Under the Skin (I) (2013) User Reviews (1,033)

Gets under the skin

[TheLittleSongbird · 7/10 · 3 September 2017]

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

The film that truly proves what a visual medium film is

[Daggerborn · 7/10 · 20 January 2015]

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.

Bizarrely Mesmerizing

[3xHCCH · 7/10 · 23 July 2014]

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.

Feeling for the alien

[jon1410 · 12 October 2015]

In the film Under the Skin there is no story line or development of character(as in the book), the almost non-existent story must be created from what we see. Johansson plays a blank,humanoid void of personality, filling in (like us) the blanks of what she knows with what she sees. The stroke of genius was dropping an A-list star into the streets of Glasgow and her mixing with non actors using a Kiarostami-type -10 approach to filming in and from the white van, with all the sounds of the street filtering through. I wonder how much this film traded on Scarlet Johansson's celebrity glamour rather than her acting skills as she seems like a passive observer, almost mute, apart from a few encounters with stranger pick-ups on the streets, where the recognisable husky voice and seductive tone reels another unsuspecting victim into her lair. There are some brilliant,stunning visual effects, making the film realise the the alien presence with the eye image from the spherical globe, to the birth of her human identity in the all-white space, where she dons the victim's clothes and identity. The heroine knows how to drive a car and turn a sentence, and the use of red lip-stick as she kerb crawls.

The chipper lad, the cocksure charmer, the deformed lonely hearts are all lured in by this femme fa tale, siren of film noir luring them( friendless) into the cavern of blackness of her squat. The victims wade into a black intergalactic gloo as she walks on enticingly above. A mystery biker speeding the Scottish highways seems to aid and abet her, or monitor and supervise her. Is he her controller or is he her drone? All is accompanied by Mica Levi's eerie ominous drums and strings soundtrack. We don't know who she is, she doesn't even have a name. She has a mission, some of which she may not know herself. She even kills one victim with a rock when he's washed up on a beach trying to save two people in the sea. I'm not sure how much we are supposed to project onto her opaque performance glimmerings of consciousness, e. G. when she picks up a man at night suffering from facial disfigurement, whose loneliness and longing appear to affect her and she lets him live, then after she takes off for the Scottish highlands, her growing human awareness and vulnerability allows her to experience briefly a relationship and sex which shocks her. She is seen to explore her naked body, to wonder about its effects in a mirror. The ending is both matter-of-fact and tragic.

Glazer made it clear on this project of 9 years, he didn't want to make the novel, but make a film on what it means to feel human. The clever ploy is using the alien gaze to show us our own alienness back to us. How alien we would seem to an alien as how strange an alien would be to us in any encounter. He's on slippery ground. We cannot gainsay the beauty of non-verbal images, but this has no substance without a narrative thread. As a former director of music videos and TV commercials there is a slickness, he creates atmosphere and mood, but lacking dialogue or narrative, what does happen has a certain repetition and tedium, blankness and incomprehension, emptied as the story is of its intellectual content and relevant details. Still its Johansson's best yet. A very anti- Scarlett performance where she takes risks.

If your open minded give it a try

[RaveReviewerzzz · 7/10 · 10 August 2014]

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!

Not for everyone...

[iwatkin · 6/10 · 25 October 2014]

Until I read someone's explanation of the opening of the movie, there was no way I was going to understand it. It culminated in an eye (which I kind of anticipated). Beyond that, I was clueless, but knew that I was in for an "interesting" 90 minutes.

One review I read elsewhere stated, "If you want to see Scarlett Johansson drive around in a van for 90 minutes... go for it!" While not entirely inaccurate as far as reviews go, it's not all she does in the movie. Having been disappointed again and again by her acting, it made perfect sense to cast her as an emotionless alien predator. In many ways, this is just another take on the vampire genre. It has sci-fi elements scattered about the place, but it's mostly a beautiful exposition of early spring-time Scotland and a terrible characterization of Scottish people.

Almost entirely devoid of language, barring the odd, "Do you have a girlfriend?" or, "I'm trying to get to the M8," it relies almost entirely on imagery and action to tell the story.

