Filmspotting Forum

Filmspotting Message Boards => Movie Talk (Spoiler Edition) => Topic started by: DarthNibbles on March 12, 2018, 02:26:17 PM

Title: Annihilation
Post by: DarthNibbles on March 12, 2018, 02:26:17 PM
Ok, please enlighten me: what am I missing here?

The plot had more holes than a block of Swiss cheese, it's magical fantasy rather than SciFi and, worst of all, it seems to follow the Donnie Darko theory that "things that don't make sense MUST be profound." Sorry, but sometimes they just don't make sense.

Obviously, I didn't like this movie. Yet plenty of other people do. So, please, tell me why.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Sandy on March 12, 2018, 03:10:07 PM
Hi and welcome, Darthnibbles! :)

Were there aspects of the film that worked for you? I appreciated the cancer metaphor and that the whole team was made up of women. Not very often I get to see that. Usually the female perspective is relegated to a side character. I also really liked Jennifer Jason Leigh's ticks and fatalism and the film's exploration of self destruction...

But! What was up with them going to the tower for protection, but the lookout is on the ground with a light on? And then when there is trouble, the rest leave the protection? That stupidity in plot pulls me right out of a movie. There are other aspects I'm not thrilled with, so I too am mixed.

The person I saw the film with disagrees with me about the ending, so discussion ensuded which is a fun followup and overall I'm glad I went to see it, even if I'm left with pieces of frustration.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: PeacefulAnarchy on March 13, 2018, 12:25:44 AM
But! What was up with them going to the tower for protection, but the lookout is on the ground with a light on? And then when there is trouble, the rest leave the protection? That stupidity in plot pulls me right out of a movie. There are other aspects I'm not thrilled with, so I too am mixed.
This and many other tactical decisions were really ridiculous. If these were just normal people in this situation it'd be easier to suspend disbelief, but this is a military operation and their plan is to go straight in to the end, instead of a series of increasingly deeper missions, reporting back their findings each time. Maybe in the first expedition but after that you'd expect a more cautious reconnaissance approach.

I still enjoyed the movie visually and thematically, it was good enough to put aside my issues most of the time and enjoy the building tension and the puzzle pieces sort of coming together and the ideas about destruction and preservation and identity.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Sandy on March 13, 2018, 07:11:40 PM
PeacefulAnarchy, are you my metallic clone, or am I yours? Were your words in my head already, or did you put them there?
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarthNibbles on March 14, 2018, 07:51:40 PM
Hi and welcome, Darthnibbles! :)

Hi there!

Were there aspects of the film that worked for you? I appreciated the cancer metaphor and that the whole team was made up of women. Not very often I get to see that. Usually the female perspective is relegated to a side character. I also really liked Jennifer Jason Leigh's ticks and fatalism and the film's exploration of self destruction...

OK, the cancer thing never really clicked for me although, on further reflection, the focus on self-destruction is a much better fit. In fact, cancer is merely one aspect or manifestation of that.

As for the female squad... It didn't matter to me. This is probably my male privilege showing, but it didn't seem like a big deal or anything unusual at all. Maybe that isn't my male privilege... Is male privilege when you're threatened by women? Then it's the opposite.

On the other hand... It didn't resonate with me as being really profound or out of the ordinary (neither did the recent Ghostbusters, though I loved the film) that it was helmed primarily by women, so perhaps I meant that it's my privilege which blinds me to the significance of it?

But! What was up with them going to the tower for protection, but the lookout is on the ground with a light on? And then when there is trouble, the rest leave the protection? That stupidity in plot pulls me right out of a movie. There are other aspects I'm not thrilled with, so I too am mixed.
This was just one of the silly decisions that were made "because the plot needed it," rather than being what intelligent characters would do. There were several like that that just galled me.




All in all, my opinion of the movie is improving as I think about it (I love it when that happens), focusing primarily on the Shimmer (and the characters' journey) as being an exploration of self destruction. Which is, given the ending of the film, quite fitting.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: The Deer Hunter on March 15, 2018, 04:46:15 PM
I also really liked Jennifer Jason Leigh's ticks and fatalism and the film's exploration of self destruction...

