Under the Skin (I) (2013)
5/10
Abstract and vague, but there's boobs!
26 July 2015
Under the Skin may be intriguing, interesting, fascinating, words like that, rather than fun, engaging, likable. Its a frosty little picture. Weirdly, it might help to read spoilers about it because it only ever express itself obliquely. You may have heard there's an alien in the movie? Yeah, I guess so, but its pretty abstract. The way it was made is the most interesting thing about it, I think. Scarlett Johannsson plays a nameless girl who appears to be hunting lonely men in Glasgow, and most of the film was shot with hidden cameras and improvised, so these are genuine encounters she's having. In this sense, Under the Skin has interest on an anthropological level, and to film students, as a comment on the nature of fiction vs documentary. But you can also get that in Borat, with a few more laffs. The only other populist appeal in Under the Skin is the pleasure of looking at Scarlett Johannsson. Everything else about the movie is formless and amorphous. Well, compared to some of the dream-like movies of Apichapong Weerasethakul or David Lynch its positively sensible, but this is still a movie I feel myself constantly struggling to like, even though on second viewing I'm at peace with what even was actually happening in it.

In short, abstract arty film with incredible musical soundscape and the appeal of Johannsson, but too distant and vague for most. I got it on blu ray because I conveniently forgot how frustrating I found it and wanted to look at Scarlett again. After all she's naked twice in it.

Bear in mind I do like some abstract and arty movies, just not this one. And I really wanted to like it too. All those real people. I'd love to see outtakes but couldn't find any on the blu ray.
1 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed