Under the Skin is an abtruse and bizzare film that certainly does lack explanation to several ideas. However I find that these ideas serve their function better by being expressed implicitly as compared to explicitly. These unknown locations, strange imagary, odd dialogue, and loosely implied motivations would not have made the film better by being explained directly. In fact, they probably would have even made it worse.
Overall this film is very light on dialogue. It's only used when neccasary. I have to say that Scarlett Johanson does a great job of conveying her unnamed character's feelings through non-verbals. It's very easy to tell firstly that she isn't human, and secondly, what she's thinking in different scenarios as she observbs this what to her, the strange world she's in. There are many sections where she has no lines, but her performance and excellent directing keep the story moving. Music also takes the riens at many points and appropriately instills a feeling of uneasiness and confusion. This outstanding composition does not overstay it's welcome though. In contrast, many scenes are either completely silent or contain only environmental sounds. It makes highly effective use of of the idea: "the silence is deafening".
Cinematography is some of the best I've ever seen. Outstanding shot angles give locations life and depth. It's something you just need to see for yourself. It sure does justice to the Scottish countryside, a place that is normally rather dull and dreary. It maintains a consistent pace and the editing usually is great, but I still found it feeling a little bit padded at a couple points. Its not the longest movie ever and it could have been shorter. Not a flaw in of itself.
Under the Skin is not a movie for everyone, but I am very dissapointed by it's currently 6.3 overall score here. Weak and unintelligent complaints in the realm of: "It's boring", "It doesn't make sense", "______ is never explained". Can these people who can't grasp visual storytelling and/or can't appreciate intentional subtley and ambiguity of any sort just stop writing reviews please? Haha maybe I'm just a snob. Am I up on my high horse? Or is it just completely idiotic to give this movie scores like 1, 2, and 3 out of 10?
I'm just gonna say it. I don't care. Often the truth is that when people don't understand something, accepting that would imply to themselves that they are inferior in some way (which may or may not even be true). And therefore they will find a way to articulate that in this case Under the Skin is what's inferior. Thus you get reviews that say: "It doesn't make sense: 1/10" when the truth is that person didn't make sense of it. I love how some of them try to act like they understand film elements when anybody who really did would at the very least see what the creators were going for even if they didn't like it. Not enjoying Under the Skin is fine. If this movie simply wasn't entertaining because not everyone is entertained purely by great cinematography, that isn't indicative of you being inferior. You're not stupid just for not enjoying this film. You can move on and you have every right to give it a mediocre score. Giving it outrageously low scores like 1s, 2's, and 3's on the other hand IS indicative of you being an idiot trying to drown the idea that you're not intelligent by tagging this film as the most offensive, useless, and horrible thing possible. It's people running from themselves. It's their subconscious saying: "I can't be dumb. That's impossible. Therefore it has to be Under the Skin that's a nonsensical and boring drag".
Overall this film is very light on dialogue. It's only used when neccasary. I have to say that Scarlett Johanson does a great job of conveying her unnamed character's feelings through non-verbals. It's very easy to tell firstly that she isn't human, and secondly, what she's thinking in different scenarios as she observbs this what to her, the strange world she's in. There are many sections where she has no lines, but her performance and excellent directing keep the story moving. Music also takes the riens at many points and appropriately instills a feeling of uneasiness and confusion. This outstanding composition does not overstay it's welcome though. In contrast, many scenes are either completely silent or contain only environmental sounds. It makes highly effective use of of the idea: "the silence is deafening".
Cinematography is some of the best I've ever seen. Outstanding shot angles give locations life and depth. It's something you just need to see for yourself. It sure does justice to the Scottish countryside, a place that is normally rather dull and dreary. It maintains a consistent pace and the editing usually is great, but I still found it feeling a little bit padded at a couple points. Its not the longest movie ever and it could have been shorter. Not a flaw in of itself.
Under the Skin is not a movie for everyone, but I am very dissapointed by it's currently 6.3 overall score here. Weak and unintelligent complaints in the realm of: "It's boring", "It doesn't make sense", "______ is never explained". Can these people who can't grasp visual storytelling and/or can't appreciate intentional subtley and ambiguity of any sort just stop writing reviews please? Haha maybe I'm just a snob. Am I up on my high horse? Or is it just completely idiotic to give this movie scores like 1, 2, and 3 out of 10?
I'm just gonna say it. I don't care. Often the truth is that when people don't understand something, accepting that would imply to themselves that they are inferior in some way (which may or may not even be true). And therefore they will find a way to articulate that in this case Under the Skin is what's inferior. Thus you get reviews that say: "It doesn't make sense: 1/10" when the truth is that person didn't make sense of it. I love how some of them try to act like they understand film elements when anybody who really did would at the very least see what the creators were going for even if they didn't like it. Not enjoying Under the Skin is fine. If this movie simply wasn't entertaining because not everyone is entertained purely by great cinematography, that isn't indicative of you being inferior. You're not stupid just for not enjoying this film. You can move on and you have every right to give it a mediocre score. Giving it outrageously low scores like 1s, 2's, and 3's on the other hand IS indicative of you being an idiot trying to drown the idea that you're not intelligent by tagging this film as the most offensive, useless, and horrible thing possible. It's people running from themselves. It's their subconscious saying: "I can't be dumb. That's impossible. Therefore it has to be Under the Skin that's a nonsensical and boring drag".