Under the Skin

Genre: Horror/Thriller
Directed: Jonathan Glazer 
Starring: Scarlett Johansson 
Running: 108 minutes

As silly as it may sound, Jonathan Glazer's take on modern alien-ism is so realistic it is truly frightening. A horror movie it is not, a sci-fi is questionable also; let's just say Under the Skin is a bag of everything, including drama and sentiment from a female alien seeking humanity in oneself. Giving very little away in its advertisement, judging by its James Cameron style poster, the opening scene is one of true remembrance, even if there is very little to show. Jonathan Glazer makes an alien assumption and what we are about to follow through-out this 100 minute slideshow of fascinating images.

A machine is seen slowly making its way toward what we eventually make out to be a human like eyeball, constructing our female protagonist to be (Scarlett Johansson). From there we witness a compelling concept of the hunter and the hunted through an aliens-eye-view. Prowling the wet streets of Scotland with a motive that is never fully explained, Laura is on the look out for vulnerable men with no direction other than the dark depths of what appears to be a concept of alien abduction. The murky human world is what captivates this movie to its full realism as hidden cameras are used to show the mundane streets featuring pedestrians at their typical. A transit van supplied by a mysterious biker is used to distract Laura from her manifestation; unrecognisable beneath her 80s retro hairstyle, Laura routinely distracts men at their most isolated, inviting them back to her abandoned house where they will meet their demise, revealing the most fascinating image and the "horror" of the movie. However Under the Skin feels purposely divided into a movie of two very different chapters, one that reveals sentiment in Laura with a dramatic outlook on what happens when the tables are turned on our leading star. It goes on to focus on a clever concept, one of much relevance in today's society. For me, Jonathan Glazer kills the darkish mood of its first 45 minutes to give us a sense of humanity and sympathy but again going back to what the movie offered at the beginning, making for a fantastic intro, a strange and not too comfortable middle and a brilliant ending.

Scarlett Johansson does very little here, yet it is the performance of her career no doubt. As strange as that may sound, that is exactly it; her cold and calculated expressions, her movement and her overall commitment to a film revealing more nudity than we would have expected, she is dedicated to her robust character from the get-go. Scarlett showcases a method side to her acting that the blockbusters of the past have not aloud her to do. Her robotic persona is scary and seductive making Under the skin spine tingling at times, yet heartfelt for both herself and her victims - she leads the line in fantastic fashion in this very rare one-women-show.

The chilling soundtrack helps set the atmospheric tone this movie thrives off from the beginning. Scarlett's on screen presence creates something so unnerving, you could cut the cinematic atmosphere with a blunt knife. The oblivious folks appearing in the backdrop of midnight Scotland gives this movie a sense of realism, with its stalker concept being of much relevance. Jonathan Glazer sheds some light on just how the average male can be vulnerable in the dead of the night; one scene shows just how far Laura will go to lure a victim to a misty grave.

Those looking to enjoy a movie of dialog will be very disappointed. Under the skin is an artistic outlook of hunter seeking its prey using a plethora of images; featuring deserted highways, wet and windy pavements and grizzly houses, while the sci-fi also comes into play in Laura's lair. Unfortunately the same concept is used toward the middle of the movie and the end, substituting gritty streets for the country woods and more. I for one found the images fascinating and self-explanatory.

Very little can be said in regards to how the movie plays out, and some people may be disappointed in that sense. It is probably the most realistic take on alien-ism I have seen in modern film so far. However so realistic that it may prove boring for some, and virtually unexplained. I for one tend to keep an open mind, therefore enjoying this visionary bag of mixed treats from Jonathan Glazer.

Prisoners

Genre: Crime drama

Directed: Denis Villeneuve

Starring: Hugh Jackman, Jake Gyllenhaal, Paul Dano, Viola Davis and Terrance Howard.

Running: 153 Mins 

Following a thanksgiving gathering across the street, Keller (Jackman) and friend Franklin (Howard) find themselves calling their daughters names down a wet and windy suburban avenue. Alert of a suspicious van parked outside previously, Keller realises the daunting situation that both Anna and Joy's disappearance is subject to a double kidnapping. 

The streets become ever so lonely and the situation becomes a reality when the local police, including detective Loki (Gyllenhaal) turn up to gather some information regarding the daughters of both families. As Loki digs deeper into the possible characters involved, Keller struggles to maintain his peace, making matters worse for Loki, Franklin and everyone involved. While Loki is adamant and confident in finding the kidnapper, the circumstances become harder to accept with a plot revealing deeper answers as Loki thinks he has found the answer in Alex (Dano), only to unravel some loose ends in an investigation that becomes harder to tie up. 

Prisoners reels you in easily with a story that becomes ever so gripping but to say it is enjoyable may be the wrong word; more interesting and satisfying (in parts), with a gathering of dark scenes that leave a bad aura every time. Director Denis Villeneuve really hits home with this strong, relate-able topic, with its aggressive scenes and terrific performances from the cast, you could say the result is all too real to actually leave the cinema with a fine grin. It supplies a gritty, yet extremely depressive aura similar to that of David Fincher's Zodiac (2007) with its endless discovery moments yet as a member of the audience, it takes you back to square one every time.