I found her to be the worst part of the movie. She was so dull.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: 1SO on March 18, 2018, 01:11:04 AM
I was very excited by the film right up until the scene where they watch the footage left behind by the earlier crew. While I can understand the paramedic being in shock and denial and insisting what they saw was "a trick of the light", it doesn't work for the movie that nobody called her on her obvious BS excuse. Nobody at any time could get over their shock and look at the footage again to prove they saw what they really saw. They let themselves get shouted down and the smart sci-fi film gets an immediate case of the dumb. It's not even a point that ultimately changes their mission, but the terrible way the scene is handled deflated me. Like it was a cheating lover, I switched from being trusting to being suspicious and doubtful.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Sandy on March 20, 2018, 03:21:19 PM
Apt metaphor, 1SO! I was so frustrated with the lookout scene, I plumb forgot how awful the footage scene was. If the director really wanted her reaction and their subsequent reaction to be at all realistic, he shouldn't have shot the footage so clearly. His desire to gross out, superseded his desire for the scene to be valid.


Quote from: DarthNibbles link=topic=14736.msg886487#msg886487

OK, the cancer thing never really clicked for me although, on further reflection, the focus on self-destruction is a much better fit. In fact, cancer is merely one aspect or manifestation of that.

As for the female squad... It didn't matter to me. This is probably my male privilege showing, but it didn't seem like a big deal or anything unusual at all. Maybe that isn't my male privilege... Is male privilege when you're threatened by women? Then it's the opposite.

On the other hand... It didn't resonate with me as being really profound or out of the ordinary (neither did the recent Ghostbusters, though I loved the film) that it was helmed primarily by women, so perhaps I meant that it's my privilege which blinds me to the significance of it?

You pose interesting questions that I don't necessarily have the answers for and I don't know how significant the Ghostbusters remake, or this female troop is, but as a female viewer, I notice when I have the opportunity to see women dominate a cast, especially a cast in an action movie.

Quote
All in all, my opinion of the movie is improving as I think about it (I love it when that happens), focusing primarily on the Shimmer (and the characters' journey) as being an exploration of self destruction. Which is, given the ending of the film, quite fitting.

It's great when this happens. Let a movie percolate for a bit and see what emerges. I think the movie was inventive and the creators had a lot of passion about the themes they were presenting. Even with my dislikes, I'm glad I went and experienced it.

I also really liked Jennifer Jason Leigh's ticks and fatalism and the film's exploration of self destruction...

I found her to be the worst part of the movie. She was so dull.

Dull as dishwater! I'm in agreement there, but it's partly why I liked her take. She was like the walking dead, with only her ticks, belying her indifference.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: jdc on March 20, 2018, 07:55:09 PM
I really didn't enjoy this too much but now you got me hating it:)
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: 1SO on March 20, 2018, 10:06:08 PM
Apt metaphor, 1SO! I was so frustrated with the lookout scene, I plumb forgot how awful the footage scene was. If the director really wanted her reaction and their subsequent reaction to be at all realistic, he shouldn't have shot the footage so clearly. His desire to gross out, superseded his desire for the scene to be valid.
I kept thinking the problem was the script and direction, but you're right. Better lighting might fixed the problem.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Bondo on March 20, 2018, 11:36:20 PM
I don't know that the film as a whole is rising in my esteem because I'm still not sure how well the film actually carries the self-destruction theme but I have been thinking more about it. I imagine the distortions in the Shimmer ultimately represent the way our mental illness can bend our perception of reality, setting the table for our self-destruction. Certainly resonates for me having sometimes experienced those little voices in your head that basically go "A is going badly so sabotage B so that everything is going badly and you can commit fully to failure." Or maybe that's just me.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on April 23, 2018, 08:12:48 AM
This and many other tactical decisions were really ridiculous. If these were just normal people in this situation it'd be easier to suspend disbelief, but this is a military operation and their plan is to go straight in to the end, instead of a series of increasingly deeper missions, reporting back their findings each time. Maybe in the first expedition but after that you'd expect a more cautious reconnaissance approach.

I still enjoyed the movie visually and thematically, it was good enough to put aside my issues most of the time and enjoy the building tension and the puzzle pieces sort of coming together and the ideas about destruction and preservation and identity.

