I don't get it /tv/. I just don't. Why do Ex Machina and It Follows get so much praise for their "complex" themes and visual styles, but no one mentions this film? It's superior in nearly every way, and despite a bit of a slower third act, it finishes incredibly strong, and clearly shows the signs of a director with a complex narrative vision, comparable with 2001 or Antichrist.
Sup Reddit?
>>63427621
that movie was retarded and made me feel retarded
>>63427621
It's extraordinary, and of course the better film. Ex Machina is excellent, tense, It Follows is stylish and effective as well. But yea, Under The Skin is better. It gets praise here from those in the know, but what do you expect from this board? It can't be easily followed with a VLC window in the corner of the screen on 1.5x speed while shitposting so it's lost on most. It's easier to talk about her naked body.
I'm glad Glazer gets to make the films he does. The slow methodical way the narrative momentum unfolded, the lovely vistas along with the constricting urbanity, the score, there's a lot to love.
>>63427621
>no one mentions this film
Clearly you haven't spent much time here. Ex Machina is the fresher flavors of the month but there was plenty of under the skin discussion.
As for It Follows that's just pure viral marketing.
It has nothing in common with those. Why does every movie have to be a contest?
Under the Skin was plenty discussed whenthe torrent dropped and people started posting HD ScarJo nudes
>>63427760
true
>>63427749
This. It's had plenty of discussion. But the entire movie is pleb filter, so you just get a bunch of anon's talking about how good it is.
>>63427760
Art is always a contest. Every work of real art is designed to crush all lesser works of art. As an appreciator of art you should pick your side and fight all opposition to the death. If someone in real life told me they liked It Follows I'd just grab their fucking throat and crush until either they died or an onlooker incapacitated me.
I think Under the Skin was a little too abstract for most people.
It Follows and Ex Machina have much more approachable stories and characters.
>>63427760
It has about as much in common with the two films as No Country for Old Men and There Will be Blood did. Released around a similar time. That's about it. Yet people still compared the fuck out of those two films, and I don't know WHY.
>>63427792
post them now for posterity
>>63427621
it's prefect not a master piece but perfect. people only make a post about stuff to shit post or discuss things that a wrong in a movie or show.
>memories
Only Brits liked Under the Skin.
I cannot relate to this.
>>63427934
I think reddit or someone got hold of this and it was the subject of a Buzzfeed article many months after /tv/ made those shops.
>>63427934
If I was there in glasgow and I saw her on the ground I'd just stamp on her head as hard as I could as many times as I could. I'm sure she was surrounded by armed security at all times when out in public but I'd get at least one good stamp in that would fuck up her face considerably.
It would be worth sacrificing my life just to make my mark on the world by destroying something known by so many people.
>It can't be easily followed with a VLC window in the corner of the screen on 1.5x speed while shitposting so it's lost on most.
/tv/ blown the fuck out
>>63427840
Hollywood fucked around and accidentally released two actual films.
>>63428035
kek
>>63427838
Yeah, this. I saw it in the theater. I was one of three people in the audience... Didn't realize how much I'd loved it until the ride home.
>>63428035
Not really. I watched the film in YIFY at 1.25 speed on my second screen while playing Dota and it was still the best cinematic experience I've had since Pan's Labyrinth. Honestly I think the people who criticize movie multitaskers are just fucking retards who can't handle anything more than dumbly starring at the screen during a film.
I can watch The Tree Of Life while posting about the latest video games on /vg/ and get exactly the same impact as a lesser mind would be able to achieve from sitting in an empty dark role soley concentrating on the film.
>>63427621
Well I liked it OP
>>63427621
It insists upon itself.
>>63428017
Whoa, epin edgelord hooligan coming through. Make way, faggots. Avert your gaze.
>>63428174
wew lad, you almost had me.
>>63428174
not bad anon
captcha: mountains
>>63428210
WHAT DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?
>>63427621
>In top 10 of most best films of the decade lists
>no one mentions it
>>63428255
Get memed on, bruh.
>>63427621
ex machina, it follows, and this were all steaming piles of shit I don't know who praises it on /tv/ but if you literally
KILL YOURSELF
I
L
L
Y
O
U
R
S
E
L
F
>>63428279
Nope, OP here, I didn't care for Ex Machina or It Follows. I just liked the Under the Skin mainly because it had the balls to do some different shit for once, and usually english language films dont bother cause the tits are usually enough to get people in the theaters.
>>63428279
>samefag. No one likes this piece of shit but you.
Except for a whole bunch of other posters, as you'll see when you actually read the thread.
>>63428332
Somebody had the balls to paint with shit and stuff spaghetti os up there vague. Don't mean shit, faggot.
>>63428279
>>63428316
Thank god real /tv/ has finally arrived.
