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/

"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.

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.

(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.

I hadn't heard of this movie until I was scrolling through an online site, so I thought I'd kill a bit of lockdown time and watch it. Starts with a scene on a bridge, a guy in his underwear struggling to get away from someone. He falls and is killed by an unknown assailant. Cut to the Hughes family travelling to their vacation cottage, clearly struggling after the death of their young daughter. Quick stop at a gas station and the attendant tells them they're early, the usual families aren't due for a couple of weeks but one or two have arrived.

Early next morning Mark Hughes hears a noise and goes outside to find a family outside his house, they explain they are leaving him some firewood. Mark is initially rude to them, but softens and caves in to their suggestion they call back later for a meal.

What then ensues is pretty predictable, the pushy Father, the timid - mentally challenged even - wife and the creepy son, try to find out about the loves of the Hughes. As the evening progresses tempers become frayed and the Hughes ask their guests to leave. Following that we're talking a straight home invasion movie. There is quite a bit of brutality, a pretty gross forced sex scene (because everyone is watching) and a couple of revelations.

It's very predictable, and you kind of wonder why the Hughes would even invite these awful people into their home. The Hughes' son is a drippy, teddy bear clutching nine year old who clearly has issues, whilst rhe son of the other family is quite possibly the oddest, creepiest bad actor ever.

I enjoyed it, probably wouldn't hurry to watch it again but it's a good movie. Selma Blair and James D'Arcy outact everyone else on the screen.