Yes, it sounds like some daft B movie from the 50s - the sort of thing you'd expect Horne and Corden to offer up. Hasn't the beautiful, predatory female alien schtick already been done, though?
Guys you really are missing the point of it. It's not as 'stupid' as you think. I've not seen the film but read the book and it all makes sense. It sounds all so random but it strangely works (in the book).
Digital spy gave it a 5/5 review, Film 2014 gave it a great review also, "It shouldn't work but it really does".
Apparently this film is on very limited release. I've no idea why, as the reviews have been great and the film looks promising like any other current release.
Odd because it stars Scarlett Johansson in what looks like some of her best work to date. Only 7 cineworlds are showing it across the UK!
Sounds crap, and my man-friend (Hate the word boyfriend as we are past 35) wants to see it, I want to see the Grand Hotel Budapest..
I will be seeing both he will pay my ticket for the Scarlett Johansson film, I shall pay for the Grand Hotel Budapest.
Well Scarlett Johansson, hmm I don't really rate her as an actress so we shall see....all my so called 'goth' acquaintances have said this will be a cult film etc. Means big nothing to me! Tbh!
Sounds crap, and my man-friend (Hate the word boyfriend as we are past 35) wants to see it, I want to see the Grand Hotel Budapest..
I will be seeing both he will pay my ticket for the Scarlett Johansson film, I shall pay for the Grand Hotel Budapest.
Well Scarlett Johansson, hmm I don't really rate her as an actress so we shall see....all my so called 'goth' acquaintances have said this will be a cult film etc. Means big nothing to me! Tbh!
I wouldn't bother if I were you. We tried to see Under the Skin last night at the Watershed but it was sold out so we saw Grand Hotel Budapest instead. Ralph Fiennes is brilliant but the whole thing is an exercise in style over substance. I stuck it out for an hour but had completely lost interest in it after 30 minutes.
Saw it last night. Well there are a couple of hours of my life I'll never get back. Arty pretentious crap. On a positive note, they did manage to capture the alien nature of her character. But otherwise it was slow moving rubbish. Not quite as bad as The Master but certainly in the category of films that are too pleased with themselves for their own good.
Looks like this movie will be a love/hate type scenario!
You're correct. As I mentioned in another thread here, when colleagues and I saw the film a while back, I didn't like it and they thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.
I finally saw this on Sunday night and I loved it. Initially I struggled to pin down quite why it’s good and I was going to steal this quote from Uncut’s review: ‘It’s perhaps best to consider Glazer’s film to be an avant garde midnight movie, using familiar genre conventions to explore conceptual philosophical ideas.’ Priceless, eh? Actually, Under the Skin is an understated, beautifully filmed, expertly scored, tense, unnerving meditation on what it means to be, and feel, human.
Johanssson’s casting was a bit of a puzzle to me. Obviously a Hollywood A-lister is a great box office draw but this is not the kind of film that relies on a name to open it. If your idea of sci-fi is giant robots and noisy CGI explosions, there’s nothing for you here. Similarly, the ‘Scarlett gets her kit off – phoar!’ crowd will also be disappointed as there’s no eroticism or titillation.
Initially I thought that Johansson didn’t bring much to the party. She manages to be simultaneously beautiful (in a quite other-worldly way) and exude a subtle otherness but I felt that any competent, serious actress could have done the same. Maybe Glazer is making the socio-political point that the real Johansson, with her beauty, wealth and fame is so removed from the obese weegies with their cheap clothes and cigarettes, that she might as well be from another world. I wondered at one point whether her presence was simply an elaborate homage to Sean Young in Bladerunner; the shots of Johansson with scarlet (see what I did there) Cupid's bow lips, big eyes and dark hair, against a black background, are strikingly similar to Rachel. On the subject of homage, the film refers to pretty much every intelligent sci-fi film made over the past fifty years, from 2001: A Space Odyssey to Terminator. Yet Glazer manages to do this without being either derivative or clichéd.
