This film blew me a away. I was worried that it might be a dud because it had such a limited theatrical release but it totally won me over. I especially loved the while 'cancer as a new form of life' theme. Really interesting stuff! Made me think about those pre-prehistoric jelly fish that are effectively eternal, and that there is evidence that all life on earth originally had limited life span and how this didn't work out, giving way to us (the interlopers) with our shortened life spans and how this relates to apoptosis (ie programmed cell death in healthy, 'normal cells) vs non-apoptosotic cells (ie cancer).
My only criticism would be that they didn't have the courage to have an ambiguous ending. What a shame!!
Really liked the film, like the book it's a great view on alien 'invation' but......
The screen play was pretty shocking, not that the dialogue in the book is great.
Gutted that the tower,lighthouse keeper and the room at the top of the light house were left out. And also the need for hypnosis to keep them sane, only reference was the loss of days entering area x. The need for them all to have guns was too Holywood.
Books 2 and 3 were pretty much ignored which is only a good thing.
Just wished the end was a little better and Netflix had made it rather than bought it.
I’ve not read the books which may explain why I didn’t enjoy this film. I agree that the screenplay is shocking. The final scene reminded me of a screen saver set to react to music, annoying music. The premise of the story was good but delivered so poorly on screen.
Some one on the original thread mention Ex Machina, this film wasn’t a patch on that one.
Read the book would be my advice ( but just the 1St one)
Bears little relationship to the book I thought.
I've just finished the film and I thought I was a bit naff . There were some interesting ideas, but ultimately poorly done.
I have yet to be convinced by Natalie Portman and this does nothing to convince me she is anything more than an average actress at best.
A number of reviews have mentioned Lovecraft as a reference point but I didn't see anything Lovecraftian about it. It reminded me more of The Mist crossed with elements of other sci-fi/horror films, such as Event Horizon, Alien and even War of the Worlds (remake - particularly the seeding the planet with the blood of the occupants bit).
It's worth saying I know nothing about the books: I hadn't even heard of them until I opened up the other Annihilation thread.
Just finished it and my initial reaction - I loved it. It's far from a perfect film (under developed characters, some miscastings) but I loved the fact that it generally didn't feel like a "typical" Hollywood sci-fi or action movie in that it took time to build tension, scares were built either on repulsion or tension as opposed to loud noises and it was lovely to look at. It has a unique (to major films) visual style which I loved and a genuine sense of exploration or mystery which builds throughout the film.
It does kind of fall back on some well worn troupes but it does so in such a way as to make them feel fresh. In my opinion this felt like the film Prometheus should have been. My initial reaction to this getting bought by Netflix and losing world wide cinema release would be a blow to Alex Garland but having watched it, and assuming it'll get a massive audience with genuine sci-fi and film fans all over the world I think this will really help his career.
Just finished it and my initial reaction – I loved it.
Me too. Never heard of the film or the book or anything about either, not even a trailer or description before watching it. Natalie Portman and a quick look at the imdb rating was enough for me to give it a go. Glad I did.
I thought it was a bit disappointing. The whole quest through the overgrown forbidden zone to a mysterious epicentre seemed a very straightforward homage to Stalker (or a straight lift!). It did look nice, and I thought the all female crew made an interesting change from the usual squad of blokes, but I didn't feel the ideas about mutation really developed into anything very interesting by the end.
Interesting that almost all the negative comments are due to the changes from literature to film. The book center's on a location within area x that was omitted from the film rather than the lighthouse.
Regards the tension and scare moments, these were pretty much added for Holywood effect, the book has a much much more psychological aspect and makes more of a deal of the characters betrayal of each other.
Personally I love the refreshing change that the biological invasion gives over bipedal Aliens invading American soil in flying saucers. This hums more of Contact or Arrivals rather than the Alien or event horizon film the Holywood crave. OK there were 'shock moment's but these were embellished with a little intellect, Croc with morphed teeth and bear which lures it's pray which added to the story rather than a shock just for shock sake.
I thought it was really good. Less Lovecraftian than the books, certainly more accessible, but I liked that the characters had names and the lack of the pit/crawler component didn't really detract. Lots of nice subtle touches like Kane's acknowledgement of Lena's affair via the background music (Crosby Stills & Nash?) while they were reading on the sofa. Doppelganger bit maybe was a touch too long & overstylised but I really liked 'Kane' and 'Lena's own uncertainty at the end even though it's clear to the audience they are both copies. Definitely worth a second watch.
