Under the Skin

Name: Under the Skin
Genre: Sci-Fi, Drama, Thriller, Horror
Released: April 4, 2014
Duration: 108 min
Rating: 80
Cast: Scarlett Johansson

2014

METASCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 44 Critic Reviews

See All

USER SCORE

Generally favorable reviews based on 495 Ratings

See All

6.8

VOTE NOW

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

6.8	Your Score
6.8	User Score Generally favorable reviews based on 495 Ratings

Would you like to write a review?

There is a 75 character minimum for reviews. If your review contains spoilers, please check the Spoiler box. Please do not use ALL CAPS. There is no linking or other HTML allowed. Your review may be edited for content. 0/5000

Check box if your review contains spoilers

Play Sound

Please enter your birth date to watch this video:

You are not allowed to view this material at this time.

Under The Skin

Now Playing: Under The Skin

Movie Details & Credits

A24 | Release Date: April 4, 2014 | R

Starring: Scarlett Johansson

Summary: An alien seductress (Scarlett Johansson) preys upon hitchhikers in Scotland.

Director: Jonathan Glazer

Genre(s): Sci-Fi, Drama, Thriller, Horror

Rating: R

Runtime: 108 min

See All Details and Credits

Watch Now

Buy on

Stream On

Expand

Metascore

Positive:

Mixed:

Negative:

Critic Reviews

100

The Telegraph Robbie Collin

Sep 17, 2013

Glazer’s astonishing film takes you to a place where the everyday becomes suddenly strange, and fear and seduction become one and the same. Read full review

100

Betsy Sharkey

Apr 3, 2014

Watching this film feels like a genesis moment — of sci-fi fable, of filmmaking, of performance — with all the ambiguity and excitement that implies. Read full review

100

Donald Clarke

Sep 1, 2020

A truly extraordinary trick has been pulled off: Under the Skin manages to foster empathy with an entity as isolated from human experience as an avalanche or a weather system. Such achievements tend to allow films to be classed as masterpieces. That word may not be too weighty for Glazer’s towering curio. Read full review

Ty Burr

Apr 10, 2014

What’s under the film’s surface is intriguing enough, but it’s the surface itself that holds you in a dark trance. A portrait of alienation filmed from the alien’s point of view — or is it just a woman’s? — the movie’s a cinematic Rubik’s Cube that snaps together surprisingly easily, yet whose larger meanings remain tantalizingly out of reach. Read full review

Film.com William Goss

Sep 17, 2013

Under the Skin is a deliberately oblique piece of work that prizes rhythms and textures above hows and whys. Read full review

David Edelstein

Apr 4, 2014

At times the film is right on the border between mesmerizing and narcotizing, but it casts an otherworldly spell. Read full review

Rex Reed

Apr 2, 2014

I certainly wish Ms. Johansson hadn’t shown up at all. She’s never less than interesting to watch, but Under the Skin is a big waste of her time. Read full review

SEE ALL 44 REVIEWS

Write a Review

User Reviews

truckproduction

Apr 6, 2015

If I could give this film an 11 I would. Having loved the book I was concerned to hear that Glazier had altered the film narrative. But only a few frames in and I already could tell it was going to be incredible. A film that relies mostly on the emotional response from the audience to tellIf I could give this film an 11 I would. Having loved the book I was concerned to hear that Glazier had altered the film narrative. But only a few frames in and I already could tell it was going to be incredible. A film that relies mostly on the emotional response from the audience to tell the story, many filmgoers won't connect having been so used to the overly absurdist films of today. But this film is a classic. Fantastic… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

