Under The Skin Review

Released back in March, Jonathan Glazer’s latest film Under the Skin is one that has been praised by critics but panned by “cinema-goers”. I’m not a big fan of overly-pretentious crap that tries too hard. Either I lack the patience or the capacity to read into ambiguous shots of nothing and drawn out sequences that revolve around random imagery and convoluted editing. So Under the Skin’s theatrical trailer didn’t especially sell me. That being said, the premise of an alien “succubus” prowling and luring the simple-minded folk of Glasgow to be processed into a delicacy back home, is one that is hard to overlook. And then there’s the whole “never judge a book by…..” proverb which I’ve unfortunately forgotten to abide by a few times. 

Originally a book written by Michel Faber, Under The Skin had a rather turbulent pre-production span. The screenplay changed hands between numerous writers and underwent constant tweaking too. Taking a step back from the uncomfortable detail and ferocity of the book, Jonathan Glazer and screenwriter Walter Campbell have maintained the shocking and unsettled nature of the novel, but have used the visual essence of the film to create a “dreamscape” exploring the realms of surrealism, ambience and ambiguity. This might sound pretentious enough, but Under The Skin remains an “experience” above all else. Yes there’s a narrative and a basic three act structure, but to categorise it would be a challenge. Loosely blending elements from horror, sci-fi, thriller and drama, even after watching it twice I still can’t determine it’s genre.  

Scarlett Johansson’s performance is one of subtly. While I wouldn’t go as far as saying it’s “iconic”, as some have commended, she proves to be an enchanting temptress, managing to convey the alien’s changing temperament towards humanity and “her” occupation. While her blank expressions, and failed concept of human interaction can be slightly awkward at times, she strangely builds a sympathetic angle towards her situation. That being said, there really isn’t a true “character” in the film. The supporting cast, which consists of a mixture of professional actors and the actual “hapless victims“ from the streets of Glasgow, don’t leave a lasting impression. But that’s to be expected with a plot of an extraterrestrial stalking young males to their cold and isolated doom. 

Glazer has employed both atmosphere and tension to create a production that’s captivating and engaging. Under The Skin presents this through both its soundtrack and imagery. Mica Levi’s soundtrack is one that further adds to the general unease of the film. The three note melody of long stringed notes and altered pitch, mixed with plodding percussion provides a hypnotic trance that sends chills down the spine. The entire soundtrack for that matter, creates a surreal and rather uncomfortable atmosphere that matches perfectly with the film’s dreamy cinematography and the actual events that take place. The track “Love” perfectly demonstrates the flowing and transforming nature of the story and personality, with a blend of drawn out inflections in tone and intensity. 

The overriding aura of pretentious filmmaking is one that the film narrowly avoids.  The use of overly long, panning and random wide shots are still here, but a wise level of restraint has been employed. The varied and beautiful landscapes of Scotland are tinted into a dreary haze that conceals the hidden disposition and dangers in each location. And the visual styling towards the actual “harvesting-process” is simply stunning. My only issue is the lack of explanation. We easily comprehend the basic story the film presents, but it becomes overly difficult and cryptic to fully understand the events, especially in the third act. I like a film with ambiguity, but there’s a certain point where it can cause a loss in focus or purpose and Under The Skin’s ambiguity is near fatal. While I myself was still able to produce a smile as the credits rolled, I’m not sure others will share the same admiration and sentiment. 

Under The Skin will undoubtably be on my favourites list of 2014. While I can understand many’s frustration towards the film’s pretentiousness, I feel that it just about avoids “flying up its own arse”. A strong performance by Scarlett Johansson, and the film’s hypnotic shifts to the senses, Under The Skin is an experience that left me deeply satisfied but slightly traumatised. There are easy ways to turn this concept into an action film or an X-Files episode (I’m sure there’s probably been one). But Glazer has crafted something that looks and sounds distinct and entrancing. With an unnerving soundtrack and some gorgeous cinematography, Under The Skin isn’t one to take lightly. 

