Another shitty arthouse film.
You know what? If you all you have are a cool few shots with a nothing-story to back it up (like the vast majority of "art" films I've seen), you might as well make an imgur album of still pictures and call it a fucking day. You'd save a lot of money that way, at least.
>movie doesn't spoon-feed you the story
>therefore it's bad
Plebs these days.
There actually was a story, you were just too dumb to get it. I bet you had no idea why she killed that guy on the beach, for example. The movie gives you all the pieces, you just have to use some thought and put them together yourself.
>>68742215
She ate people because she was an evil alien.
I never said I didn't get the story. Just that it was overly-vague crap.
>>68742215
I'm not OP, but I agree with OP.
The "you're stupid if you don't like this" meme isn't going to work here bc it really isn't that difficult of a plot to follow. Even when you put all the "pieces" together, you end up with "an alien disguises as a human woman to seduce and kill human men. One day "she" has a change of heart and tries to be a human, but fails because "she" isn't a human. The end."
The whole scene on the beach is very effective, but if the story as a whole is shallow, then it doesn't really matter how well any one scene is, or how well shot the film is.
>>68742392
>plotfag
Here are actually good arthouse
Ex machina
Possession
On the silver globe
Blade runner
Eyes Wide shut
>>68742392
Caring about plot and story more than cinematography proves you're very, very new to watching the really good movies out there.
Garbage ass movie, not even Scarlett tits and ass were worth it.
I wish I was a random english bloke that got picked up randomly by ScarJo. I want to drown in her black void.
>>68741975
I don't give a shit whether or not you "got it." Honestly that's no reason to criticize a film, it's more about what it means to YOU.
The soundtrack ALONE provided a better overall experience than 95 percent of movies that year.
>>68742319
No, she didn't eat them. She deskinned them and sent them away; her job is a harvester. Those bikers weren't protecting her, they were enforcing her. That's why she always goes for guys (more meat) and why she uses a female avatar to do it. Also why she stoned the guy on the beach but left the baby. From the very first shot you can tell it's her first time on earth; that mosquito was the first form of alien life she had ever seen. And that body at the start was the previous harvester, who also started to empathise with humans and got killed.
Basically it's about a life form more intelligent than us that sees us how we see cattle, with a meta commentary on the dichotomy of female-male sexuality in modern society.
>>68742552
Bu cinematography i hope you mean to convey plot and story through motion and images. Not just decent framing and lingering shots.
>>68741975
everyone laugh and point at this fucking pleb
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Im0i7JDJ-cI
>>68741975
so what you're saying is you're not overly fond of artistic experimentation when it comes to visual narratives. cool, gotcha.
>>68742552
Not at all, I believe in strong camerawork as much as anyone else who loves cinema. Malick is a filmmaker who has incredible cinematography with sometimes thin plots and he's one of my favorite directors.
The problem with Under The Skin is that, while Malick uses strong cinematography to take on multiple big themes and ideas (or even philosophies) at once, Jonathan Glazer doesn't seem to have an substantial ideas behind this film at all, and he tries to replace this loss with great shots that mean nothing. This is why I have to focus on plot since there isn't much else to talk about narrative-wise.
>>68742472
Um, what? Ex Machina and Blade Runner are both about as far from art films as you can get.
>>68742709
This is a visual medium, first and foremost. Images on their own can be effective while having nothing to do with the plot, the tone and atmosphere they convey are also huge for instance.
Just because you're new and desperately need a clearly established bedtime story to make the movie worth your time doesn't mean it's the most paramount thing a director should be concerned about when they sit down to create a visual piece of art.
It was a genuine attempt to portray our society from the perspective of a higher intelligence.
What did you expect, a clean 3 act plot and monologues to explain everything literally?
>>68742843
It wasnt mainstream or popular wikipedia has it in the arthouse page. Its as arthouse as scifi can get same with ex machina and 2001
>>68742971
i don't think i'd categorize Blade Runner or Ex Machina as arthouse either. they were indeed both mainstream films, whether wikipedia disagrees. my local arthouse cinema has played retro 2001 viewings but not Blade Runner, afaik. anyways, these are minor distinctions as they are all great films, Under the Skin included.
>>68742862
Well said, lad
>>68741975
I honestly dont give a fuck about your opinion on it or whether or not its actually good. I have jerked off to Scarjo in this movie more than I can count, its objectively great for that.
>>68742630
Why was it so bad though?
>>68742862
>This is a visual medium, first and foremost. Images on their own can be effective while having nothing to do with the plot, the tone and atmosphere they convey are also huge for instance.
Just take a few pictures and post them on Instagram or Flickr then.
Why waste people's time with a 90+ minute long movie?
