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

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

is it really looking that grim? there was a decent amount of people there when i saw it yesterday, wasn't just spillover from Black Panther

"a decent amount of people" only cuts it in 1974. opening smash or zilch.

but that was how Ex Machina was, total slow burn success. does Paramount really have that little confidence in it?

Ex Machina didn't have a star budget, I don't think

Right

I should read that Forbes article

Ex Machina was an A24 film, apples and oranges. Much lower budget, surely.

I think the book was a little too fresh in my mind and it hindered my ability to just let the film roll, so I really want to see it again

It's really its own thing. The thing I feel is a strength is that the major questions of the work aren't stated by characters, and when they are, they're not elaborated upon. That's going to be a weakness for any audience that needs themes spelled out.

I was in awe that the Southern Reach facility looked exactly the same from the outside as what I'd imagined when reading the book

My partner described this as “femme The Thing”

My favorite bit was the dance in the lighthouse with the double, which it turns out was indeed choreographed by a dancer.

that intrigued me, so here's the article I found after inevitably searching:
https://www.wmagazine.com/story/annihilation-natalie-portman-dance-final-scene

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.