After seeing a mention of "Under the Skin", possibly in the thread regarding "The I-Land", I had to see it. Terrible, terrible movie. One of the reviews said it was the confusing, convoluted type of movie that serious movie critics and art majors would love because they can derive whatever meaning they want from it. It made me think of art snobs debating the message conveyed in a Jackson Pollock painting. Other than Scarlett Johansson (why isn't it Johansdottir?) being completely naked, there are zero redeeming qualities to be found.
I found myself constantly looking to see how much of this "movie" was left until I was done. I don't know about the rest of you, but I really don't like movies where I need to read some film critic's analysis to even figure out what the hell is going on in a movie. Honestly, aside from the special effects sequences, it looks like a film major's senior project. I struggled to see where the ~$13M budget went to, unless ScarJo got paid $12.9M of it. I want to be entertained or moved, emotionally, when I watch a movie, not interpret what some director was trying to convey on a sub-sub-subconscious level. Or maybe I'm just dumb. Yeah, I'm dumb. Too dumb to watch "art" onscreen.