A mysterious young woman seduces lonely men in the evening hours in Scotland. However, events lead her to begin a process of self-discovery.A mysterious young woman seduces lonely men in the evening hours in Scotland. However, events lead her to begin a process of self-discovery.A mysterious young woman seduces lonely men in the evening hours in Scotland. However, events lead her to begin a process of self-discovery.
- Director
- Writers
- Walter Campbell
- Jonathan Glazer
- Michel Faber(based on the novel by)
- Stars
Top credits
- Director
- Writers
- Walter Campbell
- Jonathan Glazer
- Michel Faber(based on the novel by)
- Stars
- Nominated for 2 BAFTA Awards
- 23 wins & 111 nominations total
Videos7
Krystof Hádek
- The Swimmeras The Swimmer
- (as Krystof Hadek)
- Director
- Writers
- Walter Campbell
- Jonathan Glazer
- Michel Faber(based on the novel by)
- Production, box office & more at IMDbPro
- All cast & crew
Storyline
An alien entity inhabits the earthly form of a young woman who combs the roads and streets of Scotland in search of the human prey she came to plunder. She seduces her isolated and forsaken male victims into an otherworldly dimension where they are stripped and consumed. However, existence in all its complexity begin to change the alien visitor. She begins to discover herself as human with tragic and terrifying consequences. —Claudio Carvalho, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
- Genres
- Motion Picture Rating (MPAA)
- Rated R for graphic nudity, sexual content, some violence and language
- Parents guide
Did you know
- TriviaThe men lured into the van by Scarlett Johansson's character were not actors. Jonathan Glazer had hidden cameras installed in the van and only informed the men afterwards that they were in a movie.
- GoofsWhen Laura is walking down the street before she trips, you can see reflections of a crew member in a high-vis vest helping the camera follow her down the street.
- Crazy creditsNone of the characters are named in the closing credits: the cast-list is only a list of actors' names.
- ConnectionsFeatured in At the Movies: Venice Film Festival 2013 (2013)
- SoundtracksReal Gone Kid
Performed by Deacon Blue
Written by Ricky Ross
Published by Sony/ATV Music Publishing (UK) Ltd.
Licensed courtesy of Sony Music Entertainment UK Limited
Top review
The film that truly proves what a visual medium film is
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.
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.
helpful•387143
- Daggerborn
- Jan 20, 2015
Details
- Release date
- Countries of origin
- Official sites
- Language
- Also known as
- Під шкірою
- Filming locations
- Production companies
- See more company credits at IMDbPro
Box office
- Budget
- $13,300,000 (estimated)
- Gross US & Canada
- $2,614,251
- Opening weekend US & Canada
- $133,154
- Apr 6, 2014
- Gross worldwide
- $5,866,389
- Runtime1 hour 48 minutes
- Color
- Sound mix
- Aspect ratio
- 1.85 : 1

Oscar Winners Riz Ahmed, Aneil Karia Reteam for Modern ‘Hamlet’ Adaptation
May 11Variety Film + TV

Oscar Winners Riz Ahmed & Aneil Karia Team For Modern ‘Hamlet’ With Morfydd Clark, Joe Alwyn & WME Independent; Duo Give Exclusive Interview About Their Timely Adaptation — Cannes Market Hot Package
May 11Deadline Film + TV
Contribute to this page
Suggest an edit or add missing content

Recently viewed
Please enable browser cookies to use this feature. Learn more.