User Reviews

이 껍데기의 모습으로 살아간다는 것은무수한 혼자를 갈망하는 성욕에 찔리며 걸어다녀야한다는 것이다.적극적이든 유쾌하든 소극적이든 공격적이든 똑같은 모습으로 똑같은 욕구에 무너지는 남자 피해자들의 모습이 시적이었다.껍데기 안으로 그 무엇도 받아들이지 못하지만 (음식도 먹을 수 없고 성관계를 가질 수도 없다.) 껍데기 안에 부푼 온기를 갈망하는 불씨는 존재를 약하게 만들었고 결국 허무하게 죽게한다.여성으로 살아가는 미소잃은 하루하루를 비춤과 동시에 이 존재에게 명령하고 감시하는 바이커가 마초의 상징이라는 점도 꽤나 서글펐다.210212 (4.0)-1. 익사한 사체가 저렇게 부풀지 않는건가? 그리고 눈물을 어떻게 흘리지? 그리고 누가봐도 두 여자의 신체 사이즈가 다른데 어떻게 같은 옷을 입었찌? (키는 비슷해보여도... 체형이... 시체여인이 훨씬 말랐는데...)2. 피해자를 죽이는 방식이 신기하다. 잔뜩 흥분한 피해자가 옷을 스스로 벗게하고 그대로 늪에 빠지게 영문도 모르고 가라앉게한다. 어디서 어떻게 만난 남자건 상관없이 다 그렇게 죽인다 ㄷㄷㄷ 전신 나체로 보여주는 적나라함이 오히려 시적이야. 늪에서 남자들의 피부는 영혼을 잃고 펑 터져버린다. 껍데기만 남아 허망하게 펄럭인다.3. 매일 매일 인간의 욕구를 열심히 이용해먹으면서 정작 자신은 달콤한 케익 한조각도 먹지 못한다. 절망하는 표정이 너털너털 걸어가는 길에 너무 잘 배어났다. 껍데기(스킨)를 이용해 살아가는데 살아감을 느낄 수 없는 껍데기라 허망한 것 같다.4. 성욕을 해결할 생각만 없었던 피해자들은 여자의 공간으로 초대되어 죽는다. 패턴처럼 남자라는 생명체를 정의했을 주인공에게 선의로 대하고 곤란해보이자 자신의 공간으로 초대한 남자는 색다른 것을 깨닫게 하는 자극이었나보다. 남자의 온기를 겪은 후 주인공은 급격히 약해진다. 추위를 느끼고 남자를 두려워하게 된다.5. 영화가 말하는 '스킨'이란 여자로 살아가는 삶을 말하는 것 같다. 여자라는 껍데기를 썼다는 이유로 받게되는 저속한 말들 그리고 하나같이 성욕만을 채우기 위해 다가오는 접촉만 있다는 것. 평생 그 누구와도 접촉을 해보지 못한 장애인에게 조차도 마찬가지의 경험(성욕만 탐하는)을 하게하는 피부6. 여자는 따뜻함을 알게되고나서 아픔도 추위도 느끼기 시작한다. 여성이라는 껍데기 안에서 남성에게 공격받은 무수한 경험에도 불구하고 대부분의 여성은 짝이 될 남성을 구한다. 아마 그런 희망(나를 위한 좋은 짝이 있을 것이라는)이 약점이 된다는 걸 말하고 싶었던 게 아닐까 싶다. 약해진 주인공의 껍데기는 강간을 시도하는 폭력에 허무하게 벗겨져 버리고 허무하게 불타 죽는다. 너무 너무 너무 허무했다.7. 주인공이 트럭을 몰고다니며 접한 무수한 남자들의 접근은 몰래카메라로 촬영한 것이라고 한다. 세상에. 실제 일반인들인 것이다. 지구를 처음 접하는 여자의 시선을 그대로 보이기 위해서라고 했다.

I find the glowing reviews for this film inexplicable. It is slow-paced, excruciatingly low budget, dull, and largely incomprehensible. There is exactly one reason to watch it, and that's if you have a burning desire to see Scarlett Johansson naked; it has literally nothing else going for it.

