Annihilation (Alex Garland)

[Henry Gale]

IMDb (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2798920/) / Wiki (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation_(film))

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DUUYnYZUMAA7usG.jpg

[Henry Gale]

I thought this was completely, uninhibitedly stunning. The design (both in its storytelling and art direction/FX) tows the line perfectly between being gorgeously imaginative, garishly alien and non-conformingly grosteque (from the palettes of its majestic stuff and its more gruesome bits), often to the point that you have no usual reference point for if something is meant to be smooth or pleasing, because the elements of its story infect the language and visuals of it so suitably. It all plays perfectly into the dichotomy of what's human/familiar/safe in its narrative and what isn't.

All around a beyond worthy and confidently risky follow-up to Ex Machina which almost makes that feel tiny & quaint with its ideas in comparison. It has big and unique ambitions, and obviously it's challenging stuff from a marketing and wide audience perspective, but it's also just so engaging that I can't imagine most people not being along for the ride even if they don't know what to make of it by the end. (Don't quote me when this gets an "F" Cinemascore or something.) The sound and imagery reverberated physically through me as I watched it and have continued to linger in my mind into this morning. I'm not sure streaming it at home would have the same engulfing effect quality-wise, but even still, the film's strengths are likely to be felt in any delivery system, and hopefully discussed and emulated for a long time.

So where I commend them as a studio greenlighting this in the first place and for having full confidence in the similarly great but less weird Arrival, and for simply making mother! at all (and in some ways those might be two of the closest wide release comparions I can make to Annihilation) Paramount are being some real fuckbois for not letting the rest of the world get to see it in theatres (and at the same time devaluing its theatrical profile where it still will be on the big screen). It sends the message that if something isn't testing well they can just banish it to streaming. In some cases that's an understandable scenario (Cloverfield Paradox, perhaps a long-shelved and quietly dumped comedy like Father Figures), but with something like this, they'd really rather take a bundle of money from Netflix to take it off their hands and likely lose box office money from the widespread press that it'll be theatrical-exclusive in only three countries for only three weeks? It's scary to think that anything that worries them can without warning have their intended release revoked.

The best option is to go see it on the biggest screen you can. Both for the prime isolation of the visual/aural experience it provides, and because the more tickets bought for it, the more it sends a message that Paramount (and studios like it) shouldn't back down from making things like it in the first place.

**** / 9.1

[Skitch]

(and in some ways those might be two of the closest wide release comparions I can make to Annihilation)

SO IN.

[[ETM]]

WHAT THE...?! First I heard of the distribution deal, what the hell? This is one of the few things this year that I was really looking forward to seeing in the theatre. I saw the trailer in front of lots of films these past few months...

[Ivan Drago]

e and for having full confidence in the similarly great but less weird Arrival, and for simply making mother! at all (and in some ways those might be two of the closest wide release comparions I can make to Annihilation)

AWWWWWWW SHIT. I'm seeing this tonight and I'm beyond pumped now.

[Ivan Drago]

AWWWWWWW SHIT. I'm seeing this tonight and I'm beyond pumped now.

Sure enough, two people sitting behind me and my friends were noise throughout and it was taking me out of the experience. :mad:

But when I wasn't disrupted, holy fuck. This movie really feels like if Andrei Tarkovsky made The Thing. It requires a second viewing to fully comprehend all its ideas and turning points, but the imagery managed to be so haunting, ethereal and meditative all at once while the sound design was so immaculate that by the time I've finished sitting on it, it'll be the only thing I think about for weeks on end and have seen multiple times in the theater.

[Skitch]

Theater crowds are shit. I hope it hits US Netflix asap. I know it sucks, but until they do a better job of booting disruptive people, fuck the US theaters to death.

[Dukefrukem]

I had a 5 year old talking through the entirety of Black Panther last week.

[Winston*]

;587856']WHAT THE...?! First I heard of the distribution deal, what the hell? This is one of the few things this year that I was really looking forward to seeing in the theatre. I saw the trailer in front of lots of films these past few months...

Super annoying. Watching movies at home sucks. Destroy Netflix.

