Inside (2016) Poster

(I) (2016)

User Reviews

Review this title
58 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
1/10
Totally fubar'd remake of an excellent french horror film.
edgalarza25 July 2018
One of my favorite extreme french horror films was the original film this movie was based on, Inside (2007). Browsing through Hulu the night before I spotted this American remake. My expectations were low based on prior experience with many American horror remakes, but this particular remake sunk far lower than my already low expectations.

The story isn't an exact copy of the original. They did make changes and the biggest changes were in the last third of the film. Unbelievable beyond belief and the producers having seen the original which should have given them an excellent template to base their remake seem to totally ignore it.

Before the opening scene and immediately after the opening credits, a statistic is shown on the screen literally giving away the twist in the plot that the original film doesn't unveil until the very end. By doing that, they literally killed any chance of developing a sense of suspense and surprise that the original was so great at doing. In the original film, the audience doesn't understand why the killer is doing what she does until the very end, but this film constantly reminds us of what the plot is as though the audience has a 30 second attention deficit.

I would NOT recommend this film to a friend at all. Anyone who has not seen the original, I highly recommend you watch the original film, even if you do not like subtitles. If you see this film first and uncover the twist, it will ruin the original for you and you will miss out on a highly rated french extreme horror original.
19 out of 22 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Stupid STUPID movie! (contains spoilers)
prsguitar1238 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
Where do I begin? I would love to slap the idiots that made this movie! How about the fact that one woman takes on two police officers....one of which sees a blood trail and never bothers to call it in? She stupidly goes downstairs and gets herself shot! ALL THE WHILE NEVER BOTHERING TO CALL THE STUPID INCIDENT IN! Real police would never act that way or be that stupid! But the idiotic writers of this show think they would. They are trained in calling in things when they just seem out of the ordinary....forget a blood trail! Then you have the call in finally from a police vehicle from a victim and it takes them forever to get there? Then you have a A PREGNANT WOMAN doing stunts that a athlete would have a hard time doing.....oh yeah and let's not forget the fact that she is PREGNANT! And after all of this.....she and her child SUPPOSEDLY SURVIVE by her giving birth IN THE RAIN on top of a pool? This movie is way beyond stupid! I would not rate this as a 1 star even....I just did that because it had no lower rating....I would give this movie a ZERO! That is how stupid and idiotic I think the writers of this movie were. I justy do not think you can get worse than this!
29 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Pointless Remake of a Great Horror FIlm
Im-not-all-here-myself20 December 2017
Yet again, the film industry shows it's lack of imagination and lack of quality scripts by re-making an already great horror film. The original, L'interier, was a terrifying, bloody joyride from beginning to end. The roles were cast well. The story was tight. believable and scary as Hell. The direction was excellent as well. The movie was intense to the extreme yet it still felt like this could actually happen in real life! None of these components can be applied to this pitiful excuse of a re-make. Although Rachel Nichols is an accomplished actress, she struggles through this film like a rookie. It's not her fault as her part has been watered down via faulty script and poor direction. Actress Laura Harring was a poor fit for the part of "The Woman" originally portrayed by the amazing Beatrice Dalle. This film is yet more evidence that mainstream film markets have lost all originality and are increasingly dependent on re-making earlier, preferably foreign films or churning out low budget, poor replicas of successful ones. When I learned that an American re-make of the incredible French horror film "Martyrs" was being made, I swore to myself to never watch it. I broke that promise to myself and watched it. The film, like the new version of "L'Interiour" is nothing more than a milquetoast, re-visioning insult to the original. Gone was the sheer gut-wrenching violence perpetrated on these girls, Gone was the insane logic which help the group together, It took a film that reached out and punched you repeatedly in the gut and turned it into little more than a made-for-TV movie filled with rejects from the O.C. that had far less talent than the roles required. In fact, like "Inside", the re-make of "Martyrs: seemed to have been created solely for the late teen audience due to the removal of many of the key violent and bloody scenes Neither of these films needed to be re-made and the evidence is right in front of you. Forget these abortive attempts at capturing lighting and stick with the originals
24 out of 31 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
The worst film I have ever seen.
Sophie-566-85567326 June 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I repeat. The worst film I have ever seen.

An hour and a half of my life wasted. This film is not even worth the 1 star rating I have to give inorder to complete the review.

This infuriating lady portrayed by Rachel Nichols does not even attempt to defend herself in logical ways. I ended up cheering on the crazy intruder (Laura Harring) due to the absolute agony I endured watching the pregnant woman fail to stay alive time and time again. And yet she managed to stay alive even though I wanted her to die feeling the pain I felt whilst viewing this.

