I can't believe I watched the whole thing
-
exaybachay84 — 9 years ago(December 22, 2016 06:18 PM)
She's not an alien. She's just a black woman with no vagina who wears white people suits made by Buffalo Bill from Silence of the Lambs. I think we can all agree that his work has improved significantly since 1991
Oh, and Scarlett was just a marketing ploy to sucker people in to watching this piece of garbage.
Producer #1: How in the world are we going to get people to watch Glazer's goofy movie about deformed men learning to swim?
Producer #2: We'll add a naked chick.
Producer #1: Awesome, brah!
While I love the movie, this is absolutely hilarious!
Do you have any tobacco? -
CorumJI — 10 years ago(December 01, 2015 05:07 PM)
"scarlett has a giant ass " https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S9RVS8cjNN0
and i truly see no problem with this.
It is, unfortunately, a giant
FLABBY
ass.
I have no doubt she loses noticeable weight when playing Black Widow. Or even Lucy. She didn't bother for this flick.
The problem is, she looks markedly
mediocre
. Which is
disappointing
.
Given that the film is a surrealistic piece of junk ranking right up there with Zardoz in incomprehensibility and pointlessness, her, naked, was the only thing the film actually had going for it. And it failed on that part, too.
I got what they were going for. It was just exceptionally weird and, in the end,
utterly
pointless
.
It said nothing about humans, aliens, or any other worthy message one might derive from anything that sucked more than 90 minutes from your life There are worse films out there, but few than have or had modern-equivalent basic-level production values. -
bigjohnnyhandsome — 10 years ago(December 31, 2015 02:44 PM)
It is, unfortunately, a giant FLABBY ass.
True. Very true.
I have no doubt she loses noticeable weight when playing Black Widow. Or even Lucy. She didn't bother for this flick.
Doubt it. It looks big in those, too. Those tight clothes she wears double as an ass-corset.
The problem is, she looks markedly mediocre. Which is disappointing.
At best. I find her very unattractive. -
Drive-in567 — 10 years ago(January 18, 2016 06:00 PM)
I find her very unattractive
Not to be mean but please see an eye doctor.
http://surgerystars.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/Scarlett-Johansson-breast-reduction.jpg -
visionbrett — 10 years ago(January 14, 2016 05:41 AM)
Had no problem with her ass.the problem was the movie itself. It seemed like the director just wanted to hang out with her and see her naked and made some crap film around that, even though whatever this was took 10 years. The "plot" of the film is no more than a 15 minute short and to watch the whole thing was absolutely painfully boring. This ranks as one of the worst movies I have ever seen. There are worse
made
movies for sure but to disagree with the main review - this movie is very pretentious. SPOILER:
The only redeemable things were the effects of the bones popping out and at the end, her skin coming off - again, well within a 15 minute short. -
tazmanian666 — 10 years ago(October 01, 2015 03:33 PM)
She hasn't got a 'giant' ass, she's got a great
ass and nothing like the kardishians etc
Your obviously used to looking at a guys ass!
Scarlett is a woman. Women are a different gender to men,
See
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=definition+of+woman&es_sm=122&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAWoVChMIwvnkiKaiyAIVTLoaCh38IQuF&biw=1920&bih=1085#tbm=isch&q=womans+shape
Okay, good thats sorted. I shall be asking questions next week.
In the meantime, do some revision on the following pics
http://forums.superiorpics.com/ubbthreads/ubbthreads.php/topics/1842317/Scarlett_Johansson_Butt_Shots_ -
CorumJI — 10 years ago(December 01, 2015 05:13 PM)
Dude, it's a giant ass, and, worse, it was flabby as She looks no better than any 30# overweight hooker in some amateur porn film with all the inserts cut out.
I grasp she's not always as hot as she is in a 50 million dollar film where she's making a million bucks, but, at least, when Haley Berry decided to do a nude scene, she buffed up for it.
Combine this with the pointless and surreal elements of the film, you couldn't have made a more obvious example of "
How do we make a film that's utter and still get people to pay for it?
" -
yaiknow — 10 years ago(November 19, 2015 01:30 PM)
I can understand some disappointment if one did not know what kind of movie they were getting into. However, seduction did happenmaybe not the way most would liked to have seen it. Pretty sure she walked that way because that's how the director told her to. This does not seem to out of the ordinary since she already has a hard time acting normal to begin with. If you think these scenes were disjointed I suggest you not watch "Pulp Fiction". Although you probably have and even liked it. This film is not for everyone to enjoy just like people's preference for their favorite color. It seems it was probably a little to abstract for ya. Takes some critical thinking to enjoy. If you need help picking your favorite color, ask someone.
-
logan-duk-dong — 10 years ago(November 19, 2015 02:11 PM)
Black. I select black. It's the official color of this movie. It's all I wear and all the dudes on my street now know that I'm one of the elite, one who speaks the language of art and cinema, one who understands the beauty of a film where someone drives around Scotland for 2 hours stuffing people into the back of their car. We're the best.
