|
|
Post by Allenism on Oct 3, 2017 16:54:52 GMT
Which one do you prefer overall?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 16:56:27 GMT
Under the Skin, easily.
Ex Machina started out promisingly enough but ended up going the most boring route I can imagine.
|
|
|
|
Post by notacrook on Oct 3, 2017 17:46:34 GMT
Ex Machina. I really like both, but Ex Machina was just brilliant to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 17:47:31 GMT
Thought both were very good, but Under the Skin is on another level
|
|
|
|
Post by Martin Stett on Oct 3, 2017 18:02:58 GMT
Both are pretty shitty. I'll go with Under the Skin, because long stretches of nothing happening beats characters I want to murder with a pickaxe.
|
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Oct 3, 2017 18:40:37 GMT
EX MACHINA for sure ! UNDER THE SKIN was nothing but a huge pile of sh!t !
|
|
|
|
Post by Allenism on Oct 3, 2017 18:55:51 GMT
EX MACHINA for sure ! UNDER THE SKIN was nothing but a huge pile of sh!t ! Aren't you tired of being wrong? |
|
|
|
Post by stephen on Oct 3, 2017 19:06:29 GMT
Under the Skin by quite a substantial amount. Ex Machina has a remarkably strong start, but goddamn, it fizzles out hard in the third act (no surprise, seeing as it's Alex Garland) and I feel like out of all the potential ideas it poses, it opts for the easiest route. Under the Skin is very much a "works better the second time" sort of film, because I wasn't very high on it when I first saw it, but I rewatched it at 2 a.m. one sleepless Saturday and it all clicked.
|
|
|
|
Post by HELENA MARIA on Oct 3, 2017 19:13:28 GMT
EX MACHINA for sure ! UNDER THE SKIN was nothing but a huge pile of sh!t ! Aren't you tired of being wrong?  |
|
|
|
Post by The_Cake_of_Roth on Oct 3, 2017 23:41:43 GMT
Ex Machina. I can understand the problems with the third act, but I think it's the more satisfying film overall in the way it handles its concept and themes. I found Under the Skin a bit repetitive, though it does have some brilliant sequences in it.
|
|
|
|
Post by mikediastavrone96 on Oct 4, 2017 0:16:18 GMT
Under the Skin is very much a movie where you need to be on its wavelength to really enjoy it, but when you do it's really great and fires on all cylinders. I want to especially praise its score, which so far this decade I think is surpassed only by Cloud Atlas.
Ex Machina to me feels like an amalgamation of the themes from both Under the Skin and Her, only that third act took the least interesting route in following through on all those ideas.
|
|
|
|
Post by cheesecake on Oct 4, 2017 2:55:08 GMT
I had problems with both but give the edge to Ex Machina before I give Under the Skin a much-needed rewatch.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 20:29:49 GMT
Under the Skin, which I really should re-watch. Not only was it more daring but the technical aspects such as the score and the cinematography were also stronger. And Johansson gave a far more interesting performance than Vikander.
|
|
|
|
Post by MsMovieStar on Oct 5, 2017 20:08:50 GMT
Oh honey, I thought Ex Machina was kinda prosaic, whereas the other one at least had prosthetic penises it in.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tommen_Saperstein on Oct 5, 2017 20:47:39 GMT
Ex Machina was very good but Under the Skin is one of my favorite movies of all time
|
|
|
|
Post by jakesully on Oct 6, 2017 2:06:01 GMT
I will admit that the ending to Under the Skin was pretty damn good BUT I'm going with Ex Machina all the way. Ex Machina (IMO) has much more re watch value and Oscar Isaac dancing sequence was aces and superior to watching ScarJo lure a bunch of dumbasses into her car.  |
|
