Annihilation - from Ex Machina writer/director Alex Garland

Karl Urban says Alex Garland directed Dredd
A huge part of the success of DREDD is in fact due to Alex Garland and what a lot of people don’t realize is that Alex Garland actually directed that movie. I just hope when people think of Alex Garland’s filmography that DREDD is the first film that he made before Ex Machina. You think about it in those terms; it goes DREDD, EX MACHINA, ANNIHILATION.
pQdxyL1.gif
 
Well I'll always think of 28 Days Later first. But that's cool to find out he directed it.
 
I really liked this. Very good.
I haven't read the reviews yet, but I heard some slight criticism about the third act. I didn't have much of a problem with it.

But yeah Garland is 3/3 with me

Oh and did Natalie Portman's character really [BLACKOUT]cheat on sexy Oscar Issac with her frumpy colleague. C'mon son. You can do better if you're gonna cheat, Portman[/BLACKOUT]
 
Last edited:
I always wondered about Dredd since the only other Pete Travis movie I've seen was Vantage Point and that feels Nothing at all like Dredd, while as I can watch Ex Machina and Annihilation and feel like they came from the same guy who did Dredd. Glad Urban said what he said.
 
Maybe it's just because it was on my 40 inch TV and not on a giant screen but I kinda thought this was much ado about nothing.
 
I am really looking forward to seeing the movie, with a quick sample of the reviews saying it’s different, mysterious, not your typical blockbuster, etc.

My expectations are higher than before....
 
Didn't know until watching the Half in the Bag review that this movie went straight to Netflix overseas. Very curious about watching this movie, because it really did feel like it just came and went with not that much fanfare.
 
Well, that was one hell of a film. Bravo, Alex Garland, bravo.

It was like a serious (not trashy-silly) version of Event Horizon. Very competent, not too original sci-fi/horror movie, that has similar strengths and flaws as Garland's previous film - Ex Machina.

I also loved that it featured cast of intelligent empowered female characters and the film didn't brag about it. I think it deserved theatrical run, but with theaters being reserved for Captain America 23 and Fast & Furious 17, it had little chance to earn money.

Anyway, so far it's my favorite film of 2018.
 
Wtf! This movie was confusing as hell. I thought i was going to love it :(
 
Who the hell cheats on Oscar Isaac

other than this I loved it, great science fiction film and the visual side along with sound and soundtrack were outstanding
 
Saw it last night and really liked it. The scene with [BLACKOUT] the bear in the house though, that's the stuff of nightmares :shock[/BLACKOUT]
 
More I think about it, the more I think this does lack something being played on a TV screen. Feel like I should maybe watch it again.
 
It's ideal for a dark room and great sound system and big screen if only for the first time watch. But I'd still watch it again whenever when it's available.
 
Saw this for a second time last week, and while the scares don't have the same impact overall the film holds up very well on repeat viewings.

If you can, I would wholeheartedly recommend seeing it in theaters.

Well, that was one hell of a film. Bravo, Alex Garland, bravo.

It was like a serious (not trashy-silly) version of Event Horizon. Very competent, not too original sci-fi/horror movie, that has similar strengths and flaws as Garland's previous film - Ex Machina.

I also loved that it featured cast of intelligent empowered female characters and the film didn't brag about it. I think it deserved theatrical run, but with theaters being reserved for Captain America 23 and Fast & Furious 17, it had little chance to earn money.

Anyway, so far it's my favorite film of 2018.

That was the movie I was trying to think of earlier, Event Horizon.
 
[blackout]The bear in the house[/blackout] scene was some of the creepiest stuff that I saw in a few years in cinema.
 
Watching it now on netflix.


Pretty good though i can understand why this movie did not get a cinematic release overseas as it is kinda slow.
 
Last edited:
This movie has truly stayed with me. And there are many elements you don't pick up the first time around. The Alien sequence will be memorable in the sci-fi canon.
 
Watching it now on netflix.