It seems prosaic to complain about this in the face of the movies' larger themes once they become evident, but I cannot get over these problems. PA put it perfectly: every tactical decision in the movie is absurd to verge on the pathologically stupid. The first expedition should have been a 10 minute exploration with a drone and the military would then have escalated its reconnaissance progressively. It seems so obvious to me that Garland's all or nothing approach boggles my mind. That's before we even get to the idea of a scientist only expedition into hostile territory or the fact that there seems to be no chain of command between the women.

I was very excited by the film right up until the scene where they watch the footage left behind by the earlier crew. While I can understand the paramedic being in shock and denial and insisting what they saw was "a trick of the light", it doesn't work for the movie that nobody called her on her obvious BS excuse. Nobody at any time could get over their shock and look at the footage again to prove they saw what they really saw. They let themselves get shouted down and the smart sci-fi film gets an immediate case of the dumb. It's not even a point that ultimately changes their mission, but the terrible way the scene is handled deflated me. Like it was a cheating lover, I switched from being trusting to being suspicious and doubtful.

I really bothered me that the EMT was the one to lose her cool. She should be the best prepared one to deal with trauma and gore, bar perhaps Portman, and she goes apeshit.  The fact that no one put her in her place showed how unprepared for this mission they all were.



This is all before I even start talking about the real interesting stuff about the movie. I don't even know where to begin to grapple with it.

One thing though. I can accept the whole refraction thing, even when it comes to DNA and biology, but on the beach there are trees that get duplicated into crystal versions of themselves, and that bothered me, because how are minerals supposed to be affected here?
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on April 26, 2018, 09:32:05 AM
Does anyone consider this to be a horror movie?
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: 1SO on April 26, 2018, 12:46:55 PM
I do. It has psychological terror, gore effects and a scary creature.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Junior on April 26, 2018, 02:06:10 PM
Yeah, based on the bear alone. It's horror in the vein of HP Lovecraft but without the racism.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: valmz on May 05, 2018, 12:26:25 AM
I didn’t find the “plot holes” mentioned problematic at all. The team is scientists, not military, so tactics surely aren’t their forte. This is established both when Portman outshines the others with weapons and when they don’t instinctively form a battle plan - they’re not tacticians, they’re scientists.

As for the found footage scene, I thought they didn’t jump on the EMT’s ramblings for three great reasons: 1. Portman’s character is in shock 2. The crew is afraid of each other going crazy and are walking on eggshells with each other so as to avoid one actually going crazy and tying them all up. It happens anyway, so this fear is well-founded. 3. They want to see what the pool looks like currently. A lot is going on.

As for the poor strategy of recon missions, it’s established that the first couple of days inside are complete memory wipes, so it’s unclear whether any missions would have success trying to turn back once inside. After all, not one single human makes it out until Portman’s character firebombs the place.

As for the film, I found it to be primarily interesting as a fantastical dip into a dark universe. The human elements seemed incongruous to me, and I just didn’t put much effort into intellectualizing after multiple on-the-nose flashbacks. Seemed like a dead-end. The pure fantasy was interesting, even as it has a quasi-Heliocentric finale. I do like that there’s no implication that the foreign entity finds humans all that special, as if it came specifically to Earth for the magical humans. It seems far more random - it does its thing where it lands, and all sorts of strange possibilities seem available. As far as thrillers go, it far outshines some more “terrestrial” fare that ends with a clean victory for the good guys. There’s no telling what is won or lost at the end, except the magical Shimmer full of nightmares. What’s the last thriller you saw where the “enemy” is a “magical force”, and when the film ends it’s not defeated and yet it’s not necessarily a bad thing? Novel, if nothing else. I expected no Koreeda and got none, but that’s hardly a strike against an oddball alien film. The alien is far more interesting than the humans, or other humanoid films of its ilk. Something to appreciate, even if if’s not an all-time great, or a humanistic landmark, or even philosophically intriguing. Perhaps the villain in the film is not the alien but despair, and self-destruction merely a side effect. The alien, then, is not the villain but the setting: “How a group deals with despair inside an alien world.” Cleverly, the film kills off the most self-aware character first, leaving the less prepared ones alone and defenseless - against themselves. The alien isn’t the villain, after all.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: philip918 on May 31, 2018, 03:01:24 PM
Does the ending seem like a big cheat to anyone else?