Was Lina a copy? I didn't think she was. Simply that her DNA had been taken over. Some cool touches:
- The infinity arm tattoo which swapped around. This was referenced when Lina noticed she had a 'bruise'.
- The view through the water glass in the penultimate scene which showed her hand was mirrored.
I'm assuming the movie was littered with other such subtle references but I'd have to watch it a couple more times to pick up on them all.
Kane and Lena were copies? I didn't realise Lena was - thought it was apparent she made it out of Area X alive due to destroying it. She had her memories of what went on inside too, unlike the fake-Kane who couldn't really remember anything.
The whole quest through the overgrown forbidden zone to a mysterious epicentre seemed a very straightforward homage to Stalker (or a straight lift!).
I'm definitely gonna track down Stalker! Is it a Russian film?
I figured she was a copy because why else would the doppelganger torch its own creation? It clearly intends to do what it does, which I thought would be consistent with the remnants of the real Lena.
Kane and Lena were copies? I didn’t realise Lena was
I believe yes as indicated by their glowing eyes at the end? 🙂
Lots of nice subtle touches like Kane’s acknowledgement of Lena’s affair via the background music (Crosby Stills & Nash?) while they were reading on the sofa.
I missed this! Will hopefully pick up on it second time around (gf wants to see it lol)
If either were copies it was kinda irrelevant - both had their DNA altered, both had been touched by the Alien environment so both were tainted.
In the book more than one soldier had returned, from previous several missions each surviving in our wold longer than the last, this took this as the Alien environment trying to explore our world as we were to it. Each copy slightly better than the last. Also when Lena escapes from area x in the book, she does it in such an Alien manner that you're not sure if she's the original or again a better copy.
I hadn't noticed the bruise becoming the infinity symbol, rather had assumed that it was a cut scene from them being the "eighth mission" into area x which is in the book, but not the film - I wish they'd made more of that TBH. Especially kept the note books and room at the lighthouse which was the biggest twist in the book for me.
I also wished they'd kept the crawler and scrip down the walls rather than make the psychologist take that role at the end which I didn't like. I thought she was going to crawl into the the big morphing blob to escape to make it more like the book rather than the strange copy thing.
I’m definitely gonna track down Stalker! Is it a Russian film?
It's a very influential film by the Russian Director Tarkovsky (one of the BFIs top 50 20th century films). It's a long time since I watched it, and it's very low fi and psychological (definitely no CGI monsters!) but I think Alex Garland must have watched it a few times.
Tarkovsky got in trouble with the state censors because of the lack of action, but said "[T]he film needs to be slower and duller at the start so that the viewers who walked into the wrong theatre have time to leave before the main action starts", so be warned!
Cool, thanks for that, he looks really interesting! I'd heard of Solaris before (obvs!) but never watched it. I'll make a concerted effort to hunt down some of his stuff now! 🙂
Wasn’t too bad at all quite enjoyed it, yes the screenplay wasn’t fantastic but the story itself was pretty good. Way better than Ex-Machina but that doesn’t take a lot.
Watched it last night.
Thought it was quite good but some bits where annoying.
They had a very casual attitude about wandering into and around a place that no one else(or any data) had ever returned from.
The wife and I have just watched this, I loved it. The wife however just looked at me in disgust (it was my turn to choose).
I'm going to read the book on the back of it.
I can see why Garland has taken the very bare bones of the book's plots (Area x, unreliable narrative, hidden motives etc) From that point on it more or less leaves the plot of the book and goes it's own way. I don't think you could really make a film of the Southern Reach Trilogy, it just wouldn't make any sense. The characters in the books aren't named, the plot is really about the intertwined relationships of the people effected by Southern Reach, the lighthouses keeper, the director/psychiatrist the mother of the replacement director and so on; can you tell yet why it's unfilmable? 🙂 and the biologist herself (who may or may not be herself) and the use of hypnosis would just be a jumble of ideas (as it is in the books really)
I like that it's not a total shoot em up standard H-wood alien movie (although it doesn't stray far from that) 8/10 for effort, 3/10 for execution.
I haven't stopped thinking about it since I saw it yesterday morning but I do love a movie that asks more questions than it answers.
They had a very casual attitude about wandering into and around a place that no one else(or any data) had ever returned from.
