Replicas

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.

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.

OK! From the off I have to say I'm hardly the right person to take as gospel as regards a review for yet another home invasion movie. I have grown increasingly jaded with this sub-genre of horror, it seems that every year a handful of these type of movies get trundled out and suckers like me keep watching in the hope of finding a gem amongst the rough rocks.

In Their Skin isn't a gem, in fact it's not exactly a must see frightener, but it at least tries to add something to an already stagnated sub-genre of film. Namely an identity theft angle that veers away from the usual "oh they are just psychos or hoodies" line of thinking.

There is a raft of reviewers out there in internet land drawing comparisons to this being a Funny Games knock off. Now regardless of how I personally feel about Hanneke's work, is that what people are doing now? Fans of his film(s) expecting a Selma Blair, Joshua Close, Rachel Miner and James D'Arcy starring movie to take home invasion horror to a new level? When it's directed by an unknown? Really?

For an hour writer and directer Jeremy Power Regimbal favours the slow burn approach, and it works because the cast are very committed, and in the case of adult villains D'Arcy and Miner there's some bona fide creepiness about their respective mannerisms. It's only when things shift away from rumbling unease into psycho/sexual territory that the fledgling director loses control and sinks to formula conventions to get his shock and awe.

Not a must see, but in the context of boorish fodder like The Strangers, or higher budgeted fluff like The Purge, then this is well worth a look by those not expecting a whole new dimension of home invasion horror. It does have merits that doesn't waste your time, and beside which, James D'Arcy in this looks uncannily like Norman Bates, so that has to warrant a look! 6/10

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.