Un biólogo se registra para una expedición secreta y peligrosa en una zona misteriosa donde las leyes de la naturaleza no se aplican.Un biólogo se registra para una expedición secreta y peligrosa en una zona misteriosa donde las leyes de la naturaleza no se aplican.Un biólogo se registra para una expedición secreta y peligrosa en una zona misteriosa donde las leyes de la naturaleza no se aplican.
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Elenco
- Premios
- 17 premios ganados y 63 nominaciones en total
- Peyton
- (sin créditos)
- Scientist
- (sin créditos)
- Special Forces
- (sin créditos)
- Special Forces
- (sin créditos)
- Special Ops Soldier
- (sin créditos)
- Dirección
- Guionistas
- Todo el elenco y el equipo
- Producción, taquilla y más en IMDbPro
Opiniones destacadas
For me, films work on three hierarchical levels: at the very basic, they should be entertaining. All films should succeed here (but not all do, which is why we should rightly slam those that don't!). Then, there are films that are not only entertaining but also elicit an emotional response; they move us in some way. Finally, there are entertaining films that are moving but also have meaning; they resonate on a deeper, often metaphysical level. To my mind, Annihilation achieves all three.
Forget the plot holes. They exist in every film, otherwise they wouldn't be stories. Some of my favourite films have canyon-sized plot holes and inconsistencies. If you analyse any film you'll find them, and often you don't have to look very hard, e.g. Back to the Future. Do the plot holes and gaps in logic stop BTTF from being a great film? Not to my mind, because I'm invested in the movie. Plot holes only matter to me when they draw me away from the film; if it fails to entertain me.
Does the plot in Annihilation even really matter? The film is about the experience, the visuals and audio, the curiosity, the suspense. A world that could only be accessible to us in our imaginations is here brought to life on the screen. It asks a lot of questions but isn't interested in the answers. It's bold, brave, challenging. Some of it is spectacular, some of it less so. Naturally, that will split opinion, but we've become too accustomed to the ready-packaged "Happy Meal Movies" that the studios churn out for us. We're addicted to them like we're addicted to sugary fast food. We should welcome any film that attempts to wean us off that and broaden our palates.
This is a proper cinematic film, so what a shame it is that here in the UK (and many other countries) we were denied the pleasure of seeing it on the big screen. I can only imagine how even more beguiling and entrancing the experience would've been.
Turn off the lights, switch off your phones, and sit back and feed your imagination and sense of wonder. I know that's why I watch and love films. 8.5/10.
In slamming the movie, I saw one reviewer compare it to Sunshine, which he also hated. That review was what actually flipped the switch and got me to watch it, but I'd say that is a good test. If you don't like movies like Sunshine (also written by Alex Garland), you probably won't like this.
There are just too many times that things occur that have no sense or logic. I'm not talking about the "alien" aspect, which is supposed to be somewhat mysterious and incomprehensible, but about the way that the humans in the story act or react to what's going on. The way that the government is handling the phenomenon seems strangely hands-off for what should be the most important event in the history of humanity, and the individuals involved make lots of odd decisions just to drive the story forward.
On top of that, there is a framing device where a survivor is being interrogated about the events of what is shown throughout the movie, and it not only doesn't provide any additional illumination to bother with the clunkiness, it tends to deflate a lot of the tension by giving away certain plot points before you see them on screen. The ending is more just vague for the sense of being mysterious rather than making you really ask questions afterward. I suspect that if you asked the Director how the ending related to the rest of the movie, he would't be able to give more of an answer than he wanted things to be left open-ended.
Finally, the characters are all fairly morose and sedated. There's a (weak) explanation in the movie for this, but the overall low energy makes you not care too much about any of the characters.
The main cast, led with a certain gravitas, tries valiantly to bring depth to their roles, which are unfortunately penned with little sense and surrounded by weak character development. Their strong efforts starkly contrast with the uninspiring performances from the side cast, creating a jarring imbalance that disrupts the overall harmony of the film.
Dialogue throughout "Annihilation" feels forced and unnatural, often serving as clumsy exposition rather than meaningful character interaction. This issue is compounded by a soundtrack that, while fitting the film's theme, cannot compensate for the narrative deficiencies.
Perhaps the most glaring issue is the film's conclusion, which is riddled with logic flaws and does not make sense within the established context of the story. This not only leaves the viewer unsatisfied but also questions the coherence of the entire narrative.
In sum, "Annihilation" is a film that might attract viewers with its interesting premise and notable lead performances, but it quickly reveals itself as a frustrating experience, lacking in engaging storytelling and logical consistency. A classic case of a great idea that required much better execution to truly shine. This movie is only for die hard fans of paraterrestial films. Others better look into "Arrival".
¿Sabías que…?
- TriviaDue to a poorly received test screening, David Ellison, a financier at Paramount, became concerned that the film was "too intellectual" and "too complicated," and demanded changes to make it appeal to a wider audience, including making Natalie Portman's character more sympathetic and changing the ending. Producer Scott Rudin sided with Garland in his desire to not alter the film, defending the film and refusing to take notes. Rudin had final cut.
- ErroresSentries would never light the inside of a watchtower, which would illuminate themselves and make it impossible for them to see anything outside.
- Citas
Lena: Why did my husband volunteer for a suicide mission?
Dr Ventress: Is that what you think we're doing? Committing suicide?
Lena: You must have profiled him. You must have assessed him. He must have said something.
Dr Ventress: So you're asking me as a psychologist?
Lena: Yeah.
Dr Ventress: Then, as a psychologist, I think you're confusing suicide with self-destruction. Almost none of us commit suicide, and almost all of us self-destruct. In some way, in some part of our lives. We drink, or we smoke, we destabilize the good job... and a happy marriage. But these aren't decisions, they're... they're impulses. In fact, you're probably better equipped to explain this than I am.
Lena: What does that mean?
Dr Ventress: You're a biologist. Isn't the self-destruction coded into us? Programmed into each cell?
- ConexionesFeatured in Chris Stuckmann Movie Reviews: Annihilation (2018)
- Bandas sonorasHelplessly Hoping
Performed by Crosby Stills & Nash (as Crosby Stills and Nash)
Written by Stephen Stills
Licensed courtesy of Warner Music UK
Published by Gold Hill Music Inc (BMI)
Selecciones populares
Detalles
- Fecha de lanzamiento
- Países de origen
- Sitio oficial
- Idioma
- También se conoce como
- Annihilation
- Locaciones de filmación
- Former RAF Bentwaters, Woodbridge, Suffolk, Inglaterra, Reino Unido(Exterior shots of army base)
- Productoras
- Ver más créditos de la compañía en IMDbPro
Taquilla
- Presupuesto
- USD 40,000,000 (estimado)
- Total en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 32,732,301
- Fin de semana de estreno en EE. UU. y Canadá
- USD 11,071,584
- 25 feb 2018
- Total a nivel mundial
- USD 43,070,915
- Tiempo de ejecución1 hora 55 minutos
- Color
- Mezcla de sonido
- Relación de aspecto
- 2.39 : 1