6.3? And that's why IMDb is irrelevant
-
patrick_bateman_90029 — 9 years ago(May 19, 2016 07:50 PM)
Except it isn't better. She develops pity for humanity, not admiration. By understanding humanity, it gives her an understanding of all life and their predetermined natures, hence why the akin cries before "Laura" is killed by her would be rapist.
-
etcbin1 — 9 years ago(September 08, 2016 04:37 AM)
Considering Interstellar (an overly-expositional, pretentious mess) has an 8.6 here, I am far less inclined to seriously consider IMDB in the future when making decisions on which movies to watch.
I can see this not being entertaining to a casual movie-goer considering it's not your typical film, but it's undoubtedly superbly done and a masterfully-crafted film.
Again, Interstellar was just disappointing. Nolan needs to take his ego down a notch. -
anomaleo — 9 years ago(September 08, 2016 05:22 AM)
Excellant example - Interstellar was a massive disappintment and has an awesome rating, while a truly original film like UTS is 'not for everyone, period'. I revise my OP to 'not for kids' which is the rating mass
-
The_Angry_Critic — 9 years ago(September 17, 2016 09:00 PM)
Wasn't feeling this movie at all. I have no issue with hidden meanings and such in movies, but when a movie doesn't tell you anything with minimal dialogue, it's hard to even justify anything other than average.
I did a lot of research about the movie afterwards, which did help as far as the plot goes, but I was even more infuriated by the fact I felt the movie went out of its way to be obtuse, for the sake of being obtuse. There are plenty of other movies that are though provoking and entertaining like
Her
or
Ex-Machina
that do a far better job than this movie. -
YuunofYork — 9 years ago(November 10, 2016 09:23 PM)
Of course IMDb scoring is irrelevant. Comic book reboots are consistently over 8/10 and Interstellar is sitting in the top 50 right now for some reason - what more proof do you need? If that is people's idea of the best SF film we can make right now then there's really no point worrying what people think.
It's getting easier and easier to distribute independent films but harder to get people to see them, and so harder to find the backing to make them. The average movie-goer is under 25 and sees less than 10 films a year in theaters, mostly in the summer, and the ratings here reflect this. -
Falconeer — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 06:32 PM)
The word isn't "weird" in this case. It's "stupid." I'm sorry to say, the average moviegoer is just too simple to appreciate a film like this, for what it is. What makes this obvious is the angry tone of some of the comments here; unimaginative, simplistic comments like "it's crap" barely hide the frustration these people feel. When people don't understand something they tend to insult it and call it garbage, mainly to hide their own lack of intelligence. This is a wonderful site, but of course those star ratings are completely ridiculous. I mean, look at the kind of people voting for films. Not only are these boards filled with the uneducated, but they are also swarming with kids, who obviously won't appreciate something like this. As far as "Under the Skin" goes, I would give it 8/10 for it's sheer beauty and unique approach, as well as the tense, sometimes sad atmosphere that it creates. It is a film that requires the viewer to "think;" something that many people hate to do. I almost never rate a film with 10 stars; it is almost impossible that something can be that absolutely perfect. I think I rated Elem Klimov's "Come and See," the Russian war film, with 10 stars. That rating should be reserved for films that made film history with their "Greatness." I also gave "Adventures of Prince Achmed" 10 stars. That is the first ever "animated" feature, consisting of paper cut outs and stop action photography that is an absolute miracle of it's time. "Under the Skin" is an excellent film, but it is not quite "10 star" territory..
Fabio Testi is GOD -
jbaker1-2 — 6 years ago(March 06, 2020 04:41 AM)
And there it is. I knew sooner or later one of you pretentious assholes would play the "you're just too stupid to get it" card. For most of you, it's the only weapon in your "arsenal."
There are 8.2 billion people in the world. 8.19 billion of them have never heard of and don't give a fuck about Charlie Kirk. Get over it.