Under The Skin

[Jon]

This is on Netflix. Is it in 4K?

Removed July 12, 2020, in the United States. The movie was not available in 4K or HDR through Netflix US.

[Reaps]

I bought it on Bluray after i watched it because i'm a collector etc, but i know i'll never watch it again due to that beach scene. Nope. not happening.

[onthewall2983]

This is on Showtime, in 4K. I tried watching it again, but noped my way out after the beach scene too.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

Yea, as much as I loved this when I watched it (On a random whim btw) it is not something I would want to revisit. Handful of scenes that leave me absolutely uneasy, but still pop up from time to time in my head!

[allegate]

sorry for the necrobump, I was looking for a different thread and came across this one.

Watched this in November when A24 re-released some of their horror movies in theaters for $5. Had no idea wtf that was and after a few articles I kind of get it but also holy crap at this article. If you're going to claim to be an explainer, don't get basic facts wrong.

After seducing a logger (Dave Acton), Johansson resists his sexual advances. She doesn’t fully understand his frustration. When she wakes up in his cabin, the logger begins assaulting her. The frightened alien is terrified by his capacity for cruelty, and runs into the woods. The logger chases after her.

She does not seduce the logger, she ran into him in the woods just before the cabin. Which isn't his because it says on the door "for walkers of the hills" or something.

She has seen the positive things that humanity is capable of after she rescues an abandoned baby on the beach

I don't know how you get something like this so wrong. The baby is shown twice on the beach, no one saves it. There's an entire scene where she's listening to the news and they do the exposition dump explainer. Probably the only thing in the movie that's explicitly explained too.

I shouldn't care this much but it's because I was trying to get a better grip on what I had just watched and this guy...fucking guy.../nandor

Anyway, interesting movie but I wish it didn't take an explainer for the dumb dumbs, of which I am certainly one. Like what was up with the motorcycle guy at the end? He was clearly looking for her but couldn't find her? Even though earlier in the movie he was clearly able to find her, somehow? It was tension for tension's sake I feel, nothing came of it.

It was kind of like Annihilation where the writer said "I read this book once, it was pretty interesting, I'm going to write a script about it but not ever refer back to the source material because I want it to feel like a half-remembered dream."

[Khrz]

It was kind of like Annihilation where the writer said "I read this book once, it was pretty interesting, I'm going to write a script about it but not ever refer back to the source material because I want it to feel like a half-remembered dream."

In both examples I fail to see how both those (excellent in my eyes) books could make better movies... I get the frustration, but I always felt that, in both cases, the ambiguity was necessary for what happens to feel truly alien.
Sure they're not "proper" adaptation, but those would probably suck, given what the books describe (or don't).

Also, yeah, the baby is clearly abandoned to its fate.

[allegate]

In both examples I fail to see how both those (excellent in my eyes) books could make better movies... I get the frustration, but I always felt that, in both cases, the ambiguity was necessary for what happens to feel truly alien.
Sure they're not "proper" adaptation, but those would probably suck, given what the books describe (or don't).

Also, yeah, the baby is clearly abandoned to its fate.

100% this. If you could explain what's going on, it is no longer an "alien" concept.

[fillow]

100% this. If you could explain what's going on, it is no longer an "alien" concept.

This is why I always loved Stanislaw Lem's books (and not just Solaris). Very interesting attempts to describe a contact with alien lifeforms which humans just don't get despite making all kinds of approximations.

[Self.Destructive.Pattern]

This is why I always loved Stanislaw Lem's books (and not just Solaris). Very interesting attempts to describe a contact with alien lifeforms which humans just don't get despite making all kinds of approximations.

Is Solaris good? I forgot all about that movie.

Annihilation I went into not knowing anything at all, and it wound up being one of my favorite movies. I felt uncomfortable almost the entire time watching it.

Under The Skin I also went into, blind, and it kept my attention from the very first scene. When you watch what is unfolding in specific scenes, you have to ask yourself over and over: "Wait, did that really happen?" Such thought provoking movies.

[burnmotherfucker!]

Is Solaris good? I forgot all about that movie.

Annihilation I went into not knowing anything at all, and it wound up being one of my favorite movies. I felt uncomfortable almost the entire time watching it.

