Change Your Image
barfog-161-403673
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Under the Skin (2013)
Not for those requiring spoon feeding
Let's get this out of the way at the start: this is not a conventional film and certainly not one who for those who require to be spoon fed in time-honoured Hollywood fashion.
The plot is simple and implied rather than overtly stated, the pace is deadly slow, the setting is bleak, the atmosphere is menacing and the dialogue sparse and inane. The human characters are roughly sketched and instantly recognisable stock caricatures. However, it is because of these qualities, not despite them, that the film succeeds.
Although sci-fi in nature, the film sets out to hold a mirror up to the underbelly of modern society, highlighting the good and bad in humanity through the device of the following the progress of a 'honey-trap' entity sent to do a job, but making the mistake of showing a little too much empathy and curiosity towards the raw materials of its trade and finding that some are capable of behaving far more abhorrently than itself.
In this respect, setting the film (as in the book) in a working-class Scotland (albeit a selectively darker version) is a stroke of genius given that a world audience would find the setting as alien a landscape as any on this planet or any other, whilst recognising their universal human qualities and base emotions. It also serves to level the playing field regarding what is truly alien and, in some cases, which society is the more frightening.
The cinematography is generally stunning, capturing the bleakness of the backdrop. The soundtrack is brilliantly understated reflecting the pace and paucity of the conventional in the rest of the film.
Scarlett Johansson deserves special praise for making this movie: there would be many a Hollywood actress that would have run away in horror given the still and understated performance required, the lack of lines and the necessity for nude and semi-clothed scenes. The film is so much the better for her performance.
Yes, this is what many would regard as an 'arty' film, but it is also a brave, brilliant film on many levels. Its images and ideas stay with the viewer as do the ethical issues raised by the film regarding whose behaviour was the more abominable.
This is very much a film that the viewer will either love or hate. It is an intelligent, thoughtful movie which, frankly, is more likely to be appreciated by people of similar description, although its appeal to them will depend on how open they are to an alternative type of movie.
It Follows (2014)
Derivative and poorly executed.
I'm amazed that some reviews state that this film is 'original' or 'unique'. I can only assume that these reviews are written by people who don't watch films!
A tip for those of you who are thinking of going to see 'It Follows': Save your money and revisit 'Ringu' by Hideo Nakata or even 'Night of the Demon' by Jacques Tourneur. Two vastly superior films with broadly the same plot, except without sex as the MacGuffin for curse transfer.
There are so many plot holes and the premise is so illogical and poorly set up that the viewer never invests in the narrative other than at the most superficial level.
The only true horror in this film is the soundtrack, which sounds as if the composer had been given a box of synthesizers for Christmas and didn't really know how they worked.
As for being 'the future of horror' - I sincerely hope not!
Prince of Jutland (1994)
How can anyone praise this film?
I rarely write reviews, but having come to IMDb to see if others had been as appalled with the lack of craft displayed in this film as I was, I was shocked to see that some actually thought that this was a decent effort! Lest others conned into purchasing this abortion of a movie, let me redress the balance.
To give some background, I purchased a DVD of this film, (rebranded 'Thrones & Empires') based on the strong cast list. I watched it with a growing sense of disbelief and horror at how such a slew of excellent actors could be wasted in such a truly poor film.
OK, so it is clearly a film made with a very low budget but, boy, I can't recall when I last saw a film with such awful direction, editing, script (was there one?) and lack of cinematic vision.
The director, Gabriel Axel, should be truly ashamed of himself for wasting such acting talent: to a man (and woman), the performances either wooden or hammy - none inhabit their roles properly. The editing is simply laughable - probably at its worst when scenes start before actors have started moving/acting ... and as for the fight scenes - oy vey! Cliché after cinematic cliché - I felt I was watching a Mel Brooks pastiche at times.
A criminal waste of acting talent - and possibly the worst film I've seen, and I've seen some bad 'uns!