UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
#152
DVD Talk Hero
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
I Scarlett Johansson was standing naked in front of me, my dick would be hard, too.
#153
DVD Talk Legend
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
Watched this earlier tonight. I just didn't care for it. For me, I think it just couldn't live up to all of the hype that had been surrounding it. I'd heard nothing but good things about it and it just wasn't what I was thinking it would be. Someone in this thread said that it was "too obscure for its own good", and that sums up my thoughts pretty much right on the button.
#154
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
I wish she would have done this film 8-9 years ago before she decided to get "actress skinny". She had an amazing rack when she had a little more meat on the bone.
#156
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
#157
Senior Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 379
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#159
DVD Talk Legend
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
I agree that she was thick in UTS but I will depart from the others and state that I prefer the skinny ScarJo.
#162
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
seems like her boobs used to be a lot bigger though.
#163
#165
DVD Talk Hall of Fame
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
Interesting article about the decidedly verite nature of filming some of the scenes.
If Scarlett Johansson hit on me, I think that my acting would be the greatest look of surprise since Olivier.
If Scarlett Johansson hit on me, I think that my acting would be the greatest look of surprise since Olivier.
#166
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 29,093
Received 1,220 Likes
on
837 Posts
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
Well . . . that sucked away 2 hours of my life.
Because I am interested in Glazer's new film, I figured I should finally watch this. I guess I should have read this thread first. While y'all raved about it, I should have known mentions of Panos Cosmatos, Under the Black Rainbow, David Lynch, and Kubrickian should have told me not to bother. If you like those things, all the more power to you. I don't, and this was a waste of time.
The "pop scene" and the end scene were interesting scenes, but not worth the excruciating effort that it took to get there.
Boring, repetitive, emotionless, and bland. ScarJo nudity and a few artsy-fartsy scenes reminiscent of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings cannot save this slog.
Because I am interested in Glazer's new film, I figured I should finally watch this. I guess I should have read this thread first. While y'all raved about it, I should have known mentions of Panos Cosmatos, Under the Black Rainbow, David Lynch, and Kubrickian should have told me not to bother. If you like those things, all the more power to you. I don't, and this was a waste of time.
The "pop scene" and the end scene were interesting scenes, but not worth the excruciating effort that it took to get there.
Boring, repetitive, emotionless, and bland. ScarJo nudity and a few artsy-fartsy scenes reminiscent of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings cannot save this slog.
The following users liked this post:
Ash Ketchum (01-27-24)
#167
DVD Talk Special Edition
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
Well . . . that sucked away 2 hours of my life.
Because I am interested in Glazer's new film, I figured I should finally watch this. I guess I should have read this thread first. While y'all raved about it, I should have known mentions of Panos Cosmatos, Under the Black Rainbow, David Lynch, and Kubrickian should have told me not to bother. If you like those things, all the more power to you. I don't, and this was a waste of time.
The "pop scene" and the end scene were interesting scenes, but not worth the excruciating effort that it took to get there.
Boring, repetitive, emotionless, and bland. ScarJo nudity and a few artsy-fartsy scenes reminiscent of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings cannot save this slog.
Because I am interested in Glazer's new film, I figured I should finally watch this. I guess I should have read this thread first. While y'all raved about it, I should have known mentions of Panos Cosmatos, Under the Black Rainbow, David Lynch, and Kubrickian should have told me not to bother. If you like those things, all the more power to you. I don't, and this was a waste of time.
The "pop scene" and the end scene were interesting scenes, but not worth the excruciating effort that it took to get there.
Boring, repetitive, emotionless, and bland. ScarJo nudity and a few artsy-fartsy scenes reminiscent of Bakshi's Lord of the Rings cannot save this slog.
Being a little more informed now, I'm going to give this a re-watch at some point this year.
#168
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 29,093
Received 1,220 Likes
on
837 Posts
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate slow-paced arthouse films that many others will say are crap and pointless. I just didn't care for this one. There is slow-paced and methodical, and then there is just . . . slog. It wasn't that I didn't get it, it was that I didn't like how we were getting there.
Before I read the article, here were my biggest issues:
The lead was not a character. I am not crapping on ScarJo's performance, that was actually one of the high points. I'm crapping on the lack of a character. She wasn't a protagonist, she wasn't hated, she wasn't beloved, she was . . . bait. A "man" created her to lure (food?) men into the machine. She gained nothing, she lost nothing, she was nothing. She was bait.
