Annihilation - from Ex Machina writer/director Alex Garland

I have zero problem with movies like that....but this wasn't one of them, in my opinion.

It felt like it was trying to make you think it had some profundity more than actually having any.

I can't say I agree. The movie doesn't really have a graps that exceeds it's reach. The movie is very upfront about it's themes of self destruction and self sabotage and supports those themes with basically every scene and design choice.
 
Absolutely loved this. Was gripped all the way through, and the end was just f***** wild. That "scream" scene :dry::omg:

Very disappointed I didn't get to see this on the big screen.

Don't know if there's any Tool fans in here, but Annihilation pretty much felt like "Tool: The Movie" to me, in terms of the long steady build, at times dark and unsettling, at times beautiful, but progressivley getting more psychedelic and out there. Like Reflection meets Third Eye meets Rosetta Stoned. The only thing I could listen to for hours after seeing Annihilation was Tool, actually.

[YT]pzdxsTZY2h8[/YT]
[YT]7zV78IgXzB0[/YT]
[YT]0RcSUprIp-A[/YT]

I've seen this three times now and I'm leaning towards the interpretation that the Shimmer is essentially [blackout]God correcting his "mistake."[/blackout] To me it just fits with the conversations in the early scenes about how cells are meant to be these beautiful, immortal things that replicate and change, replicate and change, but we somehow got screwed up in our DNA, and how self-destruction is programmed into us. So I see the [blackout]Shimmer as God's version of "back to the mixing pool!" And the beings that came out of the Shimmer are the "more perfect" Lena and Kane, released to spread their superior genes in the next stage of evolution.[/blackout]

Interesting. Building off what Film Crit Hulk, I kind of see the Shimmer as a cancerous tumour.
Growing, and changing everything it comes in contact with.
How it changes people even when they survive it, like Lena.
 
I wonder if another reason this didn't do very well at the U.S box office is because a lot of people misunderstood the Netflix release? I was talking to someone at work who said they didn't want to pay theater prices when they could wait a few weeks to see it in Netflix, but this didn't come on U.S Netflix on the 12th like it did for everyone else. Now our theater lost it and she's mad she missed it. I think a lot of people probably made that same mistake.
 
I wonder if another reason this didn't do very well at the U.S box office is because a lot of people misunderstood the Netflix release? I was talking to someone at work who said they didn't want to pay theater prices when they could wait a few weeks to see it in Netflix, but this didn't come on U.S Netflix on the 12th like it did for everyone else. Now our theater lost it and she's mad she missed it. I think a lot of people probably made that same mistake.

Yeah, that was probaby confusing for people, hearing of a Netflix release for March 12th.

Speaking of marketing, they really should have tried to book Garland and maybe one of the cast members on Joe Rogan's podcast. One of the biggest podcasts in the world and the host has been banging on for the past 3 years about how Ex Machina is one of his favourite films ever (he really likes 28 Days Later aswell).
Covers far more ground then all these early morning/late night talk shows would combined. Plus I'm sure it''d be an interesting conversation. Big missed oppertunity.
 
Yeah, that was probaby confusing for people, hearing of a Netflix release for March 12th.

Speaking of marketing, they really should have tried to book Garland and maybe one of the cast members on Joe Rogan's podcast. One of the biggest podcasts in the world and the host has been banging on for the past 3 years about how Ex Machina is one of his favourite films ever (he really likes 28 Days Later aswell).
Covers far more ground then all these early morning/late night talk shows would combined. Plus I'm sure it''d be an interesting conversation. Big missed oppertunity.

Yeah, that would've been great. Not even sure if Rogan was aware that it was the same director, though, I haven't heard him mention the film at all.
 
Ex Machina is definitely a tighter, smaller focus film and often I'd be more down for that. But aesthetically and in terms of its ideas, it very much felt like something I had encountered many iterations of before in science fiction stories and TV and movies and the like.

This felt a lot fresher to me, and I appreciated the level of execution relative to the major bump up in scale, especially when $55 million is not what I'd call a big budget for a movie of this nature. There's obvious influences on it, sure (the book, Asimov's "Green Patches," Virginia Woolf's To The Lighthouse, Tarkovsky's Stalker, Cronenberg's eXistenZ, 2001: A Space Odyssey, John Carpenter's The Thing, Alien, Arrival, Fulci and Argento, Giger, Lisa Frank, again, The Search for Spock) but it is such a hybrid of so many very different things and really combines them rather seamlessly--in keeping with the movie one could say that it refracts the very DNA of its art/lit/film predecessors--it ends up feeling like something new and unique.

I also found that this film really works on several different levels, be it drama, adventure, horror, action thriller, mood piece, thought-provoker, and so on. The visceral and conceptual function of Ex Machina felt more limited to me. It's basically an idea movie, and since the ideas felt a bit rote to me as a sci-fi fan, I never got a lot out of it. Whereas I am not sure I've ever seen a genre movie really focus in on our biological/psychological programming towards self-destruction and then find a way, through science fiction, to elaborate on that idea and develop it towards a conclusion that is simultaneously devastating and transcendent.

