User Reviews

I was given the great opportunity to attend this screening last night of 'Don't Let Him In' at the BAFTA Theatre in London & will say I was truly privileged to have been there & thankful indeed to Kelly & Mike for the invite. I truly mean that.

But on the basis of the film: I have to say I was very disappointed with the final results after 80 minutes

Firstly I found the sound to be very boomy (cheap sounding) in parts & the mix could have been a lot better, considering the time spent on the film & in my opinion the premise itself although promising on the tag-line lacked somewhat in terms of story & characterisations.

I really did not connect with ANY of the characters on screen or cared if they were hacked to bits. I feel no matter what genre it is, there has to be some audience connection with the characters, even with low budget classics such as Halloween or Friday 13th etc, all had pretty much wooden characters there true, but there was something elusive or tangible about them or the atmosphere present in the film itself which this film sadly lacked in abundance...sorry!

I am truly sorry to write this, but I believe in giving my own 'personal opinion' & is nothing more &..of course I will have many others who may or may not agree with me..C'est La vie.

I will positively say that the editing was pretty much spot on & some of the visual effects were quite good for this genre but I just did not feel any 'real' atmosphere or feel on the edge of my seat. A couple of jumps here & there but they're quite easy to pull of in any horror film really.

So to conclude: A good idea for a synopsis/treatment but unfortunately was not conceived well. Shame!

Since my viewing of "Don't Let Him In", I deliberately waited two days to write this comment, allowing for the film to sink in a bit deeper. My very first impression wasn't overly positive, but there were a few aspects that I felt were worth pondering about. For example, some of the principal characters are very identifiable and sympathetic, but the killings are cruel and extremely sadistic. This combination leaves a rather unpleasant aftertaste in your stomach just after finishing the film, but the memory that sticks permanently is that "Don't Like Him In" is a new horror movie that dares to shock and provoke the audience perhaps? The premise of the film is rather basic. Calvin and Paige, a joyous young couple, have planned a weekend in the Southern British countryside where Calvin grew up. They also invite Calvin's baby sister Mandy, a little troublemaker who always picks the wrong guys to date. She just spend the night with the extremely arrogant and obviously up- to-no-good bloke Tristan; who reluctantly accepts the invitation but mainly because he has to hide from authorities. Upon arriving in the cottage, the foursome also immediately receives warning that the neighborhood is under the reign of terror of a crazed serial killer with a peculiar modus operandi. The aptly nicknamed "Tree Surgeon" dismembers his victims and hangs the body parts in trees. Obviously they will confront the killer eventually, but there's a fair chance the group will already be traumatized by then. Director/co-writer Kelly Smith – usually an editor – assures a logical unfolding of the plot, complete with some clichés and red herrings, and she (at least I assume Kelly is a female) often even manages to generate a morbid and deeply uncomfortable ambiance. The acting is remarkably good! As stated above, the good- natured characters are genuinely amiable and the ill-tempered ones are, in fact, very despicable. The murder sequences and make-up effects are raw and grisly, but I guess that could also be seen as an additional recommendation for horror fanatics.

This movie was a complete waste of my time. It was as if a middle schooler with no imagination wrote it and never had it edited. The film was predictable and lacked any suspenseful moments. In addition, the plot failed to make any sense. The way the characters were killed off gave no real reason to the question, why? Furthermore, where was the gore and guts, I thought this was a horror film? The cut off scenes proved to be insignificant and rather than keeping the viewer interested it left them tired and confused. The film was sloppy, irresponsible, and showed no balls.

Though I thought this film was terrible I must mention aspects I liked. The portrayal of an asocial serial killer was mainly comparable with what would match a FBI profile. This is especially so with the killer's calling card as it was consistent in each murder. However, in real life the killer wouldn't target people he knew and would generally be more careful over all.

