Read Negative User Reviews for Under the Skin

0

csw12Aug 3, 2014

Besides the fact the movie made absolutely no sense, there were scenes were literally nothing was happening. The silence throughout the movie begins to grow painful and combine that with a monotonous pace and horrible images and you have oneBesides the fact the movie made absolutely no sense, there were scenes were literally nothing was happening. The silence throughout the movie begins to grow painful and combine that with a monotonous pace and horrible images and you have one of the worst movies of the year.… Expand

10 of 12 users found this helpful102

All this user's reviews

3

horusmaximusJul 16, 2014

Well, 95% of the people out there are not going to like this at all. They beat you over the head with their ham-handed attempt to be artsy drawing out monotonous scenes way beyond the point where you "get it" to the point where you press theWell, 95% of the people out there are not going to like this at all. They beat you over the head with their ham-handed attempt to be artsy drawing out monotonous scenes way beyond the point where you "get it" to the point where you press the fast forward button... alot. That will be how you'll watch this, finger never leaving the fast-forward button. Unless you are stoned... then you might not notice you've been staring at a dot on the screen for 15 minutes, or looking at someone sitting in their vehicle doing NOTHING for 5- 10 minutes for the 5th time. Fast-forward is your friend.

I'm giving it a 3 for these reasons, Scarlett Johansson takes her close off a lot (+2 initially then -1 for somehow making that monotonous), its science fiction (+2 but taking a point back after reading about the book it was based on and realizing they've ruined any chance of ever getting to see a decent movie based on that premise), and I'll give them another point for using actors that didn't initially know they were in a movie. Again, this is something I didn't know when I sat down to watch it but after reading up on the production, I thought that was worthy of a point for initiative and an uncommon approach to filming a sci fi movie.

It might have made a really good short film of about 20 minutes or less, but utterly fails as a feature film. They just really obviously had to stretch out the monotony to drag things out to the number of minutes they felt they needed. Watch the first 5 minutes. Turn it off. If you still feel compelled to watch it, you'll probably be in that 5% that likes to be hypnotised or something. The rest of you will thank me for the hour and a half or so of your lives I've just saved you. I'll split the difference with you and you can send me what a couple hours of your time is worth to my PayPal account.… Expand

6 of 8 users found this helpful62

All this user's reviews

0

behtAug 1, 2014

My mind is absolutely blown by the positive reviews of this insufferable movie. When I read the positive reviews from some folks saying, "Nothing happens in this movie," I thought great, I'll probably love it, as I loved the Tree of Life byMy mind is absolutely blown by the positive reviews of this insufferable movie. When I read the positive reviews from some folks saying, "Nothing happens in this movie," I thought great, I'll probably love it, as I loved the Tree of Life by Terrence Mallick. No I don't need a plot, no I don't mind a slow movie, yes, I love an elusive movie.

This is some of those things but so, so much less! People seem to be satisfied with, wonderful shots, such as the child on the beach. "That was a unique shot." To them I say SO WHAT!? Go to a gallery then to stare at some wonderful photographs or paintings. I don't mind lack of narrative, but this movie has lack of interest, lack of anything. No, you don't have to be a Hollywood movie lover to "not get" this movie or to never want to watch it again, or to recommend it to no one.… Expand

8 of 11 users found this helpful83

All this user's reviews

0

elvenkingJul 28, 2014

That was like a torture. 80% of this film was standing still Scarlett Johansson, still images and boring driving scenes. I'll never buy a blu-ray disk by the combined metaciritic-user score (78 metaciritic and 6.9 user by now). if you likeThat was like a torture. 80% of this film was standing still Scarlett Johansson, still images and boring driving scenes. I'll never buy a blu-ray disk by the combined metaciritic-user score (78 metaciritic and 6.9 user by now). if you like sci-fi movies, don`t watch it. If you like drama movies don`t watch it.
- If you like nonsense and torture.
- If you want to be the first person to like a movie that none of your friend liked before.
- Or if you want to impress a person because you`ve watched a sci-fi - drama - art movie
then even in this situations don`t watch.
Read a detailed spoiler and just 50x fastplay, without sound watch it. First half of the film was a greater torture. I considered minimum 4 times quit watching and countless times fast forwarding (That was first time in my life). God please help me to forget this experience. What a waste of time… Expand

