Annihilation

Portman’s high-tension acting, her inability to relax, suits the material down to the ground. It’s one of her best performances, moving through credible grief and bewilderment, but facing up bullishly to her fears by the end, and finding some kind of exhausted resolve to interrogate them.

It’s the kind of film that leaves you dazzled and a little shell-shocked — and not entirely sure whether your own moviegoing DNA hasn’t been altered a little in the process.

Liking "Ex Machina" is no guarantee of liking Annihilation or vice versa. In terms of tone, Annihilation is a close cousin to "Arrival." There’s the same dark atmosphere and bleak sense of discovery.

Annihilation is a portentous movie, and a cerebral one. It’s gorgeous and immersive, but distancing. It’s exciting more in its sheer ambition and its distinctiveness than in its actual action.

If "Ex Machina" was a mess of provocative, half-formed thoughts on gender, creation, and desire, Annihilation locates something closer to a clear, cogent thesis: that there’s nothing scarier than looking at those closest to you, or even yourself, and not recognizing the person staring back.

Annihilation gets momentum from the deeper it pushes into the uncertainties of ecology and the self.

Thinking people also like a little drama with their science fiction. On that score, Annihilation comes up short.

Annihilation is an example of still making smart fiction in modern cinema. Unfortunately, Annihilation was watched by few viewers, few people know about it and it was not promoted in any way. Annihilation is smart fiction, which is interesting to watch, if not for the modern camera work and the picture of the film, then there would be a feeling that the film was shot in the 60s and 80s. You need to watch this film at least 2 times, after the first viewing you will not receive half of the answers, and most of the items do not pay attention. And most importantly, this is the ending of the film. It is open, but that is how you need to make finals in scientific films. I advise everyone to watch, it is a pity that Annihilation passed by the mass audience.

Annihilation had a lot going for it: Natalie Portman, a solid cast, careful aesthetics, and a disturbing sci-fi premise. But the truth is that the film ends up halfway between cerebral cinema and spectacle, without truly excelling in either. I had a hard time staying interested. More than once I was tempted to turn it off, but I held on out of respect for the core idea… and to be able to give a proper **** script, which promised a fascinating exploration of change, identity, and the unknown, ends up dissolving into long scenes that go nowhere, characters who barely connect, and a pace that invites more sleep than thought. Yes, there are visually powerful moments, but beautiful images are not enough if the story doesn't flow. And here, at times, it feels like it doesn’t even move forward.I don’t blame the cast, who do what they can, especially Portman, always reliable. But Garland’s direction, which I found precise and suggestive in Ex Machina, comes across here as cold, even pretentious. He seems more interested in metaphors than in building something that truly moves or intrigues.I give it a 6 out of respect for the genre, its performers, and some ideas that deserved a better fate. But if this film has become a benchmark for many, I honestly don’t share that view. For me, it’s one of those titles that get hyped by their packaging, but deflate when you actually watch them.

This is a tremendous movie that I, fair or not, ended up faulting for not being as good as the book, which is one of my favorite stories ever. The cast is great. Tessa Thompson is achingly sad, and Jennifer Jason Leigh is incredible. It's tough to realize a world as impenetrable and terrifying as Area X (hell, anything dreamed up by Jeff VanderMeer), but Garland pulled it off. Some parts of it are so disturbing that you won't believe your eyes. The ending to me was off-putting and a cop-out. Despite its flaws, it succeeds on the merits of its own weirdness. They don't make em like this anymore.

excellent acting by the actors, nice atmosphere, but I didn't like the film, boring story and plot, it didn't involve me at all, it didn't intrigue me at all, mediocre story, it didn't convey anything to me.

This is rather beautiful boredom. The core story, production design and the cinematography are excellent. The film is so slow that even at 1.25x it is so slow and so boring that it is more pretentious than entertaining. It is very well acted but their characters are a bit forgettable although nothing too much to complain about. Sometimes, even before the main story kicks off, the film looked fake. As in, actual physical things like houses and rooms looked like they were CGI when there really was no reason for it. When the story really kicks off it doesn’t matter at all that it looks CGI and fantastical. There are some really beautiful moments but not enough to get over how slow it is. Some moments go on so long, so very very long with nothing happening. The visual effects are great and so is the music. Sadly overall because it is so arduously slow it should be compared to Contact (1997) and not Dredd (2012).