Annihilation | Paramount | Feb 23 2018 | Alex Garland | Natalie Portman | Reviews Embargoed till day of release

[MikeQ]

19 minutes ago, tonytr87 said:

 

Tell me this...is it legitimately great cinematography or is it great in the same way people think Black Panther has great cinematography? Where they can't tell the difference between cinematography and visual effects/production design. I'm thinking it's the former based on the trailer, but...it pissed me off how many critics didn't seem to know the difference when it came to Black Panther which looks horrid compared to Coogler's last movie. 

 

I don't pretend to be an expert, but I would say legitimately great cinematography, outside of simply the production design or visual effects of the film, though I think the work of the production designer and the cinematographer is collaborative in creating the 'look' of a film. Here, I particularly liked how actors were framed within shots, and the cinematography in a particular section of the film (trying to avoid specifics so as to avoid anything remotely spoiler-ish) is what really creates a lot of the wonder for me. The visual effects aren't really impressive in the "oh gosh this looks so photorealistic" vein, more in the way they are used in the shots.

 

Peace,

Mike

Edited February 24, 2018 by MikeQ

[AniNate]

Cinematography wasn't ever a word that came to my mind with Black Panther. It definitely did here.

 

Alex Garland strikes me as someone who's very conscious about how to compose each shot. His style reminds me of David Fincher's.

 

Edited February 24, 2018 by tribefan695

[Webslinger]

I'm still mulling parts of it over (liked it a whole lot - about on par with Ex Machina), but my audience haaaated it. I could tell from body language and some awkward laughter during the third act that it flew right over their heads.

[MrGlass2]

42 minutes ago, Webslinger said:

I'm still mulling parts of it over (liked it a whole lot - about on par with Ex Machina), but my audience haaaated it. I could tell from body language and some awkward laughter during the third act that it flew right over their heads.

That is why I can't wait to watch it from the comfort of my home, without casuals ruining the movie.

[TomCruiseTop]

I thought it was interesting how the film was a kind of blended refraction of genres and references. It's a thriller, it's horror, hard sci-fi, fantasy... some of the jungle scenes looked like they were straight out of Apocalypse Now, and the body in the swimming pool (and the tunnel too) was straight Giger. Zombie movies, Bodysnatchers, Cronenberg... Every filmmaker has lots of influences, but the kaleidoscopic touchstones here felt thematically appropriate.

[That One Girl]

Just now, JamesCameronScholar said:

I thought it was interesting how the film was a kind of blended refraction of genres and references. It's a thriller, it's horror, hard sci-fi, fantasy... some of the jungle scenes looked like they were straight out of Apocalypse Now, and the body in the swimming pool (and the tunnel too) was straight Giger. Zombie movies, Bodysnatchers, Cronenberg... Every filmmaker has lots of influences, but the kaleidoscopic touchstones here felt thematically appropriate.

 

How were you able to see this?

[75Live]

@JamesCameronScholar

 

may want to take out the line after Apocalypse Now to before Zombie

[somebody85]

22 hours ago, JohnnyGossamer said:

Not a huge fan of Ex Machina. I like it well enough and there are flourishes or pure awesome in it but I honestly prefer Sunshine, Dredd and 28 Days Later just among films Garland's written even if he didn't direct. Machina seemed like a good 45 minute episode of Black Mirror that last a lot longer than 45 minutes.

 

I prefer The Void to Starry Eyes probably by a lot. Just didn't think much of Starry Eyes. But, yeah, I'm sure I'm forgetting something, I haven't seen much interesting body horror of late. Maybe Autopsy of Jane Doe if that qualifies? That was pretty good. I Am Not A Serial Killer had some shades of it as well. But, neither is true body horror. 

Huh, yeah we're on opposite sides there. The Void collapsed for me as soon as the father/son came in. I would love to see that prosthetics team work with a different horror director. I thought Starry Eyes was far better acted and had a cleaner story. But I'm a bit biased because I love films that take on the idea of a dark force in Hollywood (despite this film being much different from those theories).