A very odd film that appears to have been made with extras who may not even be actors! The protagonist is great, the idea is sound, the deliverance is well worth a watch. I really liked how oddly alien the whole film seemed. It appeared to be also about misogyny, immigration, racism amongst other themes. It was a bit unsettling at times. I'd watch it again, but I wouldn't be in a hurry to.

Plotless SciFi abstract film combines arresting cinematography, eery visual effects, slow paced editing and a superb performance from Johansson to craft an unsettling take on an alien life forms exploration of human behavior (and possibly experimentation?). In reality much of the sequences appear to be improvised and there is basically no script or story. Still its a great piece of cinematic art.

A thoroughly stripped-down kernel of conceptual sci-fi from Jonathan Glazer, the director of many similarly moody, melancholy music videos. Under the Skin is a demanding film, and most certainly not a pleasant one, which lingers in the subconscious for days (or even weeks) like an unwelcome houseguest. Hence the apt title, I suppose. Filmed in the guerilla style, with hidden cameras capturing Scarlett Johansson's interactions with all manner of unsuspecting men on the streets of Glasgow, the results are both authentic and rather listless. Somehow understanding the intricacies of conversation and sexual signal-sending, Johansson's alien psyche is completely helpless in baser respects. She wanders the pavement, seeing positive and negative sides of the human condition amidst her aimless amble, and responds to both with the same apathetic lack of emotion. Eventually it does go somewhere, though much of the plot is left to subtle hints and unspoken subtext, but I'm not sure the destination is worth the effort it takes to arrive. Often very difficult to watch, drastically understated and strangely nuanced, it's a polarizing experience that's probably best suited to quiet, underpopulated art houses.

Under the Skin is one of the most stunning, brilliant, and original explorations of the human condition.

Alternates between being upsetting and hopeful so quickly and effectively that I want Glazer to stop making movies and start running our society. Hard pressed to think of a movie that so brilliantly captures the span of human emotion and connection, and it does so through a prism of unspeakable horror. Weird to say, but Johansson really makes you believe she's an alien. Mica Levi's score sounds like they recorded string instruments submerged in hellfire.Bold as hell, and takes off in so many unexpected directions. Just pure gonzo cinema and one of the best movies I've ever seen.

Lets be frank, this is more an art house type film. Cinematography and score is good though, which strongly adds to the atmosphere and vibe. It's thought provoking and its general mystery can be compelling, but ultimately its rather boring in terms of story and events.

A truly unique slow burn sci fi/horror. A lot of disturbing imagery that will get under your skin. Well acted and great cinematography

I am really stunned by the reviews, top to bottom, and both users' and pro reviewers'. Most of them are disingenuous, without proper elaboration on this work. This is not your average feature film, go to cinema with a girlfriend or mate sort of movie, it's not even for the late night TV program. This is an experimental film, a video project with lots of reality TV shots, documentary bits, theatrical choreographed performance, composed sequences of (choreographed) steps and moves, strange scene settings and designs, and most importantly, almost entire cast are "naturchiks" - non-professional and/or one-time actors/performers. Unexpectedly American reviewers did not pan this project with sneer and low ratings, that is, until New York Post, veritas et virtus et scientia bastion, treated it with "tedious and pretentious" :-)

An amazing brain-melting movie. Brilliant sci-fi on a budget, it leaves a lot of room for you to fill in the blanks while it gets on with the job of being white-knuckle and claustrophobic. Like all my favorite horrors, there are zero jump scares in this, everything is telegraphed from a mile away, yet there are still real surprises and a few "WHAT THE HELL!?" moments.

To consider this film obtuse or pretentious is understandable if lazy or ill-informed. But to label this film empty and complain that 'nothing is happening' is totally false. Glazer uses silence, repetition, and simplicity throughout the film to pare back an elaborate, special effects-heavy concept to a sparse, cohesive story focusing on an alien perspective of the human world. Glazer manages to conjure his own style, melding a naturalistic documentary approach to the horror/sci-fi mastery of Kubrick classics emphasising absorbing imagery and ethereal soundscapes. A mesmerising lead performance from Scarlett here. 9/10 [A]

One of the most unique sci-fi films out there, and my favorite for that very reason. Feels like a spiritual successor to 2001 in a lot of ways. Scarlett Johansson's best performance by far by far, accompanied by one of the best scores in science fiction history.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

I was pretty confused the whole time watching it; but by the end I appreciated the imagery and message the film was trying to convey. I mean it's a really slow burn; there's literally no dialogue until 20 minutes in. It's definitely thought-provoking and worth watching to build your own interpretation of the film. But...this may prove just too weird for most people I reckon.

