Annihilation

A pure and, in places, really terrifying horror with an inconclusive ending. The hypnotic atmosphere of the survey mutating the national park is perhaps disrupted a little inter by the memory sequences, but they are important too. Garland cleverly layers a story full of memory holes and, through hints, sets the scene for a mind-fuck finale, which deserves deeper analysis, not so much of what happened, but more like why. The tricks are sufficient, even if a little unbalanced. The overall visual is just wow. The human trees, moldy bodies and all the other mutants serve to advance the story. The acting was flawless, with Isaac being the most intriguing of all. Another great job after Ex Machina. (14/03/2018)

The less sense there is, the stronger the fate, or how not even a mutated extraterrestrial ecosystem isn’t enough for someone to act with some sense with their protozoan intelligence, isn’t it, Marceloo? But on the other hand, I wouldn’t take Annihilation as a deeply philosophical work, either – the fact that anyone can get frustrated because of that is funny. Portman and four more scientists, about whom a lot can be written (though certainly not that the director has made them likeable) go to investigate a Zone… and they find pretty much what the trailer promised, although there is less survival and mutated creatures than expected. Then it nicely goes to a highly atmospheric and wordless mind-fuck, but there’s nothing unpredictable about it, either. In a Nolan film, Nataly would have spoken a lot in the end and that would be it. I really enjoyed Annihilation, it’s visually excellent, the special effects are engaging and here and there it pushes the mind into a nicely dark direction. But I have a soft spot for sci-fi premises like this, in any media, and I’m really interested in the book version now. But I don’t think this film is that awesome, really; my expectations were perhaps a little higher. (12/03/2018)

Thanks God Garland didn’t make Arrival. Thanks to this, it did not lose its humanistic subtext and rational explanation, something that cannot be said about Annihilation. The surrealistic wandering through fantastic landscapes, decorated with brilliant set design and minimalistic music, is beautiful to watch and listen to, but the story is at times a survival, at times a parade of CGI monsters, and a nondescript finale. Sure, we don't always need a literal interpretation, but if it's WTF, it would kinda sting. Garland is a tinkerer of technology, a master of atmosphere and slow-burn stories about a few characters, but here he gets too wrapped up in the themes. There’re still a few brilliant directorial ideas, though. (14/05/2018)

I appreciate Garland for one thing: how he is able to seduce critics, through his bloated and, in this case, nonsensical B-movie, to write about sci-fi masterpieces. Which is the case of a film that looks quite bad on television and is vague everywhere where it should be concrete and concrete everywhere where it should be vague. Truly a daring film. (14/03/2018)

Damsels in distress slightly differently. Sophisticated chamber slow (you will feel it is twice as long; but it's not a complaint) second-rate movie, where, however, everyone behaves logically and appropriately in given situations and which takes the same from Strugacky as from Things and Arrival. But surprisingly little of VanderMeer's original. On the one hand, the scenes are both captivating and disturbing, atmosphere is dense. On the other hand, it is supposed to be a hardcore sci-fi movie that is rich in interpretation and that has dimension overlap. And I am not at all sure whether it is justified and or whether the movie is just pretending to be that way or if it is just banal. In any case, (not only) for these reasons, it will make you wonder about staff, that´s fur sure. The movie will not get out of your head as soon as you see closing credits. (12/03/2018)