Aniquilação

While watching the movie, I was both engrossed by the events playing out onscreen while at the same time thinking "this could be done better". To me, the writing felt like it was done by a smart Middle-Schooler: smart enough to understand some science concepts and have a few interesting ideas, but too naive in the world to create realistic or logical human behavior.

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.

Story wise I just couldn't get a connection with any of the characters. I wasn't intrigued and there were multiple moments in the movie where I even cringed a little by the simple writing, a little let down by Alex Garland this time.. but.. CGI was on point and at least the concept itself was original enough to make it worth a watch

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.

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

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.