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

the tv show lost is more resonant that ever

I thought Ex Machina was dumb as shit, and couldn't make it through this book even though it was only like 80 pages long. But Natalie Portman has the perfect doll face and glassy stare to convey Meaning in this kind of thinks-it's-smart prestige SF, so there's that.

<3 <3 <3 Gina Rodriguez <3 <3 <3

screaming to be turned into a movie

― flopson, Thursday, 28 September 2017 01:45

I think that's usually a sign that a book did not deliver, so maybe it was just screaming to be a better book. I haven't read it.

The book was interesting and atmospheric but ultimately unsatisfying (maybe the sequals rectify this?). I will watch the film but don't really know what to expect.

good book that was screaming to be turned into a movie.

Boy, I would have said "good book whose strengths are weirdnesses of word choice and prose style that have no analogue on the screen." I don't see how they make this a movie without making it a "what is the spooky creature in the spooky zone" movie which would be .... nothing like the book, or rather, the kind of thing the book is explicitly a reaction against

dir Alex aaaaaaaand i'm outta here

Book was at #4 on Amazon bestseller chart yesterday!

My novel now seems like it's commenting on some of the other books. Anyway, thrilled it looks like our contributions to eco causes goes up. pic.twitter.com/kz9g5TSK77

— Jeff VanderMeer (@jeffvandermeer) September 28, 2017

(maybe the sequals rectify this?)

nope

Boy, I would have said "good book whose strengths are weirdnesses of word choice and prose style that have no analogue on the screen." I don't see how they make this a movie without making it a "what is the spooky creature in the spooky zone" movie which would be .... nothing like the book, or rather, the kind of thing the book is explicitly a reaction against

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, September 29, 2017 10:25 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not sure what the book is about or a reaction against aside from eco sci-fi with some heavyhanded pomo slabbed on thick, but the whole time i read it i had a feeling that Vandermeer had a film adaptation in mind. also c'mon [SPOILER] there are some good spooky scenes also some action iirc

some books r just cinematic, i wonder what that quality is exactly

anyway im there for this i loved ex machina

same here *unbookmarks thread*

I don’t think the books were unsatisfying. They were each pieces of a puzzle that didn’t totally add up, but suggested a cosmic horror rooted in overgrowth/environmental cancer/corruption/body-doubling/ineffectual bureaucratic conspiracy. All three of the novele brought different perspectives to a situation that was implied to be beyond human comprehension, while kicking the story just a little further down the road.

The tv show “lost” is a facile comparison.... some combination of “the prisoner” and “the thing” and Lisa Frank seems more apt.

This looks awesome, can’t wait. Loved the book(s)

Interesting if familiar story -- as a friend said on Twitter just now, regarding the reaction of the initial test audience, "Make it NOT the book."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/annihilation-how-a-clash-between-producers-led-a-netflix-deal-1065465

I try not to judge a book by its cover but holy cow does David Ellison have severe jerkface

Oh, it's Larry's son. Say no more.

I like the logic of 'This film is too complex, let's dumb it down to be more like Geostorm, which was a big failure for us!'

I try not to judge a book by its cover but holy cow does David Ellison have severe jerkface

― Dan I., Friday, December 8, 2017 2:47 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/scale_crop_768_433/2017/12/scott_rudin_and_david_ellison_-_split_-_getty_-_h_2017.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/Are_We_Not_Men_We_Are_Devo%21.jpg

holy shit

amazing

First I've heard of Geostorm.

tbf ...

https://tmhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Josh-Homme-near-death-meditation-w2.jpg

Annnnd new trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89OP78l9oF0

Interesting contrast to the first trailer!

Good interview w/Garland

http://collider.com/alex-garland-annihilation-interview/amp/

he's familiar with stalker but still thought annihilation was genuinely original?

Garland is not exactly a great interviewee is he... I feel somewhat deflated and standoffish now and I didn't even read the whole interview.

early reviews seem generally positive so far... I'm dialing up some cautious optimism and will try to catch it this weekend

this is going to be another one of those amazing sci-fi megabombs that lasts like 3 weeks in the theater isn't it

The poster and the font and Portman all make me think this is some kind of Phantom Menace sequel with M16s instead of lasers guns

Gotta say, that movie title sells itself in this moment in time.

