In short: Woman Who Fell to Earth lands with a dull thud.
What a disappointment. Glazer's elliptical take on the acclaimed novel proves that less isn't always more. Sometimes it's simply less.
Not that it's an empty film of course. Far from it. Lofty themes hover throughout, though hover is largely all they do. Where it finds true substance is, surprisingly, in its limited verbal interaction. Our alien mistress and her white van close encounters with various aimless men are thrillingly vivid, with Scar-Jo doing some great work. Fatally lured by her lipstick, horror violins signal their doom in a gooey black mass where one victim suddenly deflates like a balloon. Hea-vy, ma-an. Joking aside, there is a nice proxy treatise on male needs and desperation in this early (and by far best) part of the film.
Sadly it all takes a sharp turn for the worse as sentiment comes into play and the film becomes human odyssey. She begins to show compassion, the need to belong etc. It's all rather rote and dreary. She gets domestic with an equally silent man, but it fails to convince in any way, and the film grinds to a halt. No wonder her alien paymasters don't seem pleased. Her journey ends predictably bleakly, and violently, with FX work that doesn't quite cut it.
Then again, perhaps its biggest failing overall is visual. There is a smattering of arresting imagery (a tip of a wave curls into a perfect circle), but too often Glazer falls back on his advert/pop promo mannerisms. His aesthetic belongs in the 90s, all sterile/minimalist gloom that's too static and standoffish to really emit anything, and it makes the film feel oddly dated. Glazer's aim for a pure cohesive visual narrative is admirable, but the whittled-down approach ultimately works against it.
An interesting film, but with little real reward. Shame. 5/10
Two quality films, I was Surprised that both movies, and Callaly in particular, seemed to disappear from the big screen very quickly.
Calvary had a terrific run at The Watershed here in Bristol. They even brought it back for an extra couple of weeks, such was the reception. Under the Skin was never going to do as well, being a more niche film.
It is just as well that we have had two strong films like the above as the rest of the half year has been very slim pickings indeed. Apparently distributors don't bother to release quality films during summers with heavy sports coverage.
Watched this the other day. I think I would have enjoyed it more if I hadn't read the book first.
The book is one of my all time favorites, and I guess I was expecting it to relate a little more to that. Before I read the book, I hadn't read any spoilers, so I liked how it made you think it's starting with one kind of genre - and then diverts into something else. I also liked the propaganda side to the book.
Still - I did enjoy the film but I think you have to go into it with an open mind. I'd been looking forward to it for a long time and was slightly disappointed because of my expectations. As a stand alone film, it was still good - but I would have loved to have seen a closer interpretation of the book.
I have conflicting feelings about this film. I've read the book and it's one of my favourites, but the film bears little relation to the book it's meant to be based on, bar on a very superficial level. In many ways this is understandable, because the book is, more or less, unfilmable, at least if not using copious amounts of CGI to show the true look of Isserley (the protagonist in the book; Scarlett's character in the film, but apparently renamed Laura), the aliens in the "farm" and the world they come from in order to tell the backstory. Another problem, though, is that the book relies a lot on the inner dialogue of the protagonist, which really adds a lot to the story. There are other things missing in the film that were important in the book, like the "farm" and its workers, Amlis Vess, "mercy", and her back story, all very important to the story. Another thing is that the book delves deeper than the issue about what it's meant to be human, going into cruelty, class exploitation, sexism, intensive farming, etc. On a book reader's level, I found this film a bit disappointing and strangely hollow (maybe odd to say, but I'm coming at this from my book reader's PoV). Still, as I said, the book is one of my favourites, so that probably clouds my judgement somewhat.
However, the film, if taken by itself and after some reflection, isn't bad and can be quite interesting in parts. It relies on mood to overcome some difficulties and limitations. It has some great cinematography and a good soundtrack to add to its mood. Sure, some will see it as slow and pointless at times, but under its skin, it has a haunting, disturbing and questioning quality to it. Still, even though it's not a masterpiece, IMO, it's an interesting film, and it might well cause some people to go and read the book it's loosely based on (at least the book can't be spoilt by this film ).
Yeah, I agree with everything you said. Plus you said it much better than I did.
I agree, I also think it's an....interesting film. I don't know how much I like it or whether it's ultimately that good (personally I don't think it's engaging enough). But it does offer itself as something different, plus it's very well made.
And in modern cinema I guess that pretty much makes it a 'good' film regardless.
Gemma Arterton, Eva Green, Megan Fox, January Jones, Abbie Cornish, Olivia Wilde, Amanda Seyfried, Blake Lively and Jessica Biel were considered to play the lead role
Gemma Arterton, Eva Green, Megan Fox, January Jones, Abbie Cornish, Olivia Wilde, Amanda Seyfried, Blake Lively and Jessica Biel were considered to play the lead role
That was an odd little film, been done to death by others though. Think you have to take it on the merits of the cast and production. Scarlett was great, although I have been obsessing over her nude scenes for what seems like forever, her English accent was pretty decent and she played the role well.
Reminded me of a lot of seventies movies, must be the soundtrack.
I finally got around to watching this. It is definitely not a film with any middle ground. I suppose that it could be argued that it is all style over substance - but I'd argue that the film does have some substance. Johannson's performance is superb - probably the best I have ever seen her given. The whole Hollywood superstar as an alien in Glasgow - I think helps with the atmosphere and think how out of this world "Laura" is. It's a film which knows how to create an atmosphere. Some parts are quite disturbing - and the film's imagery has stuck with me long afterwards.
I finally got around to watching this. It is definitely not a film with any middle ground. I suppose that it could be argued that it is all style over substance - but I'd argue that the film does have some substance. Johannson's performance is superb - probably the best I have ever seen her given. The whole Hollywood superstar as an alien in Glasgow - I think helps with the atmosphere and think how out of this world "Laura" is. It's a film which knows how to create an atmosphere. Some parts are quite disturbing - and the film's imagery has stuck with me long afterwards.
Love this film, couldn't stop thinking about it hours after.
Comments
Ha ha! Great, isn't it?
Along with Calvary, the best film I've seen so far this year.
Oh yes it was quite excellent, but I really don't know why
Definitely worth a re-watch somewhere down the line.
In short: Woman Who Fell to Earth lands with a dull thud.
What a disappointment. Glazer's elliptical take on the acclaimed novel proves that less isn't always more. Sometimes it's simply less.
Not that it's an empty film of course. Far from it. Lofty themes hover throughout, though hover is largely all they do. Where it finds true substance is, surprisingly, in its limited verbal interaction. Our alien mistress and her white van close encounters with various aimless men are thrillingly vivid, with Scar-Jo doing some great work. Fatally lured by her lipstick, horror violins signal their doom in a gooey black mass where one victim suddenly deflates like a balloon. Hea-vy, ma-an. Joking aside, there is a nice proxy treatise on male needs and desperation in this early (and by far best) part of the film.
Sadly it all takes a sharp turn for the worse as sentiment comes into play and the film becomes human odyssey. She begins to show compassion, the need to belong etc. It's all rather rote and dreary. She gets domestic with an equally silent man, but it fails to convince in any way, and the film grinds to a halt. No wonder her alien paymasters don't seem pleased. Her journey ends predictably bleakly, and violently, with FX work that doesn't quite cut it.
Then again, perhaps its biggest failing overall is visual. There is a smattering of arresting imagery (a tip of a wave curls into a perfect circle), but too often Glazer falls back on his advert/pop promo mannerisms. His aesthetic belongs in the 90s, all sterile/minimalist gloom that's too static and standoffish to really emit anything, and it makes the film feel oddly dated. Glazer's aim for a pure cohesive visual narrative is admirable, but the whittled-down approach ultimately works against it.
An interesting film, but with little real reward. Shame. 5/10
10/10
Two quality films, I was Surprised that both movies, and Callaly in particular, seemed to disappear from the big screen very quickly.
Calvary had a terrific run at The Watershed here in Bristol. They even brought it back for an extra couple of weeks, such was the reception. Under the Skin was never going to do as well, being a more niche film.
It is just as well that we have had two strong films like the above as the rest of the half year has been very slim pickings indeed. Apparently distributors don't bother to release quality films during summers with heavy sports coverage.
The book is one of my all time favorites, and I guess I was expecting it to relate a little more to that. Before I read the book, I hadn't read any spoilers, so I liked how it made you think it's starting with one kind of genre - and then diverts into something else. I also liked the propaganda side to the book.
Still - I did enjoy the film but I think you have to go into it with an open mind. I'd been looking forward to it for a long time and was slightly disappointed because of my expectations. As a stand alone film, it was still good - but I would have loved to have seen a closer interpretation of the book.
Yeah, I agree with everything you said. Plus you said it much better than I did.
And in modern cinema I guess that pretty much makes it a 'good' film regardless.
I think someone's pulling your leg there.
Reminded me of a lot of seventies movies, must be the soundtrack.
I thought her english accent was flawless ..
So many moments have stuck with me.
and I think the ending may be one of the best ever.
Love this film, couldn't stop thinking about it hours after.
nor me...pity that bit was so dark ;-)