[size=12pt]Under the skin -2013- Johnathan Glazer[/size]
First I admit I haven’t read the novel in which the film is based, and read several reviews of the film, facing the fact that it was a clear case of love or leave it for the critics, for a long time that I haven’t seen such a case of clear different opinions and antagonism about a film, its 0 stars or 5 stars no in between,
Yes its a strange film, and yes Glazer is a fine director sexy beast was a very god film (in the best tradition of British thrillers), and the Birth was also a strong film. But here Glazer a clip video usual director is clearly on a different league, maybe the main problem is that wasn’t a league of its own, or was it I still don’t know.
Not a real plot, Scarlett Johansson (thanks Staton for writing it for me in the last thread), plays an alien send to earth (Scotland) on the service of other aliens disguised as bikers, with the mission of hunting men, luring them to a sort of liquid trap, using a lovely female human form (Scarlett), the mans she drags to the trap are normal man that we don’t expect to have any chance with such a beautiful women. But then after refusing to Kill on of the man (with a deformed face), she lured, the film takes a strange turn, the alien want’s to experience the new human feelings, but its an alien
To be real honest I’m still thinking if I liked the movie or not, not an easy work. The first half for me was the best part for me visually was stunning, the second half was not so good for me, but the film gets more violence with some strange scenes on the beach a rape, but liked the endig, with the Scarlett transforming in some sort of Predator without … well I’m giving it away no spoilers.
So very strange film, almost no plot very little dialog, odd and bizarre scenes, but with substance. I’ve read all type o comparisons a new Kubrick, Roeg (with the obvious reference from the David Bowie film), Russell and others, for me I saw a bit of Lynch paranoia (or lack of it), and most of all Tarkovsky, with some ideas common to Solaris. And that for me its main problem of the film the excess of references, or maybe the need for those references even if they don’t exist (the film is very far from Roeg work for instance in my view at least). It’s also hard to understand the message from the director, sometimes that is a good thing, space for your own interpretation of things, but here in such a complex film its more hard to accept.
But is it any good? It depends, if you don’t like slow paced art house type of films with little action, you won’t like this one, but if you liked something like Solaris you’re in the right track here. I have to watch it once again, but I real can understand why the divisions about Under the Skin are so strong, you got love it or leave it, the no other way. except we get to see Scarlett Johansson naked, and that is a good thing of course