1. A
close-to-the-bone performance from young Samantha Morton, who
won several awards for this performance. 2.
The dizzying spiral of sex is portrayed graphically and realistically, through the mind
of the female participant. we hear her thoughts during sex. we hear
her engaged in phone sex. We hear her graphic recollections of sexual
experiences. And we see much of what transpires. |
|
The performances are impressive, but I gotta say that
after only an economical 85 minutes of running time, I was more than
ready for this to be over, because it doesn't really go anywhere and I
never could get involved with the characters. |
TUNA'S THOUGHTS
|
Under the Skin (1997) stars a 19
year old Samantha Morton as a young woman whose mother dies
rather suddenly of brain cancer. She has always felt that her
married and pregnant older sister was mums favorite, and also
that her boyfriend doesn't really pay attention to her. The
death of her mother sends her off on a self-destructive foray in
hedonism. She leaves her boyfriend, gets her own apartment,
quits her job, and starts sleeping around. This is clearly not
working well for her, and reaches critical mass when she
discovers that her sister took a ring belonging to her mother
that she had wanted, is mugged, her date blindfolds her then
pisses on her face, and she finds that her best friend is now
sleeping with her old boyfriend. Her sister is on a business
trip, and she goes to her house and tries, unsuccessfully, to
seduce her brother-in-law.
The film is highly thought of. IMDB has it at 7.0 of 10, the
film won 8 festival awards, and was nominated for 4 others, and
had great critical acceptance, mostly due to Morton's
performance, which I admit was riveting. I had a huge problem
with this film, however. It was cinema verite, which, to me,
means the film technically is absolute crap, and the grainy
photography, bad lighting, stark camera angles, and nearly
constant use of a shaky-cam spoiled what, for me, might have
been a good film. |
|
The
Critics Vote
|
The People
Vote ...
- made for a budget of one million dollars
|
IMDb
guideline: 7.5 usually indicates a level of
excellence, about like three and a half stars
from the critics. 6.0 usually indicates lukewarm
watchability, about like two and a half stars
from the critics. The fives are generally not
worthwhile unless they are really your kind of
material, about like two stars from the critics.
Films under five are generally awful even if you
like that kind of film, equivalent to about one
and a half stars from the critics or less,
depending on just how far below five the rating
is. My own
guideline: A means the movie is so good it
will appeal to you even if you hate the genre. B means the movie is not
good enough to win you over if you hate the
genre, but is good enough to do so if you have an
open mind about this type of film. C means it will only
appeal to genre addicts, and has no crossover
appeal. D means you'll hate it even if you
like the genre. E means that you'll hate it even if
you love the genre. F means that the film is not only
unappealing across-the-board, but technically
inept as well.
Based on this description, this
film is a C. A serious-minded movie with arthouse appeal. Good
acting, somewhat affecting, but zero entertainment value. (Tuna:
C+. It is a critical hit, has good
exposure, and a great performance from Morton.)
|
|