Robertchuckman

Jul 4, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I took mom to see Under The Skin yesterday. Aside from the explicit sexual themes, disturbing imagery and nearly wordless plot progression, bringing mom was a good idea. After all, she’s into a good sci fi flic, likes Scarlet Johansson, and she enjoys wrestling the kind of difficult, challenging ideas put forth in this film. Plus the promise of gorgeous views of the Scottish countryside really paid off, which was perhaps what mom liked most.
What mom didn’t like were actually the things I did. This film allegorically describes and criticizes male and female relations, focusing on how women are driven to treat men brutally. The film is a visual metaphor, criticizing ruthless femininity, oppressive institutional forces, sex and beauty as power, as well as the restoration of femininity and our humanity.
This film’s ideas and plot are moved along almost entirely without dialogue. It might be tough for some viewers to follow this story told through images, but I’m sure it’s even more challenging to tell a tale in this way. This film, however, does this almost flawlessly and one feels led by capable hands in this regard. Many of the scenes not only move the overt story forward efficiently, but also engage the audience to consider the films sub -text, which revolves around issues of gender relations in our society. The story and characters are therefore a means by which to discuss these difficult matters, things which people rarely talk about. Its lack of dialogue might almost be viewed as saying, “social discourse rarely touches on such things…” This film, then is the best kind of sci- fi, because its ideas are relevant for our use today, and is commenting on important human themes.
The film opens with an unknown man stopping his motorcycle in night, walking down to beach and retrieving a lifeless female body. He deposits it into a van, and in the following scene, Scarlett’s character is seen assuming the identity of this lifeless woman by removing the body’s clothes. This turns out to be symbolic of removal of the body’s skin as well, because we find out that Scarlett’s character is an Extra Terrestrial, who uses the guise- and skin- of a beautiful young woman to do her job. Her object on earth? Seduce single, young men from the open window of her van, in the night , bring them back to her abode, coax them to follow her across the magical, mirror-like, watery floor of her bedroom until these men are submerged and disappear. Once the victim is submerged, she puts her clothes back on and goes back to work.. Three men into this ritual, we see the awful fate of the victims: their insides are sucked out from them, leaving only the skin, with their innards shipped off to somewhere….
This horror, we come to discover, are guided at least in part by the crotch- rocket man. His influence is not fully understood until the beautiful female ET accidently picks up an ugly man to bring to his doom. Upon receiving the ugly man, however, the spell of ruthlessness and murder is broken, because she feels the humanity of this character. She has compassion for him. Unlike the others she seduced, who were out partying and having fun, this man is walking at night to buy groceries, simply hoping to avoid the hateful judgment of others. Though he is grossly deformed, she comments on how nice his hands are and the man begins to weep. Ruthless devotion to her intent is destroyed by this man’s innocence, ugliness and humanity. Coaxed to the watery pit, she frees him suddenly. Thus begins her journey to restoration.
Because she spares this man from her deadly pursuit, the crotch rocket man now chases her. She cannot be allowed to stop being ruthless, let alone pity someone who is ugly and outcast from the brutal game of beauty and power. She must not find her own, and others’ humanity. She escapes into the beautiful Scottish country, and the wild interior of her own nature. She is taken in by a kind man who makes her dinner and invites her into his home. They go for a walk, and one beautiful image is of this man carrying the ET across a large puddle, evoking the haunted, watery mirror which she used to destroy the men she met in the past. They go back to his house and they eat. Upstairs, he kisses her and they begin to have sex. When her hymen breaks, she recoils, unprepared for the pain and vulnerability of her humanity. Fleeing, she takes refuge in a cabin in the forest. After being lulled to sleep by the endless span of nature, like a baby in a womb, she awakens suddenly, remembering the peril she is in because of the crotch -rocket man. Running, she finds an empty logging truck, tries to steal it but is seen by its driver, who chases and then attempts to rape her. Through this assault, her shell is ripped and the man staggers back, horrified by the sight of her true inside. He runs off and as she walks away, the rest of her false skin falls off. Now the ET is fully revealed: Dark, feminine, beautiful, strange…unspeakable. As she looks down and comes to see this part of herself, the trucker has returned and murders her. Her wild, interior nature is certainly not allowed to live…only devotion to the brutal game of falseness and exteriority can survive. She is left a smoking char in the snow after being burnt alive.
This last sequence of events demonstrates the power of the allegorical nature of this film. The idea that women are driven- through male-dominated, institutional forces- to carelessly seduce and even to destroy men is difficult and nearly unspeakable. Scarletts’ ET is initiated into a state of compassion, humanity and the interiority of her being, the one thing that cannot survive.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

MattCipolla926

Apr 19, 2014

Oh my God. I was always excited for this film, but this is just above and beyond what I could have imagined. This film is not for everyone because it's so incredibly arthouse, but I honestly think that if people talked about the film, they'd see it in a new light.

Virtually nothing hereOh my God. I was always excited for this film, but this is just above and beyond what I could have imagined. This film is not for everyone because it's so incredibly arthouse, but I honestly think that if people talked about the film, they'd see it in a new light.

Virtually nothing here is meant to be taken literally; it's extremely symbolic. It's an allegorical trip that is haunting, intriguing, sublime, gorgeous, sad, different, strange, human, spellbinding, unforgettable, and masterful, utilizing all of these qualities that convey what it means to be a human. What is also is about, though, is reveling in the questions and finding answers.

The cinematography is immaculate and the sound design is incredible. The score is mesmerizing and perfectly complements the visuals and tone of the film, with its strings and screechy sounds crossing into the realm of being sound effects at some points, and that's great because like the film, it brings together all senses and experiences into one odd package. Scarlett Johansson is intoxicating, doing so much with so little dialogue. She uses her eyes and facial expressions and callousness-turned-fake-charm so well, and you forget that you're watching an actress work because it's so immersive and shockingly realistic.

I can see why some people would dislike this film because it is very alienating (no pun intended) and probably as far from mainstream as you can get, but it's also so engrossing. This is a film that gives no explanations and doesn't really have much of a setup that leads into a conflict that sets the movie into action in a traditional sense. It works wonderfully because the movie itself feeds off of our abilities - as humans - to interpret emotions and read other individuals. The movie even seems to be watching you back at times.

