art!

I have always been a fan of Guy Pearce (who will always be remembered as Mike from Neighbours in the UK)who is an actor that always seems to appear in decent films. On that basis I decided to watch this small Australian film.

The film covers a real life case of a 15 year old girl who inexplicably goes missing from home. We see the reaction of her parents the excellent Pearce and Miranda Otto as they struggle to get the police to take the disappearance seriously. The film then concentrates on of the suspects a former babysitter played with chilling menace by Ruth Bradley and her father played by the dependable Sam Neill. The final part and weakest part of the film follows the missing girl.

The subject matter doesn't really make for happy viewing and for that i cannot bring myself to give it a higher mark, yet it is an excellently made film and one of the best of it's type I have seen. It certainly deserves a wider audience.

Be warned that one of the scenes in particular is extremely disturbing and may upset a lot of viewers.

Anyone whose child has gone missing, even momentarily, will connect with the earliest moments of this version of true events, but, perhaps only those for whom the loss remains unresolved for any serious length of time will know how close to their reality this film touches. It is almost relentlessly tough to watch because there is no place for pressure to be relieved, however briefly, by a joke, a glimmer of hope, a slither of a flaw to make us remember we are watching a dramatised version of events. I even find it tough to judge the quality of the acting because too often this film seems so vividly, so uncomfortably, and so chillingly real. I am, if truth be told, just in awe of all the performances I have witnessed and I still have to pinch myself to remember it was "just a film". Is that a compliment?

I felt tears on my cheeks three times during this film, not because I was sad, but because my being had to have an outlet and I couldn't laugh or smile. The emptiness, pointlessness, coldness, loneliness of a missing loved one is so bitingly portrayed and yet saying "okay that's enough, I have got your point" is as futile as the parents of Rachel Barber shouting "Rachel come home" on every street corner they could.

I remember Hitchcock being heavily criticised by some in the industry for a seven minute killing sequence in "Torn Curtain" when that was easier to justify because it was a work of fiction and a thriller rather than "a week or so in the real life of a family". And so I had mixed feelings about "I Am You" when I reflected on some of the things I had seen, including the closing statements popular with "factual" drama.

I am left with these mixed feelings ranging from the reality of the acting to the old adage that imagination is always more powerful than a picture, from the top to the bottom of the things I should feel. And ultimately I cannot give this film a points score because it doesn't feel like it entered the cinematic league stakes. It is a film and if you see it you will feel what it does to you rather than want to talk about to friends. And that IS tough.