Watch In Their Skin For Free

Instant Favorite.

Good concept, poorly executed.

Entertaining from beginning to end, it maintains the spirit of the franchise while establishing it's own seal with a fun cast

Exactly the movie you think it is, but not the movie you want it to be.

Like them or not, I have to support movies like this. Nowadays, 95% of all horror movies involve ghosts, possession, exorcisms, haunted homes, found ghost footage, etc. Not all home invasion thrillers are great, but at least they fall in the crispy 5% of horror I enjoy.In this movie's defense, it came out in 2012. Before, during and especially since that time, there have been many home invasion thrillers. I'm okay with that as long as they're made right. Most, if not all, feature a minimal budget and shooting in all-but one location and not rely on cheap "ghost" scares, it's a positive for the producers. Since I disavow ghosts, spirits, haunted hotel rooms, etc, the real scary movies are the ones that could really happen. Such as home invasions. This one isn't so much a twist on the H.I. subgenre, but it does contain some incredible cinematography, acting, dialogue and frights.Yet another shattered family mourning the loss of a child excludes themselves in a cabin in the woods. All-but immediately, the creepy neighbors with no sense of timing, introduce themselves and invite their way into our hero family's home for some quality dinner time. It doesn't take a genius to figure out this isn't gonna end well.While the movie's not perfect and the last third is whack, the build-up and fright-factor is on high-alert. I enjoyed it. I enjoyed other home invasion films more, but the good here severely outweighed the bad and is a total recommendation for fans of the subgenre.***Final thoughts: It's August. We're not even half-way through (tomorrow'ish) and I cannot stop thinking of my favorite month of the year: October. I just adore everything about that month leading up to my favorite holiday and an entire 31 days of horror movies. Since I'm so restless for my favorite month to arrive and my craving to see new-to-me horror movies was seriously strong, I turned to a fantastic guide to horror movies: The Fright File, by Dustin Putman, a friend of mine.This great movie review book has all the classic horror movies, like Halloween and the Scream series, but it also contains more evaluations from Dustin on lessor known gems, such as this one. I probably would never have heard of this thriller if not for The Fright File book.If this sounds like a commercial and endorsement for 'The Fright File: 150 Films to See Before Halloween,' you are smart. Now go to http://www.thefrightfile.com/book/ and get your copy today. Especially now so you'll have time before October really hits and you should be able to find/purchase most of these movies.

Mark and Mary and son Brendon retreat to the family's remote holiday house in order to recover from a tragedy, only to find that the new neighbours have it in mind to find out as much as possible about them, kill them, and steal their identities.This film has a good cast (albeit the two male leads are each playing the part the other should have played), good performances, and an intriguing (if underwritten) character in the baddie's "wife". On the other hand, it has a very slow start, a plot we've seen a hundred times, victims who annoyingly fail to take advantage when they have the upper hand, a climax which is over and done with in no time flat, and a desaturated colour palette.Is the good sufficient to outweigh the negative? That's your decision. For me, it was borderline.

"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.

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!!