Annihilation (2018) -- Natalie Portman, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Oscar Isaac, Tessa Thompson, dir. Alex Garland, based on Jeff VanderMeer's book

Maybe? Not per se minding a glossed-up "Roadside Picnic"/Stalker riff though I guess more people will think of comparing it to Arrival as a contrast now (and does remind me I need to give Tarkovsky in general a long overdue rewatch). Anyway, first trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufaDurSCKOk

Separate thread on ILB re VanderMeer's work and earlier discussion of the film plans.

where lies the strangling fruit...Area X - The Southern Reach Trilogy by Jeff Vandermeer

looks great. loved Ex Machina + good cast. (I can't stand Tarkovsky but that's another thread)

all that rainbow lens flare makes me feel a bit ill

maybe that's the intention

good book that was screaming to be turned into a movie. i trust ex machina guy to not fuck it up the way villeneuve steamrolled everything interesting abt story of your life, both because material is less fuckup-able and bc ex machina was simple and measured in its creepiness. sequel sucks though so they should just stop after #1

The book series went nowhere, is basically a faux literary riff on the TV show Lost

the tv show lost is more resonant that ever

I thought Ex Machina was dumb as shit, and couldn't make it through this book even though it was only like 80 pages long. But Natalie Portman has the perfect doll face and glassy stare to convey Meaning in this kind of thinks-it's-smart prestige SF, so there's that.

<3 <3 <3 Gina Rodriguez <3 <3 <3

screaming to be turned into a movie

― flopson, Thursday, 28 September 2017 01:45

I think that's usually a sign that a book did not deliver, so maybe it was just screaming to be a better book. I haven't read it.

The book was interesting and atmospheric but ultimately unsatisfying (maybe the sequals rectify this?). I will watch the film but don't really know what to expect.

good book that was screaming to be turned into a movie.

Boy, I would have said "good book whose strengths are weirdnesses of word choice and prose style that have no analogue on the screen." I don't see how they make this a movie without making it a "what is the spooky creature in the spooky zone" movie which would be .... nothing like the book, or rather, the kind of thing the book is explicitly a reaction against

dir Alex aaaaaaaand i'm outta here

Book was at #4 on Amazon bestseller chart yesterday!

My novel now seems like it's commenting on some of the other books. Anyway, thrilled it looks like our contributions to eco causes goes up. pic.twitter.com/kz9g5TSK77

— Jeff VanderMeer (@jeffvandermeer) September 28, 2017

(maybe the sequals rectify this?)

nope

Boy, I would have said "good book whose strengths are weirdnesses of word choice and prose style that have no analogue on the screen." I don't see how they make this a movie without making it a "what is the spooky creature in the spooky zone" movie which would be .... nothing like the book, or rather, the kind of thing the book is explicitly a reaction against

― Guayaquil (eephus!), Friday, September 29, 2017 10:25 AM (four hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

i'm not sure what the book is about or a reaction against aside from eco sci-fi with some heavyhanded pomo slabbed on thick, but the whole time i read it i had a feeling that Vandermeer had a film adaptation in mind. also c'mon [SPOILER] there are some good spooky scenes also some action iirc

some books r just cinematic, i wonder what that quality is exactly

anyway im there for this i loved ex machina

same here *unbookmarks thread*

I don’t think the books were unsatisfying. They were each pieces of a puzzle that didn’t totally add up, but suggested a cosmic horror rooted in overgrowth/environmental cancer/corruption/body-doubling/ineffectual bureaucratic conspiracy. All three of the novele brought different perspectives to a situation that was implied to be beyond human comprehension, while kicking the story just a little further down the road.

The tv show “lost” is a facile comparison.... some combination of “the prisoner” and “the thing” and Lisa Frank seems more apt.

This looks awesome, can’t wait. Loved the book(s)

Interesting if familiar story -- as a friend said on Twitter just now, regarding the reaction of the initial test audience, "Make it NOT the book."

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/annihilation-how-a-clash-between-producers-led-a-netflix-deal-1065465

I try not to judge a book by its cover but holy cow does David Ellison have severe jerkface

Oh, it's Larry's son. Say no more.

I like the logic of 'This film is too complex, let's dumb it down to be more like Geostorm, which was a big failure for us!'

