Annihilation (Alex Garland)

[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.

[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.

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.

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 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 [

Show Spoiler

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]

[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.