[Ezee E]

Theater crowds are shit. I hope it hits US Netflix asap. I know it sucks, but until they do a better job of booting disruptive people, fuck the US theaters to death.

Stop going to full showings, lol.

[Skitch]

Stop going to full showings, lol.

I don't. I can have five people in the theater and they're yelling throughout the whole movie or taking phone calls or letting a toddler run up and down the isles...its not little things. Its really obnoxious stuff.

[Ezee E]

There's certainly an intriguing concept and approach here, but I don't think it really ever hits like it needs to. The secondary characters don't really have much to add to the table, and it really does feel like the beginning of a trilogy, but something we'll never see an end to.

[Ivan Drago]

Had a much better experience the second time, and enjoyed the movie even more as well.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, this one at once has some truly stilted dialogue, a superfluous B plot about Portman's love life, and a weird lack of wonder at times - when they walk through the Shimmer, there's no being there in that moment, experiencing that awe of entering into the unknown. Just a wide shot, with their backs to us, with them walking in. No reactions, nothing.

Some moments feel like first draft exposition of character desire (you want X, she wants Y, but I want Z), while other moments feature shocking grace and restraint. There's a matter of fact moment of body horror that truly disturbs, and a defining image that can only be described as floral skeletal fresco.

Where the film comes most alive is in the final act, where we get a sense of... not what the Shimmer is, but how it is, and its functions and innate needs. And how it responds to Portman's character had me shifting in my seat from discomfort.

I understand the comparison points of THE THING and ARRIVAL, but for me, in content, this film most resembles THE RUINS and, more notably, Lovecraft's short story THE COLOUR OUT OF SPACE. And at its very best, the movie generates that feeling of cosmic dread and helplessness. The sense that we have nothing by which to defend ourselves against forces beyond our understanding.

The irony is that the force destroying these people may not have any understanding at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Pop Trash]

One of those movies I'm not sure how much I liked on a visceral level (I nearly fell asleep a few times during the first half) but gets so increasingly weird and fascinating, I can't help but appreciate its existence. I'd much rather have one of these flawed but fence swinging flicks than another movie hot off the Hollywood cookie cutter conveyor belt.

At times I was reminded of such disparate films as Arrival, The Mist, The Descent, The Blair Witch Project, Altered States, and Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Definitely hugs closer to Lovecraftian horror than I expected. I also suspect this will improve on a 2nd viewing.

[Pop Trash]

Yeah, this one at once has some truly stilted dialogue, a superfluous B plot about Portman's love life

Yeah, I really didn't get why this needed flashbacks or flashforwards or flash anythings (ie. dream sequences). These types of movies work best when they get deeper and deeper into "the shit" and that sense of dread is amped up by simply moving the story from A to Z. Examples: Apocalypse Now, Alien, The Thing, and Blair Witch. I haven't read the book, but the only possible explination is that the "Shimmer" is messing w/ their sense of time and reality creating some sort of Slaughterhouse Five hallucinogenic effect. That said, I still think the cinematic experience would be improved w/o all of that jazzed up chronology.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Yeah, I really didn't get why this needed flashbacks or flashforwards or flash anythings (ie. dream sequences). These types of movies work best when they get deeper and deeper into "the shit" and that sense of dread is amped up by simply moving the story from A to Z. Examples: Apocalypse Now, Alien, The Thing, and Blair Witch. I haven't read the book, but the only possible explination is that the "Shimmer" is messing w/ their sense of time and reality creating some sort of Slaughterhouse Five hallucinogenic effect. That said, I still think the cinematic experience would be improved w/o all of that jazzed up chronology.

Other people online have rightly pointed out that the B plot about Portman's love life ties into the thematic idea of self-destruction being an inescapable part of life. Which, okay, I'll concede thematic utility, but I don't think that choice changes much of anything about Portman's emotional state during the A plot (the desperation she demonstrates can be equally attributed to love or guilt - knowing it's one over the other doesn't make a tangible difference to her choices that I can recall).

[Mostly, I think it falls flat on the most basic level of writing and drama. "This was a mistake." etc. which hurts its ability to communicate theme more subtly. Because theming is the only level on which it's functioning.]