It's not a plot-driven film and we've seen all the big themes before; what it means to be human, loneliness, the naïve abroad, the awakening of humanity in the non-human. These have been covered in films such as The Man Who Fell to Earth but Glazer puts them across in an understated, sympathetic way that never even approaches the sentimental and makes for compelling viewing.
There are some comic moments amidst the bleakness. There is a scene where a bloke is stuck in the pre-coital ooze, having been enticed there by slutty Scarlett. He sees an earlier victim, similarly struggling. I was reminded of that Monty Python sketch where a suburban housewife, in a babydoll nightie, tempts an unsuspecting milkman into her bedroom where there are lots of other milkmen who've fallen for the same trick.:D
The cinematography is excellent, especially when the camera is let loose on the Scottish landscape. The contrast between the dreary urban jungle of Glasgow, with its troglodyte inhabitants, is brilliantly juxtaposed with the wild beauty of the Scottish coastline and mountains. There’s a lovely shot where waves are crashing on a rocky shore with snow-covered mountains as a backdrop. The offshore wind blows the spray from the breaking waves into a perfectly circular vortex, a reminder that CGI can never produce anything as beautiful as nature itself.
As well as the cinematography, the soundtrack deserves a special mention. It’s unnerving, discordant and expertly complements the action.
I was transfixed from beginning to end. This has cult hit written all over it. Just go and see it.
I watched it the other day and it reminded me of "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" and "The Man Who Fell To Earth". I didn't realise until the end credits that it was based on a book. It is the sort of film that i would want to watch several times to be clear about the meaning.
Part of the meaning / interpretation of the film was explained afterwards by Adam Pearson who appears in the film. He explained various points of comparison between the book and the film which i would otherwise have missed.
I watched it the other day and it reminded me of "2001: A Space Odyssey", "Invasion of the Bodysnatchers" and "The Man Who Fell To Earth". I didn't realise until the end credits that it was based on a book. It is the sort of film that i would want to watch several times to be clear about the meaning.
Part of the meaning / interpretation of the film was explained afterwards by Adam Pearson who appears in the film. He explained various points of comparison between the book and the film which i would otherwise have missed.
I've seen this and i really liked it. It was more experimental in nature than anything else and not everyone will get it, but i understood what it was about and what they were trying to show. Scarlett J is brilliant in the role and you really felt for her as the movie went along and reached its conclusion. The soundtrack is terrifying and some of the cinematography is excellent.
It did have one or two unintentional hilarious scenes particularly when it involved the Glaswegians. You couldn't help but laugh even if you weren't meant to. I also enjoyed recognising the city streets of Glasgow. It has cult classic written all over it. Definetely a cool movie even if you didn't like it.
Some people will say it's arty-farty just for the sake of it but you do have to remember it's based on a novel and there is a deeper meaning behind it. It really is about what does it mean to be human.
I'm interested in watching this film. I agree that it does seem to be one of those love or hate films. Mark Kermode gave it a good review - but said that it did have its flaws. It does look "out there" as a film - certainly will challenge you.
Unfortunately, it's on very limited release in the UK - I think only the Odeon Panton Street is showing and only 1 screening a day.
I saw this last night & I have say, I thank goodness that I saw it at my local independent cinema & only paid £4.90 for my ticket.
I thought it was awful.
I still don't what it's about & I'm staggered that someone convinced Scarlett Johansson to star in this film
I shan't post any spoilers, but my take is basically, it's a film about Scarlett Johannsson driving around Scotland in an old white van, asking Scottish men for directions!
Far too slow & over stylised for my liking.
I'm sure there was a simple plot in there, but making it so 'arty' just convoluted whatever plot was there.
I was waiting for it after reading the book just for comparisons sake.
I read one review, before watching it, who said "it's as if they took 1 sentence from the book, chopped it in half and decided to make a film out of it". Needless to say I was intrigued.
