Just watched it... Some spoilers... - Annihilation (2018) Discussion

[–] movielover718 (293) 7 years ago

The copy scene had bad cgi? That wasn’t cgi that was practical if ur talking about the “alien/humanoid” thing. Which was why it looked strange.

The movie wasn’t suppose to be empowering just cus it had women, they tried to send in whole bunch of people before that and they never came back the scientist was the last choice they had.
Just because u did not understand it doesn’t mean the movie did not know what it wanted to be.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 7 years ago

I have complained many times about how artificial CGI looks, and how I miss the days of good practical effects. But this reminded me that bad practical effects are even worse. The latex suit in the copy scene was so glaringly obvious. There were some cool visuals in the rest of the movie—did they run out of money when working on the climactic scenes?

reply

[–] Eli (63) 7 years ago

There was an interview with the director and actors after the credits in the theater where I watched it. Alex Garland discussed how he purposely kept the effects budget low so that he could maintain creative control, and that it was a standard trade-off in movies.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 7 years ago

Fair enough, but:

(1) The creativity didn’t make up for it (and I say this despite having thought “Ex Machina” was magnificent all the way through)

and

(2) If you can see the latex suit, it just looks cheesy, regardless.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

The movie wasn’t suppose to be empowering just cus it had women, they tried to send in whole bunch of people before that and they never came back the scientist was the last choice they had.

I originally thought thats what the movie was going to be about but it didn't feel empowering at all. All the women in the film died except for lena and one woman flipped out in the way we'd expect a stero typical woman to flip out when faced with dangour. Lena the only survivor only survived cause she was determined to I guess to find out what happened to her husband (Odd cause her husband made it back out). Risking your life (Since uptill now no one ever came back) to identify what happened to a man is not something an empowered woman would do at least not from a modern feminist perspective.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

I respectfully disagree, Marc. I think it's a Sci-Fi Masterpiece, the best film I've seen in years! It's rated 8.2 on IMDB, but I give it a 9.8. The only film I've ever rated higher is 2001, the only film I've ever given a 10.

I guess that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

PS I enjoyed Sunshine, but it's not even in the same league as this film.

PPS I also loved the music score. I'm going to order the CD tomorrow.

😎

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

STOP saying "Masterpiece".

MASTERPIECE: a work of outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship

out·stand·ing adjective 1. exceptionally good.

There is nothing that STANDS OUT as exceptionally good about the artistry, nor skill, nor workmanship. It was all very average.

Which part of the artistry or skill or workmanship was "outstanding"? a rainbow glowing CGI field? some crystal trees?
What EXACTLY are you saying makes it a MATERPIECE?

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

No, I will NOT stop saying it because it IS one imho. And I don't need a definition of "masterpiece". That makes you sound rude, arrogant and condescending. Maybe you should think about being less so in your comments, gjb.

Everything about it was amazing. The most amazing thing was the palpable sense of dread and impending doom which permeated the entire film. It kept me on the edge of my seat the whole time. It's the best film I've seen in years, and
I give it a 9.8/10. And nothing you can say will dissuade me from that opinion, cause I don't give a crap what you think about it. So you're wasting our time saying so.

Reactions to art and cinema are more subjective than objective. For everyone who loves a film, there will be someone who hates it. Just because you dismiss it as being not being a masterpiece does NOT make it true. You have your opinions, and I have mine.

And oh yeah, you might want to work on your rudeness, arrogance and condescension problem.

😎

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Many critics or "Shills" are dropping the word MASTERPIECE. I'm sick of it. EVERYTHING is not a masterpiece. It has to be outstanding to be a masterpiece. So, the sense of dread made it a masterpiece for you, I get that. But, the last couple films that critic/shills have dubbed as masterpieces, makes me believe people no longer understand what that term means. BLADE RUNNER was not a "masterpiece", it was watchable, and tolerable, but not a masterpiece. So, fine... this is a masterpiece TO YOU, but not really as defined by the definitions above: OUTSTANDING in so many ways. Personal perspective, sure. Truth about the movie, no.

