Another near indescribable film. Somehow Under the Skin has been lauded almost universally by critics, despite being little more than a social experiment in which random bystanders are expected to be attracted to Scarlett Johannsen. And anyone who thinks that experiment will not exhibit a 90+ percent success rate is kidding the self.
I actually think that johannsen’s willingness to disrobe helped boost the Tomatometer; ” look honey it’s an art film. Appreciate the audacity. The creativeness. The boldness. What you think I watch this because Scar-Jo gets her kit off a bunch of times? Pshhhh. No. This is art. Now if you’ll excuse me, me and my box of tissues are off to experience the ‘art’ again… Don’t come in.”
So Scarlett roams the roads and towns of Scotland, luring guys into her van to he’d back to hers, where they end up being preserved in space goo. Perhaps I should have mentioned she is an alien?
I agree that the film builds a mood and tension with long dreamlike sequences, some of them lengthy and silent. But anyone proffering this as an example of genius cinema is well ahead of themselves. Would this have been ‘genius’ without Johanssen in the lead role? Would it have still been genius with say Rebel Wilson? Would critics be stumbling over themselves for superlatives if alien Rebel spent a full minute examining her human exoskeleton in the mirror?
I’m not being fatt-ist but would THAT film have been so very laudable?
I think no. I can watch the film and identify some admirable characteristics. I can admit to the boldness and originality. But if this film couldn’t sell itself with stories of Johannsen’s ‘braveness’ and ‘willingness’ to disrobe, it wouldn’t have been seen on anyone’s Best Of list.
Actually it wouldn’t have been seen much at all.