Prometheus Review

Prometheus (2012) 

Alien has long been the pinnacle of “sci-fi” and “horror” cinema. With amazing production design, interesting characters and an intense atmosphere, Ridley Scott created a film that reinvigorated a genre that was dwindling in ludicrous serial killers and rotting zombies. James Cameron’s Aliens treaded into the action genre as a thoroughly entertaining, if not slightly too over-the-top addition to the franchise. Meanwhile David Fincher’s Alien3 and Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Alien Resurrection were panned by the critics and also the fans. Prometheus stands as the prequel to the Alien franchise. Being heavily pushed via an impressive viral and marketing campaign, the question of whether it was going to live up to the hype was always in the back of fans’ minds. And while it succeeds as a piece of visually stunning “sci-fi” cinema, some major flaws hold it back from being a well-rounded experience.

The story itself isn’t vastly complex. Set in 2089, Dr. Elizabeth Shaw (Noomi Rapace) and Dr. Charlie Holloway (Logan Marshall-Green) have discovered a series of similar paintings depicting humanity’s creators in a number of ancient civilisations. An expedition is launched, funded by the Weyland Corporation, to the moon LV-223 in order to investigate the so-called “Engineers”. Not long after landing in 2093, they find themselves in the presence of something far less friendly. Prometheus, on the surface, is a simple “exploration gone bad” narrative that we’ve seen numerous times. However it tries to adds a level of sophistication and intellectual intricacy through its philosophical undercurrent and Dr. Shaw’s ties to “faith” and “God”, that all feels convoluted and almost too forced. Meanwhile Prometheus’ prequel status definitely undermines Scott’s ability to truly explore and invest in these new characters and narrative points. Instead it feels as though there was a checklist of objectives that need to be fulfilled in order for it to fit within the franchise, which similarly hindered the recent remake of The Thing.

Yet the overall pacing of the film is fast and intense. Scenes flow well and manage to create a persistent atmosphere of tension and exhilaration. It’s quite ironic then that the overall length is slightly short. Prometheus needs another 20-30 minutes to further develop its characters and for the audience to truly immerse themselves into the film and grow an attachment to these personalities. Speaking of which, Michael Fassbender’s performance as the crew’s android is simply superb and definitely the standout. There’s a subtle ambiguity towards his motives and actions that is shrouded by his almost creepy voice and interactions. Meanwhile Noomi Rapace’s delivery is questionable as her accent never really settles, but as a whole she does pretty well. The same can be said about Charlize Theron and Idris Elba, but the whole cast is unarguably hurt by a lack of dialogue, and the poor quality of what’s there. Their interactions are short and quick, never indulging in conversations that add emotional depth and intrigue. Thus their demises, however graphic, and violent never really hit home. 

One thing that is immediately evident is that Prometheus is simply gorgeous to look at. The special effects artists and set designers deserve a hell of a lot of credit in their construction of the surroundings and the environments. From the holographic interfaces to the interiors of the Prometheus and the alien temple structure, the high production values are undeniably present throughout the runtime. While nitpickers will question the technological advancement of the Prometheus over the Nostromo (Alien) or LV-426 (Aliens), there’s a cinematic sophistication to each scene’s visual composition. Similarly, the film’s score is a rich blend of tones from Jerry Goldsmith’s original score for Alien and  synthesised and industrial notes. It’s definitely a film that looks and sounds fantastic. 

In conclusion, Ridley Scott’s latest is a highly entertaining piece of “sci-fi” cinema that’s visually stunning to watch. However the narrative inconsistencies and the lack of character development truly hurt the film. It seems that for everything Prometheus does right, there’s a problem that mars the experience. I personally would question whether Prometheus should have been separated from the Alien franchise, thus allowing the freedom to explore and even transcend the boundaries of the “sci-fi” genre. But we'll never know. 