I no better than to try to dissuade anyone's personal opinion, but using the term Masterpiece correctly is important. Like saying something is colored blue when it is clearly orange.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

GJB,
I have not described a film as a "masterpiece" in years. Actually I can't remember if I ever did, other than 2001, which I rate at 10/10 and the best film of all time imho.

Btw, I enjoyed Bladerunner 2049, but I would not even think of using the word "masterpiece" in connection with that film.
MovieManCin2

😎

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

here's an HONEST review about this movie from rotten tomatos that NAILS why it doesnt come close to being a "masterpiece"

Just dumb. Spoiler alert! Some mysterious shimmering area is growing from where a meteor or something crash lands on earth. It's gobbling up more and more area. No one knows what's going on inside it because everyone they sent in didn't come out again. Here are the dumb parts:
1. The organization investigating it isn't led by anyone from the government or the military. It is led by a psychologist. Why on earth would they need professional psychologist leading the investigation of some extraterrestrial phenomenon.
2. Over three years some number of teams were sent in and none came out. Did no one think to tie a rope to someone (like in Stranger Things), let them go in for an hour take some samples and come back out?
3. Or how about sending in some robots or drones to take samples.
4. Apparently everyone who went in did so without any protective clothing. They have no idea what sort of air, or alien microbes might be present. For all they know the air could be acid or something. No matter, they all go in wearing fatigues and that's it.
5. Natalie Portman is allowed to join an expedition into the shimmering area. No one has ever come out. But the A-Team they send in there consists of: A psychologist, a paramedic, a geo-scientist, a physicist, and a biologist - Portman's character who was an afterthought to the team.. None have any military training except Portman's character. Yet they are going in to an unknown, probably deadly, certainly dangerous situation and they are all armed with military rifles. As far as we know - and will see later on - they don't really know how to use them or have little to no training handling their weapons.
6. Once they are inside the shimmering area they don't seem to be taking their jobs very seriously or really doing anything at all except walk around. Only Portman occasionally takes a sample of something.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

No one is taking pictures, no one is writing anything down, no one is logging their journey. It doesn't seem like they are are trying to figure out what's going on. So why are they there? To find the others who went in?
To puzzle out the source of the weird stuff that's happening in the area? We don't really know.
7. The first scene in the shimmering area shows them all waking up in their tents five days after entering the area and none of them has any memory of the previous days. They know they ate and set up camp, but they all have complete amnesia from when they walked through the boundary. Why didn't they check the pictures they should have been taking? Why didn't they look at the daily report they should have been writing?
8. It becomes immediately obvious that when faced with a dangerous and unknown situation you need the sort of discipline, training, and organization that the military provides. You need hard, trained, people who can take orders led by a smart competent leader that has specific mission objectives. They need to be strong, resilient and ready. What this team had was a some PhDs and a paramedic. The first dangerous beast they encounter nearly kills them because they are bad shots - except for Portman who finally puts the beast down. But again, they hadn't planned to take her - she was a last minute add on.
9. The final scenes where the alien seems to kill itself makes no sense at all. Why did it go through all the trouble to come there, create the shimmering area in which it is re-sequencing genes such that animals and plants are being radically transmogrified into weird and beautiful monsters only to burn it all to the ground for no explicable reason.
10. Super spoiler alert! In the final twist, we find out that both the main characters have actually been taken over by the alien(s). No big surprise there.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

The thing is, why create the shimmering area for three years when they could have simply landed on earth, taken a few drops of someone's blood and shazam! body snatched them. Didn't make any sense to me.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

And that was ONE GUY's input on this "Mess-O-piece"

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 7 years ago

Because the movie’s plot required that your scenario not happen. Talk about seams showing.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

These are all piddling details imho, gjb. I hear what you are saying, and in the analysis of mamy films, I would probably agree with you. I posted a scathing review here earlier of the idiotic film "The Shape of Water" listing about 10 or 12 things that were stupid, ridiculous, and/or totally unbelievable. Some folks agreed with me, but I also received some blistering reactions.

And I actually do have one minor problem with the logic of this film, hence the 9.8/10 rating. The women wisely set up camp for the night in a high, relatively secure watchtower. Then they stupidly set up their
"guard post" on the ground in a very vulnerable position. WTF? This leads rather quickly to a very bad result. Of course in most sci-fi, horror, mystery, or thriller films there's almost always one character who does something incredibly stupid to advance the plot. It's sort of a "MacGuffin".