After seeing everything connected to the alien go up in flames, how is it possible it still exists in the two human characters? Is it simply because Oscar Isaac's character was outside the Shimmer, and in the end he's already infecting Portman's? Even though the entire film is structured to suggest she's withholding information specifically because she knows what's going on with him and herself...
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Solid Blake on June 02, 2018, 06:04:22 AM
Does the ending seem like a big cheat to anyone else?

After seeing everything connected to the alien go up in flames, how is it possible it still exists in the two human characters? Is it simply because Oscar Isaac's character was outside the Shimmer, and in the end he's already infecting Portman's? Even though the entire film is structured to suggest she's withholding information specifically because she knows what's going on with him and herself...

From my understanding, the shimmer changes the DNA of all living creatures within, thus they were instantly changed crossing over. The whole doppelganger aspect was a bi-product of the alien species programming (i.e. the deer-like creatures mimmicking the same movements). Portman’s character isn’t a doppelganger, while the husband obviously is (as evidence from his suicide tape), yet they are still one of the same. Portman’s body and DNA changes throughout the film (i.e. the arm tattoo) and emerges from the event as a changed being in both psychological and organic terms. I see the two “survivors” as the Adam and Eve of this new species, the only surviving remnants of the shimmer—if that makes any sense?
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: philip918 on June 02, 2018, 12:09:41 PM
That makes sense. But I still don't see how they survived at all. When the alien burned everything it had changed burned with it. Why wouldn't the humans that had been changed also burn?
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Solid Blake on June 02, 2018, 05:33:13 PM
My interpretation of that “burning” event was a direct response/learning of self destruction when Dr. Ventress self-destruction (cancer) was absorbed into the alien consciousness. That explains the burning/spreading and destruction of cells. Her survival doesn’t make sense, with Lena still being inside the shimmer as the creations/altered beings were killed. Kane’s speedy survival/recovery is somewhat inexplicable, but I sat aside those confusions with the belief that this alien species were using the two to further spread their influence beyond the shimmer.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: oldkid on June 02, 2018, 11:18:56 PM
I really enjoyed the beauty of the movie and the theme of self destruction.  Like valmz, I didn't see the issues brought up earlier to be problems, since after their initial lost days, the mission was secondary to their mental processes, bent on destruction in their own unique way.  Like most of us do in times of deep stress, we do what our compulsions tell us to do and make up reasons on the fly that don't have to make sense.  This is an Apocalypse Now mission, from that point on, delving further into madness. 

The ending didn't do much for me. It is both vague and ominous.  Perhaps with more thought it might make sense.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on June 04, 2018, 03:43:13 AM
The issue with both your reasonings is that the main plotholes come in ex ante their penetrating the Shimmer. To me, the idea of an exploration team devoid of any military personnel and the ludicrous tactical thinking of sending team after team to explore a hostile area non-progressively, are much more egregious mistakes than whatever the characters do once inside.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Solid Blake on June 04, 2018, 07:44:25 AM
The issue with both your reasonings is that the main plotholes come in ex ante their penetrating the Shimmer. To me, the idea of an exploration team devoid of any military personnel and the ludicrous tactical thinking of sending team after team to explore a hostile area non-progressively, are much more egregious mistakes than whatever the characters do once inside.

Portman’s character was ex-military. And the whole trip was basically a suicide mission for Dr. Ventress (again, cancer). She also picked the team herself, and considering her macabres fascination with self-destruction, it’s no wonder she picked a grieving mother of a recently deceased daughter, a recovering drug addict, a cutting introvert, and a unfaithful wife coming to terms with her husband’s misfortune. The mission was never meant to succeed, it was an existential crisis team formed by a decaying (again both physical and mental) leader. It might not make pragmatic sense, but it certainly falls in line with Ventress’ motivations.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on June 04, 2018, 08:27:45 AM
Portman was an accidental addition. She was not part of the planning and cannot be therefore used to justify Ventress' logic. And if the pick of the team makes sense by that standard, there is no reason why the psychologist should be the one making all the decisions for an operation conducted under military supervision. Arrival made all the sense when it put generals in charge of the site, there is no way this would fly in reality.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Solid Blake on June 04, 2018, 10:39:38 AM
Portman was an accidental addition. She was not part of the planning and cannot be therefore used to justify Ventress' logic. And if the pick of the team makes sense by that standard, there is no reason why the psychologist should be the one making all the decisions for an operation conducted under military supervision. Arrival made all the sense when it put generals in charge of the site, there is no way this would fly in reality.