Having said that, you may be fooled into thinking that I didn't like the movie at all. I actually enjoyed it. I "got" the plot without any problems, though a reading of the novel would definitely fill in some gray areas. But I can't get over the idea that a lot of the plot went on in Scarlett's character's head. Her ultimate empathy for the human race and her desperate bid to break free of her ghoulish task are only partly explained.

All in all, not enough plot to cover the time allotted, but I didn't feel scammed or that I'd entirely wasted my time. But definitely not a "redefining of what it means to be human" as one reviewer put it.

I also have to note that my television turned itself off about halfway through. That's never happened before. Was it trying to tell me something?

The problem here...

[bongo_x · 4/10 · 14 April 2015]

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.

An intriguing film that probably requires a second viewing

[Tweekums · 8/10 · 26 November 2016]

As this film opens a motorcyclist drives along a remote Scottish road and retrieves the body of a woman from a field and takes in to a white van. We then see her in a pure white space where a naked woman proceeds to undress her then put on her clothes. She then drives the van to Glasgow and starts asking men for directions, as she does so see asks if they are local and have friends or family… when one doesn't she offers him a lift. She then lures him back to a dilapidated house where, in what can best be described as a black space, they start to undress. He walks towards her but gradually sinks into an oily liquid without noticing. She continues this emotionless behaviour until she finds a disfigured man; for some reason he is spared. She then heads to the highlands where she abandons the van and meets a man on a bus. While they spend the night together the motorcyclist, who has 'dealt with' the man she spared, is driving north towards her location.

Having just watched this film for the first time I'm unsure just how to feel; I expect I'll need to watch it again to be sure. That may sound like a bad thing but I think in this case it is a sign of how intriguing I found it. The story was told in a very detached way we are not told why this woman is doing what she does or why nor are we told what her connection to the mysterious and somewhat sinister motorcyclist is. The dialogue is sparse and what there is doesn't really tell us much about the characters. The only real exception was when she picked up the disfigured man; this scene was tender and showed that the protagonist was developing emotions… in stark contrast to an earlier scene where she left a baby on a remote beach after seeing its parents drown and clobbering a would be rescuer with a rock. Scarlett Johansson was great in the leading role making is believe that her character was simultaneously a dangerous predator but could also be as vulnerable as any ordinary woman. The rest of the cast, mostly non-actors, are also impressive in a way that adds to the feeling that they are real people. The cinematography adds to the strange feel of the film; it gives a sense of detachment as well as a sense of danger. There is a fair amount of nudity but it is all fairly matter of fact rather than overly leery or erotic. Overall I'd recommend this but admit it certainly won't be for everybody.

Strange, troubling, but artistically special movie

[bob-the-movie-man · 7/10 · 25 March 2014]

I was intrigued by this film: the (UK) Times reviewer gave it 5 stars; the Sunday Times reviewer gave it 1 star. Such diversity of view has to be investigated! Let's get one thing straight before we start; Under the Skin is very much an 'art house' film, so don't go and see it if you are looking for a nice, linear 'popcorn' movie. It starts very much in '2001' style (or, actually, Close Encounters style) and the poster commentaries about director Jonathan Glazer ('Sexy Beast') being 'the new Kubrick' are not misplaced. The start is decidedly abstract, as is much of the rest of the film.

Under the Skin tells the strange story of an alien being who - for reasons barely explained - disguises him/her/itself as an attractive woman (Scarlett Johansson) who picks up single men in and around Glasgow. These men will not be readily 'missed', and she uses her sexuality to lure them to a - literally - sticky end.

She is aided and abetted in this goal by another alien in the form of a menacing biker, who 'cleans up' evidence after her activities. Her mission really depends on her being inhuman in every sense of the word, and the film shows the journey of Johansson as she starts, almost imperceptibly, to appreciate the comings and goings of the ant-like Glaswegians that she is preying on. Ultimately this desire to understand more and get 'closer' is her undoing: hunter becomes prey, with members of both species out to get her.