The chronology splicing to me feels like a very deliberate and writerly choice to get us to trust Portman's character and her survival so that certain revelations in the final moments can carry extra oomph as a big damn rug pull. If we got that twist without having time to acclimate to her survival - without the flash forwards - it risks feeling cheaper. Maybe.

Another idea might be that if the film means to examine self-identity and annihilation, we as viewers are supposed to be watching her at a remove to be able to meaningfully judge her and her version of events. But that risks dulling empathy (and excitement) by keeping us at that remove.

[It may also just be because the nested/epistolary form in sci fi is fun to play with, and Garland loves dipping into sf traditions.]

But I'm with you in that I don't really think that structural choice improves on more direct storytelling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dukefrukem]

When you guys describe this as weird. Are you talking JJ Abrams weird or Lars von Trier weird?

[Pop Trash]

When you guys describe this as weird. Are you talking JJ Abrams weird or Lars von Trier weird?

https://i.imgur.com/c7NJRa2.gif

[Pop Trash]

When you guys describe this as weird. Are you talking JJ Abrams weird or Lars von Trier weird?

In all seriousness, it's more like JJ Abrams weird meets David Cronenberg weird. LVT wouldn't tolerate the rather tame sexuality here. Portman doesn't even show her breasticles during a sex scene.

[Ezee E]

One of those movies I'm not sure how much I liked on a visceral level (I nearly fell asleep a few times during the first half) but gets so increasingly weird and fascinating, I can't help but appreciate its existence. I'd much rather have one of these flawed but fence swinging flicks than another movie hot off the Hollywood cookie cutter conveyor belt.


I'll agree with this statement.

I want this to be better than it really is.

Also decided that I hated the guitar in this movie. It sounded like the unwanted guitar of a guy who comes to a party.

[Pop Trash]

Also decided that I hated the guitar in this movie. It sounded like the unwanted guitar of a guy who comes to a party.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V_hCqO6UQs

[DavidSeven]

This did not work for me. Conceptually, there are definitely interesting ideas here, but it's all framed within a story with very little drama, no compelling characters, and -- surprisingly -- some lackluster technical work.

I agree with DaMu, the film never conveys a real sense of wonder from entering or inhabiting the Shimmer. I actually thought the VFX were kind of embarrassing. Garland's Ex Machina came across as meticulously designed and artfully restrained in its production and VFX elements. The obnoxious garishness of Annihilation now makes me question if that was a deliberate choice in the prior film or just the result of a smaller budget. The parallel domestic story is also lazily conceived and hackey in execution.

More than anything else, I just couldn't buy into any of it. I respect how much it committed to the idea of "dread," but the lackluster story, characterizations, and technical elements make the whole thing a non-starter for me. Even things as basic as casting felt like a second-rate effort here. I like these actors individually, but without the aid of some strong written material, it feels very much like beautiful movie stars playing roles that aren't well-tailored.

[Dukefrukem]

Stop going to full showings, lol.

This shouldn't be the answer to why theater viewings are shit.

[MadMan]

I have not had a bad theater experience in ages. Either I am lucky, or I pick the right times to go.

[Mal]

I enjoyed this very, very much.

[TGM]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtePG4Pon_M

[Peng]

Have work tomorrow and still ruminating on this. Such a sad film... Tessa Thompson's last scene is going to haunt me for quite some time.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Have work tomorrow and still ruminating on this. Such a sad film... Tessa Thompson's last scene is going to haunt me for quite some time.

I do love how she walks off-screen... and that's that.

[Dukefrukem]

I can't wait to VPN into Cork tonight and watch this.

[Henry Gale]

I can't wait to VPN into Cork tonight and watch this.

Though I will admit I am unfamiliar with this euphemism, I truly don't think this is the type of movie for anything of that sort. Decidedly unsexy material!

In other news: Enjoy this on Netflix today, rest of the world!! Find your biggest screen, heaviest sound set-up, and the window of time for the least amount of distractions, and immerse yourself enough to forget that its direct-to-streaming release is a worrying sign of the future state of studio output!

[Irish]

Good God this was fucking terrible.

