Under the skin : Sci-Fi, Alien, Found Footage
Discussion
Getting some good reviews (although not on imdb)
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1441395/
Lots of real life footage used, could be interesting?
@
http://m.imdb.com/title/tt1441395/
Lots of real life footage used, could be interesting?
@
Hmm, that does look interesting, but the fact that the trailer just doesn't really show anything suggests (from experience) that it'll be a load of rubbish. The direction and camera work look great though so personally that may well bring it up in my books.
Not sure what you mean by "real life footage used" though, care to elaborate?
Not sure what you mean by "real life footage used" though, care to elaborate?
I finally managed to find somewhere local to me showing this film, as it seems to have bypassed all the big cinemas, and having seen it I am not at all surprised.
It is not in any way a mainstream film, there is not one iota of instant gratification. Nothing is explained, or spoon fed, dialogue is sparse, and not a great deal actually happens. Two people walked out during the showing I attended (accounting for about 25% of the whole audience), so I think it is safe to say this is a film that will divide opinion.
Whilst I was watching it I'm not entirely sure I was 'enjoying' it, it made me feel thoroughly uncomfortable, but I was completely gripped by it from start to finish. Some of it is hard to watch, the baby on the beach scene particularly, and the soundtrack is bordering on annoying, but it does fit in with what the film seems to be trying to say. To me it seems to be a study of instinct, superficiality, and how point of view can alter perception.
Whilst there is a lot of nudity (including Ms Johansson) it is not even remotely erotic. It's not a 'date movie'.
I have found myself thinking about it quite a lot since and I have come to the conclusion that I liked it. Would I recommend it? Well, if you think that Iron Man 3 was a bit too cerebral, then no I'd avoid this film; but if you don't mind being a bit challenged, and can cope with male nudity on screen without sniggering, then I think you have a 50/50 chance of thinking it's a good film.
It is not in any way a mainstream film, there is not one iota of instant gratification. Nothing is explained, or spoon fed, dialogue is sparse, and not a great deal actually happens. Two people walked out during the showing I attended (accounting for about 25% of the whole audience), so I think it is safe to say this is a film that will divide opinion.
Whilst I was watching it I'm not entirely sure I was 'enjoying' it, it made me feel thoroughly uncomfortable, but I was completely gripped by it from start to finish. Some of it is hard to watch, the baby on the beach scene particularly, and the soundtrack is bordering on annoying, but it does fit in with what the film seems to be trying to say. To me it seems to be a study of instinct, superficiality, and how point of view can alter perception.
Whilst there is a lot of nudity (including Ms Johansson) it is not even remotely erotic. It's not a 'date movie'.
I have found myself thinking about it quite a lot since and I have come to the conclusion that I liked it. Would I recommend it? Well, if you think that Iron Man 3 was a bit too cerebral, then no I'd avoid this film; but if you don't mind being a bit challenged, and can cope with male nudity on screen without sniggering, then I think you have a 50/50 chance of thinking it's a good film.
No, it's a fictional film, loosely based on a book. Some of the footage is filmed with hidden cameras using no script and non-actors (people who didn't know they were being filmed)
I thought it was amazing. Weird, but amazing. I loved the creepy music, and the way the whole film looked.
I thought it was amazing. Weird, but amazing. I loved the creepy music, and the way the whole film looked.
I watched this last night and thought it was a pretty good movie, but I will add that it's very 'arty' and as such will not appeal to some.
Lots of symbolism that would give 2001: A Space Odyssey a run for its money, lots of good camera angles and lighting. There's quite a few scenes of a former Moto GP chap hooning around the Scottish Highlands, and of course a few scenes of Scarlett Johannsen in the nip. The soundtrack is quite haunting at times as well, certainly matches the strange, brooding mood of the film.
I wouldn't say it was a typical film with a beginning, middle and end, and there's little exposition to explain why things are happening, but it didn't really have me scratching my head and I could figure out why the few things that did happen, happened.
All in all its an arty film that will appeal to some and others will hate it; like Drive its going to be a marmite one for sure.
Lots of symbolism that would give 2001: A Space Odyssey a run for its money, lots of good camera angles and lighting. There's quite a few scenes of a former Moto GP chap hooning around the Scottish Highlands, and of course a few scenes of Scarlett Johannsen in the nip. The soundtrack is quite haunting at times as well, certainly matches the strange, brooding mood of the film.
I wouldn't say it was a typical film with a beginning, middle and end, and there's little exposition to explain why things are happening, but it didn't really have me scratching my head and I could figure out why the few things that did happen, happened.
All in all its an arty film that will appeal to some and others will hate it; like Drive its going to be a marmite one for sure.
Watched this on blinkbox this evening.
I sort of liked it. Mrs pies hated it and did the tesco shop online instead. Will no doubt build a reputation in years to come as the ultimate 'Marmite' film.
I'd read the reviews earlier in the year and was expecting something quite arty and cerebral, but perhaps not quite so slow and opaque.
Certainly it would be all too easy to unkindly summarise it as "Zombie Scarlett Johanssen drives a van around scotland and looks in the mirror for 2hrs" or "Species with no plot, dialogue, action or effects" and no doubt millions of viewers will hate it and deride it as trash.