Scarlett Johansson is excellent as the emotionless alien, treating events like a yob attack with curious puzzlement rather than fear or anger. I'd like to say I can hardly see enough of Johansson: but actually there is substantial (and brave) nudity in this film, and she is a 'real' woman in every sense of the word. This really is a starring role, since most of the other characters in the film make very fleeting appearances, with - just to even the balance - significant male nudity involved as well.

Whilst the story is relatively slight, the film is executed with significant style, with some atmospheric landscapes and a roving camera around the streets of Glasgow observing (presumably) everyday Glaswegians at work and play. One marvellous scene shows Johansson's face as a transparent layer observing a mosaic of street scenes that build up on the screen: it is so impressive it makes me want to dive for Final Cut X and try to replicate it.

A shout out should also go to the stunt team, for one particularly dangerous-looking (and very harrowing) scene on a deserted beach. If there is one scene that is likely to stick with you long after the film has finished it is the final shot of that beach and the troubled soul upon it.

Music by newcomer Mika Levi is strangely alien as befits the film, full of atonal sounds and (again) being reminiscent of Ligeti's equally strange music in 2011: A Space Odyssey.

You might guess already from my comments that I'm not going to give this 1 star. But I'm also not going to give it 5 stars either. My criticisms fall into a couple of areas. Firstly, setting the film in Glasgow is very atmospheric, but some of the dialogue is (I'm sorry) pretty incomprehensible: and my English ear is better tuned than the American or rest of the world market will find it! (One can only hope that a 'Yes' vote for Scottish independence in September might get films like this classed as 'Foreign Films', and subtitles can be provided!) More seriously, the ending of the film irritated me enormously. Woman meets man in lonely woods and immediately becomes the target for a sexual assault. Obviously. "They're all asking for it". This is lazy and mysogynist plotting, letting the overall movie down. I guess the director was trying to compare and contrast the hunter/hunted switch through the film, but in my humble opinion the film could have reached its denouement in a much more elegant and believable way.

For this reason, I knock a few points off the score.

(If you enjoyed this review, please go to bobmann447.wordpress.com and sign up to 'Follow the Fad'!)

A 20 minute short story stretched to feature film length

[goteamscotch · 3/10 · 27 September 2023]

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 non-spoiler trailers represents this wonderful movie perfectly

[adrian-15 · 10/10 · 9 August 2014]

Did any of the 100+ 'one star' 'worst film ever' reviewers see the trailer for 'Under the Skin'? If they had, they would have known exactly what they were in for. I'm just guessing that the prospect of seeing Scarlett Johansson naked had many of them them throw caution into the wind. And then they felt cheated. Serves them right.

The trailer perfectly captures the mood of this film, without giving anything away. Distancing, cold, slow, with a continuous sense of doom, terrifying, but also heartbreaking. Some scenes (on the beach, the last passenger, the two guys) will stay with me forever.

An amazing performance by Scarlett Johansson, who was given very little dialogue and had to act non-verbally for most of the running time. Superb soundtrack, editing, and cinematography. It takes some effort to keep up and fill in the blanks (an easy film this is not), but the rewards are ample. But please, see the trailer first.

Amazing

[videodrome1234 · 7/10 · 23 August 2014]