I try not to judge a book by its cover but holy cow does David Ellison have severe jerkface

― Dan I., Friday, December 8, 2017 2:47 AM (two hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://cdn1.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/scale_crop_768_433/2017/12/scott_rudin_and_david_ellison_-_split_-_getty_-_h_2017.jpg
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/54/Are_We_Not_Men_We_Are_Devo%21.jpg

holy shit

amazing

First I've heard of Geostorm.

tbf ...

https://tmhome.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Josh-Homme-near-death-meditation-w2.jpg

Annnnd new trailer

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89OP78l9oF0

Interesting contrast to the first trailer!

Good interview w/Garland

http://collider.com/alex-garland-annihilation-interview/amp/

he's familiar with stalker but still thought annihilation was genuinely original?

Garland is not exactly a great interviewee is he... I feel somewhat deflated and standoffish now and I didn't even read the whole interview.

early reviews seem generally positive so far... I'm dialing up some cautious optimism and will try to catch it this weekend

this is going to be another one of those amazing sci-fi megabombs that lasts like 3 weeks in the theater isn't it

The poster and the font and Portman all make me think this is some kind of Phantom Menace sequel with M16s instead of lasers guns

Gotta say, that movie title sells itself in this moment in time.

Queen Amidala in "Stalker 2018"

Exactly

Queen Amidala’s double in Predator 2049: Return to Tatooine

Endor, that is

If the book is a combo of Roadside Picnic & Mountains of Madness, I’m curious how much of that will translate to the screen.

Would prefer Marble Madness

Saw this last night. I really liked it. It’s a verrrrrrrry loose adaptation but it does capture the general atmosphere of the book.

There’s a lot of stuff in here that is going to reward repeat viewings.

no uk cinema release wtf

wait waht

apparently this is being released only in the US, Canada, and China, with other rights already sold to Netflix

Man this guy loves Tarkovsky. Liberally rips off Stalker & Solaris in almost equal measure (mostly Stalker, but the final scene & the whole idea of being able/unable to love a simulacrum of your dead spouse- I mean give me a break). Still, you could do worse when ripping people off. I liked it a lot, and it had a fairly rowdy matinee audience totally gripped and silent, and there was no moaning or groaning when the credits rolled without a lot of questions answered or threads resolved. But having seen Solaris and Stalker, I'm not left with much to think about. Garland not only took the exact imagery of those films, sometimes down to specific shots (underwater seaweed just like the opening shot of Solaris), but all of the ideas are Tarkovsky's. So I'm not sure what to make of it, glad it's out there, it's very well made and paced and it's nice that there's more "intelligent" sci-fi out there that could be successful (posters and advertising and the shit title - i know it's based on a novel - made it look like some Hunger Games shit), but... what's the point if you've seen Solaris and Stalker?

In fairness the Stalker homage is baked into the book

The politics for all the reasons Neanderthal and Tracer Hand mentioned are....explicit. The Texas-California alliance is the odd one, but we've seen any number of convenient political alliances in the last century. When the film does go into equivalences is showing the barbarism of the WF soldiers (is Plemons and his unit one of them? I couldn't tell. I may have missed it). Maybe the anti-faux-Trump forces realized they needed to get as dirty as he did?

I thought that pulp book line was going to be about this book my mom's old boss co-wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas-Israeli_War:_1999

When the film does go into equivalences is showing the barbarism of the WF soldiers (is Plemons and his unit one of them? I couldn't tell. I may have missed it).

no, I think they were simply a militia, who may or may not have supported the President, but were absolutely happy to use the resultant chaos to further their own awful goals.

I thought one of the most interesting scenes was the one with the house and the invisible sniper, and the guys they encountered hunkered down. it's completely unclear, and maybe irrelevant, who is who. When asked what's going on, the answer was "that guy is shooting at us. we are shooting at him".

Ah, makes sense.

Yeah, that sniper shot (blurring him was a shrewd touch) creeped me out.

I thought for a moment that the shot of the white woman, Latin American man, and Hong Kong reporter in front of Plemons' militia was on-the-nose, but the NPR affiliate reporters I know are a diverse lot.

Stephen McKinley was best in show as he almost always is.

xposts yeah the movie couldn’t really make it clearer that that line of interrogation is not what it’s about

Stephen McKinley is getting a lot of work these days!

I thought that pulp book line was going to be about this book my mom's old boss co-wrote

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Texas-Israeli_War:_1999

So, I watched this thing at my local AMC theater today at 2:35 in one of the smaller screening rooms: 50 seats at most. I'd say it was half-full. It impressed me -- I can count on five people at most on a Monday afternoon.

