I don't understand why people like this movie. Half of the movie is Scarlett Johansson driving and the other half is her seducing men. That's it. That's the entire movie.
I've even read somewhere this movie has one of the best plot twists ever. Really? You must have some sort of retardation to not see that a mile away.
Well my friend I am one of those who loves this movie. I don't understand why more people don't love it... actually, I do. Because this is a very artistic and slow movie, and there are many people who do not enjoy those types of films. It's not to say they can't enjoy good quality, artistic movies but taste varies vastly. Those who only watch raunchy comedies occasionally or the latest Superhero flick might not love Under The Skin.
I really truly enjoy this movie, and I think it has a lot of meaning, and it's beautifully shot and those long shots allow for contemplation about what is happening, and why. I like movies that make me think. This is a great, great movie. At least, to me.
All I'm trying to say is that Taste is subjective. I'm sorry you don't like this movie, but it is not crap. You just didn't like it :)
The slow pacing serves the movie in some places, but for much of it, the slow pace just bores me.
Call the over a minute long scene of her walking toward the bus stop artistic and beautiful if you want, but for me that shot in particular is just bad film making.
And I don't think the movie has a lot of meaning.
'alien exposed to human culture will be overwhelmed by desire to abandon their own culture and lives and attempt to live as humans'....It sci-fi writing cliche number 1.
Also big chunks of the whole abducting people story don't even make sense. It guess its all just supposed to be set up for the real story of watching the alien try and eat cake.
To each their own, I suppose
I did not think the pace was too slow. The movie actually drew me up close to the television set, that's how hypnotized I was by it. The shot I found to be most tedious was the walking down the stone steps in the Scottish Ruins. Everything else seems fine to me, but once again, that's only my opinion.
In the bus stop scene you mention, I recall looking around at the whole screen while she walked around, she was slightly irrelevant in that part because the rest of the screen has quite a bit going on in it-- Scottish Roads, the gorgeous green hills, the buildings, mist, the trees,... It wasn't as if it was just her walking to a bus stop. The environment is very much a part of the film's tone. I liked looking at everything going on in that shot. I hate to say this for risk of sounding arrogant, but it really was like observing as one would a painting
There's more than one way to look at things. I understand that you didn't like the movie and think parts are badly made, but I most respectfully disagree
I was really intrigued, too. It' been said on here that it's derivative of other films I haven't seen, but to me it called to mind Bowie's "The Man Who Fell to Earth".
What we got here is... failure to communicate! share
Do you know what cinematography is?
shareWell said, famouserik.
The story is quite simple, really- alienation, the extremes of cruelty and kindness that can be found amongst various human beings.
I think the scene where SJ is sitting in the van and some young punks attempt to get at her is one of the turning points few people mention- she then felt what it was like to be a victim instead of a predator. By the end of the film, she was fully traumatized and fearful of the park ranger guy (if that's what he was).
The film did succeed, at a few points, in giving you the idea of observing the human race like an alien visitor might do.
I usually like slow-moving, meditative films. But this one wasn't enjoyable for me. I began to get a little put out with it, to be honest. I grew very weary of the interior shots in the van, for instance.
When the deformed chap showed up, I expected SJ to have a change of heart. And she did. Predictable? Well, it was for me. Perhaps not for others.
She knew well how to converse, but said almost nothing to the "good guy" from the bus. Why? Was she already too traumatized at that point? She actually seems to be in a downward spiral after releasing "deformed guy". Perhaps because she knew she would be hunted down by her "keepers" on the motorcycles. Or maybe it was an existential crisis provoked by her sympathy for "deformed guy".
I "get" why people who like this do. I've been on the side of defending films a lot of people thought were boring. This one, perhaps because of visual aesthetics, didn't move me or even engage me a great deal. It may really be a matter of taste; I can't say UTS is a bad film. It has its merits (very good score that was genuinely creepy).
Overall, I like your summary the best of those I've read here.
I usually like slow-moving, meditative films. But this one wasn't enjoyable for me. I began to get a little put out with it, to be honest. I grew very weary of the interior shots in the van, for instance.
She knew well how to converse, but said almost nothing to the "good guy" from the bus. Why? Was she already too traumatized at that point?
Very thoughtful post.
shareAnd I don't think the movie has a lot of meaning.
'alien exposed to human culture will be overwhelmed by desire to abandon their own culture and lives and attempt to live as humans'....It sci-fi writing cliche number 1.
The story markers don't match up to be a parable about human development.
A person can of course match up specific scenes and say this about X. But I really don't think is a parable about human development.
Hmm... Every true piece of art has multiple semantic levels, offering to the audience the possibility to discover different depths of understanding, depending on the culture and intellectual capacity of each one.
The "story" is only the first level (called "narrative") - and, unfortunately, most of the audience stops here (not because people are stupid, but because this is the way the hollywoodian industry has accustomed them to do. But this is another discussion....).
On this level, indeed, Under The Skin doesn't show too much. It lacks all the verified recipes (Hollywood style) to "catch" the public and to deliver the expected "fast emotions" (read as "fast food"). As an "alien movie" it is too slow, too unimaginative in CGI, too devoid of surprise in plot - so that I totally understand the disappointment of those who went to see this kind of film.
But if we see this as a parable about the human development, everything begins to make sense!
Let's see: the first scene - the birth (by reincarnation); then, the process of learning by imitating the adults; the child's specific cruelty and innocent shamelessness to show nudity; the age when the young girl becomes aware of her power of seduction and starts to exercise it - both merciless and imprudent - on different male subjects (destroying their souls); the strange incident with the disfigured man, that triggers her empathy. And, from that moment of weakness, her transformation into a victim, along with the transformation into an adult. She becomes aware of the dangers of the society (both from bad people and from abusive authorities - the bikers), of the fact that she isn't yet prepared for the real life (including its pleasures), the fears and complexes arise, she tries to escape and - as there is no other escape from this life - finds her end...
So, what do you think about this "translation"?
If you think this film is "a piece of crap" then you should probably stick to reality tv shows. That is probably more your speed. People with poor taste have always fascinated me; it boggles my mind that someone can look at something beautiful, or of high quality, and see "crap." Life must suck for these people. Is it like being color blind? It's sad because when you can't recognize quality you miss out on so much...
Fabio Testi is GOD
[deleted]
Thats because you havent seen Beyond the Black Rainbow... That movie put the crap into another level.
share