A genuinely weird and haunting little SF/horror/art flick that does get under one's skin. It stars Scarlett Johansson as an alluring but deadly creature of some kind. She roams around dull sections of urban Scotland in a plain van, picking up solitary men and doing something very strange to them. Around halfway thru, things change, and it becomes an interesting exploration indeed. The dialogue is very sparse, and the soundtrack is dominated by Mica Levi's dark score. There is some fine cinematography of Scottish winter landscapes towards the end.

There are really interesting visuals in the movie, the kind that could make it a pretty good one - but the story is garbage. It's way too abstract, and leaves you bored.

Here's a movie I love to stare at in awe at how succesfully it manages to keep my atention, despite it's very slow pace. One of the very few movies have made my heart almost stop with some of its imagery and sound. It's a haunting masterpiece that's as fascinating as it is captivating I love it.

Impact, deep and unforgettable scenes, style, atmosphere, visuals & music, Scarlett Johansson's interpretation. Unique experience. Masterpiece.

This movie is incredibly artistic and beautiful in so many ways. Scarlett is gorgeous and fearless in this role in using her body and face compellingly to help tell the story. My big knock on this movie would be that it is confusing. Also, slow paced. Personally, I generally hate slow paced, indulgent movies. I would hate this one too normally. Scenes drag out with almost nothing happening but literally every scene also is so beautifully done it kept me engrossed. I was so fascinated by what the hell was happening that I stuck it out. The ending was eery and somehow satisfying to me. And some of the characters were really cool. But slooowwww pacing throughout.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Phenomenal experience that I wish was more celebrated, but I guess it's too slow and ambiguous for some.

Such a great movie! I want to give it a 10 but I think it will end up being a 9/9.5. Scarlett Johansson give her best performance ever, especially knowing that a lot of that was improvised, amazing. She is believable in every aspect of that character.

This is not a movie for everyone, let's just get that out of the way. It's an *artsy* movie with a lot of visual storytelling and metaphors. Play the MLG sound effects. I went into this movie since ScarJo is my favorite actress of all time somewhat blind. I did not know she'd be nude in it, that came as a pleasant bonus surprise. I came out the other side disturbed but intrigued. Under the Skin is the type of movie that when you're finished you don't really know what you just watched and you don't really start appreciating the movie once you read up and watch theories, explanations and analyses. And sleeping on the movie for a while, I really do like it. It has some issues, nothing too major, but what it does right it does extremely well. A big part of the movie is the fear of the unknown and the movie **** nails that. You will see disturbing stuff you've hopefully never seen before accompanied by some of the most bone-chilling and unsettling music I've ever heard, serious props to the composer. This movie has the most terrifying jump scare I've ever seen, I am not kidding. I had to take a pause from watching the movie. And once again after 'Her' (my fav movie of all time), ScarJo wants to know what it means to be a human and the movie tackles that topic very well too. Those scenes with the men in the street are however the least engaging and can drag the pacing down varying degrees (I'm especially thinking of a scene with ScarJo walking around a telephone booth). ScarJo is great throughout the movie and also great is Adam Pearson, what a guy. Under the Skin is interesting and well made, there is no denying in that and the storytelling is there, you just have to think to take part in it. The movie won't throw anything into your face except disturbing terror that... gets under your skin hehe

You could take a short dive into a deep black abyss and experience the sense of ennui and melancholy that comes with questioning one's own existence in a world where you are alone. I did and ... meh.

