Annihilation

And the water in the glass moves symetrically the same way.

 

Any body read the Southern Reach (Annihilation) trilogy? Just finished them.

Absolutely brilliant, Absolutely Bonkers.

And I really have no idea what happened for the later 40% of the books - but it was brilliant whatever it was.....

 

Exactly - annihilation of what we understand.

 

Watched the Blu-ray last night. Apparently the studio didn't pay Redbox to not rent it out! I also noticed Redbox labeled the film's genre as "action." Um, okay. I suspect there will be some negative user reviews.

I enjoyed the film a second time. A telling detail I hadn't picked up the first time is the "infinity snake" tattoo worn by at least three characters in the film, including Lena. I think this is more evidence of the shimmer infection.

 

I watched the trailer on iTunes, and it was made to seem like a typical monster film. I'm sure that's misleading. It's only available for purchase, but I will rent it when it's available.

 

Yeah, it's not a "typical" monster film at all - it's barely a "monster film" period.

"Annihilation" is kinda all over the map - it takes a bunch of movies and puts them in a blender. Definitely elements of "Alien" and "The Thing" in there, but they're not dominant...

 

Glad to see this thread was revived. Just watched it last night on Amazon Prime. Mixed feelings. Probably would have liked it better if I hadn't read the book since they threw out about 90% of the novel. Too slow, too artistic for me. The book as written is probably impossible to make a film out of, but it could have been much better. Still conflicted on this. A missed opportunity, I think. To those who like the movie, I'd recommend reading the novel. It's still better than most sci-fi movies but, heck, it could have been a great movie. Beautiful visuals, excellent sound shaping.

 

She's an unreliable narrator however I think she's the original Lena but she's been drastically altered by the invasion of their DNA by that from the Shimmer.

 

I read the book and loved the film. It's a companion piece to the novel and an excellent one at that. I felt the pacing was perfect for the film. I would say this is like an earth bound 2001--interacting with an alien intelligence we don't understand who radically alters one person as part of a "plan" to take humanity into the next realm of existence. It could also be seen as a variation of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" and "The Thing".

No, the annihilation of humanity as we know it.

 

Interesting. As a companion piece, I agree. But as a literal interpretation of the novel, I don't think it worked. The book never made it clear if the force behind Area X had an agenda or not. Beyond that, the missing parts of the novel (hypnotism, the tunnel/tower) would have been more effective if they were included in the film. Still, we need more literate sci-fi films like this and I'm bummed that it didn't do better box office.

 

I took it as an effect that just operated by transforming things, but not necessarily with a "plan" or an intelligence attached. Humans tend to value intelligence and sentience above all else, but what if this entity was like a bacteria that simply did what it did as a function of its existence, without a consciousness? The typical model of alien encounter stories is that we'll meet creatures that look different and have a different way of communicating (see Arrival, for one of the most recent examples), which is merely an extrapolation of the way we think -- different but still recognizable in some relatable way. Annihilation posits, I think, the kind of alien that Stanislaw Lem suggested, which would confound our scientific understanding and have no relatable point of reference.

Or it could be like The Blob.

 

Could be. It is never explained in the book but the whole transformation sequence struck me as a means of terraforming a different sort of invasion where we become them but you are right it could be the other way as well.

My take is that (like yours) it is an intelligence so radically different than ours that we can’t conceive of what the true goal is. That’s what’s fascinating about it in that it recalled that approach in Lem and Kubrick.

 

indeed, it only appears on those that are infected as I recall and, if I recall correctly, her husband (and she) didn’t have at the beginning.

 

The director/ writer stated that he did it as an adaption as the “memory”of the novel. I don’t know that those sequences would have worked as well in the film but the film echoed the themes and did a film’s spin on them. I think the fact that they couldn’t remember the last three days after they entered echoed the sequences nvlving hypnotism and wiping their memories (and the psychologist COULD have done it) but, by keeping it nebulous as a possible effect of the Shimmer, the film captured the disorientation that the characters felt but on a much more personal level (where they were robbed of three days of their lives) and also touched on the loss of self (since the self is defined by our me,lives, interaction with our environment, beliefs, etc.). Was it an absolutely faithful adaption? No but I think that would have possibly hobbled the film and adapting the themes, the “memory”of the novel allowed the film to take flight information on it’s own. Curiously, the “meteorite” (if that’s what it truly was) didn’t destroy the lighthouse or the land surrounding it just transforming it which goes to the fact that, again, humanity has never encountered anything like this before and it doesn’t even conform to our understanding of physics.