Found Autopsy Of Jane Doe cheesy. Relied too much on tropes and awkward acting while Starry Eyes got brutal. There was something unsettling about watching her transformation and to see how far she would go to achieve what she wanted.

And Ex Machina is still one of my favorite films of the last decade. I have very few issues with it.

But hey, different opinions! Usual for horror/sci-fi.

[somebody85]

17 hours ago, MikeQ said:

I can't remember the last time a film had my eyes glued to the screen the way this movie did at times - my eyes wide and my mouth agape, not wanting to miss a single frame. It is an ambitious film, with great cinematography and at times visually stunning. A great score too.

 


If you're into strange, cerebral, visceral, beautiful, at-times-frightening, thriller sci-fi films, then Annihilation is definitely worth a viewing.


I'm still processing...


Peace,
Mike
 

That's exactly how I felt during those final 20 minutes. It was impossible to look away. I couldn't leave until all the colors faded from the screen.

[rjones1325]

"Annihilation" may get a bit pretentious at times, but Garland's second directorial film is a sci-fi spectacle nonetheless.

 

https://rendyreviews.com/movies//annihilation-review

[afalconer7]

My audience actually really enjoyed the movie. A lot less divisive then I thought it was gonna be. 

[somebody85]

At least it's still in positive on Flixster:

 

67% - Avg score hasn't dropped much though

Laughed out loud at this:

1/2 star
Ugh!! The fake Rotten Tomatoes movie reviews got me again. There is no possible way, that if you had actually seen the movie, that it would have gotten anywhere near a four or five star rating! Ridiculous unrealistic plot, poorly acted, and the ending had no pay off at all. Rotten Tomatoes is no longer a site that I trust for impartial reviews it's just a bunch of paid off hacked. Because if this movie was in 87???!!!? Then Natalie Portman should have gotten an Oscar for her role as Queen Amidala.

Ridiculous unrealistic plot

Ridiculous unrealistic plot

[Webslinger]

I love how that review hammers the film for its "unrealistic" plot. Yes, I always expect my hard sci-fi to be ultra-realistic.

[somebody85]

14 minutes ago, Webslinger said:

I love how that review hammers the film for its "unrealistic" plot. Yes, I always expect my hard sci-fi to be ultra-realistic.

I'm just going through the reviews for amusement. It's really clear a lot of people either didn't pay attention or got lost. A lot of the questions people are asking who hated it were either answered or were shown and not told.

This one star review actually sounds like a ringing endorsement hahahaha

"This is for all the people that plan to watch this due to the ratings and trailers: Be prepared for a 2-hour roller coaster ride. Your vision will become impaired, hearing flawed, and most of all, you will want to get off the moment it begins. The only reason why I'm giving this film a star is because of the acting and some effects. The story had no leads, there are many questions left unanswered, and the stories most used line "I don't know" is how you will feel after finishing this movie. Trust me on this, I am trying to save you from both headache and earache. Do not watch this unless you're on something."

[Dementeleus]

 

 

[CoolioD1]

1 minute ago, Telehilation said:

 

 

ah since this is a vod release here i'm gonna make a two hour reaction video to the movie for you.

[Dementeleus]

 

edit: realized I should probably tag @Ethan Hunt here

Edited February 25, 2018 by Telehilation

[Ethan Hunt]

38 minutes ago, Telehilation said:

 

edit: realized I should probably tag @Ethan Hunt here

[MikeQ]

A great read for those who have seen the film:

 

https://www.filmcomment.com/blog/deep-focus-annihilation/

 

Peace,

Mike

[Steele131]

23 hours ago, MikeQ said:

 

I don't pretend to be an expert, but I would say legitimately great cinematography, outside of simply the production design or visual effects of the film, though I think the work of the production designer and the cinematographer is collaborative in creating the 'look' of a film. Here, I particularly liked how actors were framed within shots, and the cinematography in a particular section of the film (trying to avoid specifics so as to avoid anything remotely spoiler-ish) is what really creates a lot of the wonder for me. The visual effects aren't really impressive in the "oh gosh this looks so photorealistic" vein, more in the way they are used in the shots.

 

Peace,

Mike

I can say that it legitimately has great cinematography