But in this case, I was amazed, mesmerized, in awe, fascinated and on the edge of my seat for the entire film. Minor details were just not important to me. Apparently they were to you. I respect your opinion even though
I disagree with it.

It's still a "Masterpiece" in my book, and as I stated before, the last film I labeled thus was 2001: A Space Odyssey from 1968.

😎

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

lol this is really embarrassing.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

What is really embarrassing, cake?

😎

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

your entire post.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Okay then. Poop on your head, butt wipe!

🚾

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 7 years ago

7. Also, that memory loss was kind of cool and unsettling, but it was never followed up on—from what I recall, they never experienced it the rest of the way. It was like the show “LOST”: just throw up something mysterious and then let the plot thread completely drop while we focus on something else.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Are you implying that my review is not honest, gjb??

I really don't care about this review. The film is a "Sci-Fi Masterpiece", and I rate is as a 9/8/10. I said it, and I stand by it. That is, of course, only my opinion. It is not to be misconstrued as a sacred edit from upon high.

😎

reply

[–] Blackbeard (153) 7 years ago

@gjb Wow, you obviously didn't pay attention to the movie at all (or you are just a complete idiot) But let me see if I can help you out here...

1. It IS led by a government/military agency. The person leading them at that moment just happened to be a Psychologist (you do know the government and military have Psychologists too, don't you?)
2. I too thought about the rope thing, so I'll give you that, but as for "go in for an hour" the very first thing that happened the instant they went in is completely lost their short term memories and lost track of time. They explained this as they woke up from their first night not remembering even seeing up camp and then realizing they've actually already been there 3 or 4 days. How did you miss that!?
3. They already mentioned that they DID send in drones. Again, how did you miss that?
4. It's possible that the original teams did have protective clothing, and since one guy made it out from the last team, the Psychologist decided, let's just go in (and at that point, they had given up hope, so it was worth the risk since they figured they'd probably fail and the whole earth will be consumed anyway.)
5. They've already tried sending in numerous teams including military and probably every other configuration of military/scientists, male and female, etc. This was just one more last try with this particular team. You're just an idiot for not getting this.
6. They did. They were also taking numerous samples throughout. Were you asleep during this movie or what?

The rest of what you complain about is not even worth expelling, you just wouldn't grasp it. Though with #9, the Alien didn't kill itself, it was on fire from the phosphorus grenade, and it was trying to get back to it's safe place which caused it to burn everything to the ground (even aliens can panic when they are on fire you know.)

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

if you are replying to that long post I did, that was a cut and paste from a reviewer from rotten tomatos

not me.

you are forgiven

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 7 years ago

You stopped before 7, which was the memory loss that seemed interesting at first but then never happened again. I thought it was going to turn into an increasingly time-twisted narrative with them discovering they had done more and more stuff to each other that they can’t remember, but it was totally dropped.

As for the alien’s death: why was it so foolish as to allow the grenade to kill it? This is the same alien clever enough to fool humans into thinking it is one of them (a la “The Thing”, a much better movie)? It’s just a mishmash of sci-fi tropes without really settling on any particular story.

reply

[–] twhite (48) 7 years ago

Seems they tried to allude to certain things in the book but then got lazy. In the book the psychologist is actually the director of the southern reach incognito. She was tired of sending in crews to die a horrible death and also had terminal cancer so figured she herself should go in and experience what the other people she had sent before her had. She also hypnotized the entire crew before they left on the expedition. She had words she could use to elicit certain reactions in the other crew members she went in with. They said that the crossing over was detrimental to the mental health of the crew members so it was better if they were hypnotized to not remember that part also. There was a part in the movie when they were discussing the missing time, the camera panned to the director and she had a look on her face like she knew. I took this as some of the same stuff happened in the movie as in the book but they just got lazy and left it out/didn't explain it properly. I can't fathom someone thinking this movie is a "masterpiece".