-
CorumJI — 10 years ago(December 01, 2015 05:42 PM)
Amazing though it might seem to you, this movie sucks and fails. It's like a Hoover with no electrical cord.
It makes German language films like "The Tin Drum" look utterly rational and sensible.
It's a surreal piece of crud that ranks right up there with Zardoz for its incomprehensible and senselessly pointless non-story, both of which have a fairly major star in it as the only reason ANYONE has given either of them the time of day.
The main difference is, Sean Connery at least looked reasonably buff (though balding) for HIS senseless movie. Scarlett didn't bother. She's easily 20# overweight, and she's short enough that that makes a huge difference.
However, seduction did happen
No, not really. It was more "scripted mesmerism" than it was "seduction":
"Look into her eyes"
"Now follow like a zombie to your doom"
There was nothing seductive about it. No rational individual would have followed her a fraction of where she went. Even a desperately horny male.
If you think these scenes were disjointed I suggest you not watch "Pulp Fiction".
There is a difference between "scenes that have little observable connection or reason" and a non-linear story. While one might not get what was happening in PF immediately, it didn't take too long to Get It. One did not Get It in UtS because there was nothing to Get. It had some interesting and cool photography. Kudos to the cinematographer for that. The director, however, should never be hired to direct a film ever again. Ditto whatever "writer" might have been involved.
This film is not for everyone to enjoy just like people's preference for their favorite color.
This film isn't for
anyone
to enjoy unless they're stupid and clueless enough to have bought into all the BS their film professor fed them wholesale.
There's a reason why most film professors are professors, and not directors, just as there's a reason most literary critics are critics and not writers. They both lack actual talent for anything but making up Absolute Bovine Excreta.
My favorite story in this regard is one told by
Jerry O'Connell
he was cast, when quite young and rather pudgy, by
Rob Reiner
to be a supporting actor in
Stand By Me
. Years later, he attended college and was in a film class where the professor chose to "analyze" Stand By Me, and kept making various observations about the film to the class, particularly what the director was telling the actors, etc., and what he wanted from them in various scenes which O'Connell (by then notably leaner and fairly good looking, nothing like the "fat kid" he played in SxM) was repeatedly and pointedly disagreeing with. Finally, the professor turned on him and demanded how he thought he knew so much more than the professor. He just pointed up at the screen, and identified himself. The professor, of course, had no response. His BS had been called out by someone who literally knew the reality of what the director was asking his actors for, and what the director's motives were, behind at least some of the scenes
Film professors are usually idiots with no clue. Or perhaps more aptly,
Emperors With No Clothes
.
P.S.,
Stand By Me
? VASTLY better film than
Under The Skin
. One of the best coming of age movies ever made. Anyone reading this wants a good film to wash the crud from Under The Skin off their eyes, and is in the mood for a "light coming of age drama", this would be a good choice. -
Shudder1 — 10 years ago(December 28, 2015 04:35 PM)
CorumJI - why don't you stick to simpler films in future, so you can save the rest of us from your ignorance.
A few points;
If you only watch a film because you've heard it may have one of your favourite (female) Hollywood stars getting naked in it then you're missing the point. I'm sure Scarlett Johansson has turned down plenty of other offers to get naked in films before. As an attractive A-list actress, I'm sure numerous producers would love to make money from an opportunity like that, and she has no doubt turned these roles down.
The reason she has chosen a role such as that in Under The Skin is precisely because it is different from most of the generic films being made, and because it gives her the opportunity to explore something different with an exceptionally well regarded director. An actress like her picks and chooses her roles, she doesn't just do whatever comes along so she can stay busy and get paid a few bucks.
The idea that because she might not have been paid as much on this film as some other films, and therefore didn't bother to lose weight, is completely ridiculous. She took a big gamble taking on a role like this at all, and has made herself very vulnerable by going fully nude in a film, so she has clearly completely committed to this project. Probably more so than to most of her previous roles. She and the director are playing with representations of female sexuality, and what it means to look attractive or otherwise, and what it feels like to be 'alien'. Clearly she and Glazer have decided she should look like a natural, attractive woman who might believably be driving around the highlands of Scotland, even though she is clearly still much classier and more 'alien' than the men she encounters - rather than her looking like an airbrushed Hollywood sexy babe - which is clearly all you are capable of thinking about.
Finally your point about why anyone would allow themselves to be 'seduced' by her. Firstly, as I'm sure you've witnessed yourself, any half-decent looking girl in a club, on a dating site, or even on the bus gets endless attention and approaches from men. So it's hardly a stretch to think that someone who looks like Scarlett Johansson would be able to coax men into her van if she asks them for directions.
Secondly, please do at least a tiny bit of research before writing such nonsense. I didn't even need to theorise as I did above, since this film was shot using hidden cameras in the van. Then men she meets are real, and don't initially realise they are being filmed, or meeting Scarlett Johansson. So clearly her 'seduction' works, because those are real men, who fall for it. Only later - during the simulated sexual encounters in the dark space - were they aware they were being filmed. If you're mature enough to consider it, it's quite an interesting dynamic.
Grow up a bit please, if you want to discuss grown up films