I remember there being a lot of hype for this. Not because people were excited for another deep, thoughtful sci-fi movie or anything like that, but because Scarlett Johansson was going to be naked. When it finally came out I saw that it got good reviews, but nobody really talked about it after that. So I assumed that everybody **** then moved on with their lives and that I wouldn't be missing anything by skipping it. It wasn't until a few years later that someone I met online recommended it to me and I decided that I might as well check it out at some point. I have ended up glad that they convinced me to look past my misconceptions and give it a shot. The premise of an alien seductress leading men to their deaths with the promise of sex sounds like it should be the basis for a movie where the sole appeal is in the nudity. Not something as dark and haunting as this. Under the Skin has a B-movie setup, but ended up with art house appeal. The cinematography is gorgeous. Watching Johansson drive around in a van and do almost nothing is way more entertaining than it should be. Not just because of how great Jonathan Glazer and Daniel Landin were able to make the mundane look, but also because of Johansson herself. Her stare that is both empty, but full of curiosity is mesmerizing. You really want to get inside of her character's head just as much as all these men want to get inside her pants. It's a very vague movie. Perhaps intentionally so that viewers may be able to draw their own conclusions as to what it's about. Loneliness from a true outsider's perspective? Trying to find your place in a cold world? A celebration of individuality? A critique of men's harassment and objectification of beautiful women? Even something as simple as real beauty being on the inside? I couldn't quite say. All I know is that it's a movie that is able to overcome most of the boredom one would typically find in something this slow-paced thanks to a wonderful performance from it's lead actress and that I enjoyed it very much.

This is one of the best movies made since 2000. This movie represents the best metaphor of the abyss at the edge of which our Western democratic societies dance perilously close to at the moment. The underlying repulsion of nihilism and materialism at the heart of this work of art is a wake up call to all of us to rebuild new values for a world where sex has replaced love, where selfishness pass as will to power, where utter loneliness has reduced our humanity to its most primitive form. Brilliant. Real horror. Exactly what Colonel Kurtz meant.

Everything about this film is exquisite, the cinematography, editing, subtle performance, direction, etc... All of these film aspects are executed in the most masterful and subdued manner. It is a modern fable of discovery and tells the story with little exposition, only imagery. This is an instant critical classic that explores humanity, love, femininity, identity, compassion and has a lot more subtext. The most Kubrickian film ever made, without being directed by the legend himself. It sways from immensely creepy, to powerfully brutal, to beautifully introspective with great ease and care. One of the best films of the 21st Century and one of my favourite films ever.

how was that.. Under The Skin Expressing emotions and creating tension and urgency on the screen despite of using word is a sign of excellence in both writing and directing field. Under The Skin is a character-driven movie that is equally smart and soft to its core contradict to its hard raw brutal physique. Jonathan Glazer aces in projecting the on-paper words to the screen and brings out the character alive and pumping. Scarlett Johansson justifies her role and works hard on her character that itself remains mystery till the last frame. Under The Skin is a slow pill that unfolds in each phase and twists its way out as the plot thickens and the character ages on the screen.

So artistic and strange. If you love art you should love this movie. It was very strange but beautiful at the same time. After the movie I didn't knew how to feel and I was thinking about this movie a lot.

Under The Skin brings an unbelievably dark perspective on sexual desires and selfishness. The middle of the film is where I have my problems. The sex scenes become repetitive, and there were some confusing imagery that were trying to symbolize something but I couldn't understand them. The films is at its strongest in the beginning and the end. The ending makes up so much for the confusing middle. The environment built around her sex life is so surreal. This films makes you question your selfishness during sexual activities.

[SPOILER ALERT: This review contains spoilers.]

Under The Skin, as an oft-proclaimed "art film", is far less focussed on script and character than it is on pushing the boundaries of cinematography and intriguing editing to create truly one of the most beautiful-looking films of recent times, its striking imagery and atonal soundtrack harking back to some of Kubrick's best work. Even if it is far too weird for some, and far too dull for others.

You might not like this film. You probably won't. The story won't unfold the way you want it to. You probably shouldn't see it. The score is dissonant. The photography's unnerving. Definitely you shouldn't watch this movie. I liked it but what do I know?