I enjoyed it. I think you'll enjoy it more if you're a fan of David Lynch films or something like 'Drive'. Very similar tone.
As for the film, it is very different to the book but not nearly as if "they took 1 sentence...". Johan (we're mates) is great in it. For a character who doesn't have much to say, she certainly draws you in from the "Oh look it's a Hollywood actress", even when she does have her boobs out. The score is real moody and the cinematography, right from the beginning motorcycle shot, is great too.
Nearly as weird as 'Only God Forgives' but with easily more panache and more of a feeling you want to see what happens at the end.
I saw this last night & I have say, I thank goodness that I saw it at my local independent cinema & only paid £4.90 for my ticket.
I thought it was awful.
I still don't what it's about & I'm staggered that someone convinced Scarlett Johansson to star in this film
I shan't post any spoilers, but my take is basically, it's a film about Scarlett Johannsson driving around Scotland in an old white van, asking Scottish men for directions!
Far too slow & over stylised for my liking.
I'm sure there was a simple plot in there, but making it so 'arty' just convoluted whatever plot was there.
It's a shame you didn't enjoy the film but just to pick up on this bit; I don't know why you're 'staggered' that Johansson accepted the role. For someone who is largely known for looking pretty in Hollywood films, this is a great opportunity to be taken seriously as an actress. She's in practically every frame and it's a character-driven piece. I certainly regard her a serious actress after seeing Under the Skin and I'm sure others will too.
Comments
Yes, it sounds like some daft B movie from the 50s - the sort of thing you'd expect Horne and Corden to offer up. Hasn't the beautiful, predatory female alien schtick already been done, though?
Digital spy gave it a 5/5 review, Film 2014 gave it a great review also, "It shouldn't work but it really does".
She's not naked in it. Just what you see in the trailer.
Poor Scarlett, she must doubt her own acting abilities sometimes.
Radio 4's early evening hi-falutin' arts show Front Row called it a masterpiece, btw.
Not something they chuck around freely that.
Odd because it stars Scarlett Johansson in what looks like some of her best work to date. Only 7 cineworlds are showing it across the UK!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNyfE8ZCGs0
"This is, very simply and straightforwardly, a masterpiece." - Daily Telegraph. One of the few papers whose reviews can usually be trusted.
Sounds crap, and my man-friend (Hate the word boyfriend as we are past 35) wants to see it, I want to see the Grand Hotel Budapest..
I will be seeing both he will pay my ticket for the Scarlett Johansson film, I shall pay for the Grand Hotel Budapest.
Well Scarlett Johansson, hmm I don't really rate her as an actress so we shall see....all my so called 'goth' acquaintances have said this will be a cult film etc. Means big nothing to me! Tbh!
I wouldn't bother if I were you. We tried to see Under the Skin last night at the Watershed but it was sold out so we saw Grand Hotel Budapest instead. Ralph Fiennes is brilliant but the whole thing is an exercise in style over substance. I stuck it out for an hour but had completely lost interest in it after 30 minutes.
You're correct.
Johanssson’s casting was a bit of a puzzle to me. Obviously a Hollywood A-lister is a great box office draw but this is not the kind of film that relies on a name to open it. If your idea of sci-fi is giant robots and noisy CGI explosions, there’s nothing for you here. Similarly, the ‘Scarlett gets her kit off – phoar!’ crowd will also be disappointed as there’s no eroticism or titillation.
Initially I thought that Johansson didn’t bring much to the party. She manages to be simultaneously beautiful (in a quite other-worldly way) and exude a subtle otherness but I felt that any competent, serious actress could have done the same. Maybe Glazer is making the socio-political point that the real Johansson, with her beauty, wealth and fame is so removed from the obese weegies with their cheap clothes and cigarettes, that she might as well be from another world. I wondered at one point whether her presence was simply an elaborate homage to Sean Young in Bladerunner; the shots of Johansson with scarlet (see what I did there) Cupid's bow lips, big eyes and dark hair, against a black background, are strikingly similar to Rachel. On the subject of homage, the film refers to pretty much every intelligent sci-fi film made over the past fifty years, from 2001: A Space Odyssey to Terminator. Yet Glazer manages to do this without being either derivative or clichéd.
