Annihilation

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. (13/03/2018)

Set in a green rainforest (and on a beach), Annihilation is a more intellectual version of The Thing. It has a rather mainstream theme with a slightly B-movie nature but interesting ideas, escalated into a hitherto unseen close encounter of the third kind, fascinating by its far-reaching imagination and a provocative need to find as many answers as possible in it. The final scene is a return to genre rules, but it turns out well. Garland is not a hitmaker, but rather a hard-core sci-fi filmmaker. While Arrival was about the relativity of the perception of time, Annihilation is about the relativity of biological lifeforms. Totally different, but in both cases brilliant, innovative sci-fi works, ambitious in their content. (25/12/2018)

I was captivated by the trailer the other day, I'm not so impressed with the film in the end, but it's still a decent genre film with an excellent idea. Four female scientists, each specialized in something different, go to explore a new area where the laws of nature don't apply and where no one has ever come back alive. It's great idea, but I felt it didn't get as much space as it could have. The film is unnecessarily hampered by flashbacks that aren't very entertaining and it shows in the pacing. There's a great scene with a white crocodile and a mutant bear that wreaks havoc in a cabin and there's one excellent gore scene with a ripped jaw, that really had me going crazy with joy. The final philosophical half hour didn't impress me that much and I found the finale quite confusing. I would definitely add more mutated animals and anything from nature in general to make it more satisfying. The film is definitely worth recommending for the idea, the visuals and the bear, though it’s not great. 70%. (19/03/2018)

It’s great that Netflix, as part of its sci-fi mission, shoots stories that are part of the current new weird novel trend. I actually discovered the author of the source novel – Jeff VanderMeer a few months ago in the form of his book Veniss Underground and I was fascinated by his brutal surrealism. In case of Annihilation, it’s not that obvious but still similar. Had Giger been still alive and participated in the creation of this movie like he did in the case of Alien, it might have been a unique work. It’s still quite decent as it is, though. I was ecstatic even though I’d have appreciated more visual ideas in that bubble. (16/04/2020)

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)