Quantcast
The Tragedy of "Annihilation"

Forums - Movies Discussion - The Tragedy of "Annihilation"

Nymeria said:
hollabackenny said:
The trailer looked very meh for me but everyone I know says it’s really good. Is it true the trailer doesn’t capture what the movie is really like?

I think there are aspects hard to convey in trailers such as atmosphere and sound design.  It's more about planting ideas and making you think and discuss afterward, it isn't entertaining in the traditional sense.  Some people I know that saw it stated they didn't get the big deal while watching, but it stuck with them and found themselves wanting to talk about it and even see it a second time.

I’m usually not big on sci if movies but I really enjoyed ‘Arrival’ and ‘Moon’is one of my favourite movies ever. So I guess I’ll check it out this week before it’s out of theatres. 



Around the Network
Killy_Vorkosigan said:
Really nice movie, a bit unsettling, uncanny visuals.

However I hate the somebody-in-the-team-cracks-and-tries-to-fuck-up-everyone trope

It affects people differently was my interpretation. It breaks down your reality and sense of self. My thinking was it can heighten aggression in those such as Anya that have a fight mechanism in dealing with stress.  On the flip side the more passive route does work either as Josie is absorbed by the plant refraction in peace loses herself.



FromDK said:
First this is not hate.. just a movie lover that saw this topic.. and have to say some :)
I saw it today.. It blows my mind that this movie has a 7.4 rating at imdb..
worst film i have seen in years.. (and i mean that from the heart) my genre and nice trailer.. but I did not like anything about it.. so super bad imo
I whent on imdb right after.. and even rottentomatos (for the first time ever) and even soo the user review on the movies imdb page give it 4 stars and totaly nail why.. I can see that many people like it.. why?
Almost all things dosent make sense and are not explained.
But if you and other like it ok and nice you do :)

This is precisely why I like it.  If there were long drawn out exposition scenes that explained it all it would have dropped in my estimation.  If an alien organism landed on Earth it likely would be mysterious and confusing, like you explaining philosophy to a dog. It's whole nature being alien made it more interesting and engaging to me.  It does give a lot of information and have read and discussed all sorts of fascinating theories that have basis in what the film tells you.

We all have different tastes, I loved it and found Thor: Ragnarok and Star Wars: The Last Jedi to be awful movies people clearly loved.  No issue with differing worldviews when it comes to art.



SuperRetroTurbo said:
Glad someone agrees with me. I saw it a few weeks ago. I was unexpectedly surprised at the overall quality of the film. I'm not a movie buff...very far from it but I can honestly say...after seeing this movie...it instantly became one of my favourite of all time.

PS: Spoiler!!!





I think it's her clone at the end. I'm sure of it.

I think the idea is it mixes and refracts ones make up making your identity blend with it, like a host where defining beginning and end is hard to say.



Volterra_90 said:

So, I really want to discuss the film. The film is actually really worth a discussion, and because I don't know yet anybody who's seeing it, I keep my theory about the whole phenomena happening in here. I'll use spoiler tags just in case.

So, I think the phenomena surrounding the lighthouse goes this way. At one point in the film, we discover that what's going on is that everything (light, radio waves, even DNA) refracts in this area. The closer you are to the lighthouse, the more everything refracts. One of the most disturbing scenes in the movie shows how the voice of one of the characters mixed with the monster that kills her, mimicking even her voice. And, in the epicenter of all this phenomena, the "Annihilation" thing is capable of "total reflection". Making copies of everything that touches it. So... I think this has a physics parallelism, which is how light behaves going through a different surface. Light refracts, for example, in a glass of water, and everything we see through a glass of water is kind of messy and mixed (those will be the abnormalities of mixing a bear with a human voice for example). But light reflects in a mirror. Mimicking exactly which is in front of it. That'd be the lighthouse. 

So, the transition in the movie will be from refraction to reflection. I'm still grasping how it affects each character in a different way, because obviously the fact that every character is pretty flawed is not a coincidence. A second watch could clear that, I guess.

I imagined the inverse of if we landed on an alien world how with no malice we could upset the balance there.  The entity that landed seems to be terraforming and incorporating Earth and all the organisms into itself. From our perspective this is a hostile act of corruption or annihilation (!) but we have no idea how it sees this if it thinks in a way we can even perceive. I agree the use of glass, water, and plastic as a motif through the film plays on how perception can be warped when seen through a lens.  The entity may see our world as confusing and refracted and is "correcting" it to make sense of it.



Around the Network
Lawlight said:
Nymeria said:

It didn't feel slow to me.  I will say parts are atmospheric, so if you find being immersed in an alien land to be off putting you may find those scenes not to your liking.  There are scenes where the acting is more subdued, but that channels the realism and sense of unease to me.  When there are action scene I'd say they are pretty intense, one in the middle in particular is terrifying in way most horror films fail to achieve.