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 7 years ago

Interesting. How do they know the crossing over is psychologically harmful if no one has come back or communicated from the inside?

reply

[–] twhite (48) 7 years ago

I forgot that the director aka the physcologist had snuck into the shimmer a few weeks prior with a scientist from the southern reach. The scientist was never the same after. Also in the book each prior expedition wrote down everything they experienced in a journal. When the biologist first reaches the light house in the book she finds a trapdoor to a room with all the abandoned notebooks of all the previous expeditions, there are thousands. Some others did come back but they all died within a few days, including the biologists mimic husband. In the book the real husband tranforms into an owl that lives with the real biologist on an island for years in the shimmer. The biologist ultimately transforms into a transdeminsional being capable of living in any enviroment and transversing time and space.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 7 years ago

Ok then!

reply

[–] LetThemEatCake (2717) 7 years ago

I'm pretty sure the film is trash, people now have to call everything a masterpiece because they can't death with living in a time where art and specially film, are dead.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

As I mentioned earlier, poop on your head, butt wipe! Btw, you might want to actually SEE the film before you hand down your absurd and baseless review from upon high.

Damn, you're arrogant and condescending!

🚾

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

PS: FU and that skank you rode in with! Strong letter to follow.

😎

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

on one hand: 2001, and epic game and movie changing experience that most have hailed as a classic and a "masterpiece" (many don't enjoy it, and to each their own, but it EARNED a title of masterpiece by being OUTSTANDING in artistry, skill, and workmanship)

on other hand: Annihilation -- equal to 2001? Not in anybody's eyes, ever. Different, maybe good in its own way, but NOT outstanding artistry, skill, or workmanship.

This is why I posted those definitions way up there, so we are all talking using the same language.

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

Agreed. A masterpiece is really an artists singular best work rather then a catogory of general good works. Each artist can have only one masterpiece.

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

I'm going to have to see it... Most of the negative feedback I see seems to be nitpicking details, so that must mean the actual story and atmosphere is good.

My favorite sci-fi of all time is Contact. Where would you rank that one, MovieMan?

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

If you like sci-fi, I think you will enjoy this film

Contact: A good film, but not a great one. Speaking of which, did you see Jodie Foster on crutches at the Oscars?
What's up with that?

😎

reply

[–] Frogarama (12942) 7 years ago

I saw a blurb about it, but I didn't click on the link. Maybe she broke her foot kicking Harvey Weinstein's ass!

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

LMAO!

😎

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

Looking forward to your review of this. I love most Sci-Fi, but felt there was very little of that here.

reply

[–] Bigt (114) 7 years ago

This was by no means a masterpiece. Don't fool yourself.

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

In my eyes, it was a masterpiece. But then that's why they make chocolate and vanilla.

😎

reply

[–] Alex (1503) 7 years ago

Think it's time to get your eyes checked, fam.
Comparing this PoS to 2001: Space Odyssey? Are you perpetually high?

reply

[–] MovieManCin2 (26342) 7 years ago

Are you perpetually rude and arrogant?

😎

reply

[–] kellycallie (728) 7 years ago

The not so ''twisty'' ending was evident at the start of the movie when her husband walked through the door. It was obvious it wasn't really going to be him. Actually virtually everything was predictable. The ''chubbier'' actress of the remaining 4 who tied them all up and started acting crazy.. that too was predictable before they went inside the house. She was acting ''irritable''. It was fairly obvious she would act up. And the one that basically opted to suicide.. saw it coming too.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

and how did fake hubby escape the shimmer in the first place? the one place on earth that is probably watched 24/7 and by satellites for survivors..... maybe he escaped during a thunderstorm through an underground sewage drain, and found a nearby taxi. yeah. that can work.

OR
the brilliant scientists/military (who admit they know nothing about any of it) who were tracking him, thought, "gee, lets just let him go through town, slogging his disease or whatever it is that we dont know about, infecting everything on the way, and see what he does to her when he gets there. Because picking up a lone survivor and debriefing him would be too cliche.

God this movie is dumb. I'd rather watch "KNOWING" again. I know, right??? "KNOWING!"

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

I was wondering if the husband just materialized at her bedroom door as he didn't even remember arriving at the house.

