Mediocre Movie Club Movie Reviews

Under the Skin

11/3/2016

C+
2.44

An otherworldly being stalks Scotland for human prey.

Directed by Jonathan Glazer
Starring Scarlett Johansson
Initial Review by Blair Setnor

This was on my radar because of Jon. While singing the praises of "the upside down" in Stranger Things, Jon mentions that this is not a new thing. He proceeds to inform me of Under the Skin and we enjoy watching David Ehrlich's top 25 movies from 2014. This was number 3.

Overall, the movie was beautifully shot with incredible nature scenes and equally incredible CGI. The music and sound effectively had my blood pressure raised the entire movie. I had to immediately turn it off because my heart rate needed to come down.

I almost had to leave the room/turn it off with the horrifying baby scene. What parents would kill themselves for a dog?

Leaving the baby on the shore about broke me. That was some Dear Zachary shit. The fact that it's so preposterous- I mean, I love my dogs, but come the fuck on- made me able to continue watching. I find it very unrealistic. (I mean this whole move could be also... but not the point.) While I hated this scene, it is very effective.

We understand that Scarlett has no humanity. None. The rest of the first half of the movie goes on to show her preying on men to eventually get their skin. It's a game that is always on her terms, but she has to bring them back to her lair.

A note about the under world/water/lair: super creepy and incredibly creative and stunning. Bodies/skin floating around is gross and scary... the fact that they are not dead is even creepier.

So we begin to see her life as this unending and miserable cycle. Then we meet "the deformed man" as so aptly put by IMDB. We see him sink into the water just like every other man, then there's this intense scene where Scarlett is staring at herself in the mirror. It is super suspenseful and emotionally charged. Is she intrigued by herself? Searching for something... maybe desire? Emotion? Humanity? Is she scared? Great shot here. Plus, the fly that is trapped is a perfect analogy to the men she traps.

We hear some background noise, but the shot is so intense I did not think the dude could escape. But lo and behold. He is out- by his own volition? Doubtful.

The rest of the movie is her search for humanity and her desire to be human- to feel, to be intimate, to even eat. She spends time with a decent guy and finds out she has no vagina. Sad.

By the time we got to the "hill hikers take refuge here," I have admitted to myself that I feel both simultaneously intrigued and also 100% ready for this film to be over. The stress is getting to me and I need a resolution.

The end comes soon! She sleeps, which is interesting. Does she normally sleep? Wakes up to the creeper on the trail assaulting her. He goes on to attack her and ends up setting her on fire. The scene ends peacefully with snow and smoke. It seems like a release.

Grade: A-

Random notes:

Lots of penises in this movie.
What's the deal/relationship with motorcycle clean up guy?
She's powerful but not in a way where she could defeat or capture the 5 dudes that try and jump her car or the man who tries to rape her in the end. That makes the character really interesting and I like the dichotomy of the first half of the movie where she is just a hunter and the second where she is searching for her own humanity.
Only critique is some poor CGI with the smoke against the snow.

22 Comments

Admin

11/4/2016 12:25:44 am

Reserved for replies to initial review.

Lane

11/4/2016 09:18:39 am

I didn’t know a thing about this film going in, and even halfway through, I wondered if this was a true “science fiction” film or if this was one big dream sequence. I’m still wondering.

Blair’s perspective on the film came from the perspective of “The Woman,” but I want to come from the other direction—I think ultimately this film was a commentary on the male gaze and, specifically, the way the male gaze works in the world of movies. This is not a new theme in movies, of course; Hitchcock did it best with “Rear Window,” probably, but Glazer’s attempt at commentary on the difference between “seeing” things and “looking at” things is a creative twist.

It wasn’t until about halfway through the film that I realized that ScarJo’s character wasn’t representative of “Eve”; her character was “Medusa.” The continual shots of the back of her black, wavy, snake-like hair were the clue. I was fooled at first by the character name—“The Woman” (Genesis 1-3)—but this had much more to do with Greek mythology than Jewish Myth. In this film, men weren’t tricked into eating the apple, they were punished and turned to stone (or whatever that was happening in her bedroom) by their refusal to look away. It was a lack of character, a brokenness deep inside them. Even the most disfigured of men, though ultimately released, were shown to have the fatal flaw and had to be punished.