Under The Skin I also went into, blind, and it kept my attention from the very first scene. When you watch what is unfolding in specific scenes, you have to ask yourself over and over: "Wait, did that really happen?" Such thought provoking movies.

If you are asking if the film Solaris is good, 100% yes. It's one of the best films I've ever seen. It's based on a novel about humans making contact with an alien world that they do not understand but the film is so very much not really about that at all. Tarkovsky used that framework to deeply explore what it even means to be human. The final sequences are absolutely haunting and Solaris reaches the highest peak of what film can do.

It's also worth noting that during the time it was made it was easier for him to get financing if he worked in the "science-fiction" genre. 2001 was seen as a success that studios could replicate. And Tarkovsky thought very little of 2001. So Tarkovsky made a film about human nature and inner space and disguised it as an outer space movie about an alien world.

Later, he went even further with this approach and made Stalker. It too was based on a science-fiction novel and it too dispenses with all the technical worldbuilding and exposition bullshit that plague the science fiction genre in the modern era. It's truly a perfect film imo.

I'd also like to echo what Khrz and you are saying about Under the Skin. Much like Solaris and Stalker, it uses ambiguity to illicit the right question from the audience. Some of those questions have thought provoking implications. I'll take films like this all day over the new norm that tends to rely on easily contrived and arbitrary plot exposition that is used to spoon feed and answer any question an audience member might have because god forbid someone have to make up their own mind about something. I digress...

Annihilation? Honestly I've only seen that film once and on one watch it did absolutely nothing for me. But perhaps I owe it a second watch soon. I really liked Ex Machina but even with that, it felt like a drawn out black mirror concept and I wouldn't quite put it up there with the other films being discussed here. I think the concept of Civil War is interesting but I really hope that it isn't going to be a preachy movie but rather a film about the dangers of group think and tribalism on all sides. The Hunt pulled that sort of thing off a few years back fairly well.

and @allegate , wow that is a pretty objectively terrible review you cited. That's the kind where I check for the author's name and never read them again.

[burnmotherfucker!]

Anyway, interesting movie but I wish it didn't take an explainer for the dumb dumbs, of which I am certainly one. Like what was up with the motorcycle guy at the end? He was clearly looking for her but couldn't find her? Even though earlier in the movie he was clearly able to find her, somehow? It was tension for tension's sake I feel, nothing came of it.

It was kind of like Annihilation where the writer said "I read this book once, it was pretty interesting, I'm going to write a script about it but not ever refer back to the source material because I want it to feel like a half-remembered dream."

It's true that the guy on the motorcycle, much like their world and civilization is never explained or explored. But I think they aren't explored because the details are irrelevant.

In my opinion those scenes were there to establish that Scarlett Johansson's alien character had some degree of agency. It's clear that there was an expectation that she "extract" something from humans during the dark sequences early on in the film. So, later when she takes a different route we understand that she is diverging from expectation and is even willing to risk consequences for doing so.

That along with other extremes, such as leaving a baby to drown, force the audience to consider all sorts of things. The film also explores the differences in an individual's interior and exterior. Both in how they are viewed by others and how the way they view themselves affect their actions. This is made clear by casting Scarlett Johansson and showing how real humans react to her based on appearance alone. The fact they filmed on the streets and used real people who were unaware they were in a film says a lot about human nature. At the same time it very obviously and intentionally evokes Lynch's Elephant Man. Which is also a film that explores the separate but connected interior/exterior of humans.

[Khrz]

In my opinion those scenes were there to establish that Scarlett Johansson's alien character had some degree of agency. It's clear that there was an expectation that she "extract" something from humans during the dark sequences early on in the film. So, later when she takes a different route we understand that she is diverging from expectation and is even willing to risk consequences for doing so.

Yeah, it's pretty clear she has a mission, she's not a predator, even though her mission is predatory. Through the few appearances of the biker we understand he's some sort of handler, or at least someone who overlooks her actions.
Which makes us perceive her actions as all the more detached. She's not acting out of hunger or pleasure, there is a purpose behind all this. She just plucks humans.

And this movie, indeed, has a lot to say about seduction, appearances, violence and empathy.

Concerning Annihilation, I had read the book beforehand, maybe that helped me appreciate the movie. I've read Under the Skin after having seen the movie, and I think it's better that way.