8 of 12 users found this helpful84

All this user's reviews

3

metasamMay 5, 2014

3 things I LOVE in a film: Stunning Visuals. Science Fiction. Scarlett Johansson. Given everything it had going for it I assumed an evocative story would be in store. I assumed wrong. So. So. So. Wrong. Next Stanley Kubrik? Please. This music3 things I LOVE in a film: Stunning Visuals. Science Fiction. Scarlett Johansson. Given everything it had going for it I assumed an evocative story would be in store. I assumed wrong. So. So. So. Wrong. Next Stanley Kubrik? Please. This music video director needs to get over himself.… Expand

13 of 20 users found this helpful137

All this user's reviews

2

jaxmanjoeApr 21, 2014

Wow. Even Scarlett Johansson's nudity couldn't save this 'artistic' piece from the monotone drone of alternating silence and annoying buzzing to the entirely uninteresting and utterly forgetful character development of the lead. TheWow. Even Scarlett Johansson's nudity couldn't save this 'artistic' piece from the monotone drone of alternating silence and annoying buzzing to the entirely uninteresting and utterly forgetful character development of the lead. The director's failure to get you the least bit interested in the character's development is a fatal flaw which leaves you mired in one boring shot after another. Symbolic? Sure. Do you care at all? No. There is nothing gripping and it ends as disappointingly as it plods along from the beginning. People walked out and for good reason. I stayed because I hoped for redemption at the end. FAIL.… Expand

12 of 21 users found this helpful129

All this user's reviews

0

sponkeymonkeyOct 24, 2014

Dumbest movie ever
Biggest waste of time in my life
Nothing good ever happend in this movie Just when you think it might have a slite chance of picking up and something interesting is going to happen...BOOM,,,it doesnt Ugh i was so dangDumbest movie ever
Biggest waste of time in my life
Nothing good ever happend in this movie
Just when you think it might have a slite chance of picking up and something interesting is going to happen...BOOM,,,it doesnt
Ugh i was so dang mad when this ended. HORRIBLE HORRIBLE movie… Expand

4 of 7 users found this helpful43

All this user's reviews

3

nicholasbertJun 26, 2014

I was really disappointed by this film. The trailer promised a lot more than it would eventually deliver. The comparisons with the works of Stanley Kubrick (whom I dislike) and Terrence Malick (whom I like) are ridiculous. I'd rather see thisI was really disappointed by this film. The trailer promised a lot more than it would eventually deliver. The comparisons with the works of Stanley Kubrick (whom I dislike) and Terrence Malick (whom I like) are ridiculous. I'd rather see this as more similar to David Lynch, though, again, comparison is ridiculous. The amateur look of the shots is not intentional, evidently: it's just this is an amateur film, only made with a lot of money and starring Scarlett Johansson; with all the flaws, the inexperience and the pretentiousness and none of the genuineness, the back-to-the-roots feel, or the love for film history an actual amateur film would feature.

In conclusion, it's not worth it. The visuals are good, but they're used in all the wrong places for all the wrong reasons. In order to be symbolic, there would need to be symbols somewhere. There aren't. There are fetishes which appear to be symbols, but they are just put there to make you think they mean something. It's a trap. Don't fall for it. This gets a 3 because Scarlett Johansson is somewhat good, because at least they made the effort for an original score, and because I gave a 2 to "Gravity" which is still worse than this.… Expand

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

0

bdmckellMay 17, 2014

Terrible. It comes off like an attempt to gain some kind of cult film following, but it was the most painful 2 hours i've ever spent in a movie theater. Just not worth the watch, not even for Scarlet Johannson.

7 of 13 users found this helpful76

All this user's reviews

3

TVJerryApr 19, 2014

Scarlett Johansson drives around in a van trying to pick up men, as some sort of otherworldy creature (probably alien) who lures them into a seductive death. For long stretches the most exciting thing she does is put on and take off herScarlett Johansson drives around in a van trying to pick up men, as some sort of otherworldy creature (probably alien) who lures them into a seductive death. For long stretches the most exciting thing she does is put on and take off her seatbelt. When she veers from her routine, the mystery of her existence is slowly peeled away, but never fully explained. Haunting, repetitive music and some interesting special effects add to the creepy scenario. There is a certain uniqueness in the direction that is compelling, but overall, this is mysterious minimalism at it's most tedious.… Expand

