ANNIHILATION from Ex Machina Writer/Director (87% Rotten Tomatoes Score)

[TheRuthlessOne]

I'm walking in right now. Hoping for the best.

I can only hope it's on the level of Ex Machina.

How was this turd

 

[Hidden_Hand]

Can't wait to watch this, praying it is as good as it looks.

 

[Guestx]

Tag me in any review you write when you're done if you don't mind.

Just got back, so here you go. . .

The first thing anyone should probably know about the film is that it's slow. It moves at a really deliberate pace and at one point I even heard snoring in the theater and turned around and found not just one but TWO fucking people snoozing away.

The other thing is that, if you're anything like me, you're going to be left with more questions than answers when it's all over with. A few posters earlier made reference to reviews saying the movie is "an acquired taste" and "won't be for everyone" and I agree it's the case that not everybody is going to connect with the film. It's ultimately going to come down what you want from your movies.

An analogy here might be David Lynch. When someone puts the handcuffs on David Lynch, you get something like the first season of Twin Peaks. That is, something that is weird and Lynchian but that also is restrained and accessible for mainstream audiences. But when you take those handcuffs off, you get something more like the revival Twin Peaks season on Showtime where he doesn't give a shit about accessibility and just goes Full Lynch and does whatever he wants.

Well something similar seems to have happened here with Alex Garland: With Ex Machina, he made a sci-fi film that was intelligent and thought-provoking, but still accessible for the average moviegoer. However, with Annihilation it's like the handcuffs were taken off and he just let his imagination run wild and the result is a film that is weird and kind of abstract and just throws a story at the viewer that it makes little effort to actually explain.

There are some pretty great visual elements in the film, so on a visual level I have no complaints. And the film does a great job of setting a specific mood and vibe. So if a movie can live and thrive for you based on that alone, then you'll probably enjoy it. But if you want a narrative that not only tells you WHAT happened but also why it happened and what it all means, then you'll probably be frustrated, which is ultimately where I ended up.

This is not to say that there is no plot. There is a plot. A series of events occurs. Characters do things and start in one place and then end up in another. It's just that when it's all over you might find yourself wondering, "So just what in the fuck was that movie ABOUT?"

Personally, I think it's a disappointing follow-up to Ex Machina. I think that Alex Garland is a unique talent, but next time a little MORE studio interference might be a good thing. It doesn't surprise me now that they decided to go straight to Netflix with this one in Europe, due to concerns over audience reception. I'm guessing we're going to see the CinemaScore come in somewhere around a C, maybe a B- at best.

 

[Guestx]

How was this turd

See my thoughts above.

 

[pookiyama]

There were many snippets of dialogue in random places that explain the "why" of it all, but itll take work to put it together.

This is a film that gives you enough to figure it out, but you have to enjoy mental puzzles to even try.

 

[TheRuthlessOne]

Just got back, so here you go. . .

The first thing anyone should probably know about the film is that it's slow. It moves at a really deliberate pace and at one point I even heard snoring in the theater and turned around and found not just one but TWO fucking people snoozing away.

The other thing is that, if you're anything like me, you're going to be left with more questions than answers when it's all over with. A few posters earlier made reference to reviews saying the movie is "an acquired taste" and "won't be for everyone" and I agree it's the case that not everybody is going to connect with the film. It's ultimately going to come down what you want from your movies.

An analogy here might be David Lynch. When someone puts the handcuffs on David Lynch, you get something like the first season of Twin Peaks. That is, something that is weird and Lynchian but that also is restrained and accessible for mainstream audiences. But when you take those handcuffs off, you get something more like the revival Twin Peaks season on Showtime where he doesn't give a shit about accessibility and just goes Full Lynch and does whatever he wants.

Well something similar seems to have happened here with Alex Garland: With Ex Machina, he made a sci-fi film that was intelligent and thought-provoking, but still accessible for the average moviegoer. However, with Annihilation it's like the handcuffs were taken off and he just let his imagination run wild and the result is a film that is weird and abstract and just throws a story at the viewer that it makes little effort to actually explain.

There are some pretty great visual elements in the film, so on a visual level I have no complaints. And the film does a great job of setting a specific mood and vibe. So if a movie can live and thrive for you based on that alone, then you'll probably enjoy it. But if you want a narrative that not only tells you WHAT happened but also why it happened and what it all means, then you'll probably be frustrated, which is ultimately where I ended up.

This is not to say that there is no plot. There is a plot. A series of events occurs. Characters do things and start in one place and then end up in another. It's just that when it's all over you might find yourself wondering, "So just what in the fuck was that movie ABOUT?"

Personally, I think it's a disappointing follow-up to Ex Machina. I think that Alex Garland is a unique talent, but next time a little MORE studio interference might be a good thing. It doesn't surprise me now that they decided to go straight to Netflix with this one in Europe, due to concerns over audience reception. I'm guessing we're going to see the CinemaScore come in somewhere around a C or C-.

Sounds like a movie that I would like more than you would

 

[Guestx]

Sounds like a movie that I would like more than you would

Entirely possible.

I think that Garland may have been trying to take a page out of Kubrick's playbook here, in the way that Kubrick crafted 2001 in a way that also didn't really explain itself in a lot of aspects. Kubrick just tossed some shit at the viewer and said, "Here, now figure it out."

But for whatever reason, I think that works for 2001 and I love 2001. But this film could never manage to get me fully engaged.

I'll say it was an interesting experience. But not a truly satisfying one. I doubt I'll ever watch it again.

 

[Guestx]

There were many snippets of dialogue in random places that explain the "why" of it all, but itll take work to put it together.

This is a film that gives you enough to figure it out, but you have to enjoy mental puzzles to even try.

It's a good question, actually, whether it actually even gives you the necessary puzzle pieces to put it all together.