It's interesting when get on radar because of something that should not be the reason for it being there. The media whipped itself into a frenzy about this film for one reason Scarlett Johansson flashing her tits. This is a pretty negative thing, without this would we even have heard of this film? I don't know if anyone heard anything else about it and that's a huge problem. Jonathan Glazer isn't an easy director to take when he makes a film you sit up and pay attention. Unfortunately he's only done this 3 times and the last time was 10 years ago. For me that's a more interesting angle to promote a film with. The directors previous 2 films were unique experiences. Sexy Beast was pure genius and Birth was very special. When you put all this together with the fact that the genre of Under the Skin is SCI-FI drama, then you kind of understand why so many young actors clamored for the opportunity to get leading roles. Scarlet Johansson won the role, returning a little to the art world after diving into the comic book world and is genius in the role. The story: An alien takes the body of an attractive young woman and travels Scotland in a van picking up men. As she lures her victims into a trap with the promise of sex, the men are immersed in liquid and their flesh is harvested. She is monitored by another alien, who has the body of a male motorcyclist. When she seduces a lonely and sexually inexperienced man who has facial neurofibromatosis disfigurement, she takes pity on him and begins to feel more conscious of her human body. She is helped by a man who takes her to his home, cooks for her, and gives her a room. Right off the bat let me say that Under the Skin is a genius film and exactly like what you would expect from a director like this, but it's not for everyone. The average viewer will probably find it boring and a little out to left field but that's kind of what can be expected from Glazer. There isn't a whole lot of dialog in the film the pictures drive the story instead. The cinematographer did an amazing job not to mention the set designer. You can feel the influence of other directors, but obviously it's not a sin to use the ideas of the greats especially if you make something good in the end. The films music is another thing that stands out as it beautifully underscores the pictures. Though the film is surreal, but maybe that's why it's not like anything we've seen before. For me that's one of the biggest virtues of a film if they can make something that hasn't been seen before. That's really asking for a lot though in the age of sequels and remakes. The film is an adaptation of a book that's been declared a modern day classic. It takes you on a ride sometimes it's tempo is calm sometimes the pictures rile you up so much they get under your skin. All in all the film is an original SCI-FI but that doesn't mean that it's just the fans of the genre, more like for film and art film fans. The film is filled with metaphors and they'll enjoy it. It's not an easy film, but it will give you an interesting experience. 8/10 https://www.youtube.com/user/Videodromeblog

Someone kept pausing the film....no wait they didn't.

[The_moan_of_all_moans · 4/10 · 16 March 2014]

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.

Amazing but not for everyone

[spacejunk001 · 6 October 2013]

This is a film that will divide audiences, for sure - but, don't forget, so did 2001: A Space Odyssey when it came out. Despite the presence of a mainstream actress, and a science fiction premise, this is an art film 100%, inviting a very subjective response from audiences. Which isn't to say it doesn't have a plot, though. Addressing the confusion of previous IMDb comments - the men that Johansson's alien traps have their innards sucked out and transported through a cosmic portal. One scene makes that pretty hard to miss! The film is about her developing a morality based on her actions, and trying to escape the purpose on earth that she's functioned for, that her overseers (the people on motorbikes - also aliens in human form) make sure she goes through with)

A super-creepy music score, amazing visuals and a brave & mesmerizing performance from SJ combine for a film that will be talked about for years to come. Ignore whatever you read about it - especially the bad comments here, which are completely ignorant - and go in with an open mind.

Intriguing art-house film

[Leofwine_draca · 6/10 · 10 October 2015]

UNDER THE SKIN is one of those low budget films that does a lot with very few ingredients. Although I was put off by some of the obvious artifice of the thing - the ominous-sound music is WAY too overused and intense - at the same time I enjoyed the visual beauty of the experience, and the more offbeat scenes. Bizarrely, the film I can most liken it to is the Norman J. Warren-directed '70s gorehouse quickie PREY, in which a carnivorous alien showed up at the home of a couple of lesbians.

Scarlet Johansson turns out to be an excellent choice of lead and deserves kudos for appearing in a film like this (how many big Hollywood actresses can you see doing it?). There's always been something slightly alien and unsettling about her and she puts this quality to good use in the tale of sex, murder, and abduction in the mean Scottish streets. The use of a Hollywood actress was also a clever idea as Johansson no doubt felt like an outsider in her surroundings and put that quality to good use. Sure, the tale is a downbeat one (and the climax especially so) and not much really happens, but at least it's beautiful to look at. The copious use of sex and nudity is maturely handled, and the more offbeat elements are kept relatively subtle so that they're all the more effective. It's an intriguing film, even if not one of my favourites.

Balloons. Surfaces. A profound study of our society.

[eivinas-butkus · 10/10 · 10 September 2013]

I have to admit that I did not see the first minutes of the film. Neither have I read the book therefore I will write about this film as if it was a piece of art on its own, which it is.

Under the Skin is a new picture from Jonathan Glazer, who has also directed Birth with Nicole Kidman and some music videos for bands like Radiohead. The main character, alien Laura, is played by the famous actress Scarlett Johansson.

