ANNIHILATION (Official Thread)(on UK Netflix now)

Tasha And

Superstar
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
7,678
Reputation
2,815
Daps
45,317
As for the end

portman character was lying/unreliable narrator. The clone was mimicking her every move. Every single one. But the moment she hands it a grenade it suddenly stops mimicking her and just stands there until the grenade goes off?:usure: The fact is she just watched a video of her husband killing himself the same way.

She also absorbed the tattoo of the other character. So she was the clone with spliced DNA of some of the other squad,in my opinion.

The interpretation that Natalie is a clone and unreliable narrator would render the entire movie a waste of time to me. There are times when an unreliable narrator works but not with a film that so heavily relies on allegory and mystery. If I can't read into anything that was presented then it's all pointless to analyze.

And her being a clone doesn't jive with how Oscar Isaac's clone behaved. He came to her almost empty headed, just remembering her face and the barest of details about the person he was birthed from. But we're supposed to believe the Portman clone is ultra sophisticated and clever enough to weave a web of lies to trick her captors?

Her clone allowing itself to die doesn't seem out of place to me. It's established that Portman self destructs in her life. Burns down everything around her, so to speak. And that aspect of her personality was what imprinted on the clone.

I roll with the interpretation that the shimmer and whatever evolves from it isn't malevolent or a thinking being with desires. It is basically just a cosmic cancer that replicates and changes already existing cells. So when it created the Portman clone, it took on one of her flaws as a person, self destruction.

I believe Portman's character (Lena was her name I think?) is a deeply modified version of herself by the end of the film, having absorbed characteristics at the cellular level from various people and things that was inside the shimmer. She's no longer herself, she's something new. Now I believe SHE could have been lying about how much she knows, there was a lot of "I don't know" in there, but I don't believe Lena died and the being sitting inside the quarantine is a simple clone of her.

When they ask each other are they who they were, he admits that he isn't. He is a clone but she is something more than a clone. She is herself, changed, with the shimmer still inside of her.
 
Last edited:

FlyRy

Superstar
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
30,407
Reputation
3,039
Daps
61,445
I really enjoyed this flick. Very well paced and thoroughly engaging.

I can't believe it scored low with test audiences for being "too smart"

society is doomed :dead:

Also dug the all woman squad and it didn't feel forced like the last ghostbusters and other such blatant try hard nonsense.
You act like every movie is this deliberately paced or ends with practically 20 min of no dialogue
 

Amestafuu (Emeritus)

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
May 8, 2012
Messages
69,201
Reputation
13,568
Daps
293,679
Reppin
Toronto
The interpretation that Natalie is a clone and unreliable narrator would render the entire movie a waste of time to me. There are times when an unreliable narrator works but not with a film that so heavily relies on allegory and mystery. If I can't read into anything that was presented then it's all pointless to analyze.

And her being a clone doesn't jive with how Oscar Isaac's clone behaved. He came to her almost empty headed, just remembering her face and the barest of details about the person he was birthed from. But we're supposed to believe the Portman clone is ultra sophisticated and clever enough to weave a web of lies to trick her captors?

Her clone allowing itself to die doesn't seem out of place to me. It's established that Portman self destructs in her life. Burns down everything around her, so to speak. And that aspect of her personality was what imprinted on the clone.

I roll with the interpretation that the shimmer and whatever evolves from it isn't malevolent or a thinking being with desires. It is basically just a cosmic cancer that replicates and changes already existing cells. So when it created the Portman clone, it took on one of her flaws as a person, self destruction.

I believe Portman's character (Lena was her name I think?) is a deeply modified version of herself, having absorbed characteristics at the cellular level from various people and things that was inside the shimmer. She's no longer herself, she's something new. Now I believe SHE could have been lying about how much she knows, there was a lot of "I don't know" in there, but I don't believe Lena died and the being sitting inside the quarantine is a simple clone of her.
Best analysis so far
 

Tasha And

Superstar
Joined
Jan 11, 2016
Messages
7,678
Reputation
2,815
Daps
45,317
like what? :mjlol: people really acting like time as a flat circle is some new shyt

I can't answer for him but I would like to add what I liked about Arrival that I didn't like (on first viewing at least) about Annihilation.

*Arrival Spoilers*

I don't like labeling shyt "deep profound" because one mans deep question is another mans obvious answer, so I don't wanna get into pissing matches about what is deep or not. But the question that Arrival presented to me that resonated emotionally was "Is it better to love and have lost than to have never loved at all?" It's a very old question, something I've been intrigued by since high school after my first breakup. And the way it cleverly stitched that question into the emotional center of a hard sci-fi alien contact film was something I was hit hard by at the end.

It recontexualizes all of the "flash back" scenes prior to it, and suddenly Amy Adams subdued interactions with her daughter make a lot more sense, and is pretty heartbreaking in hindsight. She knew that she was going to fall in love, have a daughter, watch that daughter deteriorate and die, and lose her relationship because of it, but she still chooses to live through it. Arrival resonated emotionally with me because of that. The structure of the film was rewarding. And it needed that structure to work.

While I think I followed all of the flashbacks and cerebral questions and themes about depression and suicide in Annihilation, viscerally, none of it resonated with me emotionally. I watched it detached, intrigued, but not really invested, never really inserting my own emotions and thoughts into any of the characters.

I've been depressed, I've been sick, I've been suicidal, but for some reason those themes still never made me feel anything while watching it be explored with those characters. And I never really felt like the out of sequence structure gave me anything rewarding, outside of a vague sense of mystery and suspense. But mystery and suspense was already there, it didn't need that structure.

