ScarJo Species Reboot: Under the Skin

[:::]

Finally saw this a few weeks ago and found it excellent, somewhat to my surprise. Yeah, it's got slow stretches, but they didn't bother me; those longueurs made the weirder/more disturbing bits stand out by contrast, added context, and gave me time to ponder their significance and let them sink in before the next one. The cinematography was beautiful, as were the special effects, which were minimal but extremely well done. I did find this movie mystifying in several respects, and kept making conjectures about ambiguous plot points, but I was OK with that; it added to the overall effects of unease and disorientation.

I don't think I've seen any movies with Scarlett Johannsen in them since Ghost World (in which she was great) aeons ago, but she did a good job with a difficult role in this one.

I honestly do not remember the soundtrack at all! I plan to rewatch it soon, and will pay attention to the audio next time.

I liked Sexy Beast, an earlier movie from this director, when I saw it in a theater 12 or so years ago, and it held up on a second viewing circa 2013. It's a British gangster movie, very different from this one stylistically, and though it's not perfect it's original and well-executed.

ETA: It has been pointed out that Under the Skin's premise sounds an awful lot like that of Liquid Sky, the early-'80s neon New York New Wave no-budget sci-fi drama (now a kitsch classic IMO). This is true; however, Under the Skin is a completely different sort of film in all other respects, and there's zero resemblance beyond the one plot device.

[ergo space pig]

i honestly found this movie to be pretty amazing. it's one of the best new movies i've seen in years. it's sort of an experience in itself, like 2001 or something like that, not really like other films at all. i'm not a fan of ScarJo generally but she did a good job. also really heartbreaking ending that is very thought-provoking, especially as the film takes a more human/relateable turn towards the finale.

[VaticanShotglass]

I really dig this sort of movie. Thumbs up.

[madmanmunt]

Finally got to see this a few days ago. Made my week. It could never live up to my expectations, and I'm not sure I entirely buy the second half, but a wonderful film all the same. But I remember being slightly underwhelmed with Sexy Beast at the time, and looking back it's a total classic.

I am now irrationally attracted to Johansson, so there's that.

Nothing irrational about it. She is, as singer-songwriter Craig David so eloquently put it, "a beautiful honey with a beautiful body".

Oh, and here's a scene that didn't make the final cut:

phpBB [media]

[J_Temperance]

Voted "EURGH" not because this is a bad film, it's just one of the most disquieting, creepiest, COLDEST movies I've ever seen, it really does give you the feeling that you're looking at the world the way a non-human, sentient entity would. Plus the whole fembot predating on random passerbys aspect of it, it really gives me the creeps in a way I'm not sure I'd like to experience again. Not a good date movie is what I'm getting at, it will cast a blizzard-like chill upon ye proceedings. First "Gone Girl" then this, *sigh*, J_Temperance when will you learn?

[Ranxerox]

I expected this to be bad, to be weighed down by ScarJo's bad acting, etc.

It was great. Deeply disquieting, capable of prompting discussions of sexuality, gender, race, etc.

When the boulder headed guy meets cycle boy in the back yard I burst out laughing because it was so cruel and saddening.

Bonus: Best Scene of a Naked Man Holding Another Naked Man's Hand -- Ever!!

Also voted Eurgh!!

[Madman Munt]

I had the feeling we've discussed the book this was inspired by but I couldn't find it with the help of the wonderful search function.

The book is funny in that I hated everything (all of it: prose style, plotting, mystery elements, stupid concepts, set pieces, the lot) about it every second of reading it, but for a long time after I finished the main character stayed with me in a way I just couldn't shake.

I now think that Isserley is one of the great characters in recent fiction. A broadly shitty book with an astonishingly moving central creation? Maybe not so Crap after all...

Book is completely different from the film, almost the exact opposite conceptually.


I found some of the these reviews of the film from Time Out website amusing:

https://www.timeout.com/london/film/under-the-skin-2013#tab_panel_3

Johanson can't quite pull it off with this role.with her black hair and typically British untoned body,she does look very British

[Me Again]

Saw this for the first time ever, about four or five days ago, on Netflix.