Jonathan Glazer demonstrates that he has such a huge talent but also a great deal of discipline in order to make everything work. In the hands of another director, everything would have crumbled into pieces, but because it's so well-made, he makes connections between humanity and sexuality, objectification and death, and, to a certain extent, gender roles.

The ending (without spoiling anything) both satisfies and leaves ample room for interpretation, and is very affecting. There is a good amount of emotion to this film, and it's just so commendable that a film like this could be so human and realistic. I can definitely see the comparisons to Kubrick (my favorite director ever) and I could compare this film to Eraserhead and 2001: A Space Odyssey, and partially to Eyes Wide Shut.

This is a movie that I will never be able to forgot, and I know for a fact that I'll be thinking about it obsessively for a very long time. This may be one of my favorite films ever.

9.7/10, masterful, two thumbs up, miles above average, etc.… Expand

16 of 29 users found this helpful1613

pedvie

Aug 22, 2014

Spoiler alert: quite intentional that Scarlett Johansson would be cast as the otherworldly predator sent to capture human men. She is such a stunning example of the human female form, that there would be no need for extraterrestrial powers. Her naked body (displayed at length in the movie)Spoiler alert: quite intentional that Scarlett Johansson would be cast as the otherworldly predator sent to capture human men. She is such a stunning example of the human female form, that there would be no need for extraterrestrial powers. Her naked body (displayed at length in the movie) is all that's necessary to get the average heterosexual male to follow her anywhere. : )

Now on to the review. For those who are fans of the Faber novel - on which this movie is based - don't expect to know what in the hell the book is all about. I had to look up the Cliff notes. The movie is a stylistic, art house, abstract adaptation of the book. Sort of like a trip to the MoMA rather than the Met. Is you're in the mindset...you'll enjoy it. It's well acted, well written and generally well put together. Thought provoking, powerful imagery are the strongest points of the movie. Overall, a memorable piece of film worth watching.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

eljayson

Jul 7, 2014

I don't remember the last time I walked out on a movie, even so this is not the case because I saw it all, however never did I have the before the urge of leaving the theater since 30 min in. This might be one of the worst movies I have even seen. If this were 70's sci-fi maybe I'd haveI don't remember the last time I walked out on a movie, even so this is not the case because I saw it all, however never did I have the before the urge of leaving the theater since 30 min in. This might be one of the worst movies I have even seen. If this were 70's sci-fi maybe I'd have given it a pass but now it just passed as pretentious BS. Don't lose your money or time in this.… Expand

7 of 12 users found this helpful75

nicholasbert

Jun 26, 2014

I was really disappointed by this film. The trailer promised a lot more than it would eventually deliver. The comparisons with the works of Stanley Kubrick (whom I dislike) and Terrence Malick (whom I like) are ridiculous. I'd rather see this as more similar to David Lynch, though, again,I was really disappointed by this film. The trailer promised a lot more than it would eventually deliver. The comparisons with the works of Stanley Kubrick (whom I dislike) and Terrence Malick (whom I like) are ridiculous. I'd rather see this as more similar to David Lynch, though, again, comparison is ridiculous. The amateur look of the shots is not intentional, evidently: it's just this is an amateur film, only made with a lot of money and starring Scarlett Johansson; with all the flaws, the inexperience and the pretentiousness and none of the genuineness, the back-to-the-roots feel, or the love for film history an actual amateur film would feature.

In conclusion, it's not worth it. The visuals are good, but they're used in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons. In order to be symbolic, there would need to be symbols somewhere. There aren't. There are fetishes which appear to be symbols, but they are just put there to make you think they mean something. It's a trap. Don't fall for it. This gets a 3 because Scarlett Johansson is somewhat good, because at least they made the effort for an original score, and because I gave a 2 to "Gravity" which is still worse than this.… Expand

4 of 8 users found this helpful44

sicrano

Apr 8, 2016

What is Good in This???,Why The ACCLAIM???,Is Because the FIRST NAKED SCARLETT MOVIE???.

Nothing in this movie is Good Even the NAKED Scenes of Scarlett Johansson Could Be Better, Could be Better Filming, With Better Angles, Better Lighting, and FOCUS. FOCUS, LIGHTING, ANGLES, AndWhat is Good in This???,Why The ACCLAIM???,Is Because the FIRST NAKED SCARLETT MOVIE???.

Nothing in this movie is Good Even the NAKED Scenes of Scarlett Johansson Could Be Better, Could be Better Filming, With Better Angles, Better Lighting, and FOCUS.

FOCUS, LIGHTING, ANGLES, And BETTER FILMING & ANGLES IN SHE'S BOOBS & ASS… Expand

0 of 5 users found this helpful05

SEE ALL 134 REVIEWS

59	#59 Best Movie of 2014
37	#37 Most Discussed Movie of 2014
43	#43 Most Shared Movie of 2014