Not Waldrop, Saunders - he gave me a copy when I was 11 or 12 but I don't remember anything about it aside from the title (and later wondering if the guys from Lift to Experience read it). I think he and Waldrop ended up not on good terms over the years.

Quite fun to see nick offerman getting clipped

This movie was extremely intense in the watching, and a day or two later, but I’ve thought about it zero times since. It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever - it’s kind of a shaggy dog story, video-gamey - get from A to B. Or in a lot of ways like a turn-based role-playing game. These different obstacles and enemies, a band of travelers with different skills, various signs of impending dread. I think it is really valuable as a way of confronting war and how fucking horrible it is, and as an intense experience, but beyond that there’s not much to chew on tbh

That's what I went in expecting of this, since 28 Days Later is the only other Garland film I've seen and it gave me exactly that experience: intense and riveting in the moment, but I can barely remember a thing about it.

It also felt credible that war photographers, especially Stewart's character, would be less into taking sides or even figuring out factions, rather than capturing raw footage and letting other reporters sort it out.

As a big fan of Jon Lee Anderson's reportage (in recent years from the Central African Republic, Haiti, and elsewhere), setting a film through this POV especially drew me in.

This movie was extremely intense in the watching, and a day or two later, but I’ve thought about it zero times since. It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever - it’s kind of a shaggy dog story, video-gamey - get from A to B. Or in a lot of ways like a turn-based role-playing game. These different obstacles and enemies, a band of travelers with different skills, various signs of impending dread. I think it is really valuable as a way of confronting war and how fucking horrible it is, and as an intense experience, but beyond that there’s not much to chew on tbh

― Humanitarian Pause (Tracer Hand), Sunday, April 28, 2024 12:21 PM (ten hours ago) bookmarkflaglink

idk I think there's a lot there about how exposure to extreme violence quickly warps people's moral & ethical compasses ... its a movie about what its like to become inured to casual violence in a war zone, placed in a Familiar Western Context that forces the western subject to not distance themselves from it as something happening "over there"...It does a good job splitting the difference between the last decade of backsliding towards fascism that makes it feel both totally feasible, and showing something that is w/in recent history totally alien, something ppl envision happening 'way over there'... but the way that ppl are profoundly affected by exposure to extreme violence feels like its underlying theme to me...the way the idea of positioning oneself at some ethical remove seems insane and impossible once the safety nets have been removed from social society.... really smart movie imo

the other thing that's kept me engaged with it is the number of people i see w very stupid opinions about it. some of the most incredibly stupid takes a movie has inspired in years

Great post

showing something that is w/in recent history totally alien, something ppl envision happening 'way over there'

"It doesn’t have a conventional structure where the protagonist learns a lesson about themselves or whatever"

i cannot rly believe ppl still hold up this kind of screenwriter 101 template as something to be considered at all tbh

great revive

Saw this a couple of nights ago. I agree with most of the positive criticism, especially it being deliberately politically vague (though the subtext is clear) so, as Tracer says, you don't get too comfortable. I thought having the journalists as protagonists was very interesting, viewing the action that extra step removed somehow, paradoxically, made it seem more real - I guess because as a civilian it's easier to place yourself in their shoes than it would be if the main characters were combatants; and also being unarmed civilians they are much more vulnerable and it makes the danger much more apparent.

I think, though, the movie undercuts itself somewhat. It wants to show the horrors of war, and the danger and the moral complexity of war reporting. But it also wants to show how exciting it is, and the last section is basically a thrill ride where it's totally clear who we are rooting for.

What do we think about Jessie? It seems to me that from the very start to the very end she is, without exception, a dipshit and a shithead.

I thought she was just a kid

kids can be (or not be) dipshits and shitheads too.

That's true! Though I thought most of her dipshit/shitheadness was directly related to her youth (she's meant to be like 18 or something right? That's the impression I got). Didn't think she was any less or more of a shithead than her two companions. She just had inexperience tacked onto it

22 or 23 they said in the film. I agree she seemed younger but the actress is 25 or 6 and all young people seem like fresh faced babes in arms to me. She showed a complete inability to learn from experience and a complete recklessness and willingness to put herself *and others* in mortal danger.

It was also clear that Lee was motivated by a desire to bring the truth to light, Jessie was an adrenaline junkie (like Joel, to be fair) motivated by a desire to get good looking pictures.

Seemed to me like she was pretty adrenaline averse for all but the car chase + last scene! That was her development. Can't deal with any of the pressure/reality of what she's getting herself into, to then going overboard on the other side and putting everyone in danger because of it. She was a kid who had ideas of war, but had yet to actually meet it in the flesh. A foil to the worn and weary Joel + Lee.