I don't take any pleasure in sticking the boot in on a film so woeful, but I have to write this purely for selfish reasons. See, what keeps happening is this: I see a film called Don't let Him In listed, and it captures my attention. So, my interest piqued – I enjoy even below average horror films, mostly – I look at the synopsis. And I think, "Sounds good." So I set it to record, and look forward to watching it. Then, when the mood takes and I have the two hours set aside, I sit down to watch it. Get a few snacks ready. A drink. Lights down. And then I play the movie.

The first few seconds are fine. But then: a vague gnawing in my stomach. Not the good kind of edginess a decent horror might give you; rather, an uneasy feeling that I'm an idiot who doesn't learn from previous mistakes. But I'm unsure, and keep watching, hoping vainly that maybe I'm wrong. But the opening sequence ends, and I see that shot of houses. And it sinks in. The dread and discomfiture spread through me. Then, the next shot of the house. I'm still not absolutely convinced, but in my heart, I know. Then the killer blow: the shot – THAT shot – in the kitchen. The skewiff, seemingly rushed framing. The ropey sound recording. The stiff acting from miscast people who seem unsure about what they're doing. I can't ignore the truth anymore: I've been here before – several times. Because, like my own private horror movie, this keeps happening to me.

I keep recording Don't Let Him In, having forgotten that I've seen it, and that it was – truly – one of the worst things I've ever sat through. And I seem to block it from my mind (that perfectly generic title is so easy to separate from the film it belongs to) and forget that it ever happened, and record it again, and sit down to watch again, and I am swamped with anger and disappointment. I stop the film as the girl is doing her best to act like someone coughing in bed, and delete it, promising to never let this happen again. A few months later, I see a film listed called Don't Let Him In, and think, "Hmm, that might be interesting..." So: enough. This ends, now, here. As said above, I take no satisfaction in trashing these folks' movie, which I'm sure they worked hard on. Plenty of others here have gone into the details of what makes it so awful (as well as some shameless shills giving it 9 and 10...seriously: at least try and be cleverer about lying on behalf of your friends/employers), so I won't do that.

All I want to do is say to myself: Please. Remember. You have seen the British horror film called Don't let Him In. You gave it 1/10 on IMDb. Learn. Stop forgetting that you've been here before. See the warnings earlier. Recognise the title. Do not set to record.

Make this the last time. Burn the title into your mind: DON'T LET HIM IN. You can't keep doing this to yourself.

Here's hoping.

I was shocked just how bad this movie was. It was well made, well acted, great scenery, and like a said, you can polish a turd, but its still a turd. As well made as this movie was it was terrible. It was a typical slasher movie except all of the characters have had their brains surgically removed. None of the characters do things that people in real life do, nor do they react to situations like a normal human being. Two scenes that jump out at me are when the 'mysterious' hitchhiker shows up at the main characters remote cabin with a stab wound. The main female character is a nurse and immediately begins to give him medical aid (I with the scene so far), so the tertiary blonde bimbo say in the background, I will call an ambulance. The nurse lady tells her that there is no time for that. Then the blonde watches impotently as the main character saves his life. What the 'f' do you mean that there is no time to call an ambulance, the blonde wasn't helping anyway, so call the effing ambulance. But here's the kicker, after the mysterious stranger is going to live, they don't call the police, an ambulance, they are going to let this wounded guy stay in there remote cabin without an explanation to why he was stabbed. I don't know about you, but if a guy shows up at my door with a gushing stab wound, granted I am going to do everything that I can to save his life, but the ambulance and police are going to be called. The second unforgivable scene is when the protagonists now know who one of the killers are, and still let him back into the house. The movie was so terribly written it begs for an explanation. How could you have gathered a group of intelligent actors and not have anybody say, 'you know this doesn't make any sense'...

It is very nice to see that even eight years old or so can write a script for British horror movie. I see no other explanation of such poor level of script of the movie! The level of stupidity in the dialogs is simply astonishing. The characters are not only caricatures of themselves but they are also completely out of place. They are even incoherent from scene to scene without any reason. Some scenes like "do not draw these things" might belong maybe to some horror parody, but they definitely should not belong to serious movie.