I know Blair had to look away, but I have to nominate the scene in which the couple drown in the sea for a Mediocrity because, in its entirety it was a more gut-wrenching scene than about anything I’ve seen in an MMC movie in the past season. My beef, however, is that Glazer went heavy on the symbolism and imagery and light on actually moving the narrative forward. There were times where I felt the movie just spun its wheels in a bout of erectified masturbatory montage. I could almost hear the popular audience’s tapping feet wondering: “oh, ok, the couple drowned, that was emotional; when is she going to be naked again?” Maybe that was Glazer’s point. The disjointed and, ultimately slow narrative arc held this movie back for me and I can see why audiences scored this film under 60% on RT.

In all, the film “making” here was too good to give anything below a “B.” Glazer is obviously someone who knows what he is doing with a camera and I’ve loved Johansson since “Lost in Translation” (though I think her best films were the two Woody Allen movies she did back in the mid ‘00’s). While I could’ve thought of some better uses of scenes and better narration of characters, I can’t complain about Glazer’s eye. And this, from the beginning sequence of eyeball close-ups to the slow self-revelation of the main character that she is as corrupted as her prey, is what he wanted us to think about.

Grade: B+

Cooker

11/4/2016 10:07:18 am

First, some random comments …

Uh, hello? Movie?

HAL? Everlasting Gobstopper?

Nearly five minutes in and I feel like the movie is just warming up like an orchestra does.

Oh boy, an experimental artsy movie with probably no story.

I hope this is actually going somewhere. It did! We get to watch her walk around the mall.

Umm. What? He melted into the floor?

And queue the creepy black pool of death theme music…

I bet MST3K would have fun with this one.

Don’t drop that bite of cake. The suspense is killing me.

Who’s Moto Racer anyway?

I can easily start my review of Under the Skin by referencing back to my review of 2001: A Space Odyssey. Some people watch movies so they can think and others just simply want to be entertained. I’m definitely part of the latter group, and watching someone walk around, interact with strangers and lure them to their doom (with little to no dialogue) didn’t entertain me. Again, I appreciate the concept, the art direction, the music, etc., but films like these rarely trigger that intense interest button in me.

To quote some reviews I saw on Wikipedia (only the greatest thing ever) …

Richard Roeper gave the film an A+ and four out of four, stating: "This is what we talk about when we talk about film as art."

Kaleem Aftab of The Independent stated in his review that "(Director Jonathan) Glazer simply gave up on trying to find a cohesive story."

Where I can appreciate the film as being “art,” I can’t flat out say that this movie sucked and was a total waste of my time. I did appreciate the concept of casting mostly non-actors and going through the organization Changing Faces, which supports individuals with facial disfigurements, when casting the deformed man; no prosthetics were used for that part. And like I said earlier, the music was haunting and the visuals were stunning. But I needed a story. I needed something to keep me engaged.

One of my favorite movies is the Station Agent, and while this doesn't have much of a "story" to it, it does have intriguing characters and great dialogue. Under the Skin was basically, Scarlett Johansson is an alien, what's she going to do next and why should I even care?

Not a total bomb, but this definitely won’t be a movie of the year nominee in my book. Going C- on this one.

Bryan

11/6/2016 09:15:37 pm

I can relate to this, "Again, I appreciate the concept, the art direction, the music, etc., but films like these rarely trigger that intense interest button in me." I like Cook's summary here. However, the music gave me a headache, the concept didn't work, and art - to each their own.

Sean

11/5/2016 12:25:47 am

I don't get it.

D

Probably needed more boners

Drew

11/5/2016 11:42:26 pm

Nominate this for best review.

Jon

11/5/2016 02:44:20 pm

Letterboxd review from two years ago:

An avant-garde anti-narrative about an alien picking the wrong body to inhabit, Jonathan Glazer's Under the Skin is... weird. Multiple viewings feel necessary, the first one to take in the striking imagery and the second to figure out what exactly is happening. The single viewing will have to do for my purposes, as I try to parse out just what was going on.

Opening with a seemingly-random sequence of images, the shapes, flashing lights, half syllables, and discordant score slowly morph into a van stopping on the side of a Scottish highway. The driver gets out and drags a body into the van. The body is that of Scarlett Johannson, and once inside the van, a living Johannson stands above the dead one. The living version strips the dead one and puts on her clothes, climbing in the van's driver seat and speeding away. In a populated bar district, Johannson, nameless, methodically picks up solitary men. Once back at her 'apartment,' more trippy things happen, and the cycle is repeated. When one of her pick-ups turns out to be a badly-disfigured man, Johannson has what appear to be second thoughts, and takes off into the countryside, away from her hideout and exposed to harsh realities.

