Skip to main content

This underrated sci-fi movie turns 10 this year. Here’s why it’s still worth watching

An alien looks down at a human face in Under the Skin.

Jonathan Glazer was recently in the news for several reasons. His latest effort, the discomfortingly immersive The Zone of Interest, earned him rave reviews and a nomination for Best Director at this year’s Academy Awards. When he took the stage to accept the Oscar for Best Foreign Language Film, his powerful speech attracted both praise and criticism, cementing his reputation as a true outlier living in an industry so notoriously averse to risk and progressive thought.

With The Zone of Interest, Glazer’s art finally entered a more global stage. However, the film that should’ve given him this level of exposure is his 2013 sci-fi masterpiece, Under the Skin. A visceral, puzzling, and striking cinematic experience unlike any other, Under the Skin is possibly the most daring and unforgettable sci-fi movie of the 2010s, which is no small feat considering triumphs like Arrival and Interstellar also came out during this decade. This month marks the film’s 10th anniversary, making it the perfect time to reminisce about this polarizing and underappreciated sci-fi gem that, much like its director, dares to say what very few others will.

Under the brain

Scarlett Johansson as The Female turning around and looking somewhere off-camera in Under the Skin.
Image via A24

During an interview with The Guardian, Glazer stated he “didn’t want to film the book.” Instead, he “wanted to make the book a film.” This is the key to understanding his approach.

Under the Skin began its life as a daring dream in Glazer’s brilliant mind. Initially, he meant to shoot it following his feature film debut, Sexy Beast; however, he actually began developing it after his sophomore effort, the divisive 2004 psychological drama Birth. Glazer spent the better part of a decade trying to bring this singularly uneasy film onto the big screen, with the project going through numerous revisions — Brad Pitt was, at one point, attached to star. Then, after countless screenplays and several years, Glazer found the right angle: to represent a view of our world from an alien’s perspective.

With the tone set, the film moved on to cast its star. Numerous names were mentioned, but in the end, it was Scarlett Johansson who was cast. Johansson’s casting is the sort of situation where the perfect role finds the perfect actress. Indeed, I cannot think of a single example where a role is so dependent not only on an actor’s physical appeal but on the idea that we, the audience, have about them, as Johansson in Under the Skin, except perhaps for Margot Robbie in Barbie.

Under the Skin on Netflix
A24 / A24

Glazer might own Under the Skin, but Johansson dominates it. No performance in the 21st century captures the very concept of “allure” as effortlessly or as chillingly as Johansson in Under the Skin. In the same Guardian interview, Glazer describes her as “unflinching,” and that’s truly the only word that fits. Even under a ratty wig, she is instantly recognizable yet completely foreign, an impenetrable monolith that’s seductive but deceptive. Her beauty is otherworldly, but it’s her cold, clinical gaze that genuinely mesmerizes.

This is a performance that’s all about precision. Johansson drives her van around Glasgow, scouting for oblivious men who hesitate not once when she looks their way, never questioning their lucky stars as to why they find themselves on the receiving end of her curiosity. The genius of her portrayal lies in her complete understanding of Glazer’s approach. Sitting behind the wheel, the actress is hungry and anxious, analyzing every opportunity; every look is a promise, every encounter a small revolution. The unnamed woman — and, by extension, Johansson herself — devours everything on the screen: men, women, scenery. Even the viewers themselves eventually fall prey to her appetite. She doesn’t just examine; she tears apart.

Under the eye

A woman looks in a compact mirror in Under the Skin.

Ten years later, Under the Skin remains as hypnotizing and eerie as it was in 2014. The film juggles many grand ideas, from human nature to humanity’s place on its own planet and the possibility of alien life walking among us. Yet, its greatest achievement is making us feel like the aliens ourselves. Just like Johansson’s unnamed woman watches the men who’ll eventually become her prey, we, too, watch her cruise and hunt; we’re not quite the hunter, but we’re still complicit in her outings. Glazer would once again adopt this approach in The Zone of Interest, turning the audience into unwilling participants of the unseen carnage. Just because we don’t see it doesn’t mean it’s not happening.

This is a recurring element in Glazer’s films, a latent curiosity about humanity’s inherent imperfections, its unique capability for delusion. He is not so much obsessed with it as he is puzzled by it. In the brilliant but underrated Birth, it’s a grieving woman’s willingness to believe the impossible; in Under the Skin, it’s a series of men and the cosmic researcher directing them; in The Zone of Interest, it’s an entire system becoming increasingly detached from the very idea of humanity. Through it all, the audience is there to witness and, at times, enable this silent and calculated study.

Under The Skin | Audiovisual Alienation

That’s also part of Glazer’s play; we might think ourselves in control — after all, we chose to see the movies. Alas, we’re just playing the game he set up for us. If we’re the male victims, Glazer is the unnamed woman, using his unique gifts to learn from and understand us. He’s not in control, either; if the film reveals anything, it’s that there’s always another. Under the Skin is about realizing we’re all aliens in each other’s eyes, meaning everyone can fascinate and be at the expense of another.

