SpuffyWeb Sadly Over-hyped

Micitype Pretty Good

Dotbankey A lot of fun.

InformationRap This is one of the few movies I've ever seen where the whole audience broke into spontaneous, loud applause a third of the way in.

Danii Disaster Quite a typical movie; nothing unique about it. It's been done before - there are several movies with the same premise out there that are more griping, more elaborate, more realistic, and much better paced.It was not bad at all, but nothing spectacular, either. I found it difficult to believe that a suburban family of limited means and probably below-average IQ were able to come up with such an elaborate identity-theft plan. The bad guy just didn't have what it takes to pass for a twisted genius.The wives and the kids were great, but I thought the husbands were miscast. Frankly, I think they should have swapped places. The bad guy would have been more convincing as the protagonist and vice versa.The antagonist's wife was an interesting character thought, and I feel it should have been explored to a greater extent; they could have done a lot more with it.Selma Blair was a delight to watch, even though her character was dull and a bit one-dimensional (it was written that way; not the actress's fault). Kind of reminded me of "Dead Calm" with Nicole Kidman (also a very average movie with a similar plot) - she was playing the same exact character.Like I said, a rather forgettable movie that lacks depth and substance, but it's not unwatchable, so, if you have nothing better to do, go ahead and see it.

redrobin62-321-207311 I typically don't read don't read reviews of a film, or even know what the synopsis is, until I seek the flick itself. I'm a horror nut so if the film is horror that's good enough for me. Like anyone else, I like to be surprised. A lot of times the studios or promoters miss their own mark and market the film as what it's not. For instance, I stayed away from "Enemy At The Gates" because it seemed to be just a sappy love story with war in the background. It wasn't.I've been looking for extreme horror lately and I kept on seeing this title pop up so I decoded to check it out. Just the title alone, "In Their Skin" sounds like it'd be a companion film to "Martyrs," So I rubbed my hands in anticipation, turned down the lights, and put this on. Boy, was I disappointed.Firstly, it was shot on digital media. The look and sheen of the movie was so smooth that everything looked plastic. The mother was an awful actress with horrible makeup. I'm not saying that everyone else was Academy award but she was a low point. The plot is a complete ripoff of "Funny Games" so it gets zero points for that. And, even though the movie looked cheap, I kept on thinking, "I guess they poured all their budget into the upcoming special fx which would be the intruders making "Martyrs" of the family.." Boy, was I wrong. No one had their skin removed. I was robbed! Nothing of the sort happened.The reason I gave this 2 stars, despite the massive holes & horrible script, is because I felt sorry for all those involved in it's creation, from the actors to the director to whoever made the film look as pale and lifeless as a corpse. "In Their Skin" is recommended viewing if only to show film students how to not make a movie. The 2 stars is also for the fact that they did make a movie. When was the last time I made one?

Spikeopath 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

gatsby601 First off, I know this film has been compared to a lot of other similar movies but, since I haven't seen any of them, I will be judging this one on it's own merit. It's not very good. 'In Their Skin' presents us with a professional couple attempting to move past a recent family tragedy. Together with their 8 year old son and faithful golden retriever they retreat to a pretty spiffy, secluded home in the woods. What follows is a good 25 minutes of awkward PG-13 sex, minimal plot advancement and lots of moody scenes that all pretty much say 'I blame you for the pain I'm in'. Dry stuff. Finally (thankfully!) a trio of creepy neighbors appear and the thrilling really begins! Sort of. Here's the problem - If the invaders were just that, home invaders victimizing the people they randomly came across then fine, o.k., simple but plausible. But no. Instead, we are asked to believe the main villain played by James D'Arcy who, I'm just going to say it, is basically impersonating Bruce Dern throughout most of the movie, which is fine, but we already have a Bruce Dern, we are asked to believe he is actually attempting some complicated identity theft scheme that was worked out way in advance. And this is idiotic. Like most junior Mansonites these three all have problems with impulse control and clearly don't have the means or follow through to execute such a long term plan. I will admit the pacing does improve in the 3rd act and there are some tense moments but they are too few and too far in between. A lot of film school students might tell you otherwise, but there is nothing deep or introspective about a series of meandering scenes that lead to an arbitrary climax that could have occurred 40 minutes sooner. And just to save me the time of adding a note under the IMDb 'goofs' section I'll end with a simple question. How did they finally call 911? Check out 'Cabin In the Woods' More thrills, a few laughs, much better choice!!