I can't believe I watched the whole thing
-
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 -
goldencut — 10 years ago(December 29, 2015 02:43 PM)
I quite like SJ's ass, and rest of her body, and I think MANY would agree. Her acting isn't much to look at, though. After 'Lost in translation' I started to watch SJ's movies, and finally, after 'Lucy' I stopped. It's just not there. I was so young back then And this movie is just boring and contrived. Ad-maker, pulling all his tricks, trying to make the jump to big league. Many of the sequences in the movie looked like they were ads (the intro, the black shiny floor scenes, underwater scene etc) and rest was just boring. The scenic shots were somewhat enjoyable but that's not a movie. Even all the nudity can't save this one. And male erections aren't that controversial in this age of endless internet porn - media's not gonna start writing about the movie just because of those
-
Mehki_Girl — 10 years ago(January 06, 2016 03:34 PM)
WTF???? I haven't seen her ass yet, but from what I can see, she looks like she weighs 98lbs soaking wet. Every dog loves a bone (I guess).
http://www.auplod.com/u/dalpuo430da.png
(\ v /)
(='.'=) -
awsmith — 10 years ago(April 03, 2016 08:42 PM)
In my opinion Scarlett has some lumbar lordosis, which tends to make her rear end a bit more prominent than it would be if the curvature of her lower spine were not as prominent. It is a bit unfortunate because it could cause her to experience low back pain as she gets older.
Death tugs at my ear & says: Live; I am coming. -
znapper — 9 years ago(December 23, 2016 06:29 PM)
Although the movie sucked rather hairy donkey nuts, I find Scarlett to be a natural beauty.
Her body looks amazing and natural and also healthy, those size zero chicks you are obviously into, are mostly sick with no energyand it doesn't look good at all.
A woman with a visible six-pack is underweight by any medical standard, anywhere.
Hate the film all you want, but don't go off being an beep just because she is a healthy woman. -
Falconeer — 9 years ago(January 09, 2017 04:47 PM)
Yeah totally bro; this was like Godard crap, or that butthole Bertolucci. I think she was like an alien or something but I'm not sure because I didn't see a spaceship. She does have a big butt too. Maybe a smaller butt would have made this a good movie. Or at least one car chase. Or maybe if Tarantino directed. That man is God. Screw all this art crap. But Kardashians dude; they totally rule, and I love reality tv. Just be glad it wasn't subtitled because subtitles=crap bro. If they can't speak American than I'm not wasting my time..
Fabio Testi is GOD