A most unusual sci-fi movie

Glazer’s life’s work seems to be studying “otherness” and bringing it to life, dissecting it, becoming it, and eventually turning us into it. He uses discomfort to achieve it, reducing us to our primal instincts to provoke a visceral reaction and evoke something real within us. Indeed, Under the Skin features some of the most unnerving visuals in modern sci-fi, and the result is an utterly unforgettable experience that compels you to turn away while hoping you won’t. The film is full of juxtapositions like this — human and alien, beauty and ugliness, coercion and persuasion.

Under The Skin | Official Trailer HD | A24

The haunting beauty of Under the Skin is that there’s no hopeful solution, only bleak possibility. Unlike many other sci-fi movies, where humanity is flawed and alien life forms are elevated, Under the Skin presents a far more terrifying concept: life itself that’s weak and detached, perpetually afraid yet restlessly curious, proud but vulnerable, selfish but in need of connection.

Yet, it’s also capable of growth; how can it not? The real question is not “Can it change,” but “Will it want to?” Glazer doesn’t have that answer, and something tells me he wouldn’t want to know even if he could. Certainty means there’s nothing left to ask, and where’s the fun in that?

Under the Skin is available to stream on Max.

Editors' Recommendations

David Caballero
David is a Mexican freelance writer with a deep appreciation for words. After three years in the cold world of Marketing…
You probably missed this underrated 2010 action movie. Here’s why you should watch it
A man looks out of a train window in Unstoppable.

In 2020, Quentin Tarantino revealed his top choices for the best films of the 2010s. Coming in at number one was David Fincher's The Social Network (via Premiere), with Christopher Nolan's Dunkirk in second. Considering those films combined to win six Oscars, their inclusion on the list made sense. Tarantino surprised many when he selected Unstoppable, Tony Scott's 2010 thriller starring Denzel Washington and Chris Pine, as the final film in his best of the 2010s list on an episode of The Rewatchables.

Based on the real-life CSX 8888 incident, Unstoppable follows veteran engineer Frank Barnes (The Equalizer 3's Washington) and new conductor Will Colson (The Contractor's Pine), two railroad workers tasked with stopping a train carrying toxic chemicals. Upon first watch, Unstoppable is a perfectly good film from a master in the action genre. But as you rewatch the film, you start to understand and agree with Tarantino. Unstoppable is a great film, thanks to the innate chemistry between the two leads and Scott's terrific direction.
The 1-2 punch of Denzel Washington and Chris Pine

Read more
This Anne Hathaway thriller is 2023’s freakiest movie. Here’s why you should watch it
A woman smokes with another woman in Eileen.

Early December is the time to attend to the usual list of things to do before the year ends, such as pay overdue bills, buy those last-minute gifts, or grudgingly attend painfully awkward Christmas parties. It's also a time to feast on the best cinema has to offer, as studios and independent distributors alike release movie after movie designed to win awards and the stone-cold hearts of critics worldwide.

Chances are, you've seen Oppenheimer, and have at least heard of Killers of the Flower Moon, Napoleon, or The Holdovers. All of those movies are excellent and deserve to be seen, but there's one movie that's flying under the radar that's equally worthy of attention. Eileen is being marketed as a thriller, and while it does have its share of thrills, it's so much more than that. It's also a great atmospheric mood piece and an excellent showcase for two actresses at the top of their game. It also possesses one of the most infuriating endings of the year. Eileen is freaky (you just never know quite where it's going) and indefinable, and it's 2023's most beguiling movie.
Eileen has a great sense of time and place

Read more
You probably didn’t watch the most underrated crime thriller of the 2010s. Here’s why you should see it now
Colin Farrell sips a drink in Widows.

In 2018, one of the greatest directors alive made a surprising, creatively inspired left turn. Just five years after he won Best Picture for 12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen released his fourth feature directorial effort, Widows. Co-written by Gone Girl scribe Gillian Flynn, the crime thriller marked McQueen’s first foray into the kind of genre filmmaking he’d long avoided. Not only was it an unexpected follow-up to an austere award winner like 12 Years a Slave, but it felt like a purposeful change of pace for a director whose previous credits also included decidedly dour dramas like Hunger and Shame.

Many viewed the decision with skepticism: Was McQueen really the right fit for a pulpy thriller about a group of widows who decide to pick up where their deceased criminal husbands left off? When it was eventually released, Widows was welcomed with little fanfare. Some seemed to regard it as an intriguing, but ultimately minor experiment on McQueen’s part, and while it wasn’t a box office bomb, casual moviegoers didn’t run out in droves to see it, either.

Read more