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 509 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 509 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

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

17 of 31 users found this helpful1714

ariel84

Jun 28, 2014

i was pulled in from the opening sequence. visually stunning. the scoring of this film was perfect: eerie, weird, and unsettling. scarlett johansson was perfection. the amount of control she had was mesmerizing. this was art.

2 of 6 users found this helpful24

PureT

Jan 27, 2015

The scene-to-scene change was almost TOO obtuse, so that it was close to confusing rather than cool and bizarro (suddenly the beach scene appeared and who was who and was that person drowning?) but the movie was still fascinating and the ending was great - once I saw the ending, I startedThe scene-to-scene change was almost TOO obtuse, so that it was close to confusing rather than cool and bizarro (suddenly the beach scene appeared and who was who and was that person drowning?) but the movie was still fascinating and the ending was great - once I saw the ending, I started making sense of the rest of it.
It is the kind of movie I think about long after I've watched it - a rarity these days! The music really added too it...my non-sci fi pal announced that she was falling asleep but stuck it out.… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

ahnehnois

Apr 25, 2014

I did not get it. Reading up on the movie after having seen it, there was a plot there, a character progression that I honestly did not follow as it was happening. To me, anyway, the movie was a pure sensory experience.

Of course, Scarlett Johansson nudity will do that do you. And thereI did not get it. Reading up on the movie after having seen it, there was a plot there, a character progression that I honestly did not follow as it was happening. To me, anyway, the movie was a pure sensory experience.

Of course, Scarlett Johansson nudity will do that do you. And there is a lot; we're not talking one or two fleeting shots. Nor is the nudity restricted to one character; it's quite egalitarian.

However, the film works as something more than pure erotica. Scotland doesn't sound interesting, but they shot the hell out of it for this film. There's very little dialogue throughout and only bursts of sound; you're just watching one main character set against scenery. In the end, it's a film that asks questions, not just the obvious one, "Would you follow a naked Scarlett Johansson to your death?" (yes, answers half the world), but also "What would an alien arriving on Earth make of us?" and "What's the difference between good and evil". Even if you don't catch all of the plot that is being nonverbally conveyed to you, there's enough going on to make this an effective cerebral sci-fi film.… Expand

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

LeZee

Dec 14, 2016

The lady from the white van.

First of all, this is not an entertaining film, but an alien theme on a fictional plot like how they would come live among us. Before that, they need to look like us, so they steal human skins and that's what this film is about. Most of the film was in a vanThe lady from the white van.

First of all, this is not an entertaining film, but an alien theme on a fictional plot like how they would come live among us. Before that, they need to look like us, so they steal human skins and that's what this film is about. Most of the film was in a van driving around in the Scottland. An alien disguised as a human, looking for the single men in the uncrowded places to seduce and steal their skins. But one day after got curious about being a human being, her routine work gets affected seriously and so what happens to her after is told in the remaining film.

It's certainly not the film I was looking for. That's the reason I did not watch it when it got out. But I kind of liked it, it was not as boring as the others advised me. Usually films are for pleasure and timepass and this film did not have those qualities. Hence it financially failed. Surely some people would enjoy it, particularly the critics praised it which is unusual.

From the director of 'Birth', Scarlett Johansson in the lead and she was the only good thing in it. The story was a little complicated, so not everybody going the get it, not at the first glance, but if you do, you will enjoy it. The locations were awesome. Watching it on the cold stormy day brought me that original Scottish atmosphere here. I should have rated it better, but no regret for what I gave for it. Its not a suggestible kind, though worth a watch if you're fed up with the regular commercial films.

6/10… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

horusmaximus

Jul 16, 2014

Well, 95% of the people out there are not going to like this at all. They beat you over the head with their ham-handed attempt to be artsy drawing out monotonous scenes way beyond the point where you "get it" to the point where you press the fast forward button... alot. That will be howWell, 95% of the people out there are not going to like this at all. They beat you over the head with their ham-handed attempt to be artsy drawing out monotonous scenes way beyond the point where you "get it" to the point where you press the fast forward button... alot. That will be how you'll watch this, finger never leaving the fast-forward button. Unless you are stoned... then you might not notice you've been staring at a dot on the screen for 15 minutes, or looking at someone sitting in their vehicle doing NOTHING for 5- 10 minutes for the 5th time. Fast-forward is your friend.

I'm giving it a 3 for these reasons, Scarlett Johansson takes her close off a lot (+2 initially then -1 for somehow making that monotonous), its science fiction (+2 but taking a point back after reading about the book it was based on and realizing they've ruined any chance of ever getting to see a decent movie based on that premise), and I'll give them another point for using actors that didn't initially know they were in a movie. Again, this is something I didn't know when I sat down to watch it but after reading up on the production, I thought that was worthy of a point for initiative and an uncommon approach to filming a sci fi movie.

It might have made a really good short film of about 20 minutes or less, but utterly fails as a feature film. They just really obviously had to stretch out the monotony to drag things out to the number of minutes they felt they needed. Watch the first 5 minutes. Turn it off. If you still feel compelled to watch it, you'll probably be in that 5% that likes to be hypnotised or something. The rest of you will thank me for the hour and a half or so of your lives I've just saved you. I'll split the difference with you and you can send me what a couple hours of your time is worth to my PayPal account.… Expand

6 of 8 users found this helpful62

clinteastwoo

May 11, 2016

................................................................................................................................................One of worst films ever made...

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

SEE ALL 140 REVIEWS

58	#58 Best Movie of 2014
36	#36 Most Discussed Movie of 2014
43	#43 Most Shared Movie of 2014