Firstly, there is no obvious narrative in this film, because it does not have a big significance or importance here. On the most basic level it is a story of an alien imposing a woman and seducing men from all over Scotland in order to drain their flesh. This is the most simple summary of the movie. On deeper layers it is a serious study of our society. The film's main focus is on the inside and outside of things, the philosophy of form and material. Johansson's character is struggling in this society. She is always portrayed as going against the stream, she is lost in the sea of rushing people who do not want to get deeper into things, because they know they could be hurt. This is represented in a very subtle visual way. For instance, roses look nice in the film, but they have spikes which make rose seller's hands bleed. A piece of cake seems delicious, but the taste of it is disgusting. It is always the fight between the surface and depth in this film, the first impression and further investigation. I believe it is a very important theme for our society where people are afraid of making commitments or engagements, where they seek for quick pleasures, even though they need true and honest love. The film is very strong visually and stylistically. In order for the reader to get a glimpse of what it is, I will say that it is sort of a combination of Kubrick, Lynch and von Trier.

Kubrick - for using clever cinematic language, for all the subliminal messages that are there like a sign on a building saying "Open 24" which is pretty ironic as nobody in the film is truly open. The director deliberately plays with this open and closed concept a lot. The music is somewhat similar to Eyes Wide Shut's too and I think it is used to the fullest in Under the Skin as a form of expression. One can also feel the influence of 2001: A Space Odyssey with all those shots of abstract liquids and close-ups of a human eye.

Lynch - for the dreamy, surreal sequences and the guy with the ugly face. I see it as a direct reference to his film The Elephant Man where he also talks about the inner beauty of a human being.

Von Trier - for the sea scene (Breaking the Waves), for the foggy scenes in the woods (Antichrist). Like it usually happens with von Trier's work, someone might blame this film of cheap shock value. I do not think that is the case. The film is being a little provocative, indeed, but at the same time all those provocations are reasoned by the message the director wants to convey.

So one can easily feel some influence from other directors, maybe some references, but I should say that this film does not lack originality at all. The directing decisions and the choice of music are as strong as the 2.5 minute close-up of Nicole Kidman's face in Birth. If you have seen that scene, you know what you are dealing with here.

Even though, in my opinion, the images are very meaningful and extremely powerful, Under the Skin has received a lot of contrasting responses. Personally, I think the film is a masterpiece and it is worth the Golden Lion, but there are people who actually hated it and booed at it after having seen it. I cannot really understand why they did that, but I think it is good when a piece of art inflicts emotions and receives such different responses. It means that it is not mediocre and that it will cause discussions, maybe some self reflection which is always a good thing. The film suggests that I should get more into details, analyse things carefully from beginning to end, but I will not, just because I want other people to see it first and make their own conclusions. But obviously Under the Skin demands a bigger analysis than this one. I will just say that I was blown away by what I saw on the screen and by what I heard from the speakers. I hope I will get to see it again on the big screen. It has so much power and it is questioning the most important, essential things about our existence - our values as human beings. Where are we going, where are we rushing? Maybe we need to stop and look at the beauty around us? Maybe we should stop being superficial about others? Or maybe we are empty like balloons ourselves? For me it is definitely the best film from the 70th Venice Film Festival and one of the best films I have seen in my life.

Disquieting

[listofnames · 7/10 · 18 March 2014]

A sexy woman drives around Scotland in a white van. She picks up unsuspecting men and leads them to their doom. She leads them on for sex until they find themselves walking naked into a liquid pool. There they are submerged, trapped like flys in amber.

Why? Well, we can gather that Johansson's character is not from this planet and that her race use the bodies of these men for some unspecified purpose. Perhaps to provide the skins needed to disguise themselves. She is wearing one herself after all, over her smooth, sleek, jet-black alien body. In one memorable scene (the only one seen from inside the mysterious liquid) one of the victims skins bursts like a balloon, his insides somehow completely removed. Or perhaps they use humans as food or both.

The predator seems completely unremorseful about her task. Like a robot. No empathy for her victims. Yet later I discovered that what I mistook for lack of empathy was in fact lack of understanding. She has no concept of human nature. How could she. She is carrying out a task that possibly makes very little sense to her in a world which probably makes very little sense to her. Eventually something twigs and she seems to begin to develop some empathy or realises that she doesn't want to do this anymore. So she tries to hide away from her minders.