[Idioteque Stalker]

Good God this was fucking terrible.

Yeah, I was unimpressed. Ballet finale was cool though.

[Dukefrukem]

mild spoilers below.

Sophomore slump for Mr. Garland. The mystery is obviously the most intriguing thing about this movie, but boy the payoff is unfulfilling. This plays out like a DTV monster movie in some points; specifically the scene where they are inside the old base, something cuts through the fence, and one of the member's party gets dragged away into the night while the rest of the member's are helplessly trying to figure out what happened, in some really poor editing techniques, almost as if they forgot to shoot some scenes in their entirety.

Then there's the member's of the party's mental capacity. For once, I'd like to see a team of explorers and adventurers, NOT crack under pressure. NOT try to defy their leader. NOT try and back stab the rest of the team members. Why would an organize choose such mentally incapable members in such a dangerous exploration operation? I'm also looking at you Alien franchise. Blame it on the shimmer's effect on the body, but there were signs of defiance much earlier than the BearMimic reveal. Very unconvincing.

This plays out like a really bad episode of Lost.

[Sycophant]

I loved this and am tempted to go see it again soon, provided it stays in theaters much longer. I feel bad for countries that are only getting this on Netflix.

I really liked Walter Chaw's read on the film (http://www.filmfreakcentral.net/ffc/2018/02/annihilation.html), who puts the film (absolutely, rightly) in dialogue with Stalker (a film I don't remember nearly as well as I should) and reads both films as explorations of depression, interspersed with passages from Virginia Woolf. Chaw's piece is an example of the great work film criticism can do. Your mileage, I'm sure, will vary.

I feel like there's more I want to say about it than just recommending that review, but it's feeling too much like I'd have to write a formal essay to really explore these thoughts and I don't have the time to devote to that at present. Suffice it to say that this film was a very satisfying film and I found it challenging and haunting. Portman's performance is excellent, and considering how much the script and structure of the film leaves off-screen, she really meets the demand to make the character feel rounded and lived-in.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Good call on Walter Chaw. He, Priscilla Page, and Film Crit Hulk have some of the hotter hot takes on this boy.

[Irish]

I have a love/hate thing with Chaw because he gives the reader a lot to consider but then tends to cast his ideas in absurdly operatic terms. (Besides that, I can say if you pump out 2,700 words and reference Virginia Woolf, the Marx Brothers, and Edgar Allen Poe, well then, you might be trying too hard.)

I think his take on "Annihilation" is akin to a LiveJournal entry and not really a piece of criticism. Chaw's primary interest is in what a movie reflects back to him about himself. It's like he sits down at the keyboard and asks "What does this piece of art say about me?" instead of taking the work on its own terms, or asking what the filmmakers might have intended, or wondering how an audience might receive it.

This is one of the reasons I can't stand most writing on the web---movies aren't extensions of the viewer's ego, but so many critics talk about them that way.

Case in point: Everything Chaw says about depression at the start of this "review."


Walter Chaw. He, Priscilla Page, and Film Crit Hulk

Like bamboo under my fingernails, friend.

[Peng]

Haven't read Walter Chaw on this yet, but interesting about depression (I, like most I have seen elsewhere, like how the effects of trauma and tragedy are woven into the sci-fi story), because separately he, Emily Yoshida, and Angelica Jade Bastien (the latter two at Vulture) have all written on this topic.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Like bamboo under my fingernails, friend.

Shame. I like them.

Any current critics/reviewers/analysts that you'd stump for? Do you like Rob Ager and Collative Learning? He's sort of famously "reaching" in his analyses but also comes by them honestly with close readings of the details of a film.

[Ezee E]

Has Film Crit Hulk gotten over the ridiculous caps lock? I'll never be able to take him seriously until that happens.

[StuSmallz]

Just reviewed this, and long review short, (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/annihilation/) Annihilation on the whole carries a wonderfully dreadful sense of inevitability all the way to its mind-bending climax, and, while I ultimately can't call it a great film, as certain characters and themes here are disappointingly underdeveloped, it's still a more unique and intriguing experience than at least 90% of what Hollywood usually puts out, and one of the better cinematic examples of the concept that the universe is a fundamentally scary, incomprehensible thing, one that is apathetic to the existence of humanity at best, and at worst... completely and utterly hostile.