So you’re saying poor management/decision making isn’t conceivable?

I’m not an apologist for this film, it has plenty of flaws. But the same criticism for “poor decision making” in films like this and say, for example, Prometheus... are overlooking the genre these films play in (horror). The protagonist will always run upstairs, versus running out the door. Basic logic doesn’t always apply in these films, for better or worse.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on June 04, 2018, 12:45:26 PM
Yes, it does. One thing is characters making bad choices that are true to their personalities. Another one is imagining the American government and the military operating in ways that go against everything ever and defy all logic. This goes beyond « the Surge didn't work » bad decision making. This is trying to invade Iraq with the power of hopes and dreams.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: Solid Blake on June 04, 2018, 01:47:08 PM
To each their own, considering our current leadership and day-to-day headlines—this wasn’t as hard to believe for me.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: oldkid on June 04, 2018, 03:07:09 PM
And the situation was desperate.  It was growing and something had to be done.  At this point personnel was expendable, and if someone who headed up the operation decided to go herself with a team she hand-picked, who would stop her?  One way or the other, we are not given that reasoning.  I don't have any problem creating a realistic way for them to enter.  And, frankly, the gambit succeeded.  They ended up with someone coming out able to report about what was seen, which was the whole plan.

I get that it is easy to blow holes in the plot.  But for me, it is never how contrived the plot was, but how well a movie makes me forget the contrivance.  And this film succeeded in doing that, mostly, for me.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: valmz on June 05, 2018, 08:51:49 PM
The issue with both your reasonings is that the main plotholes come in ex ante their penetrating the Shimmer. To me, the idea of an exploration team devoid of any military personnel and the ludicrous tactical thinking of sending team after team to explore a hostile area non-progressively, are much more egregious mistakes than whatever the characters do once inside.
They sent many military teams, with no luck. Sending more is beating a dead horse.
Each team that enters loses several days' worth of memory despite covering distance. By the point they are coherent again, they have begun to be affected by the shimmer. In a world where "all logistical and tactical planning is exactly as you, yourself, personally, would have done it", the film is still entirely coherent: We can imagine that they have attempted progressive investigation but all progressive attempts fail every time without fail due to the effects of the shimmer. There is no reason given in the film to think that any person or device can enter the shimmer and comply with tactics or programming to leave, and plenty of reason to think that this is not possible. Even if no reason were given, you can "resolve" this conflict one of two ways: Assume that your tactics are not the tactics they think best, or assume that something not shown contradicts the tactic you prefer. In the film, the latter is irrelevant because reason is shown, and the former may also be relevant.
Finally, one could say that this is fiction, and every variance from "realism" is a meaningful distortion of an imaginary world which only enhances the unreality and/or the metaphorical weight of those differences. This is the best part of art, not the worst.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on June 06, 2018, 05:43:22 AM
Nothing in the movie suggests there would be any reason not to expect a two to six hour exploratory mission to succeed. There would be a threshold at some point where your argument would stand, but some headway would have to be possible.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: valmz on June 06, 2018, 08:27:22 AM
Nothing in the movie suggests there would be any reason not to expect a two to six hour exploratory mission to succeed. There would be a threshold at some point where your argument would stand, but some headway would have to be possible.
The first scene inside the shimmer implies that the characters have no recollection (and perhaps no ability to willfully alter the course of) their first days inside.