I felt investment in Amy Adams final decision, in as much as she can make decisions in a closed time loop. For that reason, Arrival worked on a level for me that Annihilation never really reached.The flashbacks coalesced into something that worked plot-wise and thematically. Not really sure it did in Annihilation.

Maybe that'll change on subsequent viewings because Annihilation does have a lot to offer in visuals and concepts. I just hope when I watch it again it'll actually make me feel something (other than dread, it hit the ball out of the park when it came to that.)
 
Last edited:

Dominic Brehetto

Rest In Piss To Your Cousin
Supporter
Joined
Jun 14, 2012
Messages
31,723
Reputation
4,294
Daps
88,455
Reppin
Family
The interpretation that Natalie is a clone and unreliable narrator would render the entire movie a waste of time to me. There are times when an unreliable narrator works but not with a film that so heavily relies on allegory and mystery. If I can't read into anything that was presented then it's all pointless to analyze.

And her being a clone doesn't jive with how Oscar Isaac's clone behaved. He came to her almost empty headed, just remembering her face and the barest of details about the person he was birthed from. But we're supposed to believe the Portman clone is ultra sophisticated and clever enough to weave a web of lies to trick her captors?

Her clone allowing itself to die doesn't seem out of place to me. It's established that Portman self destructs in her life. Burns down everything around her, so to speak. And that aspect of her personality was what imprinted on the clone.

I roll with the interpretation that the shimmer and whatever evolves from it isn't malevolent or a thinking being with desires. It is basically just a cosmic cancer that replicates and changes already existing cells. So when it created the Portman clone, it took on one of her flaws as a person, self destruction.

I believe Portman's character (Lena was her name I think?) is a deeply modified version of herself by the end of the film, having absorbed characteristics at the cellular level from various people and things that was inside the shimmer. She's no longer herself, she's something new. Now I believe SHE could have been lying about how much she knows, there was a lot of "I don't know" in there, but I don't believe Lena died and the being sitting inside the quarantine is a simple clone of her.

When they ask each other are they who they were, he admits that he isn't. He is a clone but she is something more than a clone. She is herself, changed, with the shimmer still inside of her.
I could buy that :ehh: but it still doesn’t explain why it stopped mimicking only at that exact point. But such is to be expected with a film that leaves a lot to interpretation
 

42 Monks

Veteran
Supporter
Joined
Feb 20, 2014
Messages
54,344
Reputation
9,188
Daps
202,156
Reppin
Carolina
Keep waiting then, I'm not going to waste my time
:skip:

No, it screams that I don't give a fukk whether someone else understands. WATCH THE MOVIE, if you don't get it then you are either lacking a brain cell or lacking something emotionally. I'm not going to spoonfeed a bunch of randoms on the internet.

Is this the Arrival thread? Go back and read my post and find anything in it that implies that I want to discuss Arrival.

I don't care to discuss complex human emotions with some internet stranger in a thread about a different movie

I didn't even like Arrival all that much, I have no desire to discuss it

I'm not obligated to reply to every unsolicited question that is asked of me

I brought up Arrival for a clear reason. Because both of these movies are decent movies disguised as something better. But at least Arrival stayed with me when it ended. When Annihilation ended, all I thought about was the music and light show


So basically you cool wasting time on rambling on about nothing but when it comes to throwing two sentences together to defend your stance on a comparison YOU made its a problem?

:skip: what a profound question
 

b_b

All Star
Supporter
Joined
Jul 28, 2015
Messages
1,509
Reputation
545
Daps
10,768
This movie was not good. I get why they put this on Netflix in other markets.

I thought I was about to get some Kubrick style Sci Fi with my man Isaac and garland back together again. Instead I got a day in the life of some white bytches boring ass marriage, a squad of "woe is me" soldier scientists, and an interpretive mirror dance ending. Hella upsetting. Gina Rodriguez did an excellent job fwiw. 6/10 only because the last 20 minutes is visual and auditory bliss.
 

Max.

Banned
WOAT
Joined
Jun 23, 2015
Messages
33,996
Reputation
3,198
Daps
102,340
I felt like they coulda did wayy more

aka more death by animals or whatever...that big ass croc bite a bytch head off when they was on the lake
 

koolkeef

Pro
Joined
Apr 5, 2014
Messages
296
Reputation
50
Daps
534
Saw it last night.

Kinda meh for me, but I wasn't overly impressed with Ex Machina either. I don't think I'll be spending any more money on this Alex Garland cat.

Is it just me or did Kane have...
...a weird accent when he was talking right before he set off that phosphorus grenade?

And nobody else noticed how...
...the tattoo was jumping from scene to scene, character to character, inside and outside the shimmer?
Like there was no rhyme or reason to it and the writers threw it in just to fukk with the audience.

Oh yeah, there was a moment underneath the lighthouse where the CGI suuuuuuuuuuuuucked. I deadass thought I was watching The Lawnmower Man for a minute.
 
Last edited:

FlyRy

Superstar
Joined
May 11, 2012
Messages
30,407
Reputation
3,039
Daps
61,445
Saw it last night.

Kinda meh for me, but I wasn't overly impressed with Ex Machina either. I don't think I'll be spending any more money on this Alex Garland cat.

Is it just me or did Kane have...
...a weird accent when he was talking right before he set off that phosphorus grenade?

And nobody else noticed how...
...the tattoo was jumping from scene to scene, character to character, inside and outside the shimmer?
Like there was no rhyme or reason to it and the writers threw it in just to fukk with the audience.

Oh yeah, there was a moment underneath the lighthouse where the CGI suuuuuuuuuuuuucked. I deadass thought I was watching The Lawnmower Man for a minute.

:snoop:
 
Top