It is such a shame to observe such descent of British horror which was really good in fifties and sixties. One observation from the older movies: It is definitely not beneficial if characters must constantly babble some nonsense or "perform emotions". Less talks might be actually helpful in building of the tension. If the characters would spent less time babbling the resulting movie might be at least average. Unfortunately any possible thrill is completely lost there, making the movie almost unwatchable. I was unable to finish the movie because the characters were way too much annoying and the story was too naive and childish.

At first glance, DON'T LET HIM IN is an intriguing slice of low budget British horror. The plot sees a group of four 20-somethings travelling to rural Devon for a restful weekend, only to get caught up in the ferocious antics of the 'Tree Surgeon', a serial killer who enjoys hanging the body parts of his victims from trees. What follows is a tale packed with twists and turns as character motivations and hidden secrets come to the fore.

In terms of production values, DON'T LET HIM IN is a perfectly serviceable slice of low budget entertainment. The setting is atmospheric and the performances are decent, even though a couple of the characters are completely annoying. The film isn't outrageously gory but there are some bloody moments along the way. So what, then, is the problem? Well, it lies with the script, which relies on contrived situations and unbelievable actions on the part of the characters for effect. These people do the dumbest things imaginable to further the story, and at a certain point you just stop buying it. The story also ends about 20 minutes before the running time, leading to a boring extra scene tacked onto the end. Not great.

Don't Let Him In (2011) is a horror film from the United Kingdom ...



Tells about four couples terrorized by serial killers ... I don't know what to say, this movie is very bad, ridiculous, bad acting, character annoying ....



My personal Rate: 1/10

I was fortunate enough to attend the UK premiere screening at Bafta of this great new British horror film from upcoming writer/director Kelly Smith. UK horror fans have been crying out for new talent within the genre and Don't Let Him In beats most direct-to-DVD horror fodder hands down. Forget Hammer's WAKE WOOD with it's disappointing acting and direction and head for Don't Let Him In. Sam Hazeldine is outstanding as the wounded hitchhiker who seemingly falls prey to the rural slasher known as The Tree Surgeon.

I really don't want to give too much away but if you are a fan of British Horror, particularly with a 70's sensibility you will really like this one. References that i can see are Norman J Warren's TERROR (1978)and Rick Roesslers' SLAUGHTERHOUSE (1987) among many others.

Saw this at random, didn't know anything about it. I don't usually write any reviews, but I had to for this, since it was so awful! From the first few minutes, I could tell that the actors were terrible and the script was awful! I have honestly seen better acting and production values in a home movie. I was surprised at how long the end credits were, I thought it was going to have things like 'Sound by my Uncle Terry' and 'Blood Provided by Heniz'.

From the outset, you know who the killer is...no imagination there. There is one 'plot twist' that was original, but the rest of it was as cliché as they come. In fact, I was laughing out loud at how bad some of them were.

This is a real testament to why British cinema isn't doing very well!

This reminded me so much of a proper old fashioned English horror film. The special effects (although effective) were only used when necessary and basically just the actors talents used to terrify.

I felt there was real evil in the eyes of the main actors - I can only assume it was an act (Scotland Yard profiling could confirm this). While on the subject of - I thought the jovial local constable was moving into a slightly humorous realm a feeling which threaded throughout the film.

This is the sort of movie childhood nightmares are made of, it starts with a weekend away in the countryside and then soon descends into - bloody murder.

Brilliant stuff - fans of Hammer Horror will appreciate this film.

Two couples spend a weekend in the country, only to cross paths with a brutal serial killer. As the body count rises, suspicion spirals into paranoia, climaxing in a terrifying battle for survival.