I have not see the french version but I am certain that it is better than this because it would be impossible to be any worse. Not only that, but they killed the dog, stupidly named Excalibur, within the first 20 minutes and is the first victim in this God awful film.

The protagonist and antagonist have a strange bonding moment in a pool where the "crazy intruder" saves the "infuriating lady" and sacrifices herself. If only the pregnant woman would have sacrificed herself sooner in the film, perhaps the fluffy angel, performing his good doggy duty would have not become a fallen soldier.

The crazy lady's only downfall was: 1. that she killed the dog and 2. that she saved the annoying woman instead of letting her drown and stealing the infant away from the hopeless human baby carrier, not worthy of humanisation after the suffering that the viewers had to sit through.

Thank you for coming to my TED talk. Drop a like, subscribe and have you got the bell on? See ya in the next video.
20 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Quite possibly the worst remake of an excellent horror film
manuelasaez13 January 2018
I didn't want to compare this film to the French version; it's not fair, as the original film is a horror masterpiece and one of the most difficult to watch movies of all time. This remake, however, is so horribly done, so pointless, that it does not deserve any leniency. This movie should be butchered for how offensive it is to the original. the movie is so bad, in fact, that I will break down the way it fails using a list. It's all it deserves.

1. The original film is a classic due to its no holds barred violence. This film is the Lifetime Television version. It is made to appease sensitive people who can't stomach anything to serious. It is insulting to the original audience.

2. The acting is atrocious. Everyone from the lead actress to the woman who wanted her baby delivered their lines as if it was their first movie. Actually, every single female in this movie was untalented. It made the movie a cringe fest every time one of them spoke. Just awful.

3. The movie is neutered in the ways only Hollywood knows how to neuter a movie. I understand that most people refuse to watch subtitled films because it makes them feel somewhat stupid to not be able to properly keep up with the text on the screen, but it is no excuse to butcher an otherwise amazing cinematic experience to appease a group of people who can't appreciate world cinema.

4. Why is it that every Hollywood movie has to have a "happy ending"? The French film is famous for having one of the most messed up endings of all time, and this movie chose to end like that? It's like everyone involved actively worked to make the movie as simple and tame as possible. This is the movie equivalent of a cheese sandwich. Simple, bland and lifeless.

I mean, I often like to give the benefit of the doubt to remakes of foreign films; they will almost never surpass the source material, so why even bother? Some movies deserve to be seen in their original language, and if you are unwilling to read subtitles to watch the film, well, it sucks to be you. But I would rather they not remake any film, ever, if it means that we can avoid getting crap like this. An awful and low effort remake that does not deserve anyone's time.
28 out of 39 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
This makes me so angry
dschmeding19 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
From the get go it was a really weird idea to remake a french euro classic in horror movies and use a spanish director. What sense does that make... Well, you can both trash a good movie and destroy another european career in the process because the Hollywood remake of "Inside" is simply atrocious.

Its obvious from the title sequence onward which is like 80% of this remake directly lifted from the original. Where the french movie was gripping and dense as well as creative right from the carcrash sequence on, this movie feels like no one cared the least to make it good... maybe because they knew it was an near impossible task to make a better movie anyway.

That stomach aching feeling with the minimal score and stunning dark cinematography... i can't find it anywhere in this movie. Most of this feels uninspired and boring. I can't for the life of me imagine why someone would take a thrilling movie and make it less thrilling... it just feels like they did not care at all.

The first three quarters of the movie are pretty much an identical remake of the original movie. Of course its kind of americanized but most of it is pretty much the same... just way less interesting and gripping. The house invasion fails and when something interesting is happening the reactions of the actors feel off, like when the main characted accidentaly kills her mother... there are several of those scenes that feel like they thought "OK, lets get this over with". No emotional depth at all. And in my opinion the sound design is a major reason for lack of tension. Everything just passes you by.