[Irish]

Shame. I like them.

Any current critics/reviewers/analysts that you'd stump for? Do you like Rob Ager and Collative Learning? He's sort of famously "reaching" in his analyses but also comes by them honestly with close readings of the details of a film.

I've never heard of Ayer! It's this him? http://www.collativelearning.com/CLS%20FAQ.html#new2site

What's the appeal of Film Crit Hulk for you?

I've liked different people at different times---Nicholson at LA Weekly, Willmore at Buzzfeed, Ehrlich at Indiewire, Brody at The New Yorker, Mo Ryan at Variety, Fienberg at The Hollywood Reporter---but none of them are "one-stop-shop" critics. Sometimes I find them good, other times they make me roll me eyes.

The people I really love are all dead. I've listened to certain music because of Lester Bangs, and sought out now-obscure movies because of Pauline Kael.

I miss critics who write to be read, not to push their worldview or win a ceaseless, roiling internet argument.

[Ezee E]

I miss critics who write to be read, not to push their worldview or win a ceaseless, roiling internet argument.

This.

The closest I get to is Jeff Wells, although it's hard to call him a critic, as he basically reviews movies like we do. There's no journalism approach to it. He's just a loon with fun thoughts to read.

There's still a few print people like Lisa Kennedy, Richard Roeper, Mick LaSalle... But they aren't people I'll seek out reviews from.

Heck, Twitter-wise, Ebert owned there too.

[Irish]

The closest I get to is Jeff Wells, although it's hard to call him a critic, as he basically reviews movies like we do. There's no journalism approach to it. He's just a loon with fun thoughts to read.

Ha, too true. What he calls "reviews" are really lazy, but he's fun to read. I think that's why film twitter hates him so much---he's a better writer than them. He's also a bigger asshole. Wells is his own worst enemy.

[Peng]

No, film twitter doesn't hate Jeff Wells because of the quality of his reviews of writing (which I never see come up when his name pops in regularly in my timeline). It's because stuff like emailing a director to request for a nude pic of an actress for his own use, and other hideous attitudes he expresses openly.

[Irish]

LOL, that reminds me---I really miss Nikki Finke.

[Dead & Messed Up]

I've never heard of Ayer! It's this him? http://www.collativelearning.com/CLS%20FAQ.html#new2site

Yep! Also his YouTube is here: https://www.youtube.com/user/robag88/videos

It's all close-reading film analysis that sometimes overreaches but focuses rigorously on evidence within the film.


What's the appeal of Film Crit Hulk for you?

Superficially, FCH has gone to bat for movies that I really responded to and pointed out things I hadn't noticed (e.g. The World's End and The Lego Movie) and unpacked his own misgivings about movies that similarly didn't resonate with me (Force Awakens and The Revenant are two examples).

He's also a story wonk, and I've been working on my own storytelling for years, so I appreciate the narrative-centric focus. I like the attention he gives to exploring character development, if the arcs in the film are occurring in an honest way (or if they're being shortcutted and papered over with illusions of development).

Per Ezee, he's stopped with the all-caps, which, thank God.

[Ezee E]

I'll have to read him then... THANK GOODNESS.

[Pop Trash]

I gotta say, for a movie I saw several weeks ago, I'm still thinking about this film A LOT. It's probably going to wind-up at the second run theater in a few weeks since it's kinda bombing at the box office, so I'm going to try and see it again and see if I like it more. As it stands, three scenes in particular are really sticking with me: the "help me" bear which is one of the more terrifying and creative (and technically simple) uses of sound in a sci-fi cum horror movie, maybe ever?, Tessa Thompson acting like "fuck it Imma go be a plant in the woods" and doing just that, and of course the bizarro interpretive dance with the alien doppelganger creature thingy at the end.

There's been some good critical looks at this, but one I'd recommend is "The Next Picture Show" podcast with a bunch of ex Dissolve (RIP Dissolve) people discussing it, which means you don't have to support trash like "Half in the Bag."

