Posted February 12, 201412 yr Been anticipating this since the teaser trailer a few months ago and there's finally a proper trailer for this. io92j2qqEGk Looks utterly bizzarre and random but so stunning too!
February 13, 201412 yr I've been waiting for this since it was announced they were filming it way back in 2011! I've read the book twice and my fingers are crossed that they won't have changed it too much...but, looking at the trailer, they already seem to have moved it from the barren roads of the Highlands to the centre of Glasgow. Still, the trailer doesn't give much away - random and weird...oh yes!
March 4, 201412 yr Everything about this just looks spectacular. The trailer, title, posters, concept, reviews and most of all visuals. http://oyster.ignimgs.com/wordpress/stg.ign.com/2014/02/UNDER-THE-SKIN-poster-610x903.jpg ...and Kubrickian?? Can't wait!
March 4, 201412 yr My friend saw it at its UK premier at the Glasgow Film Festival and apparently it was as spectacular as the trailer! Can't wait to see something so EERIE set in the same streets I walk down in my ordinary/everyday life.
March 5, 201412 yr Author The poster is absolutely STUNNING. Really, REALLY excited for this. PS: Also, slightly off topic but, CONGRATULATIONS TO SCARLETT! Expecting a babyyyyy!
March 18, 201412 yr Author Going to see this tomorrow. First film I've paid to see at the cinema (that isn't IMAX) in absolutely AGES. Better be worth the dollar! :smoke:
March 18, 201412 yr The main thing that gripes me about this without having seen it yet and having read the book recently, it's that one of the best things about the book was that it came as a surprise to the audience who she was as you don't know at first, whereas in it seems to have been mentioned everywhere just what she is so that surprise is ruined. Suppose it won't matter to those who haven't read it but still... I am still intrigued to see how they adapt this as it didn't strike me as something that would be easy to do when I read it.
March 20, 201412 yr Author I saw this, I'm still trying to process it all. I did like it (a lot) but these sort of films take ages for me to digest properly! It was a visual feast though. Breathtaking for most parts and like Jake said above, the final 10 minutes... wonderful. It's probably one of those films that has a simple enough explanation, but due to me being a bit too simple, I can't get my head around it all properly to really appreciate it!
March 20, 201412 yr Walked out after 40 minutes. Bitterly disappointed that Jonathan Glazer did not adapt the original text in any way whatsoever and simply made his own film.
March 21, 201412 yr I felt that this could have been so much more than it was. All the pieces were there for something spectacular but for me, for some reason, it never quite transpired. I really thought I would either have fallen in complete love with it or dismissed it as complete nonsense, what I did not expect was to leave with not much of an impression at all.
March 21, 201412 yr Walked out after 40 minutes. Bitterly disappointed that Jonathan Glazer did not adapt the original text in any way whatsoever and simply made his own film. you've already paid so why not just stay until the end? you never know you might have preferred the new ending or at least got something else out of it.......
May 12, 201412 yr This is one of the most boring movies that I've ever watched at the cinema!! I'm totally disappointed with the results and my friends feel the same too. We really wanted to fall asleep in our chairs. Besides, everybody was sleeping at the cinema too. It was a very depressing movie. I knew that it would have a dark-coloured direction but I didn't think that it would be the definition of boredom. There wasn't any suspense and the dialogue was very bad. Scarlett Johannson looked everywhere without speaking and the cast was quite amateur. I don't know why the critics praised it so much but this movie would suck in the cinema without positive reviews. I think that it was the best promotion for the comparison with Stanley Kumbrick movies. I have to admit that it had some interesting scenes but the whole movie was quite bad. It's one of the worst movies ever and the worst movie this year (so far). The only good thing about this movie is the fact that it was just found the best cure for insomnia. If you can't sleep, take a look at "Under The Skin". You will have no trouble going to sleep. Edited May 12, 201412 yr by Insomnio
July 20, 201412 yr Oh my god this was amazing! The beach scene! The ending! I also wasn't that impressed before the halfway point but after she let the disfigured guy go, shit started to go down~
January 31, 201511 yr A year late but i finally saw this last night.. I have mixed opinions. As has been said the final 10 or so minutes were absolutely breathtaking and were some of the most disturbing scenes i've ever seen. A lot of the film moved at a snail's pace which i usually don't mind, but it did seem to be too repetitive and not in an entertaining way. Girl picks up guy, funky styling, girl picks up another guy, funky styling and repeat. It was carried by the visuals and soundtrack for a lot, as opposed to working alongside those factors like the best films do. I get that it was channeling Kubrick in a lot of ways, and it did well to utilise his style but not so much the substance he also put into the films. Stylistically i thought the film was a real winner; some of the shots, i wish i could hang over by bed because i could have stared at them for hours. I liked the rawness of the acting - many of the encounters were unscripted which i found very intriguing. The actual plot was very tame though and let down the film in a big way. Having said that, it was fascinating and very Kubrickian at times, so i get where the comparisons have come from. Not quite "an Heir to Kubrick" yet but one to watch for sure. Just wish there was more oomph away from the cinematography.
Create an account or sign in to comment