Under The Skin [DVD + Digital]

The title of this review bears repeating: The first clue to understanding this film is its title: "Under the Skin" and that's figurative as well as literal. Note: if the Scottish brogue is difficult to understand in places, turn on the English subtitles. Then again, fully understanding everything said isn't required, it's carefully observing what you're seeing that's essential.This UK (more specifically Scottish) film was directed by Jonathan Glazer whose other feature film of note is the 2000 UK gangster movie, Sexy Beast. Not knowing quite what to expect, within the first two minutes I was reminded of the famous Monty Python Flying Circus sound bite used to introduce the next and completely unrelated sketch: “and now for something completely different . . .” Those who insist on an expository narrative should turn away and go elsewhere as they’ll be naught but thoroughly frustrated within the first fifteen minutes. It is best characterized as a cerebral, surrealist mystery drama with a sci-fi theme. It’s definitely not a sci-fi action thriller, or a horror movie with jump scares and a gore fest. One look at Rotten Tomatoes shows enormous numbers of critics, not just a few, “get it”, but significant numbers of the general public don’t. Those that do not are not ambivalent either. They tend to outright despise the film, using vitriolic language and repeated scatological expletives to voice extreme displeasure. The cause is undoubtedly because this film is unlike 99.99% of contemporary English-speaking Occidental cinema. It’s not a 3rd person expository narrative and has near zero dialog. Hence, also, the large number of one star reviews here.This movie requires patience as it’s a slow burn, but in retrospect there’s a very valid reason.It also requires paying attention from start to finish, and remembering details about what’s already been observed that remains a puzzle piece that hasn’t fit into the final picture yet. There is very little dialog. The screenplay was inspired by Michel Faber’s 2000 novel with the same name, but anyone familiar with the novel will realize very quickly the movie is not an adaptation. It strips the novel down to its abstract core, using its main plot elements and theme while jettisoning narrative details. Those that have seen David Lynch’s surreal films will recognize the surrealist nature of this one immediately. It’s not symbolic though. What you see is what you get.The narrative is linear. However, the pieces of information aren't necessarily delivered in an order in which they’re immediately useful. The movie starts out with what seems to be the genesis of something that results in someone attempting to make phonetic sounds and pronounce simple words, as if it’s a literate person who’s having to learn how to speak to express thoughts with a vocabulary they already possess. It ends with examining a human eye; IIRC, it has a green iris. Then we have a scene in which a motorcyclist (Jeremy McWilliams) retrieves a comatose woman hidden just off the side of a motorway and puts her into the back of a van where a naked Scarlett Johansson strips off the woman’s clothes and puts them on. She then drives off in the van, going to a shopping mall to buy more clothes and makeup. We get the impression she’s unfamiliar and inexperienced with this. It’s followed by her driving the van around Scotland, picking up young men by asking directions, or for other help, and offering them a ride, using her strikingly beautiful appearance to attract them. She’s seeking single men that live alone. Should be clear quickly that they wouldn’t be missed very soon if they disappeared.Rather than give us a 3rd person objective narrative, Glazer and Walter Campbell, his co-writer, want us “under the skin” with Johansson, experiencing the world and its inhabitants subjectively in the 1st person, as she does. The first major clue we’re given is the movie’s title: “Under the Skin”. It’s the point of view we’re being given throughout: from under Johansson’s skin with her. This wasn’t immediately obvious to me at the start. I strongly suspected this at about the shopping mall scene. What the film portrayed made much more sense. This POV was quickly confirmed and then reinforced through to the end. A few scenes flip to 3rd person, but they’re obvious as we’re not with Johansson. Any time we’re with her, we’re in 1st person.Going any further would introduce spoilers. The reveals are slow, but eventually there’s hardly any mystery left. The reality of what’s transpiring is simple and straightforward, but Glazer isn’t going to hit the audience over the head with it. What may seem confusing behaviors are very blatant clues about what this unnamed woman is. The one thing I will provide is this: step outside of being human as if you’re not (social needs, emotions, ego, id, libido, etc.) and contemplate wondering what being human would be like by observing and interacting with them. Then think about most of Johansson’s behavior when she’s out it public. She knows how to communicate well, but she’s a stranger in a very strange land that doesn't have any social or emotional responses, or empathy in common with anyone around her. She is serving a specific purpose and providing a service for the motorcyclist under his supervision (and there are a few more motorcyclists later). The big reveal, in which all the pieces should fall into place occurs in the denouement at the end, but it shouldn't come as a big surprise either. For me it was confirmation of what I was ready to bet the farm on, although the nature of it was unexpected. Glazer doesn't answer all the questions with the denouement, but it’s better if he doesn't, as we’re still under her skin in the last few seconds. It’s left for us to go from there in whatever direction we wish, but for Johansson's character, her story is finished, and that’s what this film is about, her story. Sometimes leaving the larger story open is much more powerful, and IMO that’s the case here. These things didn't come to me immediately at the end. I had to think about this film for a while.Cross David Lynch with Stanley Kubrick (2001) and Andrei Tarkovsky (Solaris) and add a little Rod Serling DNA. For those who are willing to take on a film that is much different from the mainstream, to paraphrase a few lines from "Kubo and the Two Strings" before pushing the play button:If you must blink, do it now. Pay careful attention to everything you see and hear, no matter how unusual it may seem. And please be warned, if you fidget, if you look away, if you forget any part of what you see, even for an instant, then the story will surely elude you.John