If its goal was to be creepy and unsettling, I think it succeeded. I did not find Under the Skin especially difficult to watch, but afterwards certain disturbing images from the film were hard to shake. The conveyor belt of flesh being shuttled to the alien realm--that image popped into my mind while eating dinner the next day and I opted out of the left-over half of a chicken sandwich I was having and instead fixed a salad. Hmph.

The main Kubrick similarity was the dissonant Ligeti-like/2001-esqe string music that sounded like buzzing bees. But it also had that cold and clinical feeling present in some of his work.

I like ScarJo as a person (seen from a distance, never met her) but would probably give Under the Skin a B-. Its second half, where she was trying to assimilate into the realm of a non-predator, doing normal things, and forming a new identity around that--it was never bad but I felt that portion could have been more affective (and effective), for contrast.

It was definitely an odd movie in that its context and some scary early scenes (the two trapped men touching before one shrivels up) were so bizarre that I didn't even get a semi seeing Johansson nude. Was far too creeped out.

[iembalm]

I watched this again on Netflix for the first time since seeing it in the theater, next to my girlfriend, who hadn't seen it, didn't know anything about it.

The part that creeped her out most was the beach scene. I think it's the most effective, too.

I loved this movie when I first saw it. This time I was most looking forward to seeing her lair and listening to Mica Levi's soundtrack, which is phenomenal.

[Me Again]

nurse was sexier

Under the Skin: not really a sexy movie. Don't think it was intended to be. It's kind of erotic toward the beginning when she's driving around all dolled up, trying to pick up lonely men, but as soon as the business with the trapped/submerged men plays out...



...and then the trough of boiled flesh is shown...

...it loses most of its turn-on potential.

Or at least it did for me.

[ErikG]

Just watched it

I liked it

NC.

[Redline]

This sounds like a Frog's song. But it isn't. I may have to see it.

[a. james]

time passed, but i was bored.

problem might be me, but it might not be.

no opinion. crap/not crap, it's the slash.

[Defender]

watched this yesterday and really love it.. not boring at all.
still feel i barely know what it's about but i didnt find that to be part of the experience and problematic, just kind of an afterthought.
and Scarlett looked so good it could actually be distracting.

is 'sexy beast' anything like this?

[enframed]

is 'sexy beast' anything like this?

No, totally different and fucking great. You should watch it.

[jimmywahcrowbar]

Nope, Sexy Beast is a totally different movie. Black comedy about British gangsters in Spain.

[a. james]

Nope, Sexy Beast is a totally different movie. Black comedy about British gangsters in Spain.

this movie played in the theater i worked at, which was frequented my a lot of art minded geriatrics.

you could always tell where you were in the movie when a bunch of old folks would go marching out.

that string of expletives.

[Boombats]

Finally saw it. Fucking AWESOME. Beach scene was absolutely crushing. Little confused about the bike dudes and the body exchange / replacement or whatever, but damn. The under-goo scene was incredible. That ... *POP* ... holy shit. Knew it was coming but still shook me.

Are we certain it was aliens? There was nothing interstellar that I picked up. Could have been demonic. The flesh-sluice to... Hell?

I have a feeling the ScarJo character was being exploited. Women's bodies being used for some malevolent gain. She may have been complicit but she was also the one in harm's way.

I did not know that I was going to see lots of fully nude ScarJo. That was lovely

Also: the end shot of the smoke rising and then falling with the snow: YES.

After I watched it I was curious about feminist perspectives of the film. Here's one article I found which touched upon some things I wondered about"
https://www.bitchmedia.org/post/under-t ... -johansson

[blackmarket]

Are we certain it was aliens? There was nothing interstellar that I picked up. Could have been demonic. The flesh-sluice to... Hell?

Though a very different story than the source material, this film is based on a book. In it, extra terrestrials have come to earth to harvest human "meat", returning it to their home planet as sustenance. The de-gloving of skin is probably meant to show this process. The book is a critique of factory farming, as well as gender, identity, and class. You don't need to read it. The film is far more interesting.

[Boombats]

The book is a critique of factory farming, as well as gender, identity, and class. You don't need to read it. The film is far more interesting.

I had a feeling there was a farming allegory in there. Surprised to hear that the book is not worth reading, but yeah there's no way that what I enjoyed about the film could be experienced on paper.