There is essentially no dialogue in Under the Skin, aside from straightforward requests and very light getting-to-know-you conversations. Any details must be picked up from the environments and actions onscreen. Glaser is quite stingy, but a close watch can reveal the major points. He never holds the viewer's hand, trusting them to follow along. Luckily, the images he creates are so loaded with novelty that it's easy to keep your eyes glued to what's happening. He builds stark contrasts, as characters act against flawless white backgrounds or endless black morasses. When Johannson is taking long walks through the wilderness, Glaser keeps the composition interesting, such as when the frame is clearly delineated between fog on the left and clear on the right. He uses fades to communicate time, with images superimposing themselves on top of other images. Glaser, in conjunction with cinematographer Daniel Landin, is by far doing the best, most memorable in the film.

In the lead role, Johannson is a blank slate, seemingly fulfilling her programming. She's expression-less when alone, and mechanically perks up when on the hunt. Her quarry saying the word 'alone' seems to boot up her software, as she turns on the charm and assures she gets the men back to her lair. She's a cunning predator, isolating her prey before taking them down with no resistance. Her species has astutely studied humanity, learning what it takes to seduce them. When under her routine, Johannson is perfectly equipped, but outside of her support structure, her meticulously crafted appearance makes her a target. The flipping of the tables is the film's most effective twist, as the femme fatale convincingly becomes a babe in the woods. Surrounded by non-professional actors caught on candid camera, many are quite good, particularly the disfigured character portrayed by actual sufferer of neurofibromatosis Adam Pearson.

Under the Skin is an uncomfortable experience, with its unnerving score and difficult content, but the striking imagery is worth taking in. Glaser's not a prolific director, but if he continues to make films as intriguingly strange as this one, I hope he picks up the pace. B-

11/5/2016 11:41:30 pm

This film belongs in the vanguard section of a rental store - excuse me, Netflix browsing. There were beautiful scenery and masterful computer graphics but there must a point. What Glaser made was the weird art version of a Bruckheimer action film. A lot of things happening without a purpose; yet even if it had one, it was far fetched.

While the film's lack of direction was confusing, its randomness of the main character was equally frustrating. There was no explanation for her victims falling into a trance, following her, wading into some gooey underworld without reaction, and/or her doing those actions. Was she hungry, sacrificing to a god, or bored? Not to mention the sudden freeing of the deformed faced guy. How exactly did that happen and what happened to him when he returned to civilization? Those plot holes drove me batty.

Despite the aforementioned and how incredibly silly they were, the most "bang - my - head - on - the - wall" moment was the end. Seriously? That was the "cherry on top" moment, Glaser? Please, that was what people call "c'mon, man!"

What I continually do not understand is how some of my club members grade on a curve for some films yet not for others. This was definitely graded on a curve and it does not deserve such leniency.

Under the Skin was odd and neat in some ways but forgot to bring the entertaining value. It only brought the weird in a pointless manner. That is a recipe for a bad film.

Grade: D

11/6/2016 02:41:37 pm

I wouldn't call it grading on a curve. Some people simply have different appreciations for film making than others. Assigning objective grades to subjective analysis doesnt always lend clarity to the result.

11/6/2016 06:00:00 pm

I should have clarified that statement. By "grading on a curve," I meant grading it for what it was. I hear some of us use that notion for some films while not using it for other films. Total head scratcher.

Blair

11/6/2016 10:14:28 pm

What happened to the deformed man? He was shoved in a trunk and presumably killed my motorcycle guy.... with the old lady watching.

11/6/2016 10:18:11 pm

And you are going to need to be more specific about grade leniency. If you are calling me out, say so.

11/7/2016 02:26:11 pm

What I meant by "leniency" was grading it for what it was(aka grading on a curve), an artsy film that had no purpose, as opposed to not doing so to other films when necessary.

I was not calling you out per se but giving a notification of a double standard.

11/6/2016 09:09:55 pm

Thank God we understand the Upside Down from Stranger Things so this movie makes total sense.

I have nothing positive to say about this movie. I'll open at F and look for something to boost my grade in the reviews above.

Bobby

11/12/2016 02:17:59 pm

Even if you hated how the movie told it's story (or you don't believe it even had one), F seems harsh when the technical aspects and Johanssen's performance being so good. I know you focus more on whether or not you enjoyed the movie... but where's the partial credit?!

