Can't get enough of movies and television shows that scare up a good fright? Check out Scary Good, IMDb's Horror Entertainment Guide. Being terrified was never so much fun.
Related lists from IMDb users
Title: Under the Skin (2013)
Want to share IMDb's rating on your own site? Use the HTML below.
| Cast overview, first billed only: | |||
| Scarlett Johansson | ... | ||
 |
Jeremy McWilliams | ... |
The Bad Man
|
|
|
Lynsey Taylor Mackay | ... |
The Dead Woman
|
|
|
Dougie McConnell | ... |
Pick-Up Man
|
|
|
Kevin McAlinden | ... |
First Victim
|
|
|
D. Meade | ... |
Leering Man
|
|
|
Andrew Gorman | ... |
Second Victim
|
|
|
Joe Szula | ... |
Man at Club
|
|
|
Krystof Hádek | ... |
The Swimmer
(as Krystof Hadek)
|
|
|
Roy Armstrong | ... |
Father at Beach
|
|
|
Alison Chand | ... |
Mother at Beach
|
|
|
Ben Mills | ... |
The Baby
|
|
|
Oscar Mills | ... |
The Baby
|
|
|
Lee Fanning | ... |
Motorcyclist #1
|
| Paul Brannigan | ... |
Andrew
|
|
A female drives a van through the roads and streets of Scotland seducing lonely men. Written by Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
I implore anybody that has seen this movie once, and not liked it, to watch it once more. This time, however, take into account that film is a visual medium. Instead of expecting a narrator or a character to easily explain to you what is happening try paying attention to what is happening. Examine and truly THINK about what is expressed visually. The brilliant part about Under The Skin is how well it tells a story without dialog, without running commentary, and without the central character saying much at all.
Think about the purpose of what the female character is doing. The entire story tells itself so easily if you let it. The problem with the modern movie-goer, and admittedly myself, is that we want things explained to us. We're happy to be treated like ignorant flatheads that don't know our butts from our elbows. Look at any other review here on IMDb and pay close attention to what is being criticized. They are mostly the same things over and over again.
They don't criticize what is conveyed through the film's imagery. Instead, they say things like "Not enough was explained." "This film had no plot." "The movie went nowhere." or "Nothing happened." At the risk of sounding smug, I will say that these people are looking for the wrong things in this movie, or any movie. When going into any new film it's important to remember the medium you're choosing to entertain you. It's not like a book on tape, or music. Movies can explain the plot, story, character motivations, and roles without having to have a character, or narrator explain it to you.
I was one of those people that didn't "get" this film and gave it an extremely low rating of 1 star. But I decided to change to a 7 after much reflection on the content and thoughts it provoked afterward. After reading over 5 or 6 positive I got curious. Why do so many people think this movie is fantastic and innovative? I implore you to look up the video review by Renegade Cut.
This one video, in addition to Under The Skin, made me rethink what I think a movie should be. It can be artistic, and different, and entertaining without following the well established formula for modern movies. Personally, I feel like people in general are too harsh. A one star rating should be reserved for terrible films, with nothing to say at all. Well, that's not this film. It certainly has plenty to say about what it's like to be an outsider, and what a gift it truly is to be human.
A one star rating should be reserved for the most thoughtless trash in existence. This isn't even close to that. Was it for me? No, but I certainly "get" it. I get what the message is, and what it was trying to do. That I had to think to myself "What did I just watch?" was enough for a 7 star rating. It made me think, re-evaluate, and wonder. As much as I like Guardians of the Galaxy, or Indiana Jones, I have to ask myself "Did either one of those films make me feel this way?" No, they didn't.
And also, do films necessarily have to be for entertainment? To which I also say no. Films can be about raising a question, or provoking a thought, or experiencing emotions. Maybe the tedium of a scene evokes boredom, but what if that's the point of the scene being shown? Look past your eyes, think about what the director's intent was, and I think you'll enjoy this one way more on a repeat viewing.