Mark kermode reviews Under the Skin
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 16 ต.ค. 2024
- Mark kermode reviews Under the Skin. A mysterious woman of unknown origins combs the scottish highways in search of isolated, forsaken men. Scarlett Johansson stars in this adaptation of Michael Faber's novel.
Please tell us what you think of the film -- or Mark's review of the film below. We love to include your views on the show every Friday.
www.bbc.co.uk/5...
Fridays at 2pm on BBC 5 live.
One of the most engrossing films I have ever seen. It blew me away,can't stop thinking about it.
X2
It sucked me in and kept me up for was shown well after midnight two nights ago on film4 frying my noodle a bit for it left many un answered questions. It was taut and chilling and the ending was so sad. She tried towards the end to be human and try the love thing but could not shed her alien DNA.
It was unbelievable, one of the best films I have seen in years.
Count me in the "masterpiece" camp. I think this is an extraordinary film. I saw it twice in the week of release.
This is the closest anyone's come to Kubrick in a long time. Brilliant filmmaking.
The Neon Demon is rather Kubrickian.
This movie felt less "written" than a Kubrick film.
Exactly what I thought! Coincidentally, I watched 2001 for the first time, literally the day before watching this for the first time, and I thought to myself "huh, two confusing yet beautiful films in a row". Kind of made me crave something with explosions, to give my brain a rest.
@@jonathanwarner1844 Not really... Closer to a Lynch movie if anything
@Jesus Christ Denton I don't think I ever said it wasn't a Glazer movie. Two directors can share influences. Glazer himself has admitted to "picking [Kubrick's] pockets" in the past. Me stating that doesn't take away from the originality of Glazer's form.
It IS a masterpiece.
I agree.
IT IS NOT
I saw it today. Whatever about the rest of the film, that scene on the beach was one of the most horrifying things I've seen in a film for quite a while.
It was horrific, but also quite unlikely. The drownings were accidental/misadventure and she was just there by coincidence. I thought it was a weak point in the plot.
Kevin Varney I think it worked, because it wasn't an implausible plot development - it wasn't some dumb coincidence that moved the movie forward. Just a slowly developing, horrible event that she witnessed and reacted to.
WIL SUPER it was showing her complete disregard for human emotion, but as she's watching she's trying to figure out why humans are trying to save each other, otherwise she would have moved on and tried to find another man
Agreed, it will be imprinted on my mind for the rest of my days.
A very realistic and sad situation, but the most disturbing part of the movie for me honestly is the hard cut to the baby all alone on the beach at night
There are scenes in this movie that will stay in my memory forever. So in that sense it worked for me.
One of the most beautifully haunting, and visually captivating films I've ever seen.
"Trying to figure out if the people she's talking to are actors or not is distracting"... well it will be now that you've pointed it out to me.
Was filmed with hidden cameras in the van. They weren't told they where in a film till after
I saw this at an arthouse cinema, alone, with absolutely no expectations or knowledge of what the film was about I literally had no idea about the film, other than that it was 'good'. The film blew my mind. I've not seen it since but I still remember so much about it. For maybe a week after seeing it, I felt like I was viewing the world in a similar way to how the alien saw it.
It took me out of my usual perception of the day-to-day world and opened up this whole new third-person perception. I remember feeling lost for words the evening I saw it. I've not seen a film before or since that had such an effect on me, and I still think about this film from time to time now, even after all these years. Really I do think it's a masterpiece and feel lucky that I experienced this film having known nothing about it beforehand.
I think it’s a disservice to say “takes the form of Scarlett Johansson” when Scarlett gives herself so completely to the film. It’s a fantastic performance.
Anyway, unforgettable film. Stayed with me for weeks.
He's referring to the plot of the film, which is an alien taking the form of a woman acted by Scarlett Johansson, not her performance.
It's very difficult to turn what I thought about the film into words. Basically it's fantastic, and I never ever use that word. It is indeed a masterpiece. It is difficult to swallow, like many masterpieces before it from Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Malick or Herzog. There is so much going on in the film it's almost overwhelming. Take apart every piece and much like Johansson's character all you can do is stare in awe. It's cold and sad but at the same time rich in describing visually and aurally the world through unfamiliar eyes. The body horror and surreal abstract imagery are nothing but haunting, as is Mica Levi's score - a musician I deeply admire and one time had the pleasure of meeting. The film is ultimately humanist - not positively nor negatively, showing both in equal measure - and also shows deep admiration for the landscape it depicts. The nudity feels as natural as scenes in shopping centres whilst you're watching it, but it all feels deeply eery in retrospect. There's a shot near the end of the film that secured this film for me and completely concreted the film as a bold step for both British and global cinema. I could think about the film for hours. YES it's gradual, and YES it's daunting to deconstruct. It is not slow, boring or pretentious, but it is in fact incredibly full-on. If you can't see what's already there, maybe you never will. An extremely impressive and fully realised experiment that transcends the usual horror, science-fiction and thriller genre-categorising. It will definitely sit in your memory for years to come, whether you like it or not.
Well said. I watched it last night and I feel like I will be thinking about this film for a while...
brilliantly put, whether you like this movie or not seeing this movie is an experience, how many other films can say that.
agree.it haunted me for a long time after watching it.an incredible piece of cinema that doesn't come along too often sadly.
Evidently not that difficult.
I think it is a masterpiece. It's a strange vision, but perfectly executed.
Surprised by the doctors review, under the skin is for my money one of masterpieces of this century thus far. Stunning on every level
most important movie i have seen since There Will Be Blood. and yes it is very much spiritual relation of man who fell to earth. visual and sonic masterpiece....
You've got to see Dogtooth(2009) too!...These are the three most influencial films i've ever watched.
3timesaweek How do I get a hold of these movies? I saw “Under the Skin” and my mind was BA-LOWN! I can’t stop thinking about it and all of the symbols/motifs involved. I’m addicted and I want to see more movies like this.
Mark Kermode is, I think, exactly on the button with his review of this remarkable and very strange film. The one thing he doesn't quite cover concerns the overall feeling of melancholy of loneliness - the central scenes with the men who are picked up are very moving, as is the alien character's gradual empathy with the victims and the realisation of human need for contact and love.
Joyce Little 7
Absolutely loved it! Thought it was a real piece of art and I can see in the comments that most people thought it was building to nothing or was very slow... who says it has to build to anything, who says it has to be fast? That wouldn't allow it to be the unique spectacular that it is! Its approach to documenting life through alien eyes is incredible! Reminds me so much of 2001: A Space Odyssey (or any film by Kubrick) and also like Kermode said, The Man Who Fell To Earth. Off to see it again tonight, this is by far my favourite film from this year and I think for a good long while! Thank you Jonathan Glazer!
A game-changing masterpiece. Like Blade Runner and like A.I. Artificial Intelligence, the central question of this film is - What does it mean to be human? Under the Skin finds dark and sobering answers.
This is one of my favorite movies of all time - it's BRILLIANT. I love it's near-opaqueness, and you can see new layers on subsequent viewings. Very few movies can do that, especially the big studio, commercial fluff we have handed to us all too often.
Hamma Lammadingdong I agree! Can’t stop watching it
I don't get creeped out very easily and this movie creeped me out. I found it very disturbing and eerie. I thought it was great.
"somewhere between hypnotic and immensely boring...",no not Under the Skin but the original review of Kubrick's 2001 by the NYTimes back in 68. Space Odyssey's now universally recognized greatness needs no mention...the ground-breaking, exceptional masterpiece that is Under the Skin will gain similar stature.
I have just finished watching this. From about 1 minute in, I was mesmerised. The score is perfect. I couldn't take my eyes off Scarlett Johansson. She really does have the 'x factor'. I love the scenes where she is driving around like a predator scanning for prey. The lack of dialogue adds to the feeling of abstraction and the way she looks at things like she is seeing them for the first time (which she is) means you never forget that she is an alien. The ending is quite striking. Funnily enough, I wasn't left wanting answers. I just soaked it all in and thought it was fascinating.
Kubrick made "flawed adaptations of books." I think this is a masterpiece and you did not recognize it.
I was blown away by this film. I think it requires engagement on a level beyond casual entertainment, which may make it one of those films you'll only want to watch in a particular mood. Half of my mind was focused on attempting to interpret the themes that were ambiguous but clearly evident throughout.
And the other half was focused on scarlett's body am i right ?
I strongly recommend this film.
I absolutely understand why others hated it, and some of the criticisms are merited.
But I found it utterly compelling. So many lingering images, and the most engrossing score I've heard in a film for years. An incredible experience.
Fascinating film rather than good. For me it was simply incredibly sad Everyone seemed so lonely.
Yes, very sad
I can certainly understand why this film is so divisive among people but I think it's an incredible work of art. Not at all what I was expecting but was pleasantly surprised by it. It was very brave of Scarlett to take a chance on a film like this.
Well, it’s definitely outclassed and outlasted Kermode’s perspective
I watched it more than once. I don't think I could watch it again, as I would find even more disturbing now. I think, given the fullness of time, it can be considered more on the side of being a masterpiece. Great works of art just take time to mature within us.
I think Kermode is a good reviewer but I think he missed the trick here. This film really is a masterpiece.
No it's not.
*****
No it's not...it's an egotistical attempt to try and mimic Kubrick and Malick...it falls way short and is just a waste of time.
Anyone who thinks this is a masterpiece is just a pretentious prig.
Jonathan Glazer hasn't worked since and has nothing in the pipeline...tells you all you need to know....nobody wants him to direct another movie.
How did you get Malick from it?... lol
iUtopian
Because he's trying to make an artistic film, which is what Malick does...try and keep up dipshit. LOL
@@hornetgags Under The Skin was his first film for nine years (since 'Birth' in 2004), he's just not a prolific film director. Your last point is completely inaccurate and just made up. The rest I disagree with. Loved Under The Skin
One thing that annoyed me about the reaction to the film when it first came was everyone was bringing up the fact of some of the passer-by men not being actors. Sure, it's a fact but it's such a small and boring point to make about a film that in my opinion has so much to offer. It brilliantly captures humanity at its most darkest, its most helpless and its most beautiful. Looking back on the film a decade later, I'm thrilled to see its appreciation continue as I still hands down believe its the most raw piece of cinema I've laid eyes on in the last decade.
I think this is, in fact, a modern masterpiece. It is very profound in its message while also functioning wholly successfully as a Sci-Fi film without having to cater to the lowest common denominator. Kermode says it is flawed but doesn't specify how it so, other than referring to the people who weren't actual actors and therefore might be slightly mislead (which is odd since they obviously agreed to be in the film afterwards. Maybe I misunderstood Kermode on that point). But for a film to function so well on such a high level of abstraction and with such high ambitions is very rare indeed, why I think it is clearly in a league of its own compared to most other contemporary cinema.
I'm with Kermode on this. There are individually great things about it, but it ultimately didn't add to much - not to the extent that I can take people calling it "a perfect film" or "masterpiece" seriously. There are a lot of films similar to this getting released every year, this one just happened to get more exposure (probably because of Scarlett Johansson). It's not a case of me wanting a narrative-driven film, I actually prefer those "films where nothing happens", but they have to be substantial in some way or another and I didn't find myself too moved or intrigued once the film was over.
That said, it's visually gorgeous and has some of the best cinematography I've seen for a while. And they should be credited for the innovation of the in-car shooting set-up, which I think will pave the way for filmmaking in the future to some extent.
I love this film, easily one of my favourites of the year. I fall into the camp of saying this is a masterpiece. Mostly because it defines art film, it is interesting, it is widely open for interpretation and discussion.
When I saw the film I didn't know a lot, all I knew was that Scarlett's character was an alien, and the film just fascinated me with a good amount of enigma, unique style, that amazing soundtrack and a powerful and original screenplay.
I didn't know there were scenes with hidden cameras, I went in with the typical approach that everything in the film was constructed, and so I found the early scenes to be incredibly realistic and it wasn't until after I realised that's because they were real.
Awe-inspiring film.
It's one of the most extraordinary, beautiful and thought-provoking films I've ever seen. I didn't think modern cinema had it in it but I've been pleasantly surprised. I watched this film two months ago and not a day has passed without my thinking about it. As with all truly great, original films it's going to be extremely divisive - and it's not for those who like their stories straight up. But I don't think I'm alone in thinking this will be talked about for decades to come.
Incredible film, and equally incredible score. Frightening, engrossing, sad, elegantly produced. Its beyond what most Sci-fi films have done to now. I think far in the future is when people will understand the genius displayed here.
Praise be I didn't listen to this review or read any other reviews before seeing this masterpiece. Seeing this film with as little prior knowledge will improve the viewing experience considerably.
In years to come kermode opon more viewings , will talk very differently of this movie .
MASTERPIECE
Just got back from seeing this for me it was one of the most daring cinema I have ever seen it was a truly great film but certainly not for everyone
I realize I'm 5 years late commenting on this, but it's nice to see someone discussing this film without being extremely positive or extremely negative. Film discussion these days seems to be largely one group yelling "This film causes cancer", one group yelling "This film is good enough to cure cancer", and a small number of sane people in the middle. This film seems to have a smaller than normal group of people in the middle, probably because it wasn't a very mainstream film.
Brilliant film, brilliantly performed. Scarlett Johansson's
character is unnervingly minimalistic. A wonderfully unique film. Lingers long after you've left the theater.
Just watched it. The intro put me in mind of the later parts of 2001: A Space Odyssey. I knew nothing about the film before I watched it - as I prefer. I thought it was pretty good, had me utterly absorbed in it throughout.
The scene with the third victim is the most chilling and disturbing scene I have ever seen on film.
one point i would like to make.
this is based on a book so i think people may judge it using literary merits and criteria. this film is, to my mind, a very vigorous CINEMATIC adventure /experience. taken as such i find it totally immersive and haunting. i have seen people note similarities with eraserhead and on that level i would totally agree. this is kinesthetic piece of art which ranks with other such great cinematic achievments as 2001, eraserhead ( in fact almost all of Lynch's ouvre). it is a very vigorious example of the ever diminishing world of the auter. The last filmmaker to affcect me on a similar level was/is PTAnderson esp. There Will Be Blood embodies similar wonderful qualities. Truely cinematic, truly kinesthetic.
i should also say that the term masterpiece is not synonymous with perfection. however i think a core quality of the 'masterpiece' is work which allows you to view again and again and take something lasting, immersive and engaging and most often haunting from it. this is very much the case with this film. come back and discuss when you have seen it at least 3 or 4 times. great works of art are independent of their time. this is not particularly deliberate timelessness is a term not so often applied but perhaps this is the one really common ingredient, which is why you can view the citizen kanes of this world and , although aware of their arbitrary placement in time speak to the parts of us that are timeless. the ghost within which has no corporeal form which comes into play in dreams. it's a matter of opinion how important this ghost is. to me it is the mystery at the heart of being. the mystery you never crack. it's a rare gift, but always hugely welcome. so thankyou jonothan glazer.
She is controlled and dehumanised during the film. She's not resilient and is ultimately unable to survive because she is sexualy compromised, lives in fear and on the run. Two years from the first viewing I'm now aware of the book's story and the film feels totally coherent but I can't forget my initial thoughts: the story is possibly a metaphor for aliens of another type - trafficked captives in the sex industry.
Aside from my crazy theories there are moments in this film that are quietly devastating. The beach scene chills my soul. The style and pace are so natural, the dialogue and direction so economical and precise. I think it's really very special.
Julie Blackadder Being an Alien doesn't preclude being a metaphor also.
This is my most anticipated movie of the year so far. Looks very interesting, and I do enjoy Scarlett Johansson.
I'd love to enjoy Scarlett Johansson
***** That's absolutely fascinating
It's quite unnerving. Very much an art house piece mind. I genuinely can't make my mind up about it. The sound and visuals are very good though. You never feel comfortable, which I get is part of the draw.
Burp Reynolds I'll watch it soon, looking forward to it. Seems like a fascinating movie experience.
ZeppelinBigFan I don't mind a bit of odd. And this is definitely in that company!
Scarlet was terrific. I believe that Gemma Arterton has said that she thought she had the role, but then the powers that be decided they wanted a bigger name
this was the most original, moving film ive seen in years, im amazed at its lack of acclaim
Everything about this film is unexplained and unusual, if not uncomfortable. It works on all of those levels, so it depends on if you are captivated by that sort of story. It is certainly brave and very imaginative and therefore will appeal to those who still have a lively and active imagination.
Kermode only spoke about half of this movies plot! What about the deformed man when she began to humanise, the guy who found her on the bus or the forest scenes?!?! Or the beach scene with the toddler which was very disturbing. Only half the film is about the men she hunts in Glasgow so review the rest Mark rather than repeating (and standing on the fence) about it being a disaster or masterpiece of which I believe it is the latter!
Can't spoil the film.
This film haunts me, especially the beach scene. I disagree with Kermode very rarely, but I think this is one of the most memorable films I've seen. Yes, it is a masterpiece.
I totally agree with you about the beach scene. It was haunting, horrifying, and memorable.
Under the skin - film
I thought this film was Genius. It grabbed my attention from the second it started and held it. The film depicts an 'alien' who takes human form played by Scarlett Johansson. It takes you on a journey with her and an observation of the human condition/human life here. We are witnessing the story from 'her view, her lens' . The film depicts a female hunter and then these men enter what appears to be another dimension - The film is so brilliant and it is a masterpiece in my view and it stays with you after you have watched it because of how profound it is - the final scene where she is looking at what was her human face is in my view incredible - I salute the director of this film and the brilliant and beautiful Scarlett Johansson!
How can he use the fact that you cannot tell who are actors and who are members of the public, as a point that can be used to say it was flawed? That is one of the main points that can make this film feel so real.
Loved the movie, less gore and more 'creepy'. Felt like a foreign horror movie instead of the usual hollywood trash that we get when it comes to horror. Havn't seen a ton of movies this year yet but this, Raid 2 and Grand Budapest Hotel are hands down the best.
So what makes the movie flawed is that some people are going to wonder who is in on it, and who isn't? That's kind of a lazy criticism, especially because most viewers won't even know that back story.
Exactly my thinking, and to be honest I think it's pretty clear which characters are actual actors and which one's aren't, as the men she picks up either couldn't possibly be ad-libbing as what they say/gets done to them advances the plot, or are seen very little of and just say generic things.
Daring and unique film. Gritty locations. Glasgow will never seem the same again. Haunting escapism
I thought this was a very impressive film. I saw it four days ago and I'm still thinking about it (and Scarlett). The sound track was perfectly executed - the droney, otherworldly sounds reminded me of Eraserhead - and I enjoyed the editing style, at times almost abstract but beauitful. The only negative for me was that it dragged on a little bit. It's not a movie where a lot happens but it's so creepy and odd that I can forgive it for that. Also, it has Scarlett with no clothes on and what's not to like about that? I can understand some people not liking it, there's no real story to speak of, but if you go into it with an open mind without expecting the usual Hollywood style of direction then you should enjoy it. Did I mention it has Scarlett with no clothes on?
Weird, unsettling... and utterly compelling.
I thought it pretty damn good 👍
just saw the preview of this at a screening of grand budapest hotel....i was intrigued. Sexy Beast was pretty much awesome so i'll give this one the benefit of the doubt.
The sound design was fantastic.
I tend to be on board with most things Mark says but I'd have to go the masterpiece route with this too. I don't believe the actor/real person thing is suppose to be known before watching the film, it is a reflection meant to be made afterwards. This was a very Kubrick-esk style film that I thought was very meticulously put together. And my god that score was incredible. It was a fantastic look at standards of beauty, the evil within us, superficiality, and observation of our own society
Won't be able to catch this at the cinema, this is going to be a sleeper hit... I can't wait to see it on streaming services.
Bang on. It's neither bad nor spectacular, but refreshingly therapeutic with tense violin noise and ambient dreamlike scenes. I really appreciated the utilisation of the real Glasgow.
This was the equal of peak period Nic Roeg
Human isolation personified with an extra-terrestrial protagonist. Did Mark pick up on this? The emptiness of the mundane, the absence of connection, a film so far removed from human cravings yet encompasses the core of singular human existence.
I remember reading a 1982 Robert Westall short story called "Hitch-hiker" about a mysterious seductive female alien who drove around in a campervan and preyed on Scottish hitchhikers in order to breed. Just sayin'.
Got to despise critics that say things like "some people think it's bad and some think it's masterpiece but what I think it's the only truth".
TAKE A DAY OFF, THIS IS AN AWESOME FILM MARK.
Reminds of children painting for artist to critique, not knowing who they were painted by.
Why would Intelligent alien life form need human flesh. Yes! it’s a horror film, it’s horrific they got it produced.
Saw the movie, but I didn't get it. I wasn't bored though - the acting, soundtrack and striking imagery kept me fully engrossed, however by the end of it I just failed to see what was so good about it. Can anyone tell me why they think it is a masterpiece? I'm genuinely curious!
I had a similar experience in 1968 with 2001 A Space Odyssey.
+ih8ppunk Aside from all the positives Kermode mentions what struck me about it was that it tells the vast majority of its story through imagery alone. No superfluous dialogue, no boring plot exposition etc. It does need to be seen twice I think to fully appreciate this. I did love it the first time around, but thought some of it was puzzling, however it really hit me the second time around that virtually no shot is wasted & everything the viewer needs to know is on screen. Whether you think it's a story worth telling, or the approach is worthwhile, is another matter but I did personally. The mysterious, creepy vibe of the film is entirely down to this approach & I do think it's a flawless masterpiece but I do appreciate that it's a film that's never going to appeal to a lot of people, either the popcorn or art house crowd. My favourite film in a long time.
Actor in The Man Who Fell to Earth is not Jagger;) it's Bowie...
He was talking about Mick Jagger in Performance (another Nicholas Roeg movie), who Scarlett does look a lot like in this film (same hair, lipstick etc.)
Totally agree with him, Well said! Some scenes were beautifully weird and memorising and the soundtrack was perfect but overall as a whole film it was disjointed, a bit disappointing and slightly to slow at times.
Everything is flawed. If a film was not flawed it would be so clinical and boring that no one would dare let it be seen. Look, I know it is your job to find something to give out about but give this film a break and let us praise it as the masterpiece it is.
No one is stopping you?
Agree but as a critic he's just pointing out some issues he found with it. Being ambitious is a very admirable thing and often is nearly impossible to pull off. He praises that while it stumbles slightly, it's an achievement, which i agree with. Definitely the film of the year so far.
agree - I remember when danny boyle was doing 5 great films on rotten tomatoes and he put apocalypse now on the list and he said "Apocalypse Now is a an imperfect film which is what makes it perfect"
When I think of a film that meets all its targets and tells a story without really making a mistake (film-making wise) I think of something like "Argo" by Ben Affleck which is a solid films which you cant really pick holes in yet it is a totally forgettable movie.
Louis Davies ARGO is such a Brilliant Example.
It took no risks.
It told a story like all the rest,
and turned out the Humdrum, Hollywood movie it was.
Haunting film. I thought it was amazing but I can never watch it again
Damn!
My mother, an art student at the time, brought me to that installation at The Serpentine Gallery when I was young.
To this day I remember the experience, but didn't know anything else about it.
20:50 - very good!
The film sounds interesting.
Interesting the comments about this film. mmm it's got me interested.
So what Mark is saying or I perceive he's saying is that's it's a flawed masterpiece.
Is there any other kind?
I like unsual films and though I don't like films to be to arty farty for their own good I am picking up vibes from Mark and the comments sections that there is something more interesting here. Am I right?
Happily, 9 years late, I saw this film with an un clouded vision
1 didn't know the lead role was a film star
2 did not know or care if the cast were actors or extras
Due to my unfiltered un clouded experience I enjoyed the feeling of alienation the film conveyed and the contrast between cold bleakness and human warmth. I enjoyed it even as a road movie, the prowling around in a Ford Transit and a film about 'alienation' (sic)
The laugh was on me not knowing of the famous protagonist.
This is a very eerie, disturbing and yet highly enthralling film. It is both confusing and captivating with some of the most atmospheric and likewise unsettling music. A journey of the unknown through the ordinary and with the consequences that entails. It does not attempt to be anything other than a stark story of two worlds colliding, how weird that adventure appears and the surprising way it changes and concludes. I have watched it twice and would certainly watch it again. I have not yet read the book but I will do so as I have just acquired it.
Fantastic film, would watch again
The film’s well acted, well characterised, stylish, intriguing, original, well written & is A realistic sci-fi film comparable with The Man Who Fell To Earth (1976). (81%) (4/5 stars) (positive)
Get rid of stills, bring back feed.
***** So next week they'll bring it back?
For me this was almost as thought provoking as Tarkovsy’s Stalker, it stayed with me for weeks afterwards, re-analysing it.
Also Scarlet Johansson gives a rare example of an American actor doing a decent British accent
I don't get Kermode's argument when he says there will be many people who will sit their bored. So what? Lots of masterpieces will have many people bored to tears. The same way lots of mainstream action films will bore lots of people. I'm not interested in what Kermode thinks "lots of people" might feel, ONLY what he feels. Were you bored Mark Kermode?