Kinda like the way lena's duplicate appeared in the light house lobby when that tiny hole in the ground would be the only it could have exited the chamber below.

reply

[–] SlackerInc (1101) 7 years ago

The first half of “Sunshine” is great. The second half is terrible, just laughably bad.

reply

[–] [deleted] 7 years ago

agreed. I've never watched Sunshine twice, since the 2nd half went all pointlessly zombie. Loved the 1st half.

reply

[–] msetc (7) 7 years ago

It's not a military. The Southern Reach is a scientific government institution. If you read the books they describe why they send in the people the way they do. Essentially the teams are pretty expendable and are made up of people representing different scientific fields. They already sent in heavily armed military guys and none came back.

reply

[–] Renovatio (2990) 7 years ago

Military folks were sent earlier... none returned apart from Kane who fell ill... This was pretty clear in the movie. They talk about it, show military folks going mad because they can't process the science of what they're seeing, etc...

Music/Sound were solid in my opinion... Loved the bass hits and atmospheric sounds... Subjective, to each their own...

The story/Movie... While the premise of the story is not unsual.. People explore strange phenomenon taking place in and isolated location... It's not meant to be an exciting twist movie, nor a movie about plot... it's more European... Lots of mood and atmosphere... What is interesting, apart from the execution (too long to get into here), is the themes of what the nature of life is, what the next step in evolition could be... the processs of natural selection that occurs in real time in the movie and the indifference of nature to our needs, feelings and ideas... It's certainly not a humanist nor moralistic movie!

I liked the design and visuals but I'm generally not a fan of Garland's affinity for that digital look in his movies... Ex Machina was the same... This is a taste thing though... He seems to be doing it intentionally...

Not a masterpeice by any stretch of the imagination, but a solid sci-fi movie nonetheless...

reply

[–] crc32 (2584) 7 years ago

The movie overall: I had the feeling it didn't know what it wanted to be and seemed pretentious to me. Was it supposed to be art (2001) or Sci-Fi?

I agree the movie felt like it didn't know what it wanted to be other then a surreal sci-fi movie but it didn't come accross as pretentious to me like say perhaps prometheus did.

reply

[–] Alex (1503) 7 years ago

Or... they could have nuked the whole area just to be sure.

God this movie was so dumb.

reply

[–] zeesha (1826) 7 years ago

It is very stupid to think that the government had not tried that already. If you are not so busy spewing your hate comments, you might be able to imagine how easy it is for aliens who can change the time dimension, to dismantle nuclear weapons.

reply

[–] Alex (1503) 7 years ago

Ahahahahhahah.
1 fucking phosphorous grenade was enough to set the whole thing on fire, you think nuke would fail?
They never tried that option because they wanted to learn what it is and what it does, except they wasted their time and energy getting their exploration teams killed.
I'm not gonna make up shitty excuses in my head to elevate this "movie".
Also, there was no changing "time dimension" b/c the days they lost upon entering the Shimmer was psychologist hypnotizing them which was clearly answered in the book but skipped in the movie altogether.

reply

[–] zeesha (1826) 7 years ago

If a grenade can end the whole thing, why Kane or other previous team hadn't done that? The government might wanted to learn the Shimmer at first, but not after they realized that they couldn't stop it expanding to cities. Your "they never tried it because..." is quite a lame explanation. If you think I made it up about they had already tried. Then just tell me when is the right time to nuke it? Wait until it reach near the cities?
The movie left the audiences with many questions to think about. Why the alien didn't stop the Lena's duplicate to burn the lighthouse with a grenade, is one of these questions. And these qustions could guide us to figure out the story under the surface. But it also left some people a chance to denigrate the movie with the shitty excuse - "The movie is dumb."
I haven't read the book. Though, I did noticed that Antress looked suspicious when Lena woke up and felt disoriented. But that won't explain why 4 months feel like days or weeks. You think hypnotizing could make people stay alive without eating for months? I don't think so. Also, it made clear in the movie that the expedition team headed straight south to the beach. Trekking for 4 months? How large do you think the Shimmer was? Different time dimention would make more sense. If you don't buy it, at least you should agree that the alien technology in the movie were powerful beyond human reach. Other viewers mentioned that in the book, equipment and weapons decay rapidly in Area X. I can imagine that's how nuclear weapons got "dismantled". I guess you won't imagine that, you just sit there and watch, expecting everything explained clearly in the movie for dummy.

reply