devilsadvocado; a bit hypocritical to call out maxdbn for 'looking down on others for not enjoying the same films as he does' and then go on to look down on him because of some of his favourite films.
I don't necessarily hate the film, I just don't like it that much. For viewers praising the visuals, which are stunning by the way, I might as well watch a Nat Geo documentary about Scotland's landscapes. The movie is quite creative as it shows how an alien might interpret our world through human eyes, but do we really have to go through that puzzling experience of watching for 2 hours without a plot? I personally think you can achieve everything in this film within a 15 mins short film, maybe less, including the long takes. It could be much better served with a plot of substence. Just my 2 cents.
Deeply immersive, thoughtful, and terrifying. Definitely not for everyone - there is little to no exposition, you're meant to figure out the plot by inference only.
The original book was mostly about vegetarianism, but this is far more about the nature of being a human (and how others would view us), and some subtle observations on misogyny and 'lad' culture.
Given the incredible visuals and great use of sound, this is probably best watched in a cinema!
It’s finally time to talk about Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin. A science-fiction road trip through Scotland. Told from the perspective of an alien in the skin of a human woman. Laura is a predator, driving a white van around the streets of Scotland. She seduces men by showing only the vaguest interest in them. In return they follow her into a dark nightmare.
Science-fiction. But Under the Skin is a film about real people.
It all hinges first on the girl. Laura. Scarlett Johansson. A Hollywood face in disguise, dropped into the realms of Scottish civilisation. Filmed with hidden cameras. Interacting with real people. True reactions.
Even the opening sequence reflects the dual nature of the film. In the context of the story, we hear Laura practicing her dialogue. She makes vowel sounds and practices the way words form in her mouth. But this is actually a recording of Johansson practicing her dialect for the role. It’s a clever idea, reflecting the nature of the film as a form of method acting.
The first half of the film is sparse of exposition. We follow Laura on her road trip, in her interactions, ensnaring men. She lures them back to a derelict house. Inside is only a dark abyss; a haunting abstract plane. The men descend into this darkness. Willing to do so as they are so captivated by this siren. And something invisible in the darkness pulls the meat from under their skin. Leaving only a hollow shell behind.
The film indulges itself in letting this half of the film play out in slow pace. It is slow because we have to witness the length of time that Laura allows humanity to impact upon her. She is not human. This is never more clear than a particular beach scene. It is a gut-wrenching emotional play that she witnesses, and is completely indifferent to. But over time, the effects of humanity do seep in under the skin. There is no galvanising moment of realisation. It is a slow process.
Yet there is a galvanising moment that shifts the focus of the film. We find a narrative in the second half. As Laura finds a twinkling of humanity, the perspective turns. She experiences the world not from the perspective of a predator, but as the prey. She finds herself in an unfamiliar abyss (a deep forest). She experiences the dark, predatory nature of the human in the film’s climax.
Under the Skin is bold. It is clever. It is beautiful. It provokes thought. It pulls the viewer out of their comfort zone. Jonathan Glazer has made a film that realises his cinematic vision. A guerrilla documentary on the nature of people. The cinematography and soundtrack are haunting. And Scarlett Johansson is ethereal as Laura.
Not my kind of movie. Which is OK I guess. Haven't watched too much art-house, and with the praise this one is getting, I thought I should give it a try. I really liked the soundtrack of this movie. It seems to get a lot of praise, justifiably. It is just so eerie, and sets up an incredible atmosphere, which keeps you right at the edge of the seat. You feel like something wrong is about to happen any moment. Also, it looks gorgeous. Every single frame has something interesting to it, and seems very 3D-like. ScarJo was great too.
But still, this is the kind of movie I just doesn't get. I cant make out what the narrative was all about, even when reading explanations. I don't find it very thought provoking, since I can't make any sense of the movie. I have no idea what was going on. It'll probably stick with me for a while, since it was so WTF, but still. So, I get why some people like it, but it was not my cup of tea.
I wish I'd seen the movie before reading the book. because now I just waited all the awesomeness from the book to happen and then it didn't.
points for being visually pleasing.
The 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.
Add your comment
Comments 1 - 15 of 31
mightysparks
devilsadvocado; a bit hypocritical to call out maxdbn for 'looking down on others for not enjoying the same films as he does' and then go on to look down on him because of some of his favourite films.Tgi
I don't necessarily hate the film, I just don't like it that much. For viewers praising the visuals, which are stunning by the way, I might as well watch a Nat Geo documentary about Scotland's landscapes. The movie is quite creative as it shows how an alien might interpret our world through human eyes, but do we really have to go through that puzzling experience of watching for 2 hours without a plot? I personally think you can achieve everything in this film within a 15 mins short film, maybe less, including the long takes. It could be much better served with a plot of substence. Just my 2 cents.burythehammer
Deeply immersive, thoughtful, and terrifying. Definitely not for everyone - there is little to no exposition, you're meant to figure out the plot by inference only.The original book was mostly about vegetarianism, but this is far more about the nature of being a human (and how others would view us), and some subtle observations on misogyny and 'lad' culture.