9 of 17 users found this helpful98

All this user's reviews

3

ozymandias79Jun 27, 2014

Most of this film is Scarlett Johansson driving and walking (albeit often in underwear). ScarJo does a good job of portraying a creepy stalking alien but there's almost no plot which becomes obvious very quickly. Keep the remote close,Most of this film is Scarlett Johansson driving and walking (albeit often in underwear). ScarJo does a good job of portraying a creepy stalking alien but there's almost no plot which becomes obvious very quickly. Keep the remote close, because you'll be hitting fast forward a lot!… Expand

7 of 14 users found this helpful77

All this user's reviews

0

critic9Jul 20, 2014

If your only goal is to see Scarlet Johansson naked, then this is the film to watch as she is nude through 80% of it. However, don't expect real dialogue, an interesting storyline or a point to this film. Basically, a beautiful woman (alienIf your only goal is to see Scarlet Johansson naked, then this is the film to watch as she is nude through 80% of it. However, don't expect real dialogue, an interesting storyline or a point to this film. Basically, a beautiful woman (alien in human form) drives around in a truck at night seducing dumb, horny men with superficial conversation. She takes them back to her house/cave and walks them into a black tar-like pit where they drown & are never heard from again. Repeat 10 times, the end. The only way this movie could have been worse is if it were a double-feature with Jake Gyllenhall's film "Enemy". So glad I didn't pay to see this mess in the theatre, but still bummed I wasted about a buck on it. I'll never get that dollar, or those 2 hours of my life back. :(… Expand

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

All this user's reviews

0

wallaceja09Aug 2, 2014

The whole move is a complete disappointment for me. It starts slow, and I would say it ends slow, but there really isn't much of an ending. But whatever it does in the final minutes of the movie, it does that slow as well.

I understandThe whole move is a complete disappointment for me. It starts slow, and I would say it ends slow, but there really isn't much of an ending. But whatever it does in the final minutes of the movie, it does that slow as well.

I understand that many people see much that is deep visually and metaphorically, but lets be real. This movie was not about entertainment. I don't know what anyone saw in any scene to be called "beautiful" or when exactly the plot was "mindblowing" because it simply never did anything for me.

The plot was simple, unoriginal. The music was fitting (I guess) since it matched the movie's content (of which there was very little). Now while I do like many of the modern action films full of explosions, I also really love anything that makes me think. This one only made me think of why I bothered sitting through this entire movie. Again, nothing was visually all that appealing. Special effects at times reminded me either of a movie made in the 60s or 70s or perhaps just a super crappy 80s B movie.

Bash modern films as you will, but they were certainly much more appealing visually than this one. Personally there was more depth to the script, the visuals, the effects, the story, the everything in a movie like Transformers (gasps all around), and I only watch those movies to watch explosions! I don't even expect good acting or good stories out of the Transformer movies, but wow they really beat up on Under the Skin in every conceivable way.

I guess if you want an awkward movie that is predictable, that gives you nothing, that makes you consider sleeping or turning it off, look no further because it's here.… Expand

6 of 12 users found this helpful66

All this user's reviews

2

ilovegames32Aug 22, 2014

I've watched and enjoyed movies like rubber, anti-christ and even kung pow:fist of legend but this? I just couldn't get into it at all. I think you have to make up your own story since there isn't one here...is she an alien? a demon? a witchI've watched and enjoyed movies like rubber, anti-christ and even kung pow:fist of legend but this? I just couldn't get into it at all. I think you have to make up your own story since there isn't one here...is she an alien? a demon? a witch maybe? take your pic and run with it because i guess that's the point! she spends most of the movie driving around trying(and occasionally succeeding) to pick up guys,takes them to her.....home? dark void? black abyss filled with water maybe? heck if i know, but i do know that once these poor souls went in, they never returned for you see, they willingly(hypnotized? their body was numb once they entered her home and couldn't feel the water....maybe?) walked into the water and....well, they didn't drown but instead, had their skin taken, actually, all of their organs were removed and only the skin remained. At first i was wondering why she (it?) was killing since theirs seems to be no apparent reason but later i assumed "it" needed the skin of men but the last 25+ minutes of the movie has her(it?) roaming around aimlessly, riding buses, not being able to have sex for some strange reason,almost getting raped,getting gas thrown on her only to die a fiery death in a snow filled forest...... this movie just sucked since you havent the slightest idea of what's happening in front of you, it's like the director said....hey we'll just roll with it and hope the audience gets it! I just couldn't get into it, i just couldn't like this movie at all. 2/10… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