Queen Amidala in "Stalker 2018"

Exactly

Queen Amidala’s double in Predator 2049: Return to Tatooine

Endor, that is

If the book is a combo of Roadside Picnic & Mountains of Madness, I’m curious how much of that will translate to the screen.

Would prefer Marble Madness

Saw this last night. I really liked it. It’s a verrrrrrrry loose adaptation but it does capture the general atmosphere of the book.

There’s a lot of stuff in here that is going to reward repeat viewings.

no uk cinema release wtf

wait waht

apparently this is being released only in the US, Canada, and China, with other rights already sold to Netflix

Man this guy loves Tarkovsky. Liberally rips off Stalker & Solaris in almost equal measure (mostly Stalker, but the final scene & the whole idea of being able/unable to love a simulacrum of your dead spouse- I mean give me a break). Still, you could do worse when ripping people off. I liked it a lot, and it had a fairly rowdy matinee audience totally gripped and silent, and there was no moaning or groaning when the credits rolled without a lot of questions answered or threads resolved. But having seen Solaris and Stalker, I'm not left with much to think about. Garland not only took the exact imagery of those films, sometimes down to specific shots (underwater seaweed just like the opening shot of Solaris), but all of the ideas are Tarkovsky's. So I'm not sure what to make of it, glad it's out there, it's very well made and paced and it's nice that there's more "intelligent" sci-fi out there that could be successful (posters and advertising and the shit title - i know it's based on a novel - made it look like some Hunger Games shit), but... what's the point if you've seen Solaris and Stalker?

In fairness the Stalker homage is baked into the book

yeah, along with the really lame title. again I liked the film, I like Garland a lot, but the similarities were overbearing and distracting and most importantly, left me with little to think about. But I just saw it a couple hours ago (ha!), so we'll see I suppose. Glad I got to see it in a theater, huge bummer about the distribution being so limited outside of North America. they got bad test audiences, because like I said, the crowd I saw it with was completely silent and gripped, and there wasn't one "oh COME ON!" when the credits came up. it's a very good film and I can only imagine how many people who have never seen a Tarkovsky movie will love this.

enjoyed this. makes up for that amy adams one

haha I agree. it’s far from perfect but Arrival was and is painfully overpraised.

This was fine trending to good. There were elements of the book I missed but the visual elements were pretty good, I liked the end also.

I do wish movies about people doing a mission of some kind would spend less time with those people being breathlessly grim.

this is going to be another one of those amazing sci-fi megabombs that lasts like 3 weeks in the theater isn't it

deep dive:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/02/26/annihilations-grim-box-office-fate-was-an-inevitable-tragedy/#247797134ed9

interesting cast. dunno about longform fiction from this guy tho'.

maybe it's fine in context but characters who say "nothing ever happens without a reason" (more usually "everything happens for a reason") and writers who write those characters can, unless the character is obviously meant to be a grade A idiot, fuck right off.

the next line "everything is determined by something prior" - reasons are not causes.

any talk about his new show Devs? just starting it

“ my book is not at all influenced by Stalker/Roadside Picnic.”

sure brah

yeah, the cancer without radiation is taken directly from roadside picnic.

Devs is getting a little more interesting. It feels like a cross between Ex Machina and a few others, with a slow roll-out

I’m really digging Devs. The camera work is gorgeous, and I think some of it is shot at UCSC. Don’t want to spoil anything though.

We just binge watched the first 5 episodes of Devs, and it's pretty good, yeah. Some of the themes feel maybe a bit too well-trodden in sci-fi, but the look and sound of the show is consistently great, Salisbury and Barrow have done as great a job with the music as with Annihilation. And some of the visual details they've put into creating an eccentric tech geek's paradise are neat, love those ring lights around the trees, and the Dev team headquarters look amazing.

no idea what Devs is but maybe it should have its own spoilers thread so ppl idly scrolling thru here don't get them...