Given the incredible visuals and great use of sound, this is probably best watched in a cinema!
sixteenmiles
https://16miles.wordpress.com/2015/05/21/under-the-skin-2013/It’s finally time to talk about Jonathan Glazer’s Under the Skin. A science-fiction road trip through Scotland. Told from the perspective of an alien in the skin of a human woman. Laura is a predator, driving a white van around the streets of Scotland. She seduces men by showing only the vaguest interest in them. In return they follow her into a dark nightmare.
Science-fiction. But Under the Skin is a film about real people.
It all hinges first on the girl. Laura. Scarlett Johansson. A Hollywood face in disguise, dropped into the realms of Scottish civilisation. Filmed with hidden cameras. Interacting with real people. True reactions.
Even the opening sequence reflects the dual nature of the film. In the context of the story, we hear Laura practicing her dialogue. She makes vowel sounds and practices the way words form in her mouth. But this is actually a recording of Johansson practicing her dialect for the role. It’s a clever idea, reflecting the nature of the film as a form of method acting.
The first half of the film is sparse of exposition. We follow Laura on her road trip, in her interactions, ensnaring men. She lures them back to a derelict house. Inside is only a dark abyss; a haunting abstract plane. The men descend into this darkness. Willing to do so as they are so captivated by this siren. And something invisible in the darkness pulls the meat from under their skin. Leaving only a hollow shell behind.
The film indulges itself in letting this half of the film play out in slow pace. It is slow because we have to witness the length of time that Laura allows humanity to impact upon her. She is not human. This is never more clear than a particular beach scene. It is a gut-wrenching emotional play that she witnesses, and is completely indifferent to. But over time, the effects of humanity do seep in under the skin. There is no galvanising moment of realisation. It is a slow process.
Yet there is a galvanising moment that shifts the focus of the film. We find a narrative in the second half. As Laura finds a twinkling of humanity, the perspective turns. She experiences the world not from the perspective of a predator, but as the prey. She finds herself in an unfamiliar abyss (a deep forest). She experiences the dark, predatory nature of the human in the film’s climax.
Under the Skin is bold. It is clever. It is beautiful. It provokes thought. It pulls the viewer out of their comfort zone. Jonathan Glazer has made a film that realises his cinematic vision. A guerrilla documentary on the nature of people. The cinematography and soundtrack are haunting. And Scarlett Johansson is ethereal as Laura.
Five.
TalkingElvish
Fantastic. So audacious and such a refreshing blast of 'otherness' in the cinema. Hope it turns up on a list or two soon.cm06mrs
Jesus ChristChikamaharry
Not my kind of movie. Which is OK I guess. Haven't watched too much art-house, and with the praise this one is getting, I thought I should give it a try. I really liked the soundtrack of this movie. It seems to get a lot of praise, justifiably. It is just so eerie, and sets up an incredible atmosphere, which keeps you right at the edge of the seat. You feel like something wrong is about to happen any moment. Also, it looks gorgeous. Every single frame has something interesting to it, and seems very 3D-like. ScarJo was great too.But still, this is the kind of movie I just doesn't get. I cant make out what the narrative was all about, even when reading explanations. I don't find it very thought provoking, since I can't make any sense of the movie. I have no idea what was going on. It'll probably stick with me for a while, since it was so WTF, but still. So, I get why some people like it, but it was not my cup of tea.
mariannepaqn
This felt like a long, terrifying nightmare. I loved it.Worzel
If you liked Eraserhead, this'll be a breeze.If you don't like arty-farty, out of your comfort zone, don't look here.
lightlykilled
I wish I'd seen the movie before reading the book. because now I just waited all the awesomeness from the book to happen and then it didn't.points for being visually pleasing.
Torgo
Certainly not what most people might have expected a year ago ..Carota
Well, that was something.UnEnfantPerdu
Are movies meant to be entertaining? If so I'd want to rethink my evaluation of Bresson ,Dreyer and Mizoguchi movies.Sk1337
Beautiful visuals and great acting, but it was too damn slow for my taste..Cynicus Rex
Do read Under the Skin's trivia: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1441395/trivia/The first one made me appreciate the movie more: “
Showing items 1 – 15 of 31