11/13/2016 06:17:25 pm

When I was updating the spreadsheet, I went to D.

11/7/2016 12:21:02 am

I wrote that Letterboxd review almost two years ago, and, if I do say so myself, I nailed the early line that calls for two viewings. The first time I saw this, I was more sympathetic to the negative reviews bouncing around our group. It is cold and indulgent (Cook is right to make fun of the cake scene) and off-putting, but on a repeat viewing, the story clicks in ways it didn't on the first try and all the 'artsy' choices pay off in creating a perfect illustration of show-don't-tell storytelling.

I praised a lot of the technical aspects in my initial review, and if anything, that praise has heated up this time around. On both an aesthetic level and an informative level, there are so many incredible shots in this film. The score that gave Bryan a headache sounds pretty great on my end. It's expertly matched with the events onscreen, with footfalls matching the heartbeat-like thumps. I'm listening to it right now. Scarlett Johansson is brilliant in the way she clicks on and off during the pick-ups, exercising complete facial control from start to finish of these scenes. Under the Skin blows me away from a technical level, operating as pure cinema. With a few small changes, this could be a silent movie and lose nothing.

With the shock and discomfort of that initial viewing behind me, I was able to think more about what this movie is trying to say. I don't know what you guys are talking about with your couple-sentence negative reviews. There's so many thematic threads to pick at. The alien placed into a new world and observing humanity's often indecipherable behavior and priorities is always potent, as it makes the viewer see the world through someone not in it. Nature, with its perfectly formed ocean smoke and calmly rolling fog, is operating on rules and is therefore knowable, but humanity with its club rituals and impenetrable British comedy shows, seems to come at random. For The Female, as Johannson's credited, to watch that beach scene, where a mother gives up her life for a dog, where a father is saved and immediately puts his life in danger again, where a stranger puts his life at risk for both of them, none of it makes any practical sense. She, and the Motorcycle Man, ignore the baby when cleaning up the scene, because obviously this squalling mass has no worth to anyone involved, so why should it have worth to the aliens? Hookup culture also has never been portrayed as so unfathomable. The Female is driving a van, lives in a secluded and rundown shack, and most importantly, has a vast black reflecting room somewhere on her second floor. Where is the reluctance and self-preservation for any of these men?

Of course, if Scarlett Johansson was coming onto me, I would probably go into that shack, and that's where Under the Skin gets more interesting. With one exception, the men go willingly and confidently to their entrapment and death, and the one exception just looks over his shoulder with some warines and goes anyway. They otherwise don't have a shred of reticence. I just met someone, I'm going to get in their car, and we're going to go to her place, wherever that is. Women presumably do this all the time, and as The Female ultimately learns, it's very difficult to tell the difference between gentle men and rapists. It's unreasonable for men to assume they aren't going to get their skin removed in a gunky void; it's reasonable for women to assume the guy they're dancing with might have nefarious purposed and means. 2016's been disgustingly lousy with accounts of sexual assault, from the victim in the Brock Turner case to all the women on Twitter talking about their various assaults after a man who could be President tossed off comments about how easy it is for him to assault women. Under the Skin lives in that world, where men, or men-shaped aliens, exercise control over women's bodies, where they'll put their own lives in jeopardy for an ill-advised chance to have sex with one.

11/7/2016 12:21:37 am

There's even a free will angle to Under the Skin that I'm piecing together as I write about it. The Female is created in the opening credits, learns her limited vocabulary, and so on. She then lures men to their deaths as part of some programmed directive to accumulate skin for other aliens, but her programming isn't so strong that she can't disobey. She is able to break out of the rules that her society sets for her, only to run into the logger rapist, who's also set aside his society's rules. Her disobedience is strength, while his is brutality. There's also the opening, undressing scene, which demonstrates that these Females keep dying, this one in a roadside field. There's a cycle motif to Under the Skin, especially in the ending with the smoke rising off the Female's body before falling as ash back to earth. The Female is one turn in a cycle that keeps repeating itself, with empathy, escape, extermination, and replacement (couldn't think of another E word) as the spokes in the wheel. Keeping the cycle going means getting caught in this dreadful routine, and as The Female demonstrates, it's better to take matters into one's own hands.