Now, the original movie to my taste had a kind of letdown ending and you know what... they changed the ending of the movie and turned it completely on its head. While the original movie was living of its ominous atmosphere and completely unclear motivations (which were a letdown to me when the tension unwrapped in the end) of course some Hollywood producer must have said: "Hey this is a movie for an american audience, so lets spell every little piece out in giant letters, so no idiot can say he didn't get it when the credits roll". Its the basic difference between american and european or asian movies... they have to market it to the lowest common denominator and avoid any uncertainty or openness for interpretation. And boy, did they do it here. But its not even the biggest problem with the last quarter of this movie. The way things move out of the main characters house are ludicrous and the way they changed an original bleak end into a weird happy one is so full of dump character actions... its stunning. That pool scene is so full of unbelievable actions and of course a covered pool is lighted, so cinematography works better... sure! Best of all... when they go for a highlydramatic ending which literally has the main actor thanking god, they just smash the credits right over it, like they want to underscore again "Hey, no one cares and we got better things to do... so lets get out of this doomed mission FAST!".

Cinematography is good, sounddesign sucks, everything else is average... and that makes this a one point movie for me because you can't do such a careless remake of a movie that garnered a cult following.

Hollywood... keep your fingers off good movies. And Americans ... learn to watch subtitled or synchronized movies like the rest of the world. You don't even know what you are missing when you get silly remakes like this. Watch the originals and let money be spent on new scripts and no more be wasted on unnecessary remakes.
19 out of 26 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
I'm Not Sure What the Point Was
Michael_Elliott15 January 2018
Inside (2016)

* 1/2 (out of 4)

After the death of her husband, Sarah (Rachel Nichols) is a day away from giving birth to their baby but that night a mysterious woman (Laura Harring) breaks into her home with plans on taking the baby.

This here is a remake of the 2007 French film INSIDE and apparently it has been sitting on a shelf for a couple years before finally being released. I will admit up front that I enjoy watching remakes as I find it interesting to see someone take a different take on a familiar story. The original INSIDE is known for its vile and at times shocking violence and it doesn't take a brain scientist to know that what we saw in that film wouldn't make it to this remake.

Let me just say that everything in the original movie was a lot better than what you get here. As you'd expect, the violence and gore has been toned down to the point where you have to wonder why they even bothered to remake the film. But wait a minute, whereas the original film went for gore and violence, perhaps director Miquel Angel Vivas could take the material into a different direction and make a winning picture. Nope, that doesn't happen either and what we're left with is a watered down version of the original and even on its own this remake just doesn't work.

There are all sorts of problems with the movie including the fact that there's nothing good here. I guess you could say that Nichols' performance was good but Harring is so watered down and so bland as the killer that there's just no tension between the characters. The lack of any sort of real suspense is another major issue. It also seems as if the director is familiar with the original movie and he thinks that the viewer is too so he hints at stuff that fans of the original will remember but he just never goes through with it here. For example, when the pregnant woman is in the bathroom. Remember the scene with the scissors? Watch how it plays out here.

With no gore, no violence and no tension what are we left with? Not much. There aren't any surprises here and especially if you've seen the original. Even if you haven't seen the original this film just doesn't offer us anything. It's as if they simply didn't know what they wanted to do with the material so we're left with some hacked up version of the original. I'm not going to spoil anything but the ending is rather embarrassing as is the sequence with the cops. In fact, one of the cops here has to be the dumbest cop from any horror film I've ever seen.

INSIDE is an all around bad movie that at least manages to make the original seem even better.
13 out of 17 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Never been so ANGRY for watching a movie...
a_ko11226 May 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The publisher and film maker should have just saved to money of making this movie for God sake. And I am pretty sure not all the police officers are as stupid as those in the movie.
13 out of 18 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Complete garbage
levihdsn6 June 2018
This is one of, if not the most, awful remake I've ever seen. Do not waste your time.
8 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Should have been titled " Too stupid to live"
mason2523 April 2018
Acting terrible. Cinematography may have been. I'm getting really sick and tired of idiots who can't be bothered to turn a gd light on at night... The woman who was having the baby was stupid from start to end. From her first weapon of choice, a broken mirror shard, which she should have wrapped in a towel or face cloth, to when she was using the back of the toilet... the woman put her arm through the door, best option she chose was to give her a small slice, rather than shatter her arm with the toilet back. Made no sense at all. Cops show up. The lady stabs one IN THE DOORWAY WITH the door open.. his partner is too stupid to be watching, despite him seeming real cagey about something 2 seconds prior. The whole movie was just dumb. I can't imagine anyone who didn't work for it would actually rate it higher than a 2. It was that bad.
11 out of 15 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Possibly the dumbest movie I have ever watched.
Snsboi122 July 2018
Warning: Spoilers
My goodness where do I start?? The writing is awful. Some of the things that happen in this movie would never take place in real life. The fact that the lady cop saw a trail of blood leading to her dying partner and DIDNT IMMEDIATELY CALL FOR BACKUP pretty much did it for me. There are many dumb scenes before and after this, but that one takes the cake. The flaws in this movie are monstrous. Police vehicle windows are shatter proof. Alright I'm done. Please, for the love of your time, don't watch this.
9 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Terrible.
horizon200820 December 2017
Oh my lord.