The moment the film's title is spoken and what immediately happens after... that's going to say burned into my memory for a long time. I really felt this film give new meaning and a different emotional context to the idea of annihilation. It takes both the language and physics definitions of the word, and finds a powerfully resonant middle-ground for them both, a hybrid definition whose truth you can feel. This is something only art can do.

an·ni·hi·la·tion
??n???l?SH?n/
noun

1.
complete destruction or obliteration.
"the threat of global annihilation"
2.
PHYSICS
the conversion of matter into energy, especially the mutual conversion of a particle and an antiparticle into electromagnetic radiation.

The premise is also similar to the HP Lovecraft story The Colour Out of Space.
In the tale, an unnamed narrator pieces together the story of an area known by the locals as the "blasted heath" in the wild hills west of Arkham, Massachusetts. The narrator discovers that many years ago a meteorite crashed there, poisoning every living being nearby; vegetation grows large but foul tasting, animals are driven mad and deformed into grotesque shapes, and the people go insane or die one by one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colour_Out_of_Space
 
The only element from the book that wasn't in the movie which I would of liked to see is the

psychologist manipulating the other women at times with programmed words she hypnotized them with.

In the movie the scientists can’t remember setting up camp and it seems to be just another effect of the Shimmer instead of the psychologist hypnosis tactics to control and manipulate the other women to do what she wants at times.
 
The premise is also similar to the HP Lovecraft story The Colour Out of Space.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Colour_Out_of_Space

Good call. This comparison only occurred to me a couple days ago, which is embarrassing as I’m a big HPL fan and Colour is one of my favorite stories. Honestly, I think a case could be made that this is the best adapatation of that story we will ever get. It might even be a better adapatation of Colour than it is of...Annihilation.
 
Ex Machina was one of the best sci-fi films ever, this was... weird...

Ex Machina was like old-school Nolan type of incredibly awesome; tight clever script, wow/omg ending, etc. This was like... trippy pseudo-something.

This was constructed to be more open and loose. I like elaborately WTF kind of things like Memento or Prestige, or Ex Machina, with complicated yet explicit and tight scripts, instead of what Annihilation was. Some great scenes, no doubt, and I'm not saying it was non-sensical, but overall far from Garland's best work.
 
Really good sci-fi film but not Garland's best. I just didn't think it was as mind blowing as people were saying it was. Also didn't find it that complicated or trippy. The creature designs were fantastic :up:. And the acting was great too. Especially Tessa Thompson who played a very different type of role than she usually plays. I was genuinely surprised how well she played it.
 
Interesting. Building off what Film Crit Hulk, I kind of see the Shimmer as a cancerous tumour.
Growing, and changing everything it comes in contact with.
How it changes people even when they survive it, like Lena.
That is an interesting interpretation as well. Could even be both, lol. I like the idea of a [blackout]"religious event" (as Ventress suggested) being viewed through a scientific lens[/blackout].
 
Might have missed it, but didn't see it mentioned. Garland's next project is a show:

“The next project, provided it happens – hopefully we’re gonna shoot it later this year – [and it’s] an eight-part television series for FX. It’s a sort of science fiction, but it’s a much more technology based sci fi whereas Annihilation is a more hallucinogenic form of sci fi and more fantastical form of sci fi.

This is slightly more in common with projects I’ve worked on like Ex Machina or Never Let Me Go, which are taking something about our world now – not our world in the future, but our world as it is right now – and then drawing sort of inferences and conclusions from it.”

http://www.slashfilm.com/alex-garland-tv-show/
 
I should’ve predicted the “lol it’s not that deep bro” comments as soon as I saw it. Seems to be the common refrain about a movie that aims for something ambitious that certain people don’t enjoy.
 
I should’ve predicted the “lol it’s not that deep bro” comments as soon as I saw it. Seems to be the common refrain about a movie that aims for something ambitious that certain people don’t enjoy.
You can also expect the word "pretentious" to show up in those comment threads.
 
Went last night, blew my mind with the effects. Read a really interesting take on twitter. The guy that was in my seat when I got in the theater, thankfully left and mumbled something about "...stupid movie".
 
Loved the movie. Actually thought some of the effects (mainly early on) were the weakest parts of the movie, along with too much exposition at times. But it's one of the best sci-films of the decade IMO. More risky than Ex Machina, which i liked, but thought was overrated.
 
Don't know if there's any Tool fans in here, but Annihilation pretty much felt like "Tool: The Movie" to me, in terms of the long steady build, at times dark and unsettling, at times beautiful, but progressivley getting more psychedelic and out there. Like Reflection meets Third Eye meets Rosetta Stoned. The only thing I could listen to for hours after seeing Annihilation was Tool, actually.
I'm a fan of Lateralus album (listened to it a lot during university days) and yeah the film totally reminded me of Tool.
 
Annihilation hits Digital May 22 & on Blu-ray/DVD May 29.

DbAE_g_W4AE36RU.jpg
 
Wait, is that legit? I thought netflix movies never come out on bluray. Hnnnnngh if true.
 
The US was the only market where this wasn't a Netflix release, so it makes sense.

It actually released in China in the recently concluded weekend. Didn't do a lot of business tho (6.1 million).
 
The US was the only market where this wasn't a Netflix release, so it makes sense.

Yeah. That ocassionaly happens.

The Ritual and The Titan both got physical releases in the UK.
 
Buying this the day of. I'm glad it's getting a 4K release.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"