[Rico]

This plays out like a really bad episode of Lost.

Ha. I came here to make the exact same comment.

I throws enough weird at you to keep you going for the ride, and I actually really enjoyed the horror aspects of the story. The ending kinda felt slapped together though, not entirely satisfying.

[transmogrifier]

56/100

Flashbacks basically grind this thing to a halt - the relationship between husband and wife is not nearly as interesting as Garland seems to think it is, and the way he keeps breaking the fragile spell to go back and foist more marital angst on us is infuriating. Because, you know, there is something naturally skeevy about nature gone bananas at a genetic level, the very essence of life deciding to warp and illustrate on a shorter time scale what generally happens over millions of years, primal urges mixing with self-aware cognition to provide the horror of life itself...... but hey, here's another scene of some man and woman working out their issues for you to enjoy!

[Morris Schæffer]

Really, really good. Not sure I care about making sense of it, but a myserious, scary, horrific and engaging sci-fi movie. The final shot terrified me, as if the actual annihilation was about to begin.

Always nice when a movie reminds me of a videogame. Here, shades of The Last of Us (Garland, an avid gamer himself, would be a good choice for director), but also the Witness with its plantlike humanoids, immobile among the grass.

[Morris Schæffer]

Also decided that I hated the guitar in this movie. It sounded like the unwanted guitar of a guy who comes to a party.

Since there were times when this movie reminded me of the desolate beauty of The Last of Us, I loved the guitar. It was as if composer Gustavo Santaollala dropped in on the set. :D

[Dukefrukem]

Since there were times when this movie reminded me of the desolate beauty of The Last of Us, I loved the guitar. It was as if composer Gustavo Santaollala dropped in on the set. :D

Wow really? did not get that feeling at all.

[Ezee E]

Since there were times when this movie reminded me of the desolate beauty of The Last of Us, I loved the guitar. It was as if composer Gustavo Santaollala dropped in on the set. :D

I did not get a Santaollala feeling at all. Gustavo's scores have real feeling, melody, and can be listened to on their own and vary throughout the movie.

This... eh, I don't see it.

[StuSmallz]

56/100

Flashbacks basically grind this thing to a halt - the relationship between husband and wife is not nearly as interesting as Garland seems to think it is, and the way he keeps breaking the fragile spell to go back and foist more marital angst on us is infuriating. Because, you know, there is something naturally skeevy about nature gone bananas at a genetic level, the very essence of life deciding to warp and illustrate on a shorter time scale what generally happens over millions of years, primal urges mixing with self-aware cognition to provide the horror of life itself...... but hey, here's another scene of some man and woman working out their issues for you to enjoy!Yeah; I liked Annihilation (https://letterboxd.com/stusmallz/film/annihilation/) quite well as a creepy, Lovecraftian work of sci-fi/horror, but regarding the film's flashbacks, like the nightmare sequences in It Comes At Night, most of them added essentially nothing to the film, as they were either placed in an awkward, inopportune moment in the overall film, or contributed next to nothing to our essential understanding of the characters or their situation, and should've either been reworked or removed from the film entirely. We didn't need to see as many of the little moments that Lena shared with Kane as we did, as just one or two would've been enough to establish the strength of their relationship, and the revelation of her affair was needless, as, while that flashback played fine in a vacuum, in the context of the overall film, it didn't substantially inform anything in any thematic or character-building sense; in theory, it would've made her character feel guilty and explain why she entered The Shimmer in order to save Kane's life and make things up to him, but there's a very insufficient sense of that in the way she was characterized or portrayed before or after entering The Shimmer, and that aspect of her character went almost nowhere at all. It's nowhere near bad enough to make Annihilation not a good film in the end, of course though.

[Stay Puft]

I didn't think this was half as weird as it should have been. Some cool stuff in the third act, and with the bear, but otherwise... I ended up coming pretty close to hating this, I'm afraid.