If the film spent the first hour documenting how incremental exploratory missions inside the shimmer failed to unravel the entirety of the mystery... how would that make the film better? It might satisfy your logistical desires, but it would neither change the need for the mission-at-hand, nor would it change the fact that all of the military teams failed, and it would certainly rid the film of the mystique of the shimmer. The shimmer has mystique. Why? Because unexplainable stuff happens. That's an essential part of the film. Explaining away everything would be a huuuuuuuge wet blanket on the mysteriousness.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on June 06, 2018, 09:17:51 AM
The movie wouldn't have to explain anything. It would just have to say no one made it back. But it goes farther and states every mission was trying to get to the lighthouse. Why? That makes no sense. And when they saw it wasn't working, why not change strategies, lower the bar? I am just asking for basic verisimilitude. As is, I spend the movie thinking « Well, all this could easily have been averted had their superiors been thinking more tactically. ». Send a bloody drone, it's what we do everywhere else.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: valmz on June 06, 2018, 03:23:30 PM
The movie wouldn't have to explain anything. It would just have to say no one made it back. But it goes farther and states every mission was trying to get to the lighthouse. Why? That makes no sense. And when they saw it wasn't working, why not change strategies, lower the bar? I am just asking for basic verisimilitude. As is, I spend the movie thinking « Well, all this could easily have been averted had their superiors been thinking more tactically. ». Send a bloody drone, it's what we do everywhere else.
If I recall correctly, they explicitly mentioned sending drones in, and all failed. As shown in the film, electronics go haywire in the shimmer.

I think we're down to the point where one line of dialogue in the film would completely resolve all of your complaints... about things that have nothing to do with the people involved in the mission or about what happens inside the shimmer, which is to say "everything of importance".
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on June 06, 2018, 04:02:04 PM
As far as I am concerned, the internal logic of things is everything of importance.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: valmz on June 07, 2018, 12:39:05 PM
Do you think this is a benefit, or a hindrance?
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on June 07, 2018, 12:51:56 PM
I don't see how you could call it either.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: smirnoff on October 05, 2018, 07:50:04 PM
I must say, I relate to those who have expressed being put off or dismayed by the "bad tactics" employed in the film. Not only by the primary characters, but the entire operation.

The film Arrival begins with a very similar sort of trajectory. An unknown extraterrestrial event occurs, a specialist is brought in after other approaches have been tried and failed to solve anything. This specialist is part of a team of scientists and military types with a variety of specialties of their own. They enter the anomaly and take a methodical approach in investigating it. Like scientists would. I found it to be a very believable in how such an event would be handled.

In comparison I would call Annihilation frustratingly vague in that regard. The composition of the team is awfully spontaneous and for such a monumental event. Decided, on a whim, by one burned out shrink. "Let's try and all female team because we haven't tried that yet"... but what's the scientific justification in favour of such a composition? What's information points to that being a more compelling option than, say, a team of 5 brunettes and a basset hound? Or a team of 2 people, or a team of 500 people? I may have missed the answer to that question somewhere in the film if there was one.

Suffice it to say, that aspect of the film was all a bit loose for me. Perhaps it could all be explained, if given the benefit of the doubt, but I guess the film hadn't earned that much goodwill from me yet.

I did enjoy the mysterious anomaly though. How it first appears, how it looks, how it grows, what happens when you send stuff in it, and what happens when we ourselves eventually enter it. It was a bit like the spore-world depicted in Nausicaa... or the early stages thereof. The fact that fungi and mold breathe oxygen (like humans) may be some kind of clue about the nature of the anomaly, as that's what seems to be gradually proliferating within the thing. Then again, there are those plant mannequins, and people become bear-monsters, and everything is screwed up, so maybe it's nothing. I definitely got lost trying to understand or speculate about what was going on. The ending was like "okay, a weird mirroring thing", which was fine I guess, then everything goes up in flames, Portman is in a hospital with her husband, and their eyes are twinkling meaning they are infected or changed I guess. I don't know if it ever "made sense" but I definitely stopped trying to understand it after a while.

Flashbacks to Portman in quarantine giving a debriefing were an unwelcome and fruitless interruption I thought. I also didn't see the purpose of flashing back to Portman's interlude with her work colleague. There was a lot of jumping in and out of the primary story... I didn't always see the relevance or how the timing was appropriate, except perhaps to catch our breath after some action. Mostly it just confused matters imo.

There's lots of higher level details and mysteries to speculate on and investigate further, but I don't think the underlying film was stimulating enough or entertaining enough, or just enough, to make me want to come back and do so.
Title: Re: Annihilation
Post by: DarkeningHumour on October 11, 2018, 09:16:24 AM
Yeah, pretty much everything you said.