That wasn't the most well-communicated paragraph, but I do think Under the Skin is rich enough to warrant that kind of half-formed thinking. This is still a chilly exercise, so I don't get to the A's, but I am upgrading my B- to a B+. Under the Skin gets added to my bar movie playlist with 2001 as a film that wildly succeeds on a visual level even while I wish some shots would just get it over with. I know I said just last week that everyone was thinking too hard, but now, I'm confronted with the opposite sentiment. I'm not thinking enough, and I just wrote 1000 words about it.

11/7/2016 11:50:36 am

Jon is better at this than me. He's upgraded me to C-. I don't think I can sit through it again or ever enjoy the movie so no higher.
I'd nominate this for review of the year if I didn't already lock it up above.

Shane

11/11/2016 10:23:42 am

I don't think she was programmed. I think she had a mission and viewed humans as prey. Throughout the movie, she saw them as more. I think a lot of beings would feel this way. I hope this isn't some sort of vegan message. If so, F.

11/11/2016 10:15:55 am

Under the Skin is at times an entrancing movie, but ultimately meanders a bit too much trying to hammer home a point: Our idea of beauty is shallow and only skin deep. The movie has perhaps the best alien abduction scenes of all times, but when the movie takes a real risk in filming actual people, it drags. It was a bold move that I don’t think pays off. I would recommend anyone who likes a bit of a experimentation in their movies, but for the casual movie goer, I might not recommend.

B-

11/12/2016 02:13:38 pm

I wanted to write a lot about this... so kept putting it off until I thought I'd have time to put together a long and well thought review... That isn't happening.

For me, this is all about our world, especially men, through the eyes of these other beings. The male gaze is clearly a focus, and something they can use against men to harvest the bodies. It also sort of flips the standard societal view/standard around, as she's the one preying on the men, and never feeling threatened by them (even when the group pounds on the van, she is calm, as she leaves). She looks for men who are single, and unattached, so they won't be missed... all of them with lust as their priority... until the man with the facial disfigurement came along. His priority wasn't her and lust. He had to be seduced with much more effort, and was the only man we see brought to the black liquid who didn't have an erection. This seemingly caused the woman to look at her self, reevaluate what she was doing... and let him go, as if realizing, they don't all deserve this, causing her to run from it all, and her superior (or whatever the cyclist is, but clearly from her world). And then we she was at her most vulnerable (finally sleeping for perhaps the first time?), a man tries to rape, and eventually kills her. I think it's an, overall, very calculated view of the world through the eyes of the woman's race of beings. I feel like I could have articulated that paragraph better, but yeah... the movie said quite a bit, I think, without spelling much of it out... It worked for me. It was, however, a bit too much being held back at times, convoluted at times. The further I get from seeing the movie, the more I appreciated it.

As mentioned by others, the scenes on the shore are strong, and really well shot... and are important to setting up the narrative for these otherworldly beings. The black liquid scenes were also incredibly well done. The motorcycle shots are fantastic... and they even used a professional rider for the role, specifically because of the windy roads and wet weather.

The CGI was strong throughout, I thought. Especially in the aforementioned liquid scenes, but even the final scene with the smoke against the snow looked great for me. The direction in general seemed strong, especially considering we were dealing with non actors for the most part. From the motorcyclist to the men she captures... including Adam Pearson who wasn't an actor before this, but wanted to appear to fight the stigma on disfigurement.

Scarlett Johansson is going to have a real shot at a Mediocrity this season. Being in nearly every shot, she had a lot of pressure to perform.... and she did. The fact that she drove the van, and talked to completely random strangers shouldn't be understated. Sure, she had some crew in the back, but that's a pretty daring thing to do... and to hold character, unsure of who you'll meet, who will recognize you, and how it'll play out. Luckily, not many in the city knew who they were talking to. To the point of how solid and powerful her performance was... in a movie that focuses a bit on the sexual gaze, there was little to no feeling of sexualization of Johansson's body. Her portrayal of any lack of emotion throughout was impressive enough for all the awards... and it'll take a pretty incredible opponent for her to not get the vote come next October.

So yeah, I'm a fan of Under the Skin... early in the movie while watching, I definitely asked "what the fuck am I watching....?", but as it went on, and after I thought about what I had just watched... it worked, on nearly all levels. It wasn't perfect, but it was a vision executed incredibly well. A-

Under the Skin

C+
2.44

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

Under the Skin

C+​2.44

Leave a Reply.

Authors

Categories

Archives

C+
2.44