It's really half-baked. The film has a lot of ideas, but lacks a compelling throughline. Characters have little sense of interiority, and tend to stand around and explain the movie. The squad is just monster fodder. Two characters are in a boat at one point, going down a river, having a quick chat to provide a little perfunctory backstory, and upon completion, another character yells "Look!" and points at the next plot development. Garland transitions between sequences using trite flashbacks about characters who cheat on their spouses and then stare morosely out a window while explaining that they are cheating on their spouses. And yeah, these flashbacks grind the action to a halt. There are so many questionable editing choices in this. It all feels so mechanical, which I guess maybe is a complaint exacerbated the fact that the movie never really hooked me and worked its magic. The scene with the bear, like I said, is really fucking cool, but then there's a follow-up moment where a character attempts to explain how the bear was able to do what it did. After already having a scene explaining how the Shimmer works. It's that kind of movie, and, uh, no thanks.

[Spinal]

Loved it. Just clean, high-quality execution all around. I successfully avoided any information about the plot, so I was taking in everything anew. The film's premise is deeply unsettling and there's a couple scenes that are truly horrifying. I could have watched a 3-hour version of this, because I feel like there was more to explore. But I also know that's unrealistic to expect.

[Pop Trash]

It's really half-baked. The film has a lot of ideas, but lacks a compelling throughline. Characters have little sense of interiority, and tend to stand around and explain the movie. The squad is just monster fodder. Two characters are in a boat at one point, going down a river, having a quick chat to provide a little perfunctory backstory, and upon completion, another character yells "Look!" and points at the next plot development. Garland transitions between sequences using trite flashbacks about characters who cheat on their spouses and then stare morosely out a window while explaining that they are cheating on their spouses. And yeah, these flashbacks grind the action to a halt. There are so many questionable editing choices in this. It all feels so mechanical, which I guess maybe is a complaint exacerbated the fact that the movie never really hooked me and worked its magic. The scene with the bear, like I said, is really fucking cool, but then there's a follow-up moment where a character attempts to explain how the bear was able to do what it did. After already having a scene explaining how the Shimmer works. It's that kind of movie, and, uh, no thanks.

That's how a lot of scientists talk, though, especially ones with educational backgrounds. I used to make online videos for a major university and would occasionally make ones for the hard sciences (biochem and the like) and the professors would lay on an exposition dump for the video that would make your head spin.

I don't mind exposition dumps if they make sense for the characters to be talking like that. I'm thinking mostly scientists but also in things like Inception where you have a boss training a new employee how a crazy dream world works, because obviously they aren't going to know what the fuck is going on, so that "new employee" character becomes an audience surrogate.

[Grouchy]

Are you guys kidding? I loved this film. I feel like Garland is just showing us the tip of the iceberg of what he can do.

Comparisons to J.J. Abrams are understandable but they just make the Lost man look bad. Although one could easily label the nature of the Shimmer as a "mystery box" there's a thematic thread that goes from the couple's early conversation about God's designs to the bear mimicking the girl's cries for help. It's not just throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks like Abrams would do with a similar premise.

I inmediately thought of The Colour out of Space and I have to say this makes for an excellent Lovecraftian escapade.

[Skitch]

Loved it. So far this is easily #1 of 2018 for me.

[Spinal]

Just finished the book not too long ago and it's really great too, although completely different. The setting and most of the characters are the same, but beyond that, I'd say only about 20% of what happens in the movie actually comes from the book. Maybe less.

[Skitch]

Loved it. Just clean, high-quality execution all around. I successfully avoided any information about the plot, so I was taking in everything anew. The film's premise is deeply unsettling and there's a couple scenes that are truly horrifying. I could have watched a 3-hour version of this, because I feel like there was more to explore. But I also know that's unrealistic to expect.

Agree with whole post, but especially bolded. It reminded me of Under The Skin too, in that you know whats going on, but have no idea whats going on.

[[ETM]]

I was disappointed that almost all of the "good stuff" was shown in the trailer. I wanted to see more of this world, and the tiny (in Hollywood terms) budget really shows.

[megladon8]

This was kind of astounding.

[Philip J. Fry]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URo66iLNEZw

[MadMan]

This was great, although I prefer Ex Machina. I can dig the whole mankind gets wrecked by technology and outside forces theme Garland keeps coming back to with his movies.