virginiaproudJan 10, 2015

I absolutely loved this book but the movie, what a waste of time. After the the first 15 mins I discovered you can fast forward this entire film at 2x and not miss a thing. Everything is so agonisingly drawn out and with absence of anyI absolutely loved this book but the movie, what a waste of time. After the the first 15 mins I discovered you can fast forward this entire film at 2x and not miss a thing. Everything is so agonisingly drawn out and with absence of any meaningful dialogue it actually feels like you're watching in normal time! The whole thing is Scarlett driving or standing with a dopey slack jawed expression - it's not remotely sexy or entertaining to watch her, nothing is conveyed, and not even for the occasional absence of her clothes is it worth sitting though this huge stinking pile or nonsense.… Expand

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

0

makdrumzNov 22, 2014

This is the worst piece of sh1t i 've ever watched in my life. DO NOT WASTE your precious hours of life, watching this abomination. Even thinking about it makes me wanna puke. You may thank me in advance.

4 of 9 users found this helpful45

All this user's reviews

1

celluheadApr 6, 2014

Heavily indebted to Kubrik, Roeg and Cunningham, but just boring really... let's all look at the underclass and stroke our beards as we pontificate what it all means - well I know, it means I just got ripped off £14. good music though so IHeavily indebted to Kubrik, Roeg and Cunningham, but just boring really... let's all look at the underclass and stroke our beards as we pontificate what it all means - well I know, it means I just got ripped off £14. good music though so I gave it 1.… Expand

7 of 17 users found this helpful710

All this user's reviews

1

dave89791Apr 25, 2014

(-)Virtually no plot
(-)Extremely boring
(+)You get to see Scarlett Johansson naked (i.e., why it has a 1 instead of a 0)

If you like movies like Tree of Life, you will like this movie, otherwise, avoid

8 of 20 users found this helpful812

All this user's reviews

2

EludiumQ36Aug 9, 2014

There are people that dig this style of weird, mostly silent, long-scene film and there are those like me, that don't. If you're going to use this style, which taxes the hell out of one's attention, then there has to be a big payoff of someThere are people that dig this style of weird, mostly silent, long-scene film and there are those like me, that don't. If you're going to use this style, which taxes the hell out of one's attention, then there has to be a big payoff of some sort, and that's what this lacked. Hence, it's mostly a waste of your time. I'd wager reading the source material would be better.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

1

LesfromSanDiegoSep 28, 2014

The king's not wearing any clothes! Really, can't believe that the critics like this movie so much. Reminded me of a Bergman movie with less happening or "Waiting for Godot" with no dialogue. No story. No moral. Many loose ends. HighlyThe king's not wearing any clothes! Really, can't believe that the critics like this movie so much. Reminded me of a Bergman movie with less happening or "Waiting for Godot" with no dialogue. No story. No moral. Many loose ends. Highly recommend you skip this movie even if it is free.… Expand

2 of 5 users found this helpful23

All this user's reviews

3

xlazarusJul 20, 2014

This is not a film but rather a collection of abstract scenes. The plot devices and attempts at narrative feel shoehorned and out of place. The characters are hollow, wooden, boring. Johanssen's performance seems absurd as she bounces betweenThis is not a film but rather a collection of abstract scenes. The plot devices and attempts at narrative feel shoehorned and out of place. The characters are hollow, wooden, boring. Johanssen's performance seems absurd as she bounces between charismatic dialogue and robotic set-pieces. This is a disappointment. A film that seethes with potential but never delivers.

