Under the Skin

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.

From the beginning shot of this film depicting lights and eclipses, we will already see that this will not be just another run-of-the-mill motion picture. When we see a nude Scarlett Johansson for the first time in that pristine white room, we definitely know we are in for a different sort of ride.

A woman drives around Scotland. She strikes up conversations with various men she picks up along the way. She will seduce them into coming with her and they follow her into her black void of a house. However, as this woman encounters more men, she will also realize and discover new things about herself.

Despite the presence of a big name star Scarlett Johansson, this is not a mainstream film. The techniques are unmistakably art-house, with long stretches of silence, of Johansson just driving around, of random people just going about their daily routines. It is said that to be realistic, the film makers shot Johansson picking up real men off the street (not actors) and interviewed them without a script as they were driving around. The thick Scottish accents may be unintelligible.

Many audiences may just dismiss this as a fruitless waste of 100 minutes, since on paper, the plot seems to be simple enough for a single "X-Files" episode. However, serious cinephiles will be enraptured by the film's bizarre cinematographic beauty, deeper symbolic meaning and recall films by hallowed directors like Stanley Kubrick or David Lynch.

There are carefully orchestrated shots of seduction, very effective (of course with Johansson in various stages of undress) and mysterious (with that pitch black shiny room and that eerie piercing music by Mica Levi). There was a scene with a couple, their baby and their dog on an isolated windswept beach which will disturb you. There was a scene involving a man with a disfigured face which will haunt you.

"Under the Skin" is a unique artistic movie experience which will polarize audiences. Director Jonathan Glazer has created a bleak masterpiece which will visually mesmerize and thematically baffle his viewers. So, are you seduced to take up this challenge? 7/10.

The problem with movies like this is that you have the people who hate slow, mysterious movies and it's automatically 1 star because there were no car chases or dubstep, and the people that feel they have to defend anything quiet and ambiguous like this and give 9 or 10 stars. "So boring" vs "You just don't get it, man". These types of films always only get 1 or 10 ratings. Really, it's not possible to make a so-so version?

Sometimes people try to make moody, interesting, thought provoking, different kinds of movies and just don't do a great job. This film was right up my alley in every way, but in the end I just said "meh". It wasn't awful, but it did feel a little dull and needlessly drawn out, seemingly because there just wasn't enough to say to fill the time. There also wasn't much to get, really people, it's not that deep or obtuse.

If there had been more eye candy (besides the obvious) I could have dealt with the other weaknesses easier. But I didn't think the visuals were all that interesting as a lot of people seem to. The whole thing was very film school and didn't totally feel like the work of a mature director, but if you told me it was a student film or something a first timer made on credit cards I would have believed you and said "hey nice effort, keep at it".

I would like to give it more than a 4 just because it's totally my kind of film, but it really didn't deserve it, and as I said, that's the problem with these kinds of movies, people voting for what kind of film they like instead of how good this particular one was.

I would like to start by saying i am a fan of films that are "different". I don't need a million gunshots or explosions to entertain me. I am not set on good guy vs bad guy and good guy winning. I like thought provoking films; i enjoy them much more than the soul sucking films that are manufactured on a daily basis. So i was intrigued by this one. The trailer was dark and seemed full of suspense. The critics had made bold comparisons with Stanley Kubrick, which in itself is a massive compliment. And as someone who lives in Scotland it had a little sentiment to it.

But for me it was dull. Every time i thought it was going to pick up the pace, it decelerated. It was so slow it may as well have been going backwards. There are far too many scenes that are prolonged. I am fully aware of its intention to focus on aesthetically driven scenes. But 5/6 seconds is enough to appreciate it, not 10/15 seconds. At some points i thought the reel had maybe stuck and was expecting a CineWorld employee to come pacing round the corner to explain that there was something wrong. It just pauses at points that don't need that much attention. I am also aware of the symbolic nature the film carries. It is clearly a film you need to look further to understand it in more depth. That is fine; i welcome that, but the problem is that it does this without conviction. I don't need to see the masses of drunkards who swarm Sauchiehall Street 20 times. What is the purpose? To let us know that we, as people, blindly walk through life intoxicated not appreciating the finer things in life? That Under the skin we are empty? I assume that is a candidate for its meaning.

Scarlett Johansson doesn't have a lot to do in this film; basically make small talk and get naked, all the while with a plain face. And considering how ridiculous the Scottish actors are made to look, maybe she is due some credit for maintaining that straight face. There are a few things that bug me however; like she can walk down your average staircase, but panics with a spiral staircase. There is a definite point to this film, but with the layout, with there being no real culmination, no real explanation, it leaves you feeling you have been robbed of a film that could have been more. Could have told a better story. And for any Americans who watch, not all Scottish people talk like that, or wear horrible purple shirts, unnecessarily tucking them into our over elevated jeans. We don't all support Hibs and when a van is parked not all of us will gang up and try to break into the van. So feel free to visit. It is a nice place after all. Although the film had some stunning scenes and promotes Scotland visually, it doesn't exactly put the people in a great light.

I wanted to enjoy this film, but i couldn't. I wanted to agree with comparisons with Kubrick, but i certainly won't. You can throw arguments of it was beautifully crafted or had symbolic serenity, but at the end of the day it is slow, uneventful and lacked culmination.

I am surprised by the amount of negative criticism about this film as I found it mesmerising and intriguing. If your expecting some Hollywood movie about a sexy alien killing lots of dull characters in a gory and sensationalised way (with lots of explosions thrown in), then you will be disappointed. The pace is slow however I felt that this contributed to the whole feel and atmosphere. I liked the use of Scotland as a setting especially the way it contrasted the natural beauty of Scotland with some of the urban ugliness that exists. I also liked the way Scarlett Johansson played the main role - cool, sexy and almost emotionless. I am glad I didn't watch this at the cinema as watching it at home meant I could discuss the film during the many periods of calm. There were a few arty scenes in the film but I did not feel these were pretentious or contrived, again they added to the feel of the film. The ending was a little disappointing in my opinion but I still feel this film is classy, original and will make most people think!