FUCK ALL YOU REDDITORS PRAISING THIS MEME FUCKING GARBAGE.
My sister's redditor boyfriend made me agree to watch this on flick night and it was literally the worst film I've ever seen.
After 45 minutes I was kneeling down on the carpet and hitting my head against the ground as hard as I could. It was fucking unbearable.
>>63427621
What was complex about it, it seemed pretty straight forward. No way comparable to the last two films you posted.
>>63428403
kek r u me
>>63428366
>pretty sure i haven't missed anything
Fedora tipping fanboys will say that you are missing things or even call your post "le bait" meme, but as the most authentically /tv/ poster in this thread, I'll go on record and say that there was literally nothing wrong with what you said and Bronson is fucking fedoracore so you haven't missed a thing.
Not all films are good enough to deserve attention. You're wasting hours of your fucking life soley on some bullshit. That's why if I don't respect the movie I watch it and post on /tv/ at the same time so at least I'm gaining some pleasure from that time.
>>63428403
You are a fucking asshole. The movie is an hour and a half long. Grow up, tantrum-throwing babby cunt. I bet you are unbearable.
Accessibility is the name of the game. Ex Machina and It Follows might be slower paced and somewhat more thought provoking than most mainstream films, but they're still very accessible to a general audience. They still indulged in the conventions of their genres, and used it to keep their audience interested.
>>63428550
>They still indulged in the conventions of their genres, and used it to keep their audience interested.
And this romcom fucking shit didn't. The beginning was fairly weird in a tryhard kind of way but by the time you get to the end and it is "le charming scenes" of beans of toast and the scottish man helping her over the puddle you're literally jumping up and down shouting for the remote to get the cliche trash out of your face.
>>63428626
But the film then subverted your expectations. The whole point of that section was that the alien was trying to exist as a human, but quickly realises that it's not possible because everything that makes her human is only skin deep. The film ended with a man attempting to rape her, and then burning her alive for fuck sake.
>>63428017
>typicalglasgowcitizen.jpg
>>63428747
I turned it off and deleted the file during that unwatchable trash part of the film so I have no idea if you're telling the truth or not, but even if you are, the film is still utter shit.
Few things make me as angry as under the skin. I'd turn to violence instantly if someone within reach of me ever mentioned they enjoyed it.
>>63429083
I was telling the truth, that's how the film ends. I'm getting the feeling that you don't have many friends around you to mention things anyway, cause you sound like a real ignorant cunt.
Can someone give an artistic interpretation of the film, or the "meaning" behind it? I can't get over the superficial aspects of the story and the character.
I think it was good as an experience, not as a story.
>>63429332
>Aliens eat humans as a delicacy
>They come to earth to gather livestock
>Scarjo is alien that leads men to their slaughter
>Does this to a number of men, then grows a conscious
>Runs away, but fails to adapt to human live
>Dies tragically
Take whatever meaning you want from that.
>>63427621
I didn't get this. It didn't feel deep, but it also never was something I was interested in just for the visual or audio of it. Even things like Upstream Color are just pretentious hipster garbage but I appreciate them because they're a fun and interesting watch. This is just.. people kind of whispering and Johansson walking slowly twords the camera. She doesn't even come off with enough sex appeal or attractiveness to warrant it as simply there for the soft porn of it. It feels like we're just following around the most boring vagrant who then turns out to be a spooky alien.
>>63428490
You can watch movies AND read books and have both make you think, fucking dummy. If you don't want to think during a movie...then don't watch movies that are designed to be thought provoking. How hard is that, shit heel.
TL;DR for your stupid ass - You are watching the wrong movies.
It Follows is garbage. Amazing marketing though, people still won't shut the fuck up about it.
>>63427621
>comparable with 2001
Under the Skin had great sound production.
Under the Skin used a spinning camera to convey uneasiness and the flow of time.
That's pretty much the good things I can say about that pack of films.
Nigga every other thread revolved around this film when it came out early 2014
>>63429796
Do you suppose that she just decided to film some gratuitous nude scene just because?
This is a pretentious A-lister. They don't get their tits out for anything but Oscar bait and/or art house. Should've known better, f am.
>>63429476
IT'S ABOUT WHAT MAKES US HUMAN
I'll concede though that the documentary-style shot scenes of people going about their business in the streets were cool.
>>63427621
It's much less accessible than Ex Machina or It Follows. Simple as that, normies would find it boring.
>>63427621
She was kind of fat in there
>>63429476
That's the synopsis for the book. Jonathan Glazer was going for something much more minimalist. So much so, that he doesn't even think of the film as an adaptation
>>63431490
So what is the essence or emotional response one should get from this?
because i hate her face/voice and i wish chloe bennet was in this for purposes.