- x… Expand

3 of 8 users found this helpful35

All this user's reviews

2

finetunesDec 8, 2014

This review contains spoilers, click expand to view. I rated it a 2 because of Scarlett Johansson; if it had been Melissa McCarthy I would have given it a zero.
The main message of this movie is that life (and this movie) is long, lonely and boring unless you are having sex.
A "man cave" is one thing but an "alien cave" is a whole different matter.
One of the messages the movie conveys (which every man knows and no woman will ever believe) is that a man doesn't care what a woman's house looks like, just as long as he's gonna get laid.
There was another very enlightening concept in the movie - when S.J's character is in the restaurant and all the patrons turn and stare at her and realize that she is an alien because humans never gag on dessert.
Spoiler alert: Scarlett Johansson's character was played by a black person!… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

3

LynJan 18, 2015

Do they give a Weirdest Film Oscar? We have a winner! I get it -- critics looove Scarlett Johansson, whether they get to see her naked body (this film) or are forced to imagine it ("Her"). And she is luminous in this arty movie ...Do they give a Weirdest Film Oscar? We have a winner! I get it -- critics looove Scarlett Johansson, whether they get to see her naked body (this film) or are forced to imagine it ("Her"). And she is luminous in this arty movie ... drivingdrivingdriving stripping, drivingdrivingdriving stripping, fastening her alien eyes on gullible Earthlings willing to follow her anywhere. The creepy-crackly soundtrack is apt but can't quite make up for the lack of meaningful dialogue. If I hadn't read about the sci-fi subtext, I would have been even more mystified, and that's my main problem with the film. If it doesn't make sense without advance research, something's wrong.… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

0

MurrayTFeb 7, 2015

The only good thing about this movie is that it allowed me to replace Saw 3 as the worst movie I've ever seen. If someone wanted to torture me they'd just have to make me watch this completely useless and pointless piece of crap again.

1 of 5 users found this helpful14

All this user's reviews

0

tommyk154Mar 28, 2015

There is no way this movie was made to be watch while not under the influence. This is the worst, most boring, most stupid movie I've ever seen. There is no plot and no explanation at any point of what's going on. The characters don't haveThere is no way this movie was made to be watch while not under the influence. This is the worst, most boring, most stupid movie I've ever seen. There is no plot and no explanation at any point of what's going on. The characters don't have names and barely speak. The "critics" have no idea what a good movie is, because this certainly isn't one. To be fair it's more like a 2/10 due to Scarlett Johansson's full frontal nudity, but I'm giving it a 0 to balance out the ratings, because all kidding aside this is the worst movie ever made. Like worse than Manos Hands of Fate… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

0

sicranoApr 8, 2016

What is Good in This???,Why The ACCLAIM???,Is Because the FIRST NAKED SCARLETT MOVIE???.

Nothing in this movie is Good Even the NAKED Scenes of Scarlett Johansson Could Be Better, Could be Better Filming, With Better Angles, BetterWhat is Good in This???,Why The ACCLAIM???,Is Because the FIRST NAKED SCARLETT MOVIE???.

Nothing in this movie is Good Even the NAKED Scenes of Scarlett Johansson Could Be Better, Could be Better Filming, With Better Angles, Better Lighting, and FOCUS.

FOCUS, LIGHTING, ANGLES, And BETTER FILMING & ANGLES IN SHE'S BOOBS & ASS… Expand

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

2

SpangleNov 22, 2014

Under the Skin is a great example of a film that wants to be more than it is, which ruins what it is. The film wanted to be very elusive and deep, but ultimately wound up being incredibly dull and uninteresting. On top of that, it wasUnder the Skin is a great example of a film that wants to be more than it is, which ruins what it is. The film wanted to be very elusive and deep, but ultimately wound up being incredibly dull and uninteresting. On top of that, it was essentially like eavesdropping on a conversation between two people you do not know and you hear one of them tell the other a story. Along the way, you pick up some details and know what is going on, but you never really feel involved in the conversation and, ultimately, the story does not really have any kind of impact on you. That is this film. It tried so hard to be deep that it never really made you feel involved and care about the characters involved. On top of that, it never truly develops any character, namely because it never established any of them. This one did nothing with its characters for many reasons, the main one to me being that they wanted it to seem more artsy than it truly was, which was off-putting.