Yet it's not her minders that she needs to be wary of. The final scene of the film is rather brutal and you actually feel sorry for her, even though she was a cold blooded killer. Yet it's actually a human who was much worse in the end.

The special effects are used sporadically in the film but when they do they are very effectively otherworldly and authentic. It is filmed beautifully. Some lovely rugged Scottish landscapes are used to good effect. There is a subtle horror to this film. And there are quite a few disquieting scenes. The music/sound is used stunningly throughout the film. It often reflects the mood of the scenes perfectly: dread and unease and sinisterness.

Its hard to say what the aliens ultimately want and there isn't much of a plot in the film. Some will find it quite dull and yes it is a little dull and slow at times. My friend who saw it with me found no merit to the film at all. 2 hours of his life wasted he said. I on the other hand felt like it was a worthwhile experience. Experience maybe being the operative word. It is very mysterious and disquieting. For that I would recommend it. Its makes me want to seek out the book to try to get some answers.

Perhaps this film is saying something profound about sex, loneliness or feminism, or all of them. It could probably be interpreted along those lines but whatever the message is I'm not sure I'm smart enough to get it.

Does Johansson blow us away? No, but what she does she does well. She also gets very naked so hats off to her for being so brave.

"You just don't get it, bro" - the movie

[danielboshell · 2/10 · 6 July 2023]

Easily the most boring movie I have seen this year.

We see an alien becoming more and more human - an interesting premise, but it's held back by an unnecessarily sluggish pace, lack of dialogue, and mangled narrative which leaves the audience with far too many questions (why does this happen? Why are we here? How did we get here? What is the purpose of this?) I realise some of the commenters here are saying the movie was amazing and that movies are like pieces of art etc. But ultimately, movies are supposed to entertain. This movie was not entertaining, it was absurdly boring and pretentious. I do not recommend this movie to anyone, except perhaps to someone who owes me money and is sleeping with my sister.

Strange and hypnotic.

[UtopianUK · 8/10 · 14 July 2014]

With its art house feel, this film delivers something very unconventional and intensely strange. If you expect action and gory horror, you will certainly be disappointed. But maybe you will end up hypnotised by the eerie world Scarlett Johansson traverses. The gritty, bleak environment feels like a mixture of grim reality and shadowy nightmare. At times it feels like a surreal dream you want to wake up from, but one that is so compulsive, you can't resist continuing.

Scarlett Johansson is captivating and her English accent spot on. There are many sights, sounds, and characters that go together to create the overall nightmarish dreamscape experience. The direction, creative flair and overall design, make this film very different from the norm.

I came away feeling very affected by the intense experience this film delivers. I will watch it again at some point, but only when my mind is ready, because it really took me to a dark, disturbing place.

Misunderstood

[jelisdelapoesie · 7/10 · 17 May 2020]

I think a lot of people who didn't like this film may have misunderstood it. On the other hand, I feel there is some degree of exaggeration from the 'best sci-fi I've ever seen' crowd. Make no mistake this is a good film. It is a very good piece of work. It may not be all that entertaining for everyone (I myself was not much taken with it at first) but it is not supposed to be entertaining. I think it is supposed to be thought provoking. The way I saw it, Scarlett's character was an alien working for her boss (motorbike man) harvesting humans. However after a while she seems to begin to develop feelings and a sense of curiosity. In short she starts to identify with the humans she sees around her and tries to learn more. This unfortunately leads her down a dangerous path. The critics who deny her fantastic portrayal of this character obviously didn't understand that the stoney emotionless regard she expressed for much of the film was due simply to her being alien. We are not supposed to be able to relate to her, she is not like us. The fact that you find her lack of expression difficult to comprehend is exactly the point.

Not the Book

[Sharonov · 5/10 · 17 April 2014]

About 5 years ago I read the book by Michael Faber. In the book, a strange looking woman with big boobs picks up Scottish hitchhikers, ascertains if they're alone in the world; if they are, she takes them to a secret place where they are anesthetized, then castrated and de- tongued. They are then fattened to be used for food in the place she comes from, an unnamed planet. She has had her face altered to look human by removing her snout. She feels very ugly because of this. At one point a male she was in love with comes to visit the secret place and she feels terrible because of her "deformity", realizing that now he will never love her. At one point in the book she is almost raped by a very crude man, and blinds him with her nails.