I don’t find being immersed in an alien world off putting. I do find unnecessarily slow movies off putting though. The movie is on Netflix anyway so no huge loss if I watch it.

Hard to determine that as much of it comes down to what you find interesting. I can find a scene enthralling that others find boring.



hollabackenny said: 

I’m usually not big on sci if movies but I really enjoyed ‘Arrival’ and ‘Moon’is one of my favourite movies ever. So I guess I’ll check it out this week before it’s out of theatres. 

I enjoyed those as well if that helps serve as an indicator.



Nymeria said:
Volterra_90 said:

So, I really want to discuss the film. The film is actually really worth a discussion, and because I don't know yet anybody who's seeing it, I keep my theory about the whole phenomena happening in here. I'll use spoiler tags just in case.

So, I think the phenomena surrounding the lighthouse goes this way. At one point in the film, we discover that what's going on is that everything (light, radio waves, even DNA) refracts in this area. The closer you are to the lighthouse, the more everything refracts. One of the most disturbing scenes in the movie shows how the voice of one of the characters mixed with the monster that kills her, mimicking even her voice. And, in the epicenter of all this phenomena, the "Annihilation" thing is capable of "total reflection". Making copies of everything that touches it. So... I think this has a physics parallelism, which is how light behaves going through a different surface. Light refracts, for example, in a glass of water, and everything we see through a glass of water is kind of messy and mixed (those will be the abnormalities of mixing a bear with a human voice for example). But light reflects in a mirror. Mimicking exactly which is in front of it. That'd be the lighthouse. 

So, the transition in the movie will be from refraction to reflection. I'm still grasping how it affects each character in a different way, because obviously the fact that every character is pretty flawed is not a coincidence. A second watch could clear that, I guess.

I imagined the inverse of if we landed on an alien world how with no malice we could upset the balance there.  The entity that landed seems to be terraforming and incorporating Earth and all the organisms into itself. From our perspective this is a hostile act of corruption or annihilation (!) but we have no idea how it sees this if it thinks in a way we can even perceive. I agree the use of glass, water, and plastic as a motif through the film plays on how perception can be warped when seen through a lens.  The entity may see our world as confusing and refracted and is "correcting" it to make sense of it.

So, basically The Color Out of Space?

You may have liked it, but between that and the fact there was already a book series, it doesn't seem that original.

Of course, sometines execution matters more than originality, but even then, a C with audiences suggests it isn't going to attract many.



 

 

 

 

 

haxxiy said:
Nymeria said:

I imagined the inverse of if we landed on an alien world how with no malice we could upset the balance there.  The entity that landed seems to be terraforming and incorporating Earth and all the organisms into itself. From our perspective this is a hostile act of corruption or annihilation (!) but we have no idea how it sees this if it thinks in a way we can even perceive. I agree the use of glass, water, and plastic as a motif through the film plays on how perception can be warped when seen through a lens.  The entity may see our world as confusing and refracted and is "correcting" it to make sense of it.

So, basically The Color Out of Space?

You may have liked it, but between that and the fact there was already a book series, it doesn't seem that original.

Of course, sometines execution matters more than originality, but even then, a C with audiences suggests it isn't going to attract many.

I admit I wasn't aware of the books, I plan to check them out.

How we define originality is based on our exposure.  I was comparing it on the landscape of current movies.  When I see a flood of sequels, reboots, remakes, and based off well known popular brands it makes something like this stand out.

I'm not sure how one would make a wholly original work or if it is possible or would be comprehensible.  I'd put it on a scale as one of the most distinct movies of 2018.   The blockbusters get tons of attention, I think it is important mid tier movies continue to exist to allow for experimentation.



Nymeria said:
FromDK said:
First this is not hate.. just a movie lover that saw this topic.. and have to say some :)
I saw it today.. It blows my mind that this movie has a 7.4 rating at imdb..
worst film i have seen in years.. (and i mean that from the heart) my genre and nice trailer.. but I did not like anything about it.. so super bad imo
I whent on imdb right after.. and even rottentomatos (for the first time ever) and even soo the user review on the movies imdb page give it 4 stars and totaly nail why.. I can see that many people like it.. why?
Almost all things dosent make sense and are not explained.
But if you and other like it ok and nice you do :)

This is precisely why I like it.  If there were long drawn out exposition scenes that explained it all it would have dropped in my estimation.  If an alien organism landed on Earth it likely would be mysterious and confusing, like you explaining philosophy to a dog. It's whole nature being alien made it more interesting and engaging to me.  It does give a lot of information and have read and discussed all sorts of fascinating theories that have basis in what the film tells you.

We all have different tastes, I loved it and found Thor: Ragnarok and Star Wars: The Last Jedi to be awful movies people clearly loved.  No issue with differing worldviews when it comes to art.

Nice that we dont all have the same taste.. and can see different things in the same.. and by the way.. I also found last jedi very bad and full of plot holes