Under the Skin Reviews
1.5 / 5 stars.
This is an Art film. It does have intrinsic value. There is much that can be gleaned from it's mysteries about the director's or writer's views on human life, our values, gender roles, obsession with physical beauty, misunderstanding of anything foreign or different and a million other deeper subjects that are worthy of discussion. The execution of this vision, however, is bordering on unwatchable.
Are you familiar with David Lynch? Did you enjoy Mullholland Drive, or Inland Empire? Then you will like Under the Skin i think. i *almost* turned this movie off about 1/3 of the way through. There is little to no dialogue to speak of. No exposition. The story has two modes: either jumping from point to point with no real explanation, or lingering in the background of a scene where nothing really happens for several minutes at a time. Random moments are centrally important to understanding what is going on, but you have no way to know when they happen. You do have to think and use your imagination a bit to piece together what it is you are seeing, and i feel like the whole thing is just too vague to connect to an audience. There are two groups of people that i think will enjoy this film.
1. Film School Students. People looking for different ways to photograph scenes, angles, lighting, motion, all of that. Basically people who see film as a pure expression of Art, separate from its audience or entertainment as an ideal- "film critics" fall into this category as well.
2. People who really REALLY want to see Scarlet Johansson naked.
There is plenty of full frontal in this movie. i found none of it erotic or sensational.
This movie is all about atmosphere from the creepy music throughout (intermixed with silence), to the casual themes of rape and murder and apathy to human life. But it is not there for shock value. There were a few truly disturbing scenes but i felt like they were trying to make most of the movie creepy and disturbing but it is mostly boring. i do not think this generation of movie watchers is going to be truly disturbed by any of this. Perhaps if Under the Skin had been released in 1975, it wouldve been a shocking portrayal of something nightmarish.
i found myself waiting and waiting for a payoff to the weirdness and abysmal pace of this movie, and in the end, you do get one, but it is far too late, far too little. i did like Under the Skin a little bit as a sharp gruesome little look into the darker part of our own souls, but it was certainly not worth the two hours of plodding introspection to get there. i cannot recommend this as entertainment to your average movie-goer.
Turn on the world news for 10 minutes and you will feel the same amount of need-to-take-a-shower griminess without all the frustration and confusion.
This again was another incredibly BORING AND STUPID MOVIE!
This is why I NEVER pay attention to what the movie critics say. The average movie goer has MUST better taste and reviews that are worth considering.
Those of you movie critics that gave this movie a rating above 40%, get a new job! You're worthless!
As for Scarlett Johansen choosing this role is beyond me....... Stick with the Marvel movies. You're much better in the Hollywood mainstream! UGH! 1:45 minutes wasting my time!!!