Review: Under the Skin

Scarlett Johansson plays an alien visitor who takes on the skin of a random human female and sets about picking up Scottish men and luring them to their death. Adam Pearson turns up as a facially-disfigured and lonely young man who looks set to be another of Johansson’s victims.

 

Based on a novel by Michel Faber, this 2014 film from “Sexy Beast” director Jonathan Glazer is the kind of arty-farty, long-take bullshit that normally drives me up the wall or sends me to sleep. This time, though…I really kinda dug it. Kind of an arthouse “Man Who Fell to Earth” with a touch of “Invasion of the Bee Girls”, to say that nothing happens in this film is a bit unfair if you ask me. It’s simple, but not completely uneventful. However, it’s definitely very much a film about visuals, sounds, and mood rather than plot and character.

 

It’s visually and aurally arresting from the opener (a scene of striking metamorphosis), which suggests Mr. Glazer likes his early 70s sci-fi and time-lapse documentaries with Philip Glass scores. It definitely grabs you, pretentious or not. Glazer, actress Scarlett Johansson, and the financiers of the film have really got some giant brass balls for doing this because it’s clearly not a commercial endeavour, and yet it might not be to all arthouse tastes, either. It’s like an arty, minimalist genre film. Or to be blunt, it’s arthouse trash. And that’s a compliment, by the way. I meant what I said when I referenced “Invasion of the Bee Girls”, because the plot really does involve a sexy female alien collecting gentleman callers, and sexily luring them to their demise. Hell, it’s not even a million miles removed from something the late Jesus Franco (“Vampyros Lesbos”) might’ve come up with, albeit with sadly no Sapphic content here. Glazer is definitely to be commended for going to a really dark place as Johansson picks up Adam Pearson, a man with a legitimate genetic condition called Neurofibromatosis that, although a completely different condition, makes him look a little like the kid from “Mask”, just to give you a visual (and not to poke fun in the slightest). This scene could’ve gone horribly, offensively wrong, but Glazer is smart enough to navigate the waters, and the conclusion to the scene provides a bit of shading to Johansson’s character that is not only interesting, but pretty much dictates her eventual fate.

 

Adopting a pretty good English accent and a mop of brown hair that for some reason had me thinking of Maria Schneider or Isabelle Adjani (circa Roman Polanski’s “The Tenant”), Scarlett Johansson is actually quite good here. I’m not a fan of hers in any way at all, but this is so much better in terms of material and performance than the brainless “Lucy”. She’s much less affected, and although her breasts aren’t as large as her push-up bras have led you to believe all these years, she does indeed have a sexy, curvy body that is on display here. I find her an overrated beauty, but I can’t deny her body is sexy as hell in this. Yes, horndogs, you get to see Scarlett Johansson naked in this one, so enjoy!

 

I can see many, many people being turned off by the long, silent takes, but this isn’t a plotless or aimless film. It’s kind of hypnotic, both artistic and trashy, and Scarlett Johansson has never been better, nor sexier. Visually and aurally stunning, it’s not my favourite film of the year, but I bet it’s someone’s favourite and sure to be a cult classic in years to come. Screenplay by Walter Campbell (apparently an advertising guy with his first screenwriting gig) and the director.

 

Rating: B