The possibility of this happening quickly dawns on you from the beginning as Villeneuve's vision of relating it to factual kidnappings seeming all too real. Prisoners is a frightening tale of some wonderful, disturbing and dedicated characters that refuses any sense of euphoria from the very beginning.  

While Prisoners deserves much applause for its modern vision on a disturbing and quite existing society, Villeneuve assembles a great cast of actors to help create just that. It is one of the most nail biting atmospheric crime dramas of 2013 thus far. 

Hugh Jackman and Jake Gyllenhaal maybe on the hunt for bragging rights at the Oscars this year, and while Jackman's performance is the most talked about, both men are countered for their own, personnel performances; ones that may stand a chance masterfully at the forth coming Oscars event. 

Prisoners is certainly not the most upbeat crime dramas of the year but its deep intentions are heartfelt. The performances from the all round cast are jaw dropping, with a plot seeking nothing less than sorrow from its audience. 

That's all for now guys, thanks for reading. 

College: What Richard did (281)

                                          

Lenny Abrahamson is known for mastering the independent classic, Adam and Paul (2005). He looks to grab your attention to a different topic. We follow Richard (Jack Reynor) and his "Molly coddled" lifestyle.

Richard (Jack Reynor) lives a charming life with wealthy backgrounds; he spends his summer days with friends and having the "craic" in the family beach home. His sights are on Laura (Roisin Murphy) who to his unfortunate circumstance is tied up with Connor (Sam Keeley).

It centres upon numerous images and silent embarks of Richard reminiscing at his beach home, driving his car, eating cereal, and smoking silently as he stares into oblivion in almost every shot. It got so boring first off I began to believe that all of these activities are what Richard actually did.  He gets closer to Laura; however the dramatic portrayal of the movie finally kicks in when an argument outside a party leaves Connor dead.

The suspense and the dramatic follow up is what makes the first half feel terrible to the second half, and unfortunately it is. We see the acting skills from numerous actors including Jack Reynor and his father Peter (Lars Mikkelsen), who both create probably the only seen worth remembering.

The problem with the film is not the acting, but the plot was so weak. The movie was quite short in 87 minutes and lacked development between any characters, resulting in a lack of emotion for such a serious premise.

Overall; beautifully shot no doubt, but really slow on developing a lack of emotion and dull scenes of practically nothing. However Jack Reynor gives a performance that does convince you of an enjoyable portrayal of character.

Read my extended review.

For full review

What Richard Did

Lenny Abrahamson is known for mastering the independent classic, Adam and Paul (2005). He looks to grab your attention to a different topic, one that we know all too well. The concept is one of considerable debate as we follow Richard (Jack Reynor) and his "Molly coddled" lifestyle made up of happy families, true friendship and desperate love.

Richard lives a charming life with wealthy backgrounds; he spends his summer days with a group of friends having the "craic" in the family beach home. With his charming personality he sets his sights on Laura (Roisin Murphy) who to his unfortunate circumstance is partly tied up with Connor (Sam Keeley).

The calm before the storm is numerous images and silent embarks of Richard reminiscing at his beach home, driving his car, eating cereal and smoking silently as Richard stares into oblivion in almost every shot. It all got so boring first off I began to believe all of these activities are what Richard actually did, but no. Richard starts to believe in his charm after numerous dates and gossip has gotten him closer to Laura, however the dramatic portrayal of the movie finally kicks in when an argument outside a party involves himself and Connor, leaving Connor well, ultimately dead.

The suspense and the dramatic follow up is what makes the first half feel terrible to the second half, and unfortunately it is. We see the acting skills from numerous actors including Jack Reynor and his father Peter (Lars Mikkelsen), who both create probably the only seen worth remembering.

The problem with this film is not the acting, but the plot was so weak, and ran at such a slow pace. Maybe it was my own fault for building my hype for, well, such a hyped film. A movie that was quite short in 87 minutes and did not have enough input to develop any characters resulting in a lack of emotion for such a serious concept.

Lenny's latest flick touches off a very important subject, just like he did with Adam and Paul, but besides from the incident that took so long to get to, a message that was supposed to be sent out kind of went in no direction. However he hit the nail on the head with creating a stereotype within Richard and his friends; Slightly posh rugby heads who drive daddy's car and wear tight T shirts with grey tracksuit bottoms. As he created that stereotypical ego of Richard, a harsh reality surrounds him as he, just like any real human being would, comes crashing down to earth after realising the reality and possible consequences surrounding his stupidity.

Overall; beautifully shot no doubt, but really slow on developing a lack of emotion and dull scenes of practically nothing. However Jack Reynor gives a performance that does convince you of an enjoyable portrayal of character, but not the film.

4/10