While trying to be as vague as possible, I'll just say that the characters' own lack of understanding and confusion mirrors the audience's.

 

[Law Talkin’ Guy]

Just got back, so here you go. . .

The first thing anyone should probably know about the film is that it's slow. It moves at a really deliberate pace and at one point I even heard snoring in the theater and turned around and found not just one but TWO fucking people snoozing away.

The other thing is that, if you're anything like me, you're going to be left with more questions than answers when it's all over with. A few posters earlier made reference to reviews saying the movie is "an acquired taste" and "won't be for everyone" and I agree it's the case that not everybody is going to connect with the film. It's ultimately going to come down what you want from your movies.

An analogy here might be David Lynch. When someone puts the handcuffs on David Lynch, you get something like the first season of Twin Peaks. That is, something that is weird and Lynchian but that also is restrained and accessible for mainstream audiences. But when you take those handcuffs off, you get something more like the revival Twin Peaks season on Showtime where he doesn't give a shit about accessibility and just goes Full Lynch and does whatever he wants.

Well something similar seems to have happened here with Alex Garland: With Ex Machina, he made a sci-fi film that was intelligent and thought-provoking, but still accessible for the average moviegoer. However, with Annihilation it's like the handcuffs were taken off and he just let his imagination run wild and the result is a film that is weird and kind of abstract and just throws a story at the viewer that it makes little effort to actually explain.

There are some pretty great visual elements in the film, so on a visual level I have no complaints. And the film does a great job of setting a specific mood and vibe. So if a movie can live and thrive for you based on that alone, then you'll probably enjoy it. But if you want a narrative that not only tells you WHAT happened but also why it happened and what it all means, then you'll probably be frustrated, which is ultimately where I ended up.

This is not to say that there is no plot. There is a plot. A series of events occurs. Characters do things and start in one place and then end up in another. It's just that when it's all over you might find yourself wondering, "So just what in the fuck was that movie ABOUT?"

Personally, I think it's a disappointing follow-up to Ex Machina. I think that Alex Garland is a unique talent, but next time a little MORE studio interference might be a good thing. It doesn't surprise me now that they decided to go straight to Netflix with this one in Europe, due to concerns over audience reception. I'm guessing we're going to see the CinemaScore come in somewhere around a C, probably a B- at best.

Going “Full Lynch”. I like that, I’m going to try to use that sometime in conversation.

 

[TrueBias]

Sounds like a movie that I would like more than you would

Exactly. I still read his review, but I never forgot how he liked the last Jedi. He's a living opposite day.

Still, things he said are things I'd say. This really came out on Netflix in europe?

 

[Guestx]

Gonna be interesting to see how this critic/audience disparity shapes up as we move through the opening weekend.

 

[Guestx]

Exactly. I still read his review, but I never forgot how he liked the last Jedi. He's a living opposite day.

Oh, and one other thing. . .

Spoiler

 

[Loiosh]

righht......

I take it you haven't seen this.

The male characters are badass.

I'm not saying it's great, and there are some ludicrous events in the finale (which I actually enjoyed), but it's probably not what you think it is.

 

[Guestx]

I'm guessing we're going to see the CinemaScore come in somewhere around a C, maybe a B- at best.

Changing my name to Nostradamus. . .

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

Gonna be interesting to see how this critic/audience disparity shapes up as we move through the opening weekend.

I hope you realize there's almost no disparity there. The 87% reflects those who gave it higher than a 5/10, and "liked" isn't very measurable.

The real numbers to look at are the average ratings 7.6/10 vs 3.7/5(or 7.4/10). Not that wide of a gap.

 

[pookiyama]

It's a good question, actually, whether it actually even gives you the necessary puzzle pieces to put it all together.

While trying to be as vague as possible, I'll just say that the characters' own lack of understanding and confusion mirrors the audience's.

If you take the leap that one of the characters is entirely right about her opinions, and factor that in with the everything is refracted bit, it does.

 

[Guestx]

I hope you realize there's almost no disparity there. The 87% reflects those who gave it higher than a 5/10, and "liked" isn't very measurable.

The real numbers to look at are the average rating 7.6/10 vs 3.7/5(or 7.4/10). Not that wide of a gap.

You keep trying to tell me how Rotten Tomatoes works. Do you really think I post as much as I do about movies and not understand how they arrive at their scores?

As for the disparity, I'm going by their own determination regarding who has, and has not, turned in a positive review.

According to their metrics, 87% of critics turned in a review that was ultimately positive. But only 68% (actually, it's 69% now) of audience members have.

 

[Guestx]

If you take the leap that one of the characters is entirely right about her opinions, and factor that in with the everything is refracted bit, it does.

Maybe so.

Honestly, the film didn't hold my interest well enough for me to invest the time into trying to figure it all out upon rewatches, like some other movies have in the past. But you could be right.

 

[Jopious Extronimous]

You keep trying to tell me how Rotten Tomatoes works. Do you really think I post as much as I do about movies and not understand how they arrive at their scores?

As for the disparity, I'm going by their own determination regarding who has, and has not, turned in a positive review.

According to their metrics, 87% of critics turned in a review that was ultimately positive. But only 68% (actually, it's 69% now) of audience members have.

No, only 68% said they "liked it". The fresh number from critics isn't arrived at the same way. If you really knew how the site worked and how to read it, you'd know the only comparable metrics are the actual ratings. Which are, 7.6 out of 10 and 7.4 out of 10. No real disparity.

Is there any reason you'd go with a 'fresh' vs 'liked' comparison over the clearly comparable 1-10 ratings to arrive at a better conclusion? If you've got one I'd love to hear it.

 

[Tiny]

Only an 89 percent???

Guess its not a disney movie.