7/10

Our Audio Review: http://lights-camera-critic.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/respawningcouch-podcast-audio-review.html

Paul Review

Paul 

While Simon Pegg and Nick Frost have recently attempted to build on their individual acting careers, Paul sees the comedy duo return in a sci-fi geek adventure under director Greg Mottola. To be honest, I was apprehensive over the decision for Greg Mottola to direct Pegg and Frost’s own script. Though Superbad may have pulled in the audiences in the US and back here, I had not seen it as the comedic opus many had. However, Paul is a surprisingly hilarious piece of cinema that is truly helped by its cast and well-written script. 

The plot follows comic and sci-fi nerds Graeme Willy (Simon Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Nick Frost), as they set off on their extra-terrestrial road trip of America. En route from San Diego, they encounter Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen), a foul-mouthed alien, who requires their help to get back home. Graeme and Clive agree, resulting in a race to ‘Devils Tower’ in Wyoming ,which many will recognise as the location of Spielberg’s Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Along the way, they accidentally kidnap religious trailer park owner Ruth (played by Kristen Wiig), resulting in them being pursued by her bible-bashing, nut-job of a father (played by John Carroll Lynch). They are also being chased by the mysterious and serious Agent Zoil (Jason Bateman) and his clueless FBI agents Haggard (Bill Hader) and O’Reilly (Joe Lo Truglio), who are after Paul. 

It is clear script-wise, that Paul has been made more accessible to an American audience. Gone are the British gags from Pegg and Frost’s previous works. Instead, the clichés of modern comedy have been introduced. There is the usual childish profanity and crudeness to the film’s comedy, especially with Kristen Wiig’s character, Ruth. Her freedom from the bounds of religious fundamentalism results in a barrage of cringe-worthy ‘cock’ and ‘tits’ jokes. The awkward dance scene between the characters, and the obvious inclusion of  ‘weed’, are present and hinder a full appreciation for the film. 

Yet, Simon Pegg and Nick Frost’s script helps tackle these foreign inclusions, and is the true star of the film. It is not hard to see that Paul has been written towards a specific audience who have grown up with the likes of Star Wars, E.T., Men in Black and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The endless references to sci-fi culture are astronomical (sorry!), but really give the characters and the film a real charm and produce the majority of the laughs. From Jason Bateman’s character showing a similarity to Tommy Lee Jones performance in Men in Black, to a scene in a cowboy-style saloon which has the local band playing the music from Star Wars’s Canteen Bar scene, Paul screams ‘sci-fi geekness’, clearly mirroring the two actor/writer’s personalities and childhood memories. I found myself on Wikipedia after the film, trying to work out the abundance of references which further helped in my enjoyment. 

Paul himself has been imposed into the film unbelievably well. His stereotypical look (think Space Raiders Crisp’s alien), actually has a creative and funny back-story. Yet while the CGI isn’t going to win any awards, it does its job well and doesn’t come off awkward. Seth Rogen’s voice acting is typical Seth Rogen but brings a different and contrasting persona to the characters of Graeme and Clive. The majority of the cast does well, with Bill Hader and Joe Lo Truglio forming an early American version of Pegg and Frost’s comedic partnership. Yet, Pegg and Frost come off slightly underwhelming when compared to Hot Fuzz and Shawn of the Dead. The change in director has affected the normally strong, comedic relationship between the two. However they still remain funny and play off well with the introduction of Paul

One issue that hindered my impression of Paul surrounds the barrage of trailers before its release. Trailers have recently become more and more saturated with ‘spoilers’ and clips from the actual film. This certainly affected the first 30 minutes of Paul, as the majority of the gags and jokes had already been shown. Yet, after this period the film came into its own, delivering an entertaining story. 

It is a shame that Paul will always be compared to the likes of Shawn of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. And I think this has and will damage the interpretation and the reception of Paul. While it may contain the same two actors and the quirky/ geeky references, Paul stands separate from Pegg and Frost’s previous works. It is a fantastic, entertaining comedy that is helped by a comic cast and witty script, giving a well needed break from the recent bombardment of award winning cinema.

7/10