Is it just me or is Scarlett Johansson in a surprising number of sci-fi films? Of course, not all of them are of the same level of quality. For example, I refuse to watch Lucy. When I first heard about Under the Skin and the critical acclaim it garnered, I thought it would easily fall into the “great” category. After watching it however, I find that I have reservations about giving uncritical praise. Since this puts me at odds with people who know a lot about movies, such as the posters on Broken Forum, the onus is on me to explain why.

Don’t get me wrong. I fully agree that this is an excellent film on multiple levels. To me, it’s most similar to Upstream Color in how there is minimal exposition, relying solely on the images to convey a sense of what is going on. Arguably this film goes even further because almost all of the dialogue here is incidental background noise. The fact that much of it is spoken in incomprehensible Scottish accents reinforces this impression. Partly as a consequence of the diminished significance of dialogue here, the soundscape itself feels more momentous. It’s almost like a palpable presence moving from scene to scene through the film.

The images themselves are undeniably powerful, with the scenes of the female alien in her lair almost like high-contrast black and white photos in slow motion. They’re clearly nods to some of Stanley Kubrick’s most iconic works. Combined with Johansson’s impressive portrayal of the female alien, natural and charming in the presence of human males, stilted and impassive when alone, the sounds and visuals heighten the sense of alienness of this film’s perspective. The scene at the beach is a great example of this. It’s not only that they lack any human empathy, they seem completely incapable of understanding what it is for and why it exists.

That I am so impressed with the film’s presentation and the boldness of its premise also helps to explain why I am so disappointed in where director Jonathan Glazer ultimately chooses to take it. Upstream Color used its unconventional storytelling style to describe the lifecycle of an entity that is both bizarre and complex. Under the Skin leaves most of who these aliens are and what they do a mystery, which is fine, but what is shown really isn’t that complex or original. An arthouse version of Species is fine I suppose, but it seems bizarrely unambitious to me if that really is all that is going on. That the film eventually goes with the angle of the alien learning how to empathize with humans and actually ends with the alien being horrified of herself feels downright banal.

Reading some of the most gushing reviews of this film, I find frequent references to the techniques used in its filming. Apparently many of the men Johansson picked up were amateurs literally chosen from the street who had no idea what they were in for and no idea that they would be interacting with Johansson. This adds a fascinating layer of metatextual meaning to the encounters. One Broken Forum poster even pointed out that since Johansson is the single most visible of Hollywood’s current crop of sex symbols, having her as a sexual predator is especially laden with cultural import.

For these reasons, as well as its allusions to the techniques of other great directors, I can see why cineastes are crazy about this film. It’s also why I, seeing this primarily through the eyes of a fan of science-fiction, can end up being disappointed.