Now, there are some positives, namely the incredible cinematography. There are some seriously gorgeous shots in this one that truly floored me to the point that I really wanted to love this film. Scarlett Johansson was also very good here, even though her lines were limited. As a whole, Under the Skin is a beautiful film that lacks any true substance or quality beyond its looks. There is nothing under the skin about this one.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

3

RoyGolanJul 6, 2017

This was the most boring movies I have ever seen. I get the meaning behind it, but there is really nothing here. 108 minutes and only 5 very small things that actually happen. The entire movie she is driving or walking somewhere with noThis was the most boring movies I have ever seen. I get the meaning behind it, but there is really nothing here. 108 minutes and only 5 very small things that actually happen. The entire movie she is driving or walking somewhere with no dialogue. That's it. And don't expect any answers either. I don't get the critics nowadays , they must be out of their minds.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

1

datalogicMar 4, 2015

Poorly explained plot with lots of gaps and heavily deviated from the book.

If aliens have the technology to reach earth then why harvest the odd human here and there - lots of energy used for low returns, surely they would have advancedPoorly explained plot with lots of gaps and heavily deviated from the book.

If aliens have the technology to reach earth then why harvest the odd human here and there - lots of energy used for low returns, surely they would have advanced nano-tech and bioengineering to synthetically produce whatever they want if they can travel the vast distance. Save yourself wasted time and avoid.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

0

tethysdustSep 14, 2016

Pretty much nothing happens in this movie, and there is very little dialogue. I am baffled by the good ratings. It seemed like more of an art film than a science fiction film.

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

0

clinteastwooMay 11, 2016

................................................................................................................................................One of worst films ever made...

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

1

BroyaxAug 18, 2017

Attention : il s'agit d'un film surréaliste. Mais a contrario d'un film de David Lynch (à part Inland Empire bien sûr, à part et à éviter) il n'est ni captivant ni ironiquement drôle ni étrangement bizzare sur un fond un minimum rationnel.Attention : il s'agit d'un film surréaliste. Mais a contrario d'un film de David Lynch (à part Inland Empire bien sûr, à part et à éviter) il n'est ni captivant ni ironiquement drôle ni étrangement bizzare sur un fond un minimum rationnel.

C'est-à-dire qu'ici, on ne cherche pas bien longtemps à tenter d'interpréter le grand ni'mporte quoi sans queue ni tête de ce foutoir de mauvais goût, à part sans doute une vague psychose psychotique puisqu'en dehors de draguer dans sa fourgonnette (trop glamour, ouais), elle fait littéralement disparaître tous les gars qu'elle rencontre....

Pour le reste, on pourra sans doute trouver dans cette espèce de "film" d'autres sujets d'étude d'ordre psychiatrique, si l'on est soi-même un tant soit peu tourneboulé ou grand fumeur de moquette d'ascenseur.

Il y a néanmoins un soupçon d'intérêt, un embryon de curiosité à soulever dans cette "chose", cela concerne Scarlett Johansson elle-même : non pas que sa performance soit éblouissante, non, elle y est aussi médiocre que d'habitude ; non, c'est juste que Scarlett est souvent à poil dans ce film à la con !

Elle devrait faire quelques pilates et ralentir sur les gâteaux mais à part cela, c'est une fille généreuse qui pourrait figurer sur l'un de ces tableaux de la Renaissance ; les sujets féminins de cette époque y étaient en effet vilains de visage et bien en chair.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

3

TornadoCreatorApr 21, 2016

A film marketed as a sci-fi horror but with so little of both that it comes across as boring, far too slowly paced, and at times insultingly pretentious. There where at least some interesting concepts in this film but it felt extremely cheapA film marketed as a sci-fi horror but with so little of both that it comes across as boring, far too slowly paced, and at times insultingly pretentious. There where at least some interesting concepts in this film but it felt extremely cheap and without focus. Really, if felt like someone just followed Scarlett Johansson around and filmed her as she **** about in Scotland for a bit, only with the caveat that no-one would recognise her. The vast majority of the film has no dialogue, and there are way to many lingering shots where nothing happens except Scarlett stares at a wall, out of the window, at the ocean etc. for sometimes up to a minute or more. Yes, there is an ending that will explain at least some of what happened, but there's far too much left unexplained in an attempt to maintain mystery.

The only positive I can say about this film if I'm brutally honest, is kudos to the director for convincing Scarlett Johansson to give us three long scenes of full frontal nudity, including one that actually systematically pans around her body as she clenches in the nude. For any red-blooded heterosexual men, that scene will be reason alone to own this on DVD, but I can save you the trouble now and tell you 16 minutes, 59 minutes, and 1h 17mins. Those are the times for her nude scenes... fast forward through everything else.… Expand