For me its a very interesting and beautifully shot piece of cinema with a lot of subtle ideas about identity and predator vs prey, but i can't say I really enjoyed it (other than the couple of minutes of SJ going fully nude in front of the mirror with plenty of close ups!
)
Last film i saw with so little dialogue was The Artist. The film is so bleak, cold and alien that its a relief when you hear a human speak!
One for the student film clubs and anybody as obsessed with SJ as Jonathan Glazer clearly is!
I sort of liked it. Mrs pies hated it and did the tesco shop online instead. Will no doubt build a reputation in years to come as the ultimate 'Marmite' film.
I'd read the reviews earlier in the year and was expecting something quite arty and cerebral, but perhaps not quite so slow and opaque.
Certainly it would be all too easy to unkindly summarise it as "Zombie Scarlett Johanssen drives a van around scotland and looks in the mirror for 2hrs" or "Species with no plot, dialogue, action or effects" and no doubt millions of viewers will hate it and deride it as trash.
For me its a very interesting and beautifully shot piece of cinema with a lot of subtle ideas about identity and predator vs prey, but i can't say I really enjoyed it (other than the couple of minutes of SJ going fully nude in front of the mirror with plenty of close ups!
)Last film i saw with so little dialogue was The Artist. The film is so bleak, cold and alien that its a relief when you hear a human speak!
One for the student film clubs and anybody as obsessed with SJ as Jonathan Glazer clearly is!
I just found it hugely underwhelming. It did not live up to the hype.
I liked the way the 'story' evolved and the power shift. Well, liked is too strong a word: it implies some emotional engagement with the piece.
The fact that, for the portions in Glasgow, I spent most of the time trying to work out which street they were on (I used to live there) and that I also spent a lot of time working out where the hidden cameras were in the van (only for the filmmakers to forget to swap the fake dash around in one shot, which left the two cameras clearly visible), told me all I needed to know.
I did like the use of overlaid off-scene voices in the Glasgow portions and, if Johannson's accent was intended (I really do wonder if it was a mistake), then it was a nice touch adding to the sense of detachment.
The metaphor of warmth for kindness was cack-handed (recall cold with the disfigured guy, warmth with the guy who took her in, and cold (despite staring at a fireplace and not knowing what it was for) in the bothy.
The metaphors of white for loss/isolation and black for death were beyond simplistic.
I think the film could best be described as a curio - certainly not the masterpiece it was claimed to me.
I liked the way the 'story' evolved and the power shift. Well, liked is too strong a word: it implies some emotional engagement with the piece.
The fact that, for the portions in Glasgow, I spent most of the time trying to work out which street they were on (I used to live there) and that I also spent a lot of time working out where the hidden cameras were in the van (only for the filmmakers to forget to swap the fake dash around in one shot, which left the two cameras clearly visible), told me all I needed to know.
I did like the use of overlaid off-scene voices in the Glasgow portions and, if Johannson's accent was intended (I really do wonder if it was a mistake), then it was a nice touch adding to the sense of detachment.
The metaphor of warmth for kindness was cack-handed (recall cold with the disfigured guy, warmth with the guy who took her in, and cold (despite staring at a fireplace and not knowing what it was for) in the bothy.
The metaphors of white for loss/isolation and black for death were beyond simplistic.
I think the film could best be described as a curio - certainly not the masterpiece it was claimed to me.
darth_pies said:
For me its a very interesting and beautifully shot piece of cinema with a lot of subtle ideas about identity and predator vs prey, but i can't say I really enjoyed it (other than the couple of minutes of SJ going fully nude in front of the mirror with plenty of close ups! )
Speaking of which, given that you hear 'her' learning how to speak during the opening credits and she arrives fully able to drive:)When she gets the lamp out in the warm house and realises that her skin (I think we all know what we mean...) has been broken, was she really that unprepared/naive? Without it, there's no third act, but is it true to the film's own canon? I think not.
unless
The skin had taken its own identity by that point and it allowed itself to be broken / was seeking compassion - hence the confusion that caused her to try to get lost in the fog (after hearing the news article about the search for the family at the beach) and the face blinking back at the being within at the end).
But I'm still trying to work out:
Why did the 'dead' girl at the beginning cry? Given that the handler had recovered her body, was she the last hunter and had failed? If so, was it the skin or the being inside that was crying?
and
Who/what was the black being at the death of the disfigured guy? Was it appearing because the last skin wasn't suitable?
dxg said:
But I'm still trying to work out:
Why did the 'dead' girl at the beginning cry? Given that the handler had recovered her body, was she the last hunter and had failed? If so, was it the skin or the being inside that was crying?
I assumed that she was a previous hunter, who had been 'retired'. It seemed that living amongst us and hunting uswas a hard task, they aren't machines. Eventually our humanity rubs off on them, they have a bit of a breakdown and they can't hunt any more. Why did the 'dead' girl at the beginning cry? Given that the handler had recovered her body, was she the last hunter and had failed? If so, was it the skin or the being inside that was crying?
Beautifully shot movie.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff