Beneath the Skin

It is tempting to be very critic about this film. Yes, many motives, a lot of mistakes,awful dialogue, not small expectations, wooden acting - the supporting actors as a sort of some spice - and a story not very inspired driven and, more important, the feel about nudity as axis saving the film. But the good intentions are obvious, the story works , in some measure, for a time, as crumbs, the naivety can be, first, terrible but it sounds reasonable to end, the plot is not bad but wrong used and a better chemistry between lead actors could be a good detail. But, short, not so bad.

...don't confuse yourself with a reviewer. "Beneath the Skin" is about a half-step above an ordinary student film. It has a respectable plotline and likeable characters, but it doesn't go anywhere. The script is problematic: Loose ends all over the place which scream out to be connected up and aren't; characters who do things with little or no motivation; subplots (and there are way too many) which are not fleshed out and have nothing to do with anything anyway. Some of the actors are quite promising, but the insufficiencies of the script leave them with little room to maneuver. Others of the actors are just not as yet very good (and may never be). The nudity is largely gratuitous. (If nudity isn't motivated, don't use it. In the 21st century, nudity no longer needs to barely suggested, but if the characters are going to have sex, it also no longer works to just hint at it.) The scenery in Nova Scotia is beautiful, of course, and in general the cinematography takes advantage of that, although at times the shots seem to be largely just random filler. The music ranges from pleasant to annoying. The editing seems ragged, although the editor may have done the best he/she could with the footage available. In short, "Beneath the Skin" is a beginner's work. It shows potential and shouldn't be dismissed because it isn't brilliant. Let's see what comes next; the creators deserve another chance.

This was seriously terrible, on so many levels. This movie was nothing more than a vehicle for writer/director/star Ellis to make out with porn star "Hunter Page". In an interview with Page, he exposes Ellis for finding him while "viewing his work" (gee, I wonder what that means). Page didn't seek out this job, it was Ellis who pursued Page and then (conveniently) cast himself as Page's love interest. The film itself is equally awful. I literally made it to 39 minutes into it before having to turn it off. The idea that Ellis' character, who has the personality of a dead snail and the looks of the most boring accountant on earth, would cause Hunter Page to instantly fall for him and then Page be the aggressor, is beyond laughable. Steer clear of this one folks.

A film with no redeeming features whatsoever: a storyline with more holes in it than a colander, the pacing of a snail, gratuitous scenes of gay bashing, repetitious incidental music, amateur British actors attempting Canadian accents, and a suburban Berkshire house that doubles for a Nova Scotia apartment building (the entrance for which is the kitchen back door).

The lead, Aaron Ellis (also the writer and director), has the charisma of a soggy biscuit.

Just awful, on almost every level.

OK some of the reviews for this are unjustifiably harsh. Yes, the writing is a lil' cringe in places, the acting can be a bit wooden in parts and the British actors trying to do Canadian accents could've been left out... but over all it was a lovely story. Especially since the writer was just 20ish when this was made! I think for a film made on what was most likely a shoe-string budget, by a very young writing/directing team this was a fantastic effort! I believe with a bit more time and experience, they'll make some wonderful lgbt films in the future (with more HFN endings please.) I was actually considerably impressed with the production value knowing that the budget would've been microscopic.

Also did anyone else get an Ed Sheeran vibe from the main actor/writer?