Annihilation

  • UK Annihilation (more)
Trailer 1

VOD (1)

Plots(1)

Biologist and former soldier Lena (Natalie Portman) is shocked when her missing husband (Oscar Isaac) comes home near death from a top-secret mission into The Shimmer, a mysterious quarantine zone no one has ever returned from. Now, Lena and her elite team must enter a beautiful, deadly world of mutated landscapes and creatures, to discover how to stop the growing phenomenon that threatens all life on Earth. (Paramount Pictures)

(more)

Videos (13)

Trailer 1

Reviews (15)

novoten 

all reviews of this user

English Perhaps only someone who has never lost someone dear to them can say that the flashbacks full of the strongest emotions and the most burning regrets did not perform their role perfectly, or even became boring. It is precisely in these flashbacks that Natalie Portman proves herself to be a treasure and the most correct choice for the main role. Her sincere tears or focused expression took me through the world that Alex Garland gives home to all his obvious or inconspicuous inspirations (Arrival, Aliens, Prometheus, or The Fountain), but never gets caught up in inspiration. Every time, she skates out of the situation originally and before you say lighthouse, she begins to create that new classic, which the reactions of strangers spoke of somewhat surprisingly, whether due to visuals, genre shots, or punchlines. The only thing that saddens me – and the creators are innocent in this – is the fact that we could only pick up Annihilation on Netflix. Rob Hardy's camera and the unending surprises from the new world were also made for the European silver screen. ()

Malarkey 

all reviews of this user

English It’s great that Netflix, as part of its sci-fi mission, shoots stories that are part of the current new weird novel trend. I actually discovered the author of the source novel – Jeff VanderMeer a few months ago in the form of his book Veniss Underground and I was fascinated by his brutal surrealism. In case of Annihilation, it’s not that obvious but still similar. Had Giger been still alive and participated in the creation of this movie like he did in the case of Alien, it might have been a unique work. It’s still quite decent as it is, though. I was ecstatic even though I’d have appreciated more visual ideas in that bubble. ()

Ads

DaViD´82 

all reviews of this user

English Damsels in distress slightly differently. Sophisticated chamber slow (you will feel it is twice as long; but it's not a complaint) second-rate movie, where, however, everyone behaves logically and appropriately in given situations and which takes the same from Strugacky as from Things and Arrival. But surprisingly little of VanderMeer's original. On the one hand, the scenes are both captivating and disturbing, atmosphere is dense. On the other hand, it is supposed to be a hardcore sci-fi movie that is rich in interpretation and that has dimension overlap. And I am not at all sure whether it is justified and or whether the movie is just pretending to be that way or if it is just banal. In any case, (not only) for these reasons, it will make you wonder about staff, that´s fur sure. The movie will not get out of your head as soon as you see closing credits. ()

Kaka 

all reviews of this user

English Thanks God Garland didn’t make Arrival. Thanks to this, it did not lose its humanistic subtext and rational explanation, something that cannot be said about Annihilation. The surrealistic wandering through fantastic landscapes, decorated with brilliant set design and minimalistic music, is beautiful to watch and listen to, but the story is at times a survival, at times a parade of CGI monsters, and a nondescript finale. Sure, we don't always need a literal interpretation, but if it's WTF, it would kinda sting. Garland is a tinkerer of technology, a master of atmosphere and slow-burn stories about a few characters, but here he gets too wrapped up in the themes. There’re still a few brilliant directorial ideas, though. ()

Marigold 

all reviews of this user

English I appreciate Garland for one thing: how he is able to seduce critics, through his bloated and, in this case, nonsensical B-movie, to write about sci-fi masterpieces. Which is the case of a film that looks quite bad on television and is vague everywhere where it should be concrete and concrete everywhere where it should be vague. Truly a daring film. ()

Gallery (32)