Like yeah, total idiot, but I do think most of her idiocy can be reduced to youthful naivete and inexperience which is an inescapable period of life. She just decided to bring her youthful naivete and inexperience to literal war. But you can blame a drunk and horny Joel for that. I blame him as much as her

it's clear that Joel, Tony and Bohai are dipshits and shitheads too. And that those are not all that they are.

yeah i get all that. but her complete failure to learn from experience - and what she does after lee's death - indicate to me that she ain't going to change.

I can't believe no one has commented on how hot Wagner Moura is in this thing

i saw him described as a cut-price (or second-rate or whatever) pedro pascal on a twitter comment about this movie and i had to put the phone down and take a walk

"Wagner Moura" is such a quintessentially Brazilian name.

i had to put the phone down and take a walk

Words to live by

I did for a moment think it was Pedro Pascal in the same that in 2002 it took a couple seconds studying Michael Pitt to realize he wasn't Leo DiCaprio, like, at all.

Thread has officially annihilated Annihilation!

deems i mentioned that structure not as something to emulate! just that it’s rare to see a movie these days that doesn’t in some way try for it. it is “effective” in that it’s a shortcut for activating a sense that something has happened, that we have witnessed a change occur

think we've had enough talk for a dedicated thread - CIVIL WAR (movie) - 2024, Alex Garland

I think, though, the movie undercuts itself somewhat. It wants to show the horrors of war, and the danger and the moral complexity of war reporting. But it also wants to show how exciting it is, and the last section is basically a thrill ride where it's totally clear who we are rooting for.

What do we think about Jessie? It seems to me that from the very start to the very end she is, without exception, a dipshit and a shithead.

― ledge, Monday, 29 April 2024 08:00 (fourteen hours ago) link

I don’t think this undercuts it — this is honest — again it’s a movie about the effects of extreme violence & how people become inured to it … this also includes a fascination with it

This thread has made me want to reread the trilogy.

Has anyone read any of VanderMeer's other work? I read Borne and Dead Astronauts and found them fascinating.

think, though, the movie undercuts itself somewhat. It wants to show the horrors of war, and the danger and the moral complexity of war reporting. But it also wants to show how exciting it is, a

I don't think it consciously shows how exciting it is. It's the nature of war films: to show the horror is to show its erotic qualities.

I agree she seemed younger but the actress is 25 or 6

― ledge

to 4

I don't think it consciously shows how exciting it is. It's the nature of war films: to show the horror is to show its erotic qualities.

― the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

jeez, idk, i was just thinking about all those old "men's adventure" magazines with nazis branding swastikas on naked young women and how completely and totally _anti-erotic_ they are

that's not to say that war films aren't erotic, it's just that it seems to be a distinctly male-gendered form of eroticism

for instance, wil hulsey's classic man's life cover "weasels ripped my flesh" is _very_ homoerotic imo

https://live.staticflickr.com/8730/16767482981_ef2a46e881_b.jpg

CAN WOMEN JUSTIFY THEIR NEED FOR EXTRAMARITAL RELATIONSHIPS?

Find out inside!

that's not to say that war films aren't erotic, it's just that it seems to be a distinctly male-gendered form of eroticism

of course

of course

― the talented mr pimply (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn)

not that a lot of us lesbians (myself included) aren't in our own way _quite_ fond of smart military women. war films just tend not to present women in the same way that they present men.

I don’t see mention of it yet - and I didn’t read the books - but I thought the movie had some very strong Buddhism influence and message going on?

Annihilation itself was the - badly translated - term for Nirvana in the Victorian era.

I don’t think the movie is just going from point A to B, I think it’s about impermanence, self-discovery and enlightenment. There’s this alien force that is blending everything known in the universe together and it’s either terrifying or comforting depending on your state of mind. It’s been years since I last saw it but iirc there’s the woman who accepts it and immediatly turns into a flower statue, the video of Portman’s husband sitting in a meditative state blasted by light. Then she goes on to fight her ego.

Idk I might need to rewatch it, but I remember the Buddhist overtones were very on the nose.

Oh gosh we're conflating two different films now. Who knows where this could go... to its own thread perhaps?

Oh we have one. Okay sorry

Lol I was thinking about the similarities though.. band of intrepid good guys entering a zone of danger where nothing makes sense

Welp sorry carry on lol