“Serious” s-f horror. Looks like a cross between The Man Who Fell To Earth and Species. Starring Scarjo and by the director of Sexy Beast, Jonathan Glazer.
Looks like it’s going to be a classic movie, just had a rave review on the UK’s Film 2014 tv show, and it looks stunning.
That looks really good. The Kubrik comparison in the trailer may be setting expectations a bit high.
This also reminds me that I need to get around to seeing Birth.
It was fantastic, though honestly I think it has far more in common with Nic Roeg’s The Man Who Fell to Earth than any Kubrick. It doesn’t draw attention to it’s visuals like Kubrick and it doesn’t alienate us from the characters like he might (haha apologies for pun). I may be slightly bias as it was filmed around Scotland but it just feels so real in places, everyone has heard about ScarJo picking up random men for real but honestly you couldn’t guess who were actors and who were real. I really felt like an alien myself leaving the cinema.
It’s just a big wordless, cinematic delight.
Second that, this is “proper” cinema. It is a bit slow in terms of its understated and sketchy “story” (especially at first, but throughout as well, though less so) - e.g. we could probably have done with one less guy getting picked up before the last guy gets picked up, we get the point. But to compensate, if you’re willing to relax and drink in the visuals and little vignettes, it’s just fantastic to watch. Jonathan Glazer seems to know every old skool cinematographic trope going, and pulls out all the stops.
Some unexpected belly-laugh humour moments too, and some unexpectedly horrific moments as well (not gore, but really horrible things happening almost casually).
Audio and music also deserve a mention - they’re as meticulous and on-point as the visuals.
It definitely “cleanses the doors of perception” - the world feels very strange when you come out of the movie. What is it, after all?
I’m sold when I knew about the filming conceit: they airlifted SJ to Glasgow and get her to prowl the streets of Glasgow in character to ‘hunt’ men.
But chances are I will only see it on DVD or itunes 2-3 months from now because of the fruity release dates.
This really is a film to see in the cinema if you can.
It is not that I don’t want to, it is just that the international release schedule for minor releases is uneven. Sometimes it is late, sometimes not at all. There is this other India film, The Lunchbox, I really want to see, it was released in 2013 but locally it is nowhere in sight. itunes is pretty much a godsend for minor releases.
Man, this is cleaning up in reviews. I’ll have to see if I can find it anywhere near by.
The novel, written by Michel Faber, was great. Sounds like the movie holds up well. Made me think twice about… well, I’d better not say. It would probably be a spoiler.
The film really only takes some sketchy essentials from the book, it’s more of an impressionistic cinematic experience than a movie that tells a story - and in being that, in exploring options for a cinematic experience that haven’t been explored for a long time, it’s very refreshing.
Spoilers Removed.
But the above post made it sound like it’s nothing like the book. And the plot is revealed early on in the book. It’s not like a Planet of the Apes type reveal at the end.
Wow, you spoiled both the movie and book in that post. Bravo!
I’d like to see your thoughts (you can put spoiler tags:- [spoiler =“Here’s my spoiler” ]xxxxxxxxxxxspoilertextxxxxxx[/ spoiler] but without the space before the equals sign and after the forward slash). The film doesn’t really make clear a central plot element though, it’s only implied impressionistically in a passing scene (although to be sure, if the film’s working to make you concentrate as it should, the idea ought to pop into your head with some horror). That’s why I said the movie takes some essentials from the book, but isn’t really set up as a story so much as a moody visual treat and a philosophical brain-kick.
I gather earlier versions of the movie (which has been worked on for quite a few years) had things more explicit, but it’s been boiled down and boiled down to what it is now.
I watched the film and loved it. It’s on in Chicago and a lot of the country still, it seems, so I encourage people to see this. ScarJo is not her usual glamorous self, but really pulls off playing an alien with her flat affect and awkward pickup routine. I loved how she came to feel more sympathy for humanity. Reading the book synopsis, this film seems like a completely different product, so I’m looking forward to enjoying the novel, too.
I got to see this last night and really loved it. I’m not sure how much of it will translate to a small screen. If you don’t get a chance to see this in the the theater, I’d recommend watching it with all of the lights off and a really good set of headphones.
Is there a specific date planned for a wider US release?
I believe it is out nationwide (I saw it in New Hampshire) but I suspect it’s only being picked up by small art house theaters.
I forgot to say that Werner Herzog surely approves of this movie’s depiction of nature as a hostile backdrop against which acts of predation are acted out.
Saw this over the weekend. Good, but overlong (could have dumped 20 minuted easily). The music was incredible. I’ll put the rest in spoiler tags.
under the skin
I came away thinking the film uses a really hostile veneer to cover a mostly cliche, even sentimental, “alien attempts to become human” story. I loved the visuals (so many fantastic dim scenes), and I won’t forget the whole sequence of the two men popping underwater for a long time. Music, as I said, was excellent. For a film in which so many absurd events happen, it has absolutely no sense of humor ("there’s nothing inside my vagina!), which I really missed. I also never understood what ScarJo saw appealing about humanity. Once the film moves past her own predations, she’s clearly trying to access the experience of human sensuality (food, sex, etc.) that she/her species can’t, but it’s not clear what triggered this – human-like pity for the disfigured guy (unlikely)? Now, I don’t need an explicit trigger, her behavior broadcasts that some trigger has occurred, but it was puzzling since she basically re-enacts a series of horrible events (seducing lonely men) and eventually decides “I want me some of this.” Most of the time I was fine without dialogue, but I thought it was very noticeable in the sequence where she meets the samaritan who wants to have sex with her. Just like, that dude would be freaked the fuck out if she never spoke. Just some mumbled pleasantries would have gone a long way. I was bummed by her eventual end, but upon reflection it was inevitable she be killed, either by her bike-riding boss or by some human, and, again, the hostile/sentimental tone of the film demanded that predation be met with predation. But being burned alive by some logger-rapist is a tough way to go.
i saw this totally blind and felt like an idiot when i walked out feeling like i’d seen upstream color again. i was drawing parallels with some creator (whoever was on the motorcycle/the farmer in upstream color) and their science creation that wasn’t fully understood. i interpreted scarlett as some science project or robot that he had allowed to roam free without totally understanding it, but using it as a means to an end in order to run some kind of human vacuuming business
then i did some research and thought that the thing about aliens was a joke
then i found out it wasn’t. now i feel stupid, so it’s time to go see spiderman 2 or something
I think one of the beautiful things about Under the Skin is how much room there is for you interpret and inject based on your own experiences. It’s like a poem. You can read a poem and try to see what the author was thinking, or you can read a poem and let it apply to you in your circumstances. So forget the thing with the alien and enjoy the beauty of the movie.