I know that is an oversimplification . . . the character at one point begins to "gain humanity" but that journey was poorly created. "Man" created her, "man" protected her, man destroyed her. "Man" will create another and the cycle will go on. Rather than spend so much time showing how cool of a guerilla filmmaker he is, Glazer should have spent more of her "shark time" conveying what she was observing and learning and how it was affecting her.
The "a little more each time" approach to revealing what was happening to the men was something that probably seemed cool on paper, but failed in the movie's execution. After the second one, it was obvious what Glazer was doing. The question wasn't "what is going to happen?" the question was "how many times are we going to have to do this?" It just felt like more padding.
Which brings me to issue #2 . . . As I said, I don't mind slow-paced arthouse films. I love slow burns that smolder and let us seep into the depth of a character or a world rather than pouring us in. What I do have an issue with is a movie that feels like short-story padded out to make a feature. That's what we have here. A good short story, filled in with, and overshadowed by, artistic pretentiousness.
Before I read the article, here were my biggest issues:
The lead was not a character. I am not crapping on ScarJo's performance, that was actually one of the high points. I'm crapping on the lack of a character. She wasn't a protagonist, she wasn't hated, she wasn't beloved, she was . . . bait. A "man" created her to lure (food?) men into the machine. She gained nothing, she lost nothing, she was nothing. She was bait.
I know that is an oversimplification . . . the character at one point begins to "gain humanity" but that journey was poorly created. "Man" created her, "man" protected her, man destroyed her. "Man" will create another and the cycle will go on. Rather than spend so much time showing how cool of a guerilla filmmaker he is, Glazer should have spent more of her "shark time" conveying what she was observing and learning and how it was affecting her.
The "a little more each time" approach to revealing what was happening to the men was something that probably seemed cool on paper, but failed in the movie's execution. After the second one, it was obvious what Glazer was doing. The question wasn't "what is going to happen?" the question was "how many times are we going to have to do this?" It just felt like more padding.
Which brings me to issue #2 . . . As I said, I don't mind slow-paced arthouse films. I love slow burns that smolder and let us seep into the depth of a character or a world rather than pouring us in. What I do have an issue with is a movie that feels like short-story padded out to make a feature. That's what we have here. A good short story, filled in with, and overshadowed by, artistic pretentiousness.
The following users liked this post:
Abob Teff (01-27-24)
#170
DVD Talk Hero
Join Date: Aug 1999
Location: Not necessarily Formerly known as Solid Snake
Posts: 29,093
Received 1,220 Likes
on
837 Posts
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
After the article . . . yeah, I got it. Just didn't care for the journey. Two things I missed, one major and one minor:
Symbology of the fur coat as a predator. (minor)
"Failed" sex scene? (major) Granted I was not fully paying attention by that point . . . I know what scene it was, but I guess I didn't catch that it was failed. I thought she was . . . uh . . . examining the after effect out of shock or curiosity.
I feel the article missed on the rose. I didn't catch the blood and bandage part, but the symbology of a rose is typically "something beautiful but dangerous" due to its thorns. She is the rose, and the blood on the rose would symbolize either a realization of what she is doing (and now has blood on her hands/conscience) . . . or the blood on the rose represents the mingling of her true being with humanity.
Symbology of the fur coat as a predator. (minor)
"Failed" sex scene? (major) Granted I was not fully paying attention by that point . . . I know what scene it was, but I guess I didn't catch that it was failed. I thought she was . . . uh . . . examining the after effect out of shock or curiosity.
I feel the article missed on the rose. I didn't catch the blood and bandage part, but the symbology of a rose is typically "something beautiful but dangerous" due to its thorns. She is the rose, and the blood on the rose would symbolize either a realization of what she is doing (and now has blood on her hands/conscience) . . . or the blood on the rose represents the mingling of her true being with humanity.
#171
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
I think the fact that you have to read an "article" about a movie after you have seen it to understand it, is all you need to know.
And I thought it was fucking horrible BTW...
And I thought it was fucking horrible BTW...
#172
DVD Talk Hero
Re: UNDER THE SKIN (2013) (dir. Jonathan Glazer) (Scarlett Johansson, Paul Brannigan)
Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate slow-paced arthouse films that many others will say are crap and pointless. I just didn't care for this one. There is slow-paced and methodical, and then there is just . . . slog. It wasn't that I didn't get it, it was that I didn't like how we were getting there.
At least he got ScarJo to get her kit off. And that's really the only thing the movie has going for it.
I think it would have worked much better as a shorter piece, like an episode of Black Mirror than a full-length feature. Or a novel (which I believe it was based on, though I haven't read it).
The following users liked this post:
Abob Teff (01-28-24)