Then talking about being distracted figuring out who is an actor and who isn't. Is that like some kind of alternative spoiler? Because telling people that might cause people to fall into the same situation. Seems a little unfair.
Hoopla10 I agree. Kermode's description of the film's apparent flaws is extremely vague and it seems unfair to criticise the candid filmmaking as distracting as this is not a fault of the film as a self-contained artwork. I first saw the film not knowing about this aspect and loved it and then finding out gave more layers to the film. It's like if you were told a film ends with a twist and then complaining that you were distracted trying to guess the twist, that's not a fault of the film
Well it's true. It was boring.
I agree - this is beyond entertainment.
I am keen to see this. I enjoyed Faber's novel (which is basically a defence of vegetarianism).
The black goop scenes in the clips I've seen reminded me of "Black Thirst", a C. L. Moore story about an alien that breeds beautiful women to control men.
In the novel, Isserley is not a perfect replica of a human. She's been surgically altered to fool humans (large breasts for instance), but other than that she is covered in scars, has to wear large glasses to hide her huge eyes and grows hair over all of her body.
I still don't understand why some boo'd the film. Too "arthouse"? Too much nudity?
I guess you've probably seen it by now - but I suspect the reaction is because it totally lacks any exposition and has relatively little in the way of dialogue. You just have to kind of figure out what is happening by what you see. It's (IMO) a very straightforward plot (way more simple than the book) but the method of _telling_ that plot is uncompromising.
He maintains he couldn't tell the difference between the real people and the actors and complains about this? That is exemplary film making. Watch this film without any preconceived notions of what it is and form your own opinion. I managed to see this without reading anything about it and I was blown away. I couldn't even compare it to any other film, but the only film that even comes close to being complete amoral like this is No Country for Old men.
I think this one was great. To me it is about the male psyche and the way their need for fulfillment can so easily be manipulated. The main character is ironically named 'She' but might not be female in any meaningful use of the word. It's just a shell.
Kermode is holy wrong. This film is a masterpiece. You should watch a film for what is not what the know about the production process.
He's grown to like it a lot more after thinking about it. He listed it as the tenth-best movie of the year.
I'm really looking forward to seeing this. It sounds odd (in a good way).
Why are there only still photos? A new policy I missed?
I disagree with Mark, here. I see no flaws in it whatsoever. Even when "nothing" is happening, so much is happening. It's the ultimate case of show, don't tell. Quite frankly, it's a travesty that 9 years later, Jonathan Glazer hasn't made another film since.
Don't believe that any of them weren't actors, I mean seriously who wouldn't recognize ScarlettJohansson even in a black wig?
Scarlett Johansson driving around the streets of Glasgow pretending to be an alien in a film interacting with Strangers who are willing to get in a car with her that alone has got to be enough for a ton of intellectual discussion and psychological speculation on human behaviour
For a moment I thought he was reviewing "The Skin I live in" and I was excited. This movie sounds a little like an x-files episode, actually sounds very like it but I can't remember the episode name.
I think you may be thinking of the X-Files episode "2Shy" from S3.
diodeladder
Yep that's the one thanks for that. Also there was another one that had some other aspects of this films plot but yeah this move seems to almost be a clone of 2Shy. I know originality is difficult but sometimes direct theft seems kind of obvious.
Kermode says one of the bothersome things he found about it was that he kept thinking whether the people she was stopping while driving the van were actors or candid situations. Seriously Mark, why even mention or think about it? It's just some fun trivia for the movie.
It was also a big selling point for the movie, which a lot of the promotion was focused around. So it's as much a fault of the filmmaker(s) as it is the critics.
You won't understand nor are you expected to understand everything going on in this film. I believe it's something that should simply be experienced.
+Jane Beanette Hope you see it and hope you enjoy it Jane.
That critique falls flat if you just watch the movie without any information beforehand like I did. I had no idea some scenes were candid, I assumed everyone was an actor like always. I only found out about that later, so it didn't bother me during watching. So if you watch this while knowing that some of it is done without actors, you sort of ruined it yourself and that's not the fault of the movie.
Good film, but definitely not for everyone. There are scenes in this movie which will stay with me for quite some time.
That's really wierd, I posted a still of this on my Facebook page saying I thought Scarlett resembled Mick Jagger in Performance the night before this was published...
This sums up the movie very well
the blue scene - terrifying