The poor men being fattened for food are depicted as being very pathetic, and I originally thought it was a protest against the way we treat factory farm animals. Michael Faber denied this, and maybe that's why he hasn't protested this very vague use of his work. And, maybe he's just hungry.

This movie is so far from the book it's ridiculous, but that would have been OK if it weren't so boring. Some of the special effects and music were just weird enough to make what happens almost believable. Had it been shortened; had it been a little more obvious why the men were being caught and imprisoned in the jello stuff, I think I would have enjoyed it more. As the previous reviewer pointed out, the scenes were just too long.

Jonathon Glazer continues his ascent with another fabulous movie that will entirely divide its audience

[markgorman · 9/10 · 16 March 2014]

You have never seen a movie even remotely like this.

It's been a long time coming. Ten years in development, to be precise, and I've followed the saga throughout.

My interest was based on my love of the source novel by Michel Faber which is a modern classic.

Clearly the 10 year development period demonstrated the difficulty with which the novel would translate to the screen but, in my opinion, it was worth the effort, and the wait.

When I heard that it was in Jonathon Glazer's hands (Birth and Sexy Beast) I was encouraged, and when I found out that Scarlett Johansen was to play the central character Isserley (unnamed in the movie but credited as Laura for some reason) my heart skipped a beat.

I was not disappointed, but let's make no mistake, this is a Marmite movie.

My wife was bored to tears. And I can see why one IMDb reviewer headlines his review "Tedious. Thoughtless. Empty. A failure in all ways." But I disagree entirely. It's fair to say that the pace is laconic, but it's a thing of beauty and a movie packed full of ideas, unique special effects and greatness.

If you haven't read the novel you might be forgiven for asking what the hell is going on in this story and, yes, there are elements of it that are fully explored. The long section of the movie where Isserley combs the streets of Glasgow, looking for her victims, with the help of hidden cameras bringing a documentary feel to the whole proceeding, is long and a little repetitive. But it's necessary to show the exhaustion of her task and her eventual disintegration. What's more, it does not paint the city in an entirely positive light. To that end Creative Scotland should be commended for supporting it. It's a movie packed with visual metaphor. There are some moments of horror but they are far from gratuitous and all completely emotionless which is to be expected given that Isserley is an alien, devoid of emotion, sent to earth to farm unattached males for her home planet (not that you'd work that out).

From the opening sequence in which Isserley's eyes are created, to replicate humans', the imagery is breathtakingly disconcerting. It's underpinned by an outstanding soundtrack by Mica Levi.

Johansonn is magnificent. Isn't she always? She is brave to take on a role this opinion dividing, and she manages to exude a total lack of emotion throughout in such a way that, unbelievably, you kind of sympathise with her role as human culler.

Glazer is magnificent. But he always is. Birth is a much underrated movie and anyone who saw his debut, Sexy Beast, cannot fail to love the guy.

This is a great movie. Rammed to the rafters with original thought. It's just a great pity so many of you will dislike it so much.

What a weird movie

[broeatsomecaps · 7/10 · 14 September 2021]

This movie was surprisingly dark and creepy. This is one of Scarlett Johansson best work, she delivers an eye catching performance. The way this movie was captured was very unique especially when she gets a hold of people. I can't wait to see what direction the director is gonna take.

Brilliant cinematography can't save empty vessel sci-fi art-house script

[Turfseer · 4/10 · 20 February 2015]

Jonathan Glazer waited nine years before coming out with his next movie, "Under the Skin," and one wonders why he couldn't have spared us and waited another nine years. The project only shines in the visual department as there's some beautiful cinematography by Daniel Landin, particularly of the Scottish Highlands. Glazer based his script on the novel of the same name by Michael Faber.