Pretty good though i can understand why this movie did not get a cinematic release overseas as it is kinda slow.

God forbid we have slower, smart movies that aren't all of the same kinetic pacing.
 
I don't know if I picked up on too much new (but definitely noticed a fair number of details that hit me more this time, like when they show Cass' body the film specifically shows her throat ripped out--and already I could hear the "heeelp me" in my head) because I had already been thinking about the movie so much and the discussions I've had here and elsewhere with people, but it was nice to actually soak in the movie knowing where it was going, and so getting to appreciate things that I didn't necessarily get into as much on the first viewing. the movie still lands a hell of a visceral wallop with the guts, bear, and ANNIHILATION scenes, but what really stood out to me this time around were the performative/character details. Portman actually is great in this. The film isn't always putting her performance front and center, but she's always contributing some sort of emotional context to the scenes she's in. All the other performances, too, felt better to me this time through, and I liked them the first time. goddamn do I love Ventress' final monologue. so Cronenbergian! and comes with a chillingly beautiful light show after!

as someone who really liked the score, there are a couple great interviews out in regards to it. one focuses in on the four-note alien motif but I can't seem to find that link at the moment. but here's a really good one about the score overall from Rolling Stone:

https://www.rollingstone.com/music/featu...re-w517838

I had read in the previous interview (that I can't find now) that they didn't use synths until the end, and I was like "wait a minute, I could've sworn there were some synths..." come to find out in the Rolling Stone interview that that was actually a waterphone. love the part where Geoff is describing it. and really it's just a great interview overall for people who love film music, because Salisbury and Barrow clearly do.

there's a part of the interview, too, where I think Barrow is talking about a film he recently watched that had a synth-heavy score and he felt like the score kind of blew its wad ten minutes into the movie. I really wondered which film he was talking about. from the description, I almost thought maybe Blade Runner 2049? because let's face it, as much as that movie has going for it, Zimmer kind of banged that music out. like, I literally picture Zimmer just banging away at his keyboard.
 
God forbid we have slower, smart movies that aren't all of the same kinetic pacing.

I have zero problem with movies like that....but this wasn't one of them, in my opinion.

It felt like it was trying to make you think it had some profundity more than actually having any.
 
I have zero problem with movies like that....but this wasn't one of them, in my opinion.

It felt like it was trying to make you think it had some profundity more than actually having any.

I don't think the film pretends it's something it's not. It's moody sci-fi that is focused more on character and theme and moments of horror and beauty than it is on action or knotty plotting.

Slower pacing does not equal trying to make you think it's profound.

That said, there is some real depth and resonance to the themes this film explores. I recommend the reviews on Film Freak Central, The New Republic, and the piece on Vulture that talks about how the film depicts the linkage between depression and self-destruction.

There are also really fascinating thoughts in the film on the nature of consciousness and how this is connected to our biological realities, the symbiosis between death and creation, how external factors can create moments of transcendence and absolution... to say the film has nothing to say is a lack of engagement on the viewer's part. That said, if the film failed to connect with you, yeah, of course, you're not going to engage with it. For me, it connected at almost every moment, so what it was doing worked for me and really spoke to me.
 
Last edited:
Great movie. Thought provoking and beautifully constructed. Garland’s visual skill here really shines. I’d like to see Garland take on The Dark Tower reboot for Amazon. The film is a surprisingly effective treatise on the frailties of the human psyche, as well a sci-fi first contact story.
 
I've seen this three times now and I'm leaning towards the interpretation that the Shimmer is essentially [blackout]God correcting his "mistake."[/blackout] To me it just fits with the conversations in the early scenes about how cells are meant to be these beautiful, immortal things that replicate and change, replicate and change, but we somehow got screwed up in our DNA, and how self-destruction is programmed into us. So I see the [blackout]Shimmer as God's version of "back to the mixing pool!" And the beings that came out of the Shimmer are the "more perfect" Lena and Kane, released to spread their superior genes in the next stage of evolution.[/blackout]
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"