Annihilation (2018) -- Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Oscar Isaac, Tessa Thompson, dir. Alex Garland, based on Jeff VanderMeer's book

This was a great film with a terrible name that almost kept me from watching it. Glad it didn't

I've seen your takeaway in lots of places, but I still can't quite bring myself to watch this, at least not in the theaters. Maybe it is just the title, but the title is terrible enough to give it the discomforting tinge of from-the-headlines exploitation.

Obviously "Civil War" is a great title, very eye-catching, but what would have been a better fit?

(By both great and terrible title, I mean, yeah, it's certainly eye-catching, from a marketing standpoint, which is great, but it's terrible because of what it conveys, which may or may not reflect the plot/premise of the film itself, which I and of course others find uncomfortable, given this country sometimes feels like it is teetering on the brink.)

Josh you should go watch it. If it's about civil war, it's maybe 1% of what the movie is about. Just pretend it was called "war journalist - 5 stars and two thumbs up from everyone - best picture nominee".

I think it has more to say about the current situation in Gaza than the sitch in America. But then again I'm not a US citizen so maybe it is saying things to US citizens that our kind aren't picking up (doubt it tho)

I think this film particularly benefits from the cinema experience too. There are many tense scenes made more palpable by it.

I found the "cars" scene more tense than the obviously tense scene that came afterwards. My heart rate was up!

Maybe a terrible headline could help

https://i.postimg.cc/CxWWHBR4/Screenshot-20240419-231131-Chrome.jpg

It really doesn't want to say much at all about "civil war", but it's a great backdrop for the things it does want to say

Loved the cowardice of this movie. Great stuff! 👍

it's an accurate headline.
Josh, you won't lose much by skipping this movie

yeah reviews like that are, IMO, off base; as I said above, it's like they can't deal with subtext. Subtext is not cowardice.

subtext is for cowards, as the Garth Marengi meme frequently reminds us

Akm otm. Poor reflection on the viewer if they come away from this thinking "wimpy politics".

also apparently Lee dies at the end? I thought kevlar + no blood meant she just got knocked down big time.... kinda the ending I prefer tbh

yeah she dies, as it's meant to show how the events of the movie eventually break through her hardened shell. Earlier she implies in the movie that if Jessie was shot and killed, she would shoot it dispassionately like a journalist, so we're meant to see that the earlier events of the film change her a bit when she actually runs to her rescue instead of shooting Jessie's death

I got that, I actually thought it was one of the only groan worthy moments of the film. I just didn't think they made it super clear she died. Think it's less "groany" if she didn't so I'm choosing to believe that's what happened. Kevlar!!!!

I thought her breakdown during the siege did enough to clarify "hard exterior broken. Real woman feeling things again". And it did so in a not so tropey way. The sacrifice for the younger version of herself was so telegraphed I wish they missed it. But oh well. Didn't ruin the film, but it was its low point imo

can we discuss the film without making little digs at each other? thx

That's fair, I apologies for my "poor reflection on the viewer" post. Sorry.

Nothing could make me interested in seeing this movie

otm

Wouldn't go quite that far, if it turns out that at some point a character turns to the camera and goes "what's so civil about war anyway?" that might sway me.

if Axl Rose made an appearance it might've been worth it

i'm frankly confused by the resistance to viewing this film

i'm frankly confused by the resistance to viewing this film

It seems stupid and NPR-brained and Garland's previous movies, Annihilation aside, weren't that great?

I guess I like his work more than you do as I think most of the movies he's written the screenplays for are good. I don't know what "NPR-brained" means.

"NPR brained" to Uri Berliner means something different than it probably does to you, and to me.

Putting California and Texas on the same side of the fictional war is enough for me to decide that this is a fundamentally unserious work of fiction

it's actually about ethics in photojournalism

I will die on the hill that Men is a very good horror film, and the ending is inspired

lol I watched Annihilation, stuck it in my top 20, and I have no memory of it.

They say the name of the movie at the end

More like they are it is the name of the movie

The California-Texas alliance, the president who's coded as a mixture of Biden and Trump, the reference to an "Antifa massacre" without a clarification on whether Antifa was massacred or committed the massacre, the strict avoidance of actual political ideology throughout the film, the general anxiety over partisanship/political tensions without ever taking a side... I do think of this movie as profoundly politically unserious in a particularly American liberal way. It's trying so hard to avoid angering any viewers that it ties itself into incoherent knots. NPR brained is right.

The movie isn't about the politics that lead to Civil War, it's about a hyperbolic depiction of what it would actually look like.

Offerman didn't code as Biden to me AT ALL. his opening monologue is Trumpian and he disbands the FBI, and illegally stays in office a third term, and drops missiles on Americans, all while insisting he's winning the war even as his own army is surrendering. What exactly about that codes as Biden?

For those itt bragging about how you won't see it, congrats, you want a medal? You can either trust those of us who have seen it and aren't NPR brained or you can keep insisting the movie is what you say it is without ever seeing it. Your choice

Like I'll gladly have discussion with people who have seen it and disagree with me but I ain't gonna debate it with people who haven't and still inexplicably want to say what it is

Neaderthal OTM, I don't see any Biden coding here; the actual states involved in the WF are beside the point; and I don't think it's unclear at all what the 'antifa massacre' meant.

but maybe the film is an interesting palimpset that strengthens or amplifies the viewer's biases and preconceived notions?

Just putting this out there: https://newrepublic.com/article/180080/civil-wars-mystifying-vision-american-meltdown

it's actually about ethics in photojournalism

― ivy., Saturday, 20 April 2024 02:07 (five hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

lol Ivy

Also an obvious otm to Neando's post. The problem with the above article (and many like it) is it assumes that the movie is trying to be a political vehicle when that is not the impression I get from it at all. It seemed to me the movie was trying to be a character study, a high-tension thriller, and a look at the ethics/world of war journalism. It does the last two of those well, the first one too if you can put up with a couple lame tropes in the process.

Yes, the problem is that it is not trying to be political, in fact trying very hard to be not political

Well, we disagree on whether that's a problem. I am thankful politics is a tool for art to use, not an inherent essence which defines its worth... but to each their own!

silby you haven't even seen the film so I'm not sure how you can say it's trying very hard not to be political.

I don't really need a fictional movie (or book, or any art) to just tell me explicitly all the things I already believe. I prefer it when that's backgrounded in service of the characters.

otherwise, this is just the Handmaid's Tale (the tv series). which, you know, was good but I gave up on it after a while.

if I only posted my opinions about things I'm familiar with that wouldn't be much fun

fwiw I think the film being studiously divorced from real politics is a problem because that's stupid, not because that's immoral or something

things shouldn't be stupid!

if I only posted my opinions about things I'm familiar with that wouldn't be much fun

no one is claiming talking about things you have no immediate knowledge of isn't fun! It's a hobby I'm well acquainted with. I just try to not label it a virtue.

hard agree that things shouldn't be stupid tho. n-e-ways, bad posting silby, sorry to say.

I'm not on my A game