Annihilation

The only advice I can give to anybody going to see Annihilation is: stick with it. I definitely was close to checking out around the middle point, but quickly my interest was piqued and in the blink of an eye the movie turned into a profound, 2001 meets Under The Skin meets Predator surreal science fiction near- masterpiece.

The first half is so patiently mediocre that the second half almost feels like a completely different movie, making the movie a mixed bag but one that's totally worth it. Some of the performances are great, some are okay, and at least one is noticeably bad. Natalie Portman turns in a great performance (she carries the entire film) and Jennifer Jason Leigh gives a reserved and underplayed angle to a well worn out archetype. The side characters however, like Gina Rodriguez and Tessa Thompson, are mostly annoying and sometimes border on being simply bad. Oscar Isaac is very good.

Most of the technical choices are good. The cinematography isn't particularly flashy but it captures the world behind the shimmer in all of it's messed up glory (the last twenty minutes are truly a thing to behold). The music choices are also a mixed bag. Soft strum guitar comes in at random intervals and doesn't really work, but the dark, brooding thump of a certain synth track really gives you a sense of cosmic horror.

I don't want to spoil anything, so I'm going to leave it at that. Go support this movie, even if it isn't perfect. There are so many great things about it that they way outweigh the flaws.

It's hard to find novel sci-fi these days, but this movie explored a few new directions that I found entertaining. The story is good and the execution carried and developed the suspense well. Sometimes a movie needs to be rated as how engaging it is, how it kept your attention and how it made you feel, not how many "plot holes" there are, how "logical" it was and such intellectual drivel. Enjoying a movie is like drinking a beer - you like it or you don't, but please don't give me a diatribe on the size of the bubbles and whether the colour is golden amber or light gold. Who cares? I enjoyed the movie and the acting and was engaged to the end. Which means in entertainment value: Goal achieved.

Saw 'Annihilation' because it was recommended by a friend, and also the idea was absolutely brilliant and one of the most unique for any film seen recently and the trailer showed a lot of promise. Also have a lot of appreciation for sci-fi/horror, Alex Garland's previous work is very interesting and Natalie Portman has given some great prior performances.

Can definitely see why 'Annihilation' has proven to be so polarising with audiences and IMDb reviewers. Had problems with it myself and it didn't quite match up to the brilliance of the idea, but had also a lot of admiration for its brave if imperfect execution and bold ambition. It almost does live up to its idea, but doesn't quite. As somebody who has seen her fair share of films with potentially good concepts marred by underwhelming, and in a lot of cases terrible, execution, that was refreshing.

'Annihilation' is uneven and has problems. Most of the characters, apart from Lena and to a lesser extent Ventress (there was a little with Cass but only for two or so lines in one short scene), are underwritten archetypes, Josie was not very memorable and there was absolutely no point to the man in the stuff with the affair.

Lena's back-story was mixed. It is very nuanced and affecting in the scenes between her and Kane, but is far from successful in the stuff with the affair, which felt out of place, pointless, came out of nowhere when introduced, was ended very quickly and never heard from again. The dialogue is very clunky at times, particularly with Anya and some of the back-story, while there are some less than logical character behaviours and some bogus science, especially the explanation for the mutated insides (beyond moronic and nearly ruined one of the film's most stay-with-the-viewer scenes).

Not entirely sure what my stance on the final half an hour is. It is choreographed cleverly in movement, is visually stunning, is an atmosphere whirlwind and does probe though and discussion. It is also one of the strangest last 30 minutes of any film seen in a while and it takes a lot for me to be confused, this portion of the film was a head-scratcher for me and the aftermath discussion with my sister didn't really clear things up. If it was meant to be ambiguous or open-ended, it for my tastes was taken too far, don't mind being challenged but being confused is a no-no (in no way intended to be snobbish).

However, 'Annihilation' looks wonderful, one of the best-looking films seen by me recently. Some of the landscapes are pretty spectacular, as is the look of the shimmer. The creatures are very well done, especially the bear creature, and evoke a great deal of creepiness. It's beautifully and atmospherically shot and stylishly edited.

The music is haunting and ominous, doing a great providing slow-building suspense and mystery without making it too obvious prematurely. Some clever use of sound too. Some of the dialogue is thought-provoking, like with the interrogations.

Regardless of any reservations with some of the storytelling, 'Annihilation' is a triumph in terms of atmosphere and as an experience film. There is a slow-building tension that doesn't become dull, enough of it is thought-provoking, tense and emotional and there is a subtle tension. Two scenes stand out, and are two of the most disturbing scenes of any film in a long time. One was with the mutated insides, word of warning- don't watch this while eating, being someone who made that mistake. The other was the second bear attack, a creepy build up then crescendoing in a way that was unnerving and truly frightening. The film is also thematically interesting, familiar themes in both the genre and in Garland's previous work but built on a grander level.

Most of the acting was good, especially the astonishing Natalie Portman giving one of her better performances since 'Black Swan'. Oscar Isaac and Jennifer Jason Leigh are the best in support and Gina Rodriguez fares quite well. Tessa Thompson is too underused to make an impression and her character too bland. Garland directs with great skill.

Overall, not quite brilliant and sometimes frustrating but ambitious, admirable and interesting. 7/10 Bethany Cox

I've thought about this film for days after seeing it. I don't even know what specifically I've been thinking about, all I can say is it left a big impression on me. I disagree with those who say it's intellectual. I don't think it is nor was it intended to be. It's visceral, primal, just like the world inside The Shimmer.

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.

Do you need all the answers and a nice tight ending? If so, don't watch. I say that not because I look down on anyone who needs that. Sometimes I need that. This is one of those more ethereal thinkers that some like and some don't though there is some pretty good action too. There are several scenes that honestly just scared the crap outta me. The acting is good. The effects are good. The premise is interesting. From the reviews, I was expecting much more glaring plot holes and fewer questions which were actually answered. I am trying to avoid spoilers so let me just say that I thought that while there were not a lot of concrete answers, we got some good theories proposed.

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.