I suspect that there may be a few plot points that won't hold up to scrutiny but also I'm not sure if a solid and pragmatic exercise in practical story telling was Alex Garland's primary objective. Which is an explanation rather than an excuse, of course! But it does make that sort of goof a bit less annoying lol
They had a very casual attitude about wandering into and around a place that no one else(or any data) had ever returned from.
Theres more explanation in the book, in which they have studied area x for years and know alot more than you first are told. Unfortunately it would be a rather boring 5hr film if they explained every plot detail
I’ve just finished it, I really enjoyed it.
I can see why it didn’t get a traditional release, it’s not so much complex as almost abstract in an age when most films are simple and have all the plot points spelt for the audience in obvious, easy to understand ways.
The characters seem to react oddly to things unfolding before them, but IMHO that actually fits the story better than how we think they should react given what’s happening to them.
If I ever have the time to read again, I might pick up the book(s) knowing they’re different to the film.
Watched it tonight (haven't read the book(s)).
Flawed but massive amounts to love about it - beautiful to look at with a visual style I've not really seen before in mainstream movies. I like the fact it's not totally trippy - just odd enough to make you feel a bit uneasy / queasy. Like Blade Runner 2049 it's confident enough to move at its own pace and do its own thing (would like to think its deliberate that it's like a standard Hollywood sci-fi action film but refracted through a 'different' thought process).
Would have been happier without the glowing eyes at the end but then I much prefer Blade Runner without the voiceover...
Re - the tattoo. The 'exploded' body in the pool had the same tattoo as Portman's character ended up with (was the 'original' version of her ever shown with it? Don't think so?). Was she already a copy or did she absorb the tat from the body when she examined it?
Assuming The Thing was a big influence too - Annihilation could have done with a dose more of that film's claustrophobia and paranoia IMO.
Think it will stand at least another view to try and pick up more connections.
Absolutely loved the fleeting shot of the physicist as she walked away around the corner into the field of peopletrees.
I’ve just watched it a second time. Amazed at what I missed first time.
i really like it. I also like the fact that the characters behaved oddly rather than the normal film cliches.
Reminded me a a lot of event horizon too.
Forgot to mention how good the sound design was too.
Especially in the 'annihilation' scene in the underground chamber, and with the bear's 'voice'. Top synthesis work.
Abstract pretty much sums the film up. I really liked Annihilation, feeling-wise it reminded me a bit of Under the Skin (which is far more disturbing).
Loved the visual style and sound design which would have both had more effect in a cinema plus a very subtle storyline with absolutely no "Basil-Exposition" moments. Some standout elements were the exploded/altered bodies, the trees/plants, the shadow-Link scene (one for the Zelda-Ocarina of time fans) and, finally, Natalie Portman's tatoo was seen on at least one of the other members of her team (but I didnt notice it was also on the pool body...hmm, must rewatch).
Tbh I found the book hard going, the film was much better
Especially in the ‘annihilation’ scene in the underground chamber
and, finally, Natalie Portman’s tatoo was seen on at least one of the other members of her team (but I didnt notice it was also on the pool body…hmm, must rewatch).
That tattoo is pretty interesting, hey? It's definitely on the pool guy and someone has said that it's on Kane too. It is also foreshadowed by the bruises that appear on her arm during the boat scene...
Didn't realise Geoff Barrow was involved in the sound design. Makes perfect sense though.
Biggest plot hole for me was why wander through the jungle for days when the could just sail direct to the lighthouse by sea?
Biggest plot hole for me was why wander through the jungle for days when the could just sail direct to the lighthouse by sea?
Map earlier in the film shows the shimmer goes out to sea, so would it be any quicker?
Being in film format things need to be left to the imagination a little.
Such as simply there are 'altered' things in the sea that attack the boats.
Why not fly in, or sky dive? The transition from outside to inside was left open handed and unexplained. They just couldn't remember and lost a couple of days. In the book this is because the psychologist has to use hypnosis to stop them going nuts - something she can't do to herself and why she's less concerned about the loss of days when they are awoken.
I seem to remember in the book the shimmer is also a physical barrier, which they had to find the 'door way' into. Wish they'd kept the rabbit scene for this.
Rabbit scene was my favourite from the book!
>Map earlier in the film shows the shimmer goes out to sea, so would it be any quicker?
Yep, way quicker sailing x miles along a coast vs trekking x miles through jungle.
Why didn't Gandalf just use the giant eagles to fly Frodo straight to Mount Doom?