It's not a plot-driven film and we've seen all the big themes before; what it means to be human, loneliness, the naïve abroad, the awakening of humanity in the non-human. These have been covered in films such as The Man Who Fell to Earth but Glazer puts them across in an understated, sympathetic way that never even approaches the sentimental and makes for compelling viewing.
There are some comic moments amidst the bleakness. There is a scene where a bloke is stuck in the pre-coital ooze, having been enticed there by slutty Scarlett. He sees an earlier victim, similarly struggling. I was reminded of that Monty Python sketch where a suburban housewife, in a babydoll nightie, tempts an unsuspecting milkman into her bedroom where there are lots of other milkmen who've fallen for the same trick.:D
The cinematography is excellent, especially when the camera is let loose on the Scottish landscape. The contrast between the dreary urban jungle of Glasgow, with its troglodyte inhabitants, is brilliantly juxtaposed with the wild beauty of the Scottish coastline and mountains. There’s a lovely shot where waves are crashing on a rocky shore with snow-covered mountains as a backdrop. The offshore wind blows the spray from the breaking waves into a perfectly circular vortex, a reminder that CGI can never produce anything as beautiful as nature itself.
As well as the cinematography, the soundtrack deserves a special mention. It’s unnerving, discordant and expertly complements the action.
I was transfixed from beginning to end. This has cult hit written all over it. Just go and see it.
Part of the meaning / interpretation of the film was explained afterwards by Adam Pearson who appears in the film. He explained various points of comparison between the book and the film which i would otherwise have missed.
Yeah, but did you like it?
It did have one or two unintentional hilarious scenes particularly when it involved the Glaswegians. You couldn't help but laugh even if you weren't meant to. I also enjoyed recognising the city streets of Glasgow. It has cult classic written all over it. Definetely a cool movie even if you didn't like it.
Some people will say it's arty-farty just for the sake of it but you do have to remember it's based on a novel and there is a deeper meaning behind it. It really is about what does it mean to be human.
Unfortunately, it's on very limited release in the UK - I think only the Odeon Panton Street is showing and only 1 screening a day.
I thought it was awful.
I still don't what it's about & I'm staggered that someone convinced Scarlett Johansson to star in this film
I shan't post any spoilers, but my take is basically, it's a film about Scarlett Johannsson driving around Scotland in an old white van, asking Scottish men for directions!
Far too slow & over stylised for my liking.
I'm sure there was a simple plot in there, but making it so 'arty' just convoluted whatever plot was there.
I was waiting for it after reading the book just for comparisons sake.
I read one review, before watching it, who said "it's as if they took 1 sentence from the book, chopped it in half and decided to make a film out of it". Needless to say I was intrigued.
I enjoyed it. I think you'll enjoy it more if you're a fan of David Lynch films or something like 'Drive'. Very similar tone.
As for the film, it is very different to the book but not nearly as if "they took 1 sentence...". Johan (we're mates) is great in it. For a character who doesn't have much to say, she certainly draws you in from the "Oh look it's a Hollywood actress", even when she does have her boobs out. The score is real moody and the cinematography, right from the beginning motorcycle shot, is great too.
Nearly as weird as 'Only God Forgives' but with easily more panache and more of a feeling you want to see what happens at the end.
It's a shame you didn't enjoy the film but just to pick up on this bit; I don't know why you're 'staggered' that Johansson accepted the role. For someone who is largely known for looking pretty in Hollywood films, this is a great opportunity to be taken seriously as an actress. She's in practically every frame and it's a character-driven piece. I certainly regard her a serious actress after seeing Under the Skin and I'm sure others will too.