I’d be down for a thread

It’s a new show on FX/Hulu from Alex Garland fyi

Devs is an eight-part miniseries created, written and directed by Garland, currently airing weekly, that I'd intended to start until the spoilers above.

xpost

Sorry about that, though the stuff we discussed happens in the second episode, and it's not really a big spoiler regarding the main plot... Like I said, this is not really a mystery show, they show they cards almost right from the start.

I'll start a new thread and ask the mods to delete the spoiler posts.

A thread for Devs, the new Alex Garland show on FX/HBO (with SPOILERS)

Saw Men tonight. Good build-up for the first half, some beautiful shots, and a final 30 minutes that was insane and felt twice as long. Between this, I'm Thinking of Ending Things, and her weird turn in Fargo, Jessie Buckley seems to be the default actress for--I'm not sure how to describe whatever it is.

she's in The Lost Daughter too, although a bit less - whatever it is

I like a lot of Alex Garland, writer and director, but I'm really not sure what could convince me to see the new one. When I was last in the theatre and saw the trailer, even this little old lady in the back piped up "Why would I want to see that?"

You talking about the civil war movie?

Yeah. Not sure I really need it.

There’s a new book in the series coming this year.

Civil War was extremely unsettling overall, particularly the short Jesse Plemons scene, which might be as scary as anything I've seen in a horror movie as of late.

there are definitely eyerolly bits but it's fairly po-faced as things go

some are making it out to be like The Day After for a new generation, and some of the 'violence-porn to SHOCK U out of complacency' is in this film for sure, but I don't really find the description accurate.

really hits a lot of themes, not any very deeply, it kind of wants you to sit with your own discomfort for a bit. you're kind of left to your own fill-in-the-blanks on every character's past/personality, and there's no real examination of how the conflict began, you're also somewhat meant to piece that together; but I didn't think that was a bad thing, I don't think it would have been satisfying for constant drip-coffee dialogue pointing out "this here event and that here event led us here today".

a lot of 'fog of war', where enemies often don't know who or why they're fighting, who's winning/losing, and some of the conflict seems as expressions of localized despair and rage as opposed to part of a bigger mission. the scarier parts of the movie aren't the depictions of wanton violence, but the moments of beauty that torture people with memories of more civilized times before they inevitably drive by people hanging from a pole or see burnt out husks of cars littering the road, people standing in FEMA-esque lines waiting for water.

obviously given what the US is going through right now it's not easy to watch something like this, but it's also far enough away from our current reality that it isn't massively triggering. for one, the film assumes California and Texas would ever collaborate on anything, or that a Floridian militia could ever become organized and terrifying on a national scale.

It's essentially like from the journalists' perspective? That's my impression.. I might check it out in the future but no big rush to see this in the theaater

Yea entirely from theirs

I'll let you know. I may go to a screening tonight.

I thought it was very very good

Annihilation is screening this month at the imax screen at the OMSI Sci-Fi Film Fest in Portland, OR.

They are also screening Stalker.

(Not Solaris, tho, which is disappointing)

Nice write-up Neanderthal. I saw this yesterday and enjoyed it

my kid came home from school annoyed today that his government teacher went off on the movie in a very predictable fashion, primarily that there wasn't enough explicit stuff about race and that 'the only person of color sacrificed himself for a white girl'. my son didn't want to get into it with her but was fuming that she overlooked the explicitly cuban journalist, and that she seemed to not pick up on every element of subtext in the film (like, the entire Jesse Plemmons sequence). It's a complaint I've seen a lot online. IMO it's really quite obvious that Offerman is a Trump stand-in (third term, 'greatest victory in the history of mankind', 'antifa massacre', disbanding the FBI); it's only the inclusion of Texas in the WF that makes this not a 100% proxy for the current situation. I did think perhaps it would have been wise to not have a white girl as the main protagonist, but then she would not have lived past the Jesse Plemmons scene and would never have made it to the end of the movie. I think the film did an amazing job of telling a story from a unique POV, and developed very realistic characters for whom the viewer builds an incredible amount of empathy in 2 hours.

The final 15 minutes or so of this film are among the most intense scenes I've ever seen in a theater (I generally avoid war films).

(I guess that actor is Brazillian but since the character was from Florida I assumed he was Cuban)

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