6.3? And that's why IMDb is irrelevant

Agreed.

You answered your own question ''I understand it's not a film for everyone'' .
Imdb is not a critics site,not a critic site so votes come from ''everyone''.

Considering Interstellar (an overly-expositional, pretentious mess) has an 8.6 here, I am far less inclined to seriously consider IMDB in the future when making decisions on which movies to watch.

I can see this not being entertaining to a casual movie-goer considering it's not your typical film, but it's undoubtedly superbly done and a masterfully-crafted film.

Again, Interstellar was just disappointing. Nolan needs to take his ego down a notch.

This film is so esoteric it won't get rated well here. For people that like thought provoking, avant-garde films it gets high praise.

What we got here is... failure to communicate!

I give this film a 9 out of 10. It's quite striking and deserves praise for its sheer uniqueness alone.

I've been chasing grace/ But grace ain't easy to find

Wasn't feeling this movie at all. I have no issue with hidden meanings and such in movies, but when a movie doesn't tell you anything with minimal dialogue, it's hard to even justify anything other than average.

I did a lot of research about the movie afterwards, which did help as far as the plot goes, but I was even more infuriated by the fact I felt the movie went out of its way to be obtuse, for the sake of being obtuse. There are plenty of other movies that are though provoking and entertaining like Her or Ex-Machina that do a far better job than this movie.

Of course IMDb scoring is irrelevant. Comic book reboots are consistently over 8/10 and Interstellar is sitting in the top 50 right now for some reason - what more proof do you need? If that is people's idea of the best SF film we can make right now then there's really no point worrying what people think.

It's getting easier and easier to distribute independent films but harder to get people to see them, and so harder to find the backing to make them. The average movie-goer is under 25 and sees less than 10 films a year in theaters, mostly in the summer, and the ratings here reflect this.

The word isn't "weird" in this case. It's "stupid." I'm sorry to say, the average moviegoer is just too simple to appreciate a film like this, for what it is. What makes this obvious is the angry tone of some of the comments here; unimaginative, simplistic comments like "it's crap" barely hide the frustration these people feel. When people don't understand something they tend to insult it and call it garbage, mainly to hide their own lack of intelligence. This is a wonderful site, but of course those star ratings are completely ridiculous. I mean, look at the kind of people voting for films. Not only are these boards filled with the uneducated, but they are also swarming with kids, who obviously won't appreciate something like this. As far as "Under the Skin" goes, I would give it 8/10 for it's sheer beauty and unique approach, as well as the tense, sometimes sad atmosphere that it creates. It is a film that requires the viewer to "think;" something that many people hate to do. I almost never rate a film with 10 stars; it is almost impossible that something can be that absolutely perfect. I think I rated Elem Klimov's "Come and See," the Russian war film, with 10 stars. That rating should be reserved for films that made film history with their "Greatness." I also gave "Adventures of Prince Achmed" 10 stars. That is the first ever "animated" feature, consisting of paper cut outs and stop action photography that is an absolute miracle of it's time. "Under the Skin" is an excellent film, but it is not quite "10 star" territory..




Fabio Testi is GOD