Don't Let Him In

I don't take any pleasure in sticking the boot in on a film so woeful, but I have to write this purely for selfish reasons. See, what keeps happening is this: I see a film called Don't let Him In listed, and it captures my attention. So, my interest piqued – I enjoy even below average horror films, mostly – I look at the synopsis. And I think, "Sounds good." So I set it to record, and look forward to watching it. Then, when the mood takes and I have the two hours set aside, I sit down to watch it. Get a few snacks ready. A drink. Lights down. And then I play the movie.

The first few seconds are fine. But then: a vague gnawing in my stomach. Not the good kind of edginess a decent horror might give you; rather, an uneasy feeling that I'm an idiot who doesn't learn from previous mistakes. But I'm unsure, and keep watching, hoping vainly that maybe I'm wrong. But the opening sequence ends, and I see that shot of houses. And it sinks in. The dread and discomfiture spread through me. Then, the next shot of the house. I'm still not absolutely convinced, but in my heart, I know. Then the killer blow: the shot – THAT shot – in the kitchen. The skewiff, seemingly rushed framing. The ropey sound recording. The stiff acting from miscast people who seem unsure about what they're doing. I can't ignore the truth anymore: I've been here before – several times. Because, like my own private horror movie, this keeps happening to me.

I keep recording Don't Let Him In, having forgotten that I've seen it, and that it was – truly – one of the worst things I've ever sat through. And I seem to block it from my mind (that perfectly generic title is so easy to separate from the film it belongs to) and forget that it ever happened, and record it again, and sit down to watch again, and I am swamped with anger and disappointment. I stop the film as the girl is doing her best to act like someone coughing in bed, and delete it, promising to never let this happen again. A few months later, I see a film listed called Don't Let Him In, and think, "Hmm, that might be interesting..." So: enough. This ends, now, here. As said above, I take no satisfaction in trashing these folks' movie, which I'm sure they worked hard on. Plenty of others here have gone into the details of what makes it so awful (as well as some shameless shills giving it 9 and 10...seriously: at least try and be cleverer about lying on behalf of your friends/employers), so I won't do that.

All I want to do is say to myself: Please. Remember. You have seen the British horror film called Don't let Him In. You gave it 1/10 on IMDb. Learn. Stop forgetting that you've been here before. See the warnings earlier. Recognise the title. Do not set to record.

Make this the last time. Burn the title into your mind: DON'T LET HIM IN. You can't keep doing this to yourself.

Here's hoping.

I was given the great opportunity to attend this screening last night of 'Don't Let Him In' at the BAFTA Theatre in London & will say I was truly privileged to have been there & thankful indeed to Kelly & Mike for the invite. I truly mean that.

But on the basis of the film: I have to say I was very disappointed with the final results after 80 minutes

Firstly I found the sound to be very boomy (cheap sounding) in parts & the mix could have been a lot better, considering the time spent on the film & in my opinion the premise itself although promising on the tag-line lacked somewhat in terms of story & characterisations.

I really did not connect with ANY of the characters on screen or cared if they were hacked to bits. I feel no matter what genre it is, there has to be some audience connection with the characters, even with low budget classics such as Halloween or Friday 13th etc, all had pretty much wooden characters there true, but there was something elusive or tangible about them or the atmosphere present in the film itself which this film sadly lacked in abundance...sorry!

I am truly sorry to write this, but I believe in giving my own 'personal opinion' & is nothing more &..of course I will have many others who may or may not agree with me..C'est La vie.

I will positively say that the editing was pretty much spot on & some of the visual effects were quite good for this genre but I just did not feel any 'real' atmosphere or feel on the edge of my seat. A couple of jumps here & there but they're quite easy to pull of in any horror film really.

So to conclude: A good idea for a synopsis/treatment but unfortunately was not conceived well. Shame!

Since my viewing of "Don't Let Him In", I deliberately waited two days to write this comment, allowing for the film to sink in a bit deeper. My very first impression wasn't overly positive, but there were a few aspects that I felt were worth pondering about. For example, some of the principal characters are very identifiable and sympathetic, but the killings are cruel and extremely sadistic. This combination leaves a rather unpleasant aftertaste in your stomach just after finishing the film, but the memory that sticks permanently is that "Don't Like Him In" is a new horror movie that dares to shock and provoke the audience perhaps? The premise of the film is rather basic. Calvin and Paige, a joyous young couple, have planned a weekend in the Southern British countryside where Calvin grew up. They also invite Calvin's baby sister Mandy, a little troublemaker who always picks the wrong guys to date. She just spend the night with the extremely arrogant and obviously up- to-no-good bloke Tristan; who reluctantly accepts the invitation but mainly because he has to hide from authorities. Upon arriving in the cottage, the foursome also immediately receives warning that the neighborhood is under the reign of terror of a crazed serial killer with a peculiar modus operandi. The aptly nicknamed "Tree Surgeon" dismembers his victims and hangs the body parts in trees. Obviously they will confront the killer eventually, but there's a fair chance the group will already be traumatized by then. Director/co-writer Kelly Smith – usually an editor – assures a logical unfolding of the plot, complete with some clichés and red herrings, and she (at least I assume Kelly is a female) often even manages to generate a morbid and deeply uncomfortable ambiance. The acting is remarkably good! As stated above, the good- natured characters are genuinely amiable and the ill-tempered ones are, in fact, very despicable. The murder sequences and make-up effects are raw and grisly, but I guess that could also be seen as an additional recommendation for horror fanatics.

This movie was a complete waste of my time. It was as if a middle schooler with no imagination wrote it and never had it edited. The film was predictable and lacked any suspenseful moments. In addition, the plot failed to make any sense. The way the characters were killed off gave no real reason to the question, why? Furthermore, where was the gore and guts, I thought this was a horror film? The cut off scenes proved to be insignificant and rather than keeping the viewer interested it left them tired and confused. The film was sloppy, irresponsible, and showed no balls.

Though I thought this film was terrible I must mention aspects I liked. The portrayal of an asocial serial killer was mainly comparable with what would match a FBI profile. This is especially so with the killer's calling card as it was consistent in each murder. However, in real life the killer wouldn't target people he knew and would generally be more careful over all.

Two couples spend a weekend in the country, only to cross paths with a brutal serial killer. As the body count rises, suspicion spirals into paranoia, climaxing in a terrifying battle for survival.

Watching this film makes me lament the fact that making films today is fairly cheap and getting a distribution deal is easier than even. Any group of friends with a digital camera, a little bit of skill and some free time can make a film -- especially a horror film, which are notoriously easy to make and market. While there are exceptions ("Clerks" and "Slacker" come immediately to mind), by and large movies were better when you had to raise a significant sum...

That being said, this film has some things going for it. The acting is good, the editing is good... had a big studio made it, it might have been a small hit. Maybe. But there is nothing original about it, and it mostly just looks cheap. I like bad horror films (probably too much), but this was even beneath my standards... rent pretty much anything else (except Tyler Perry).