The story is a thin one: Scarlett Johansson plays an unnamed woman driving around Scotland in a van, picking up various men and bringing them to a house where they follow her naked into a black void. The men end up being killed with only their skins remaining. At first you wonder who is this woman but it soon becomes apparent that she's some kind of alien.

There are a few variations when it comes to guys Johansson picks up (some are played by non-actors who were initially filmed by hidden cameras). One of the men is a swimmer who tries to save a drowning couple. Johansson knocks out the exhausted swimmer and he ends up as another one of her victims, back at the house of horrors. A crying toddler is left to fend for himself on the beach by Johansson's alien.

More strange stuff: another one of the alien's victims is a sexually inexperienced man with a facial disfigurement. He escapes from the horror house, only to be recaptured by a man on a motorcycle, apparently an accomplice of the alien female.

The climax arrives when a man spots the alien in distress after she's reeling from eating a piece of cake at a restaurant. The man puts the alien up for the night, brings her to a ruined castle where they kiss and back at his home, they begin to have sex. The alien, however, freaks out and wanders into a forest. We don't know why but a logger tries to rape her and when he strips off her clothes, he discovers her body is not human. Then inexplicably, instead of running away in fear, he sets her on fire.

The "big payoff" turns out to be the revelation that the alien is wearing an exoskeleton and she looks more like a lizard with black, leathery skin. What exactly is Glazer's point? We never find out "why" the alien is bringing these men to the house with the weird black void and what it's attempting to gain by killing them. The attempt to convey some kind of atmosphere of dread or terror is lost by the unintentionally comical ending, where the alien is found to have no power and is dispensed with by a most unpleasant human rapist.

Glazer also doesn't realize what a burden it is having to listen to all the natives with their Scottish brogue—most of it is unintelligible. Subtitles should have certainly been in order.

"Under the Skin" once again proves to be a project that undoubtedly will not advance Scarlet Johansson's career. Relying on her good looks alone is not enough to sway a critical audience that expects more. Glazer's "folly" consists of some brilliant cinematography coupled with an empty vessel of a script that leads nowhere.

A Reflection On Humanity Through The Eyes Of The Other

[CinemaClown · 1 January 2015]

How do you even rate a film when you sort of loved almost everything about it yet have no concrete opinion on what it was all about? It's pretty rare in cinema to find yourself constantly struggling with your very own feelings, unsure of which side to settle with for whenever a step is taken in either direction, something from the opposite end of the spectrum keeps bringing you back in the middle.

Under the Skin is one film that provides such unique experience. It is a mystical blend of horror, sci-fi & mystery that's easily one of the most perplexing, challenging & polarizing narratives to come out in years and tells the story of a mysterious woman who drives through the streets of Scotland, seducing lonely men into her van until one particular event sets her on a journey to self-discovery.

Directed by Jonathan Glazer, this is my first stint with his works & even though I'm still connecting the dots of this mind-bending puzzle, there were still many elements I was instantly impressed with. Glazer presents a Kubrick-like control over all aspects of filmmaking here & that's no mere compliment. Use of dialogues is minimal & even though the plot is sort of repetitive, it's never expository.

Coming to the technical aspects, Under the Skin is a work of dazzling beauty. The camera nicely follows its lead character like a silent observer, shooting locations are elegantly chosen & every single image is exquisitely captured. Editing lets the story unfold at its own pace & is never in a hurry while Mica Levi's skin-crawling score ends up encapsulating the whole picture with a very creepy, haunting & surreal ambiance.

As far as acting goes, it's Scarlett Johansson show all the way for the actress commands the screen unlike ever before and chips in with an unexpectedly impressive, audacious & intensely alluring performance. Trying to make sense of the human world, getting to know people for a brief time & attempting to understand a human feeling, Johansson is able to express all that through her piercing gaze & subtle body language with effortless naturalness.

On an overall scale, Under the Skin is too complex a film to be fully analyzed on the first watch but it nevertheless delivers a haunting, hypnotic & heartbreaking cinematic experience. Certainly not for everyone, it's one of those art-house features that viewers will either embrace or reject outright. A difficult film to review & an even harder film to rate, Under the Skin does manage to live up to its name by getting under your skin & is one of the most stimulating motion pictures of its year. Multiple viewings advised.