I would like to start by saying i am a fan of films that are "different". I don't need a million gunshots or explosions to entertain me. I am not set on good guy vs bad guy and good guy winning. I like thought provoking films; i enjoy them much more than the soul sucking films that are manufactured on a daily basis. So i was intrigued by this one. The trailer was dark and seemed full of suspense. The critics had made bold comparisons with Stanley Kubrick, which in itself is a massive compliment. And as someone who lives in Scotland it had a little sentiment to it.But for me it was dull. Every time i thought it was going to pick up the pace, it decelerated. It was so slow it may as well have been going backwards. There are far too many scenes that are prolonged. I am fully aware of its intention to focus on aesthetically driven scenes. But 5/6 seconds is enough to appreciate it, not 10/15 seconds. At some points i thought the reel had maybe stuck and was expecting a CineWorld employee to come pacing round the corner to explain that there was something wrong. It just pauses at points that don't need that much attention. I am also aware of the symbolic nature the film carries. It is clearly a film you need to look further to understand it in more depth. That is fine; i welcome that, but the problem is that it does this without conviction. I don't need to see the masses of drunkards who swarm Sauchiehall Street 20 times. What is the purpose? To let us know that we, as people, blindly walk through life intoxicated not appreciating the finer things in life? That Under the skin we are empty? I assume that is a candidate for its meaning.Scarlett Johansson doesn't have a lot to do in this film; basically make small talk and get naked, all the while with a plain face. And considering how ridiculous the Scottish actors are made to look, maybe she is due some credit for maintaining that straight face. There are a few things that bug me however; like she can walk down your average staircase, but panics with a spiral staircase. There is a definite point to this film, but with the layout, with there being no real culmination, no real explanation, it leaves you feeling you have been robbed of a film that could have been more. Could have told a better story. And for any Americans who watch, not all Scottish people talk like that, or wear horrible purple shirts, unnecessarily tucking them into our over elevated jeans. We don't all support Hibs and when a van is parked not all of us will gang up and try to break into the van. So feel free to visit. It is a nice place after all. Although the film had some stunning scenes and promotes Scotland visually, it doesn't exactly put the people in a great light.I wanted to enjoy this film, but i couldn't. I wanted to agree with comparisons with Kubrick, but i certainly won't. You can throw arguments of it was beautifully crafted or had symbolic serenity, but at the end of the day it is slow, uneventful and lacked culmination.

作品としては単純ですが、スカートの良さがでている気がする。セリフも少なくて、確かにこの北米版で十分です。

劇中にほとんど台詞が無いので、インポート番でも問題ありませんでした。

話の起伏が少ないので、じっくりと美しいスカーレット・ヨハンソンとロケーション、カメラワークを堪能できます。　そんなところでしょうか。（笑）　タイトルから、「画皮」を連想しましたが、あちらはCGで、ありえない画面を、良く作ってましたがこちらは、ほぼ実写？のせいか、その場面のインパクトは薄いです。　前半の車中からの、さまざまな通行人のカットが良いですね。それぞれの人生の重みがありました。

どことなく美しく、どことなく怖く、どことなくsexy、どことなく華奢、どことなく人間らしい、複雑で、不思議な感じです。観ている途中でほんの僅かに「地球に落ちて来た男」が、頭をよぎったのは私だけ？…

One reviewer has said 'ignore the 1 star reviews'.Really?Firstly, it has to be mentioned that the Scottish tourist board did themselves no favours with this film. If it's not raining and bleak, it's at night full of miserable drunks... And of course rapists. I don't think anyone will be queuing to go there.I read the film cost 8 million to make... What was the money spent on. I mean Scarlett Johansson must have been laughing all the way to the bank.In this shot Scarlett we want you to look board and walk across a beach.In this shot Scarlett we want you to look board and walk across a road.In this shot Scarlett we want you to look board and walk across a wood.Etc etc.The film quality is poor. No point at all getting it on Blu-ray. Sound is almost non existent.I repeat, what was the 8 million spent on?The actual story is poor too.It's like someone decided to mix Species with the last 10 minutes of 2001 a space Odyssey. But come up with something a lot more boring.I'm amazed I managed to stay with the film. There's only so much you can watch a woman driving around in a van at night having the occasional 30 second conversation with almost incomprehensible Scottish men.The 1 star reviews are there for a reason.It's not a good film.