I didnt expect this to be good, but damn, this could well be one of the worst horror movies Ive seen all year. It has none of the dread, none of the tension, and none of the bleak feeling we got from the colossal original. And the acting and dialogue?? Holy crap, its friggin awful. So bad in fact I almost thought I was watching it dubbed into English rather than it actually being in English. As the characters speak its stunted, amateurish, and incredibly cheesy. At times (as the horrible melodramatic string music on the soundtrack soars) it felt like I was watching some made for TV Hallmark flick rather than (what should have been) an attempt at a tribute to a genre landmark. Its that bad, and blatantly clear that no one made any real effort at all to produce something memorable here. And while I really disliked the Martyrs remake it was Oscar bait compared to this turd. And the ending? Well what did you expect? Its not there of course. They completely changed it and sanitized things to the point of puke inducing sugary pish. This movie SUCKS. SUCKS. SUCKS. Damn, Im off to cut my own brain out on the stairs to get this abortion out of my mind. Ugh.

This director is now a one hit wonder for me. I loved Kidnapped, disliked Extinction, and HATED this.
15 out of 24 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
What a stupid movie!
nancy-matus11 April 2018
What a stupid movie!! I'm rating this move -1 star!
9 out of 13 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Simply awful and unnecessary
robbrasil29 November 2017
À l'intérieur (2007) will always be my favorite Horror movie of all time, not only because of the gore, but also because of the amazing script, atmosphere and actors.

As I heard about the remake I thought: "Why? The original movie is already amazing. It will suck big time."

Indeed it did: horribly. I cannot believe that Jaume Balagueró wrote this stupid story, changing amazing aspects from the original.

Rachel Nichols is a good actress and did everything she possible could with the script, playing the terrified-pregnant woman. Laura Harring just seemed wrong playing the crazy woman... she looked too good for the role, while the original actress looked really scary and terrifying.

The story got changed for the worse, changing crucial moments of suspense and horror.

To sum it up, this remake is a disaster in so many ways... I mean, WHY destroying such a classic story. And what about the gore? Come on... it had two stupid scenes which cannot be compared to the original impact.

I hated it and congrats on doing such a stupid and bad remake off of an AMAZING movie. Just a shame...
21 out of 36 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
Lost Brain Cells Watching This
raraiza1529 June 2018
Dear God. I'm three quarters of the way through this movie on a Thursday night and I don't think I can make it through the whole thing. I'm interrupting the movie to write this. The amount of stupidity it would've actually taken for all of these people to really die is astounding. Like it's so unrealistic that it makes my head hurt. It's just a bad movie on so many levels. It's difficult to make a movie I genuinely dislike, but congratulations to these filmmakers, they've done it folks. Just don't watch it. Read a book. Meditate. Do literally anything else. I hate myself for still watching this.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Our police aren't that stupid
draftdubya26 January 2018
Warning: Spoilers
While I might not be a police friendly type of person(had run ins with them just because of my complexion), but the CPD isn't at all that stupid. I nearly turned it off after the first cops who just do a walk around her house. The CPD would send multiple cars to a possible scene. I have never seen the CPD go up to someone's house BY THEMSELVES, while the partner hangs back. By the time the second cop gets it , there would have been 1 maybe two other squad cars arriving at the scene. I know for a fact that the neighbors would've came outside to see what's going on. When Sara radio's the cops from inside the police car and say that officers might be dead. The city and surrounding suburbs cops would have been on the way(think of the movie 999). Night would've turned to day with all the police lights, EMTs, and firefighters. This should've been done in Rockford IL, where they don't have a massive police department.

Sara had multiple time to kill this woman, but fled over and over.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Yet another horrendous remake of the sublime original
greginess7878-119 December 2017
Warning: Spoilers
For those who have seen the French original, 'À l'intérieur', this 'remake' will be nothing but a series of let-downs and disappointments. I would maybe have been a bit more lenient if the screenwriter at least kept the original story somewhat intact. In fact, the first 3/4 of the film weren't really that bad (well, with the exception that the protagonist had literally 7 chances to kill the antagonist that were mysteriously not taken).

What really disappointed and frustrated me about this remake was its ending. I sorta predicted that due its intended American audience somehow, the screenwriter felt the need to 'anaesthetise' the film's ending, so as to spare the sensibilities of the 'weak-hearted' American audience. Apparently, the North Americans are treated with such a palpible degree of paternalism and condescension...so much so as to almost shout out that this audience is not yet emotionally capable of handling European-style bleak endings.

Yes, I'm talking about the climax. In the original, the baby is literally ripped out of the mother's stomach after it being sliced open. A satisfying end? No...but then again.... it wasn't supposed to be. The original kept the bleak and hopeless tenour of the film all throughout, up until the end credits. This vesion? Of course the baby is saved right after the antagonist is killed. Par for the course in American horror flicks.

So for those who have not seen the original.....do yourself a favour.... get over your aversions to subtitles and give that a go instead.... unless you just have to have your wonderful all is well 'happy' Hollywood ending!
9 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
There was no reason to remake this movie - and they just proved that
hollanda-4884312 April 2018
Warning: Spoilers
The movie "Inside" is a movie about a woman who is obsessed over a newly widowed lady's unborn child. The entire movie takes place in one night's time, and is set in one house for the duration of the movie. Many people watching the movie for the first time do not know this, but this is actually a remake of the same movie made in 2008. There was no clear reason to me for remaking this movie, and personally I thought it was a huge waste of resources to do this. I waited the entire movie to be scared, and unfortunately for me it never happened. This movie does a great job of building suspense the entire time, but when it finally hits the climax, it feels like it is not much different than the rest of the movie. At the end of the movie, the Woman tells that she is the one that got in the car crash that widowed Sarah, and in the crash The Woman's baby was killed. I thought this was a great story line, but it definitely could have came across better in the movie. So overall, if you're looking for a not-too-scary, suspenseful movie to watch, this is the movie. But if you are looking for a real scare, don't bother wasting your time.
6 out of 9 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
7/10
It's not that bad.
kpfingaz13 January 2020
Most of the reviews that gave this film 1/10 are from persons who have seen the original. I have not seen the original and I enjoyed the film.

I actually thought that this movie would be crap after I saw the rating but I ended up enjoying it. Its not the best movie in the world and there are definitely problems with it but to give a movie 1 star because it doesn't live up to the original is a bit unfair.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
Who is this for?
deandraslater24 September 2019
I get it. You want an American audience to see a great foreign film without bad dubbing or having to read subtitles. Sure, let's aim for that lowest common denominator. And they do! They aim right for the mouth breathers among us and hit a bullseye by taking out everything risky, terrifying, grisly, and intense about the original film, turning it into something that would play on Lifetime on a Sunday afternoon.

The makers of this movie try to take out everything edgy or visceral about it to make the film as palatable to a mainstream audience as possible, but this big twist is - this went straight to VOD and bypassed theaters altogether. It was released straight to horror fans who have mostly been appalled by how tame and neutered it feels in comparison to the original. You have to wonder who these people are making these remakes for.

Laura Herring and Rachel Nichols are good actresses. How did they end up in this mess? Was the script they read better?
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Oh my.
Straker177 April 2019
I won't sit here and give you the dramatics "worst film I've ever seen" or "a piece of trash", but I will tell you it is immensely bad. To give the film some credit, it does look nice, there are a few thrilling moments, and Laura Harring is incredible as the villain. However, that's about it. What we have here is a movie that is glossy, but shallow.

Our main character is played by Rachel Nichols, who is very uneven in her performance. There are moments I thought she was great, and others that I felt she didn't pull off. Her weaknesses are made more apparent by the stellar performance Harring gives. And, being honest, Harring is given a far more interesting character. The villain is a character that is selfish, psychotic, and violent, however, her actions at the end of the film show that there is still a glimpse of humanity in her. She is simply a very broken woman. Our main character briefly deals with grief in surface level fashion. You almost begin to root for the villain, because everything about her characterization and performance far outshines the protagonist's.

The supporting characters are utterly useless, and sometimes annoying. Issac is a likeable enough character, but remains utterly stupid, and never actually does anything to add any amount of tension to the film, and his partner is no different, only appearing on screen in a far away shot so we can see him get killed. Her mother, whom they stress is on her way, is only in the film for a few seconds, and also adds nothing to the film. And, we also have cops. One of which is a fine character, but isn't particularly interesting, and only drags the movie out further. The second cop mistakes our lead for the villain. And, even after she pleads that the real villain is upstairs, the cop forces her back upstairs in a truly idiotic move.