Attention : il s'agit d'un film surréaliste. Mais a contrario d'un film de David Lynch (à part Inland Empire bien sûr, à part et à éviter) il n'est ni captivant ni ironiquement drôle ni étrangement bizzare sur un fond un minimum rationnel. C'est-à-dire qu'ici, on ne cherche pas bien longtemps à tenter d'interpréter le grand ni'mporte quoi sans queue ni tête de ce foutoir de mauvais goût, à part sans doute une vague psychose psychotique puisqu'en dehors de draguer dans sa fourgonnette (trop glamour, ouais), elle fait littéralement disparaître tous les gars qu'elle rencontre.... Pour le reste, on pourra sans doute trouver dans cette espèce de "film" d'autres sujets d'étude d'ordre psychiatrique, si l'on est soi-même un tant soit peu tourneboulé ou grand fumeur de moquette d'ascenseur. Il y a néanmoins un soupçon d'intérêt, un embryon de curiosité à soulever dans cette "chose", cela concerne Scarlett Johansson elle-même : non pas que sa performance soit éblouissante, non, elle y est aussi médiocre que d'habitude ; non, c'est juste que Scarlett est souvent à poil dans ce film à la con ! Elle devrait faire quelques pilates et ralentir sur les gâteaux mais à part cela, c'est une fille généreuse qui pourrait figurer sur l'un de ces tableaux de la Renaissance ; les sujets féminins de cette époque y étaient en effet vilains de visage et bien en chair.

This was the most boring movies I have ever seen. I get the meaning behind it, but there is really nothing here. 108 minutes and only 5 very small things that actually happen. The entire movie she is driving or walking somewhere with no dialogue. That's it. And don't expect any answers either. I don't get the critics nowadays , they must be out of their minds.

Extensively original and incredibly crafted. All the secret allegories and meanings of this film are totally brilliant, and you can tell that a lot of time, work, and planning were required for this film to be totally amazing. Also, the score by Mica Levi (aka Micachu) is an innovation to film music, just like this movie is an innovation to motion pictures.

A film of such chilling beauty and shocking power Johnathan Glazers "Under The Skin" is one of the best science-fiction films of the last twenty years. Featuring a breathtaking central performance from a truly beautiful but sinister Scarlett Johansson and played out to a strikingly haunting score from Mica"Jackie"Levy this is a true modern classic.

A very strange but engaging film that is unsettling and highly metaphorical. With very little dialogue, long and seemingly empty shots, as well as slow movement and pace, 'Under The Skin' is definitely not for everyone. But, when given enough attention and focus, it is very rewarding. The most unsettling part of the entire project is its documentary style of filming. The camera use, lighting and cinematography makes it seem extremely realistic and grounded in the imperfect reality of rural Scotland. Shopping centres look like real places, unpolished and ordinary, and so Scarlett Johansson's luring of male victims seems all the more unnerving. An interpretive film, with creepy and emotionally distressing moments, it is definitely worth a watch. If you're a fan of subjective meaning and ambiguity, this may be something you will enjoy. It is definitely not for everyone, however, and it's no surprise that it didn't make huge profits at the box office.

Under the Skin is a supurb art-house sci-fi flick that is completely devoid of hand-holding. It's a bleak and beautiful vision featuring truly eye-catching cinematography. After watching the movie I just couldn't stop thinking about it. The inscrutable nature of the film is so alluring and mysterious. I needed to go watch it again. And I did... And my appreciation deepened considerably. Under the Skin is an excellent film.

The lady from the white van. First of all, this is not an entertaining film, but an alien theme on a fictional plot like how they would come live among us. Before that, they need to look like us, so they steal human skins and that's what this film is about. Most of the film was in a van driving around in the Scottland. An alien disguised as a human, looking for the single men in the uncrowded places to seduce and steal their skins. But one day after got curious about being a human being, her routine work gets affected seriously and so what happens to her after is told in the remaining film. It's certainly not the film I was looking for. That's the reason I did not watch it when it got out. But I kind of liked it, it was not as boring as the others advised me. Usually films are for pleasure and timepass and this film did not have those qualities. Hence it financially failed. Surely some people would enjoy it, particularly the critics praised it which is unusual. From the director of 'Birth', Scarlett Johansson in the lead and she was the only good thing in it. The story was a little complicated, so not everybody going the get it, not at the first glance, but if you do, you will enjoy it. The locations were awesome. Watching it on the cold stormy day brought me that original Scottish atmosphere here. I should have rated it better, but no regret for what I gave for it. Its not a suggestible kind, though worth a watch if you're fed up with the regular commercial films. 6/10

