Under the Skin

I can handle not knowing who our characters are, what their motives are, how they relate to one another, and what the point is for so long, but at some point you need to articulate something... anything. Let me know what they're thinking, why they're doing what they're doing. I was starved of answers for the entire duration of the movie.

This movie seems to rely on its mood and tone over anything of substance and form. It has remarkably few lines of dialog, and what is there is mostly unimportant. We're left to interpret Johansson's character based on her facial expressions and behaviors, and even those are quite vague. There's just not a whole lot here. The film hints at a lot but never truly defines it.

The ending isn't setup aside from the ethereal sequences prior. In the end, we still don't know quite who she is or what she was. I doubt the writer had a specific idea either.

Overall, I didn't like this movie. I found myself asking questions that just were never answered. The film hides behind a layer of mystery, which piques your interest, but there's nothing underneath. Even now having seen the ending, knowing what she is, doesn't leave me feeling satisfied in any way.

Skip this one. Not worth the time.

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.

Despite being a box office failure, 'Under the Skin' was a critical success with a lot of critics citing it as "an unforgettable experience" and one of the best films of the year. Audience reaction, as one can see here, has been much more divisive.

One can see why. 'Under the Skin' is the sort of film that will captivate some and alienate others. Being somebody who does like science fiction (and often the more polarising, different and critically acclaimed ones), who really enjoyed the more linear satirical book and was intrigued by the concept, there was the hope that it would be as good as the critics said (being one of the few on IMDb who doesn't resort to immature critic bashing and can see more often than not where they're coming from). Did prepare myself, judging by the divisive audience reaction and how vitriolic some of the negative reactions have been, for disappointment or finding it not as good as made out while still acknowledging its strengths.

Seeing 'Under the Skin', much of it was very impressive. Can totally see why people disliked it, do share a few of the complaints myself, but can see even more why critics and many others loved it. Will not resort to the oh so common, overused and abused stereotypical phrases always spouted on people's tastes on both sides, wanting to be a fair and perceptive reviewer and not someone who thinks only their opinion is right and nobody else's is (seen a lot around here).

'Under the Skin' to me wasn't perfect. Maybe it would have worked better as a short film. Can see why the slow pacing was adopted, for atmosphere and immersing into the world reasons, but there are parts that are a bit too drawn-out and meandering which doesn't always make the film as attention-grabbing as it could have been. The story structurally is a very slight one and not a conventional narrative, this is not always a problem in film and it cannot be denied that in terms of creating a mood and atmosphere that this is a triumph, sometimes it did feel too thin and while the basic concept is clear cohesion is not always a strength. Anybody feeling that there are unanswered questions here will find that the book, which has much more depth and clarity, provides the answers.

However, 'Under the Skin' does look amazing with some startlingly original imagery that really haunts the mind. The cinematography and eerie lighting, as well as the beautiful but austere Scottish landscapes, help make it one of the visually best-looking films that year. A big star is Mica Levi's electronic score that relies on drums and strings, this is one nerve-shredding music score with the freakiest use of strings for any film seen in recent memory.

The film is a triumph of mood and atmosphere. There is a real sense of queasy horror, eerie chills and an otherworldliness. Standout scenes here are the jaw-dropping cosmic sequence, reminding one of '2001: A Space Odyssey', the nightmarish and tension-filled beach scene and the poetic, sensual but pretty creepy seduction. Jonathan Glazer does a fine job directing, particularly in immersing the viewer into this world. The script is minimal but hardly weak.

Scarlett Johansson is mesmerising here in one of her best performances, she's rarely been more sensual and she shows a mastery of conveying so much while saying little, very hard to do and under-appreciated by many. Adam Pearson also gives a disturbing but poignant performance. Other than them, the rest of the acting is competent but not standout-worthy or memorable while never being disastrous or bad.

In conclusion, not mind-blowingly incredible and understandably divisive but one of those experiences that is hard not to forget. 7/10 Bethany Cox

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.