The main issue with this film is that there is positively no tension. The frantic banging on the bathroom door and the end climax in the swimming pool are somewhat tense, and their are a few cool thrills, but the movie absolutely lacks any kind of atmosphere. It is far too polished to offer any kind of visceral punch, and it fails as a glossy thriller through the use of comedy and a little bit too much stylization. It doesn't help that the film is entirely predictable. Every thrill or jump, or even plot twist can be called moments, or even minutes, before they happen. Had the film been entertaining or atmospheric, this would not have been an issue, but we've already discussed that.

And now, we get to the major elephant in the room. The film is a remake of a highly regarded French film. You only need to watch the first 30 minutes of the original to tell that it is far superior. With some truly effective moments, good performances, and a tense atmosphere, the film more than wipes the floor with this version. If you don't mind subtitles, the French film is a good watch. This version is half as effective and half as artistic and isn't worth a watch for any reason above curiosity. For fans of the original, it is an empty version of a better film, and for horror fans you have a relatively good looking home invasion film with little to offer.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
1/10
WORST REMAKE EVER
Kontroversial24 June 2018
Take A L'INTERIEUR, the 2007 French horror film, one of the most violent movies of all time, because it has zero humor and a truly horrifying ending. And of course a lot of gore, because the French are not wussies when it comes to movie violence - unlike most other countries. The movie was notorious enough to draw the interest of Hollywood - who by now have completely run out of ideas and only are able to mass produce horrible remakes, sequels, prequels, reboots and superhero movies. Needless to say that the Hollywood remake would be tame in comparison with the original, thanks to the MPAA and the studios' self-imposed censorship that shuns NC-17 ratings like a vampire sunlight. But what the studio's done here takes the icing of the cake: released MPAA UNrated the doors were wide open for a gruesome remake which could have rivaled the original without the dreadful R-rating restrictions, the final result could have easily passed as PG-13! No gore, even the ending was changed to a Hollywood-typical non-shocking happy rainbow fart ending! An audacity and an insult to fans of the original. INSIDE the remake only has one place in this world: the garbage can!
8 out of 14 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
2/10
Passionless and Dull Remake!
molemandavid18 February 2018
Much like the equally inept Martyrs remake, Inside is a useless and boring excuse for a remake. There are a few interesting ideas that never quite pan out, the film is far less vicious and bloody, and the acting is remarkably inept. It's mostly a suspense-free mess.

A pregnant woman survives a car crash which leaves her deaf in one ear and without a husband. On Christmas Eve, a mysterious woman breaks into her home, hellbent on taking her baby for herself.

It's a simple premise that was executed with vicious aplomb in the original French film. Not that the original was without fault - characters make dumb decisions and a few moments genuinely make no sense. A remake could have been a great chance to expand upon the original and correct a few of the original film's issues. Instead, we get a bland, Disney Channel version of the original without any of the terror or suspense of the original.

Inside has been watered down so much from its source material that, at times, it truly does feel like an uninspired TV movie. It doesn't help that the two lead actresses (who are usually quite competent) are sleepwalking through their performances. It's painfully obvious that they're only there for the paycheck.

There are a few amusing additions, such as the heroine being deaf in one ear after the accident and two friendly gay neighbors next door (which leads to a nice Rear Window moment), but the pedestrian acting, lack of guts, and lousy feel-good ending destroys any good will the film had accumulated thus far.

Skip it if you value your time and sanity.
5 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
4/10
my notes
sstrunks-0524524 July 2019
Started off very slow and feeling like it was going to be another lame straight-to-dvd movie. then it surprisingly became pretty awesome, got me into it with good suspense. i was thinking it was going to be at least a 6 star rating, but then it went downhill with some really dumb stuff, some really bad acting, some terribly cheesy lines and more dumb stuff. i enjoyed the middle part of this movie a lot. overall tho, no bueno (1 viewing)
3 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
6/10
Comparisons to the original are through rose-coloured glasses
This movie is not great. It's fine, because the premise was good to begin with, and the actors are reasonable. There are big logic holes, but to say this isn't a flaw of the original is not accurate. It had just as many inconsistencies. To say the police act stupidly in this version is a reasonable critique, but they also did in the original in different ways. The original is definitely gorier and more bleak, and probably better overall, but to say one was a 10 and the other is a 1 is a bit ridiculous. It's a passable time-waster, and for those not enamoured with gore, this would be the better choice of the two.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
An error has occured. Please try again.

See also

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews


Recently Viewed