Wow, certainly one of the most technically brilliant films I've ever seen, but one with the storyline and theme severely lacking. 5--for originality, visuals 5-for the sound and score, incredible! 5-for the stage production and breathtaking scenery in Scotland/cinematography, the best ever! 4-Johansson does a great "Blade Runner" replicant or whatever here, she's got it down pat, other indie actors also good. 5-for great pacing in the spirit of Kubrick, "Foxcatcher" also has that pacing with the dialog that I love. Glad filmmakers are starting to "get it", as the ADD chatter and rapid TV editing drives me crazy, as does, of course, watching the news!! 1 or 0--on that storyline, which made the whole film a bit incoherent, which is unfortunate, because would've been a GREAT film, otherwise...

Pretty much nothing happens in this movie, and there is very little dialogue. I am baffled by the good ratings. It seemed like more of an art film than a science fiction film.

A sci-fi / thriller fusion that doesn't work well as either for me. There's an arty style throughout which some may love, but which left me cold rather than engaged me. I felt some sympathy but no empathy. The sci-fi element was mostly behind the scenes rather than explicit. I felt relieved when this movie finished, wouldn't watch it again or recommend it to anyone I know personally. One for Scarlett Johansson and one for good use of Scottish locations.

This was a very bizarre and unique viewing experience for me. I greatly enjoy cinematic puzzles, and directors who have the wherewithal, guts and personal integrity to stick to their guns and project their distinct visions without caving in to corporate pressure or normal sensibilities. It is work like this at the cinematic vanguard that makes cinema the most aesthetic of all art forms and the greatest and most intrinsically satisfying component of my life. Though I have Glazer's previous two films, I have sadly not seen them yet, a condition I hope to remedy as soon as possible. A woman and actress of Johansson's beauty is perhaps one of only a select few currently out there who could pull this sort of thing off. And yes, this would make a remarkable double bill with 'The Man Who Fell to Earth'.

This unconventional sci-fi thriller set in Scotland is one of the best recent movies I've seen. S. Johannson stars as a taciturn femme fatale in the service of unspecified aliens who lures unsuspicious men into a lethal trap. The story doesn’t get repetitive or boring, as after a couple of snatches, different encounters unfold. Some viewers may reject it as arty or pretentious, but it isn't either: the simple, short and original story coupled with the eerie Scottish landscape (urban and natural) and J. Glazer’s mesmerising direction deliver an outstanding cinematic title, which was sadly a box-office flop.

................................................................................................................................................One of worst films ever made...

A film marketed as a sci-fi horror but with so little of both that it comes across as boring, far too slowly paced, and at times insultingly pretentious. There where at least some interesting concepts in this film but it felt extremely cheap and without focus. Really, if felt like someone just followed Scarlett Johansson around and filmed her as she **** about in Scotland for a bit, only with the caveat that no-one would recognise her. The vast majority of the film has no dialogue, and there are way to many lingering shots where nothing happens except Scarlett stares at a wall, out of the window, at the ocean etc. for sometimes up to a minute or more. Yes, there is an ending that will explain at least some of what happened, but there's far too much left unexplained in an attempt to maintain mystery. The only positive I can say about this film if I'm brutally honest, is kudos to the director for convincing Scarlett Johansson to give us three long scenes of full frontal nudity, including one that actually systematically pans around her body as she clenches in the nude. For any red-blooded heterosexual men, that scene will be reason alone to own this on DVD, but I can save you the trouble now and tell you 16 minutes, 59 minutes, and 1h 17mins. Those are the times for her nude scenes... fast forward through everything else.

What is Good in This???,Why The ACCLAIM???,Is Because the FIRST NAKED SCARLETT MOVIE???. Nothing in this movie is Good Even the NAKED Scenes of Scarlett Johansson Could Be Better, Could be Better Filming, With Better Angles, Better Lighting, and FOCUS. FOCUS, LIGHTING, ANGLES, And BETTER FILMING & ANGLES IN SHE'S BOOBS & ASS

This film felt like a commentary on the abuse humans give to one another, to show interest only to gain. The disturbing part is that because the film is so slow and light, when things actually do happen they have an uncomfortable payoff. Overall beautifully shot, however dull and lifeless and lacks the depth it is trying to create.