We got lucky—the U.S. at least got a theatrical release. I’m also happy that Scott Rudin fought David Ellison (his studio co-financed it and he’s, in my opinion, a pita who has demonstrated that he doesn’t know what works in films)demanded an upbeat ending and changes to make it “clearer” to the audience I.e, dumb it down.

 

I just re-watched it this morning and paid special attention to the infinity snake tattoo and this is what I saw.

On Lena we see it in every interview scene that is after she cam out of the shimmer. In the scenes within, we only see it on her arm right after she gives the grenade to the clone. When she and it hold hands, it finishes taking form and you can see the infinity snake tattoo on the left arm of each of them. It's hard to say when she got it, as most of the time her long sleeve is down covering most of her forearm, but the first time (chronologically) that it appears on her is right before she sets off the grenade.

On Thorensen (Gina Rodriguez), we first see it in the tower the morning after the bear attack on Cass. They do show her arms earlier when she introduces herself to Lena before they all go in, and she has no tattoo, so when it is on her arm later (and nobody ever comments on these tattoos appearing), its clearly new.

Those are the two obvious appearances, but the new one I saw this time through was on the left arm of the man being cut open to expose his moving innards. If you pause that part of the video the team is watching, you can see the bare arm of another soldier holding him down, but behind it you can see the snake tattoo on the man being cut open.

Why it never appears on Radek, I don't know. I think everyone inside the shimmer is being affected/infected by it. And she's turning into a plant before our eyes. They show her left arm clearly, and you can see the scars from her cutting that was alluded to earlier, but no snake tattoo.

We never see the arms of Cass Shepherd or Ventriss (Jennifer Jason Leigh). I don't think we ever see the snake tattoo on Kane, but he does have the big shoulder tattoo. He had that before he went in, though.

 

I’m pretty sure that Kane when he returns it is visible in one shot when he is in the hospital bed or returns to Lena. I remember thinking “hey they’ve got the same tattoo” and noted that in the flashback neither had it.

I also think that the only ones that get them are those that stay “human” on the outside whereas on Radek, because she is transforming into another creature either doesn’t develop it (or it is possible she develops it in some other way that we don’t see in the film)

 

I looked specifically to see if he had it, but didn't see it at the end when they meet after her interview and embrace. I didn't see it, but I guess I could have missed it. I don't have to return the movie until tonight, so I'll pop it back in and check again later today.

Nobody comments on the appearance of the tattoos. That we see anyway. When it first appears on Thorensen, there are two other people (Radek and Lena) in the room talking with her and she's in a tanktop. Its not even obscured. Shouldn't someone have said, "wait, how did you get that big tattoo overnight"?

Of course, there is the whole possibly unreliable narrator thing, making the events as we see them not 100% concrete. Maybe that tattoo is some sort of marker that only Lena can observe? Thought its weird it would be picked up on video if that were the case.

 

I think that’s the case and the audience. It also, again, points to her as an unreliable narrator. I’m sure some folks will see it as a continuity problem but it’s not.

 

I looked again and just did not see it on him. You actually get a very clear view of his left inner forearm at the end when he asks her "Are you Lena?" and then they hug. No tattoo, that I could see. Not that it really matters one way or the other, I guess. There isn't a great mystery revealed by him having it or not. But they do represent something, as I'm sure the director wouldn't have placed them willy-nilly. But I didn't see it on Kane.

 

That's how I saw it. The clone creature that Lena encountered in the lighthouse was a blank tape that simply absorbed/copied her but it didn't understand. It was even mystified by the fire, simply passing it on, just as Lea has passed it on it (via the grenade).
Lena's husband's clone also simply wandered about discovering, unknowing, learning. I don't see anything sinister in the entity at all. Just biological propagation like we se in nature on Earth.

 

My wife and I rented it last night. I enjoyed it; she was puzzled and bored.

Amongst its many other qualities, it was refreshing to see that the majority of the characters were tough women.

 

I thought it sucked.

 

I have been putting off watching this because I really enjoyed the book.

I may have to take the plunge.

 

It took me 3 tries to finish this movie. I really wanted to like it more because I enjoy most of Garland's films. The lighting, dialog, and atmosphere was just dreadful and put me to sleep twice. Granted I watched it when I was having insomnia. These were some of the things that 28 Days suffered from but in that movie substance > style. Here, it seemed style > substance. Which is a shame really, because the premise of the movie was great.

The CGI parts of the film and the music were cool.

 

Yep. It was interesting to see the changes from the novel to the film. I don't think that the novel, the way it was written, would have worked on the screen completely. The two other books....well the last one is trippy to say the least.

Nah.

Actually did you fall asleep during "2001"? ​