While I can say I think that the music was great and some of the cinematography well-executed, I found the film as a whole to be pretty flat. It just seemed far too slow paced and uneventful to stand as a strong full-length piece. Does anyone else think this would have made a brilliant short?
I wouldn't cut a single frame. I love the pacing, as the larger thematic concerns slowly come to light. It is so much more than an alien abduction tale. I consider the film quite eventful. Viewers may differ as to what constitutes "events" in a filmed story, but I find Under the Skin to be brilliant exactly as it is.
shareMaybe not a short film, but the pacing of the movie could be tightened up by shaving about 20 minutes of walking scenes and staring out the van window scenes.
Some movies shorten their run time or fix pacing issues by dropping out a subplot or cutting out unneeded dialog in a few scenes. Under the Skin could shave 20 minutes off without losing any of those things.
Good call, Erik. I totally agree. At the end of the film I found myself thinking "Wow, that would have been an incredible short." Say, 40 minutes maybe? For me it was mesmerizing at times, and dull at others. Of course I realize that is just my opinion. Overall I have nothing negative to say about it. I just felt that it would have been far more captivating, to me, if it had been much shorter. Some of the visuals were absolutely astounding. And I really loved the music.
shareWhile we disagree on the advisability of making Under the Skin a short, I very much like the short format. It is a shame that shorts do not receive wider distribution. Many film festivals have strong short programs. I recommend Wild Tales, a series of six shorts by director Damián Szifron.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3011894/?ref_=rvi_tt
I agree, it is a shame. I too love the format. I have never heard of Wild Tales but I am definitely intrigued. I'm going to check that out. Thank you for the suggestion!
share