Watching this film makes me lament the fact that making films today is fairly cheap and getting a distribution deal is easier than even. Any group of friends with a digital camera, a little bit of skill and some free time can make a film -- especially a horror film, which are notoriously easy to make and market. While there are exceptions ("Clerks" and "Slacker" come immediately to mind), by and large movies were better when you had to raise a significant sum...

That being said, this film has some things going for it. The acting is good, the editing is good... had a big studio made it, it might have been a small hit. Maybe. But there is nothing original about it, and it mostly just looks cheap. I like bad horror films (probably too much), but this was even beneath my standards... rent pretty much anything else (except Tyler Perry).

Well, to start I must say that it is my first rewie and it wanted to start for a film that I hated, that it gave me mourning .

Bad actores, a a awful producer to say the least.

Before starting to write I was to see what my friends in IMDb had written here on this film, and with my astonishment most of them liked! WTF?!?! I ask,how is that even possible!

All the scenes badly carried through, a sloppy and irresponsible film. When i watched the trailer I thought to myself, " well this film goes to be a cool low-budget horror movie" , LIE, LIE!

Loss of time for who appreciates a good film!

Don't let him in you your TV!

One Word for this movie: AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL, AWFUL AND VERY SUCK, DUMB AND ANNOYING, TERRIBLE CHARACTER, BAD DIALOG, POOR ACTING, CLICHE.. WASTE OF TIME !

The only reason I watched it is because I paid $4 to see it (and I feel ripped off). So I put a scratch through it and took it back and said I couldn't watch it so they said I could get a replacement movie for free. I win. :) This movie had it all, bad acting, cliché storyline, and you have no interest for the characters. I couldn't wait to see them die. I watched this up to the end just to see if it got any better at some stage... and I'm still waiting for it to get better! This is a case of where the cover looks good... and that's all that is good, apart from some of the death scenes. But a good death scene does not a movie make as they say. There is a cool eye scene though, you'll know what I mean if you have already seen it. So in summary, I thought it was *expletive* and give it a 2 out of 10, ONLY because it had a couple of okay bloody scenes.

Words fail me, I have never seen anything like this. Sometimes you can laugh at a storyline and be compelled to watch it, because it's so bad, it becomes comedic. This film transcends those borders, it really is so amateurish.

I'm sorry, I'm a little bit dumbfounded, as to how it ever found it's way on to a medium like Amazon Prime. I never dreamed I'd see a film so bad.... Seriously.

Seriously people, don't waste your money on this piece of trash. It's in my top 3 worst movies of all time. You know when you are watching a bad movie and you find yourself laughing because its terrible....well this one doesn't make you laugh, it was that bad i now have a headache and a strong urge to poke my eyes out

Firstly, I should point out that I am certainly no horror aficionado.

I found Don't Let Him In to be a movie with pace, a clear storyline (not always the case for horrors in my experience), a solid cast, quality editing, and good special effects and sound. There were nice touches of lightheartedness intermixed with nerve-shredding horror scenes. The plot was innovative and moved along at a good pace, and when the film ended, I felt that all questions had been answered.

Overall, the movie kept me entertained throughout and despite not being a horror fan, I thoroughly enjoyed it.

Well done to all involved.

Let me say that first time director Kelly Smith did a nice job. Especially the cutting or editing was well done but that's normal knowing that he was a negative cutter on major productions like The Queen and In Bruges for example. But let's go back towards his flick. It was a good story with a little twist in it but the only thing that was a bit exaggerated was the scene with the maggot in one's eye. It had in fact nothing to do with the storyline and it was full CGI. And watching closer I think that I saw some CGI blood too. But overall the red stuff did flow and the effects used were nicely done. Towards the end when Sophie Linfield (Paige) walks towards the shack you could see that she was acting and it was a bit of a let down for me. There was no gore or nudity in it, it's just a thriller with now and then some horror. By which I mean, it takes a while before things go awry, you really get to know the victims. It wasn't a slasher or a torture porn, so I would recommend it to watch it as a teaser on a Friday night with some friends before the real stuff comes around.