|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2018 2:33:54 GMT
There was no ending per se. Nothing is resolved and the audience is left hanging. Some people think this makes the movie deep or artsy. I think it's just lazy. Nora Ironically, that’s exactly what I loved so much about the ending. Mysterious, unknown and unexplainable with just enough hints to come up with your own theory. I dont usually like those endings but I didnt really see it the same way TaylorFirst1 did. My interpretation was the alien (now morphed with Kane) gave Lena a message from Kane (sign of love, devotion but also forgiveness) and realized he is now at the mercy of the humans (who are probably not going to treat it right). So I didnt really see it as "too" open. But would be interested to know how others interpreted it.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2018 2:36:04 GMT
There was no ending per se. Nothing is resolved and the audience is left hanging. Some people think this makes the movie deep or artsy. I think it's just lazy. Nora I would be interested to know why you feel that way? Specifically why do you feel nothing was resolved? The alien life was destroyed (the source of it anyway) the only surviving specimen being FakeKane, who however was found out, and most likely going to be examined / tortured/ killed, knowing this, he still chose to deliver msg from RealKane to Lena. I found it moving. How did you understand the ending?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2018 2:38:44 GMT
I’m very curious, why did you despise the film so much? And that’s totally cool that you didn’t like the film, your opinion counts just as much as anybody else’s. I’m just salty about Black Panther getting a perfect cinema score while actual good films like ‘mother!’ (Which I loved) fail and I equate that to the mainstream/ general audiences these The characters were either annoying ..… That and the frame story, which tells you upfront…. Yet fans of the film (not necessarily you) and the people behind it would have me believe I'm an idiot who just didn't understand it. I agree the characters were mostly annoying and I also didn't enjoy the frame which tells you upfront what it does. But I would be interested to know how you interpreted the end and how/why would anyone claim you didn't understand it?
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2018 2:39:57 GMT
I'm one of the stupid retards you guys are talking about. Loved mother!, love thinking man's sci-fi including the director's last movie, yet I absolutely hated Annihilation. The fact that you loved mother! gives you a free pass in my book. Several, in fact. OT but I would still like to know what was so lovable about mother! to you/others?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 2:45:21 GMT
Ironically, that’s exactly what I loved so much about the ending. Mysterious, unknown and unexplainable with just enough hints to come up with your own theory. I dont usually like those endings but I didnt really see it the same way TaylorFirst1 did. My interpretation was the alien (now morphed with Kane) gave Lena a message from Kane (sign of love, devotion but also forgiveness) and realized he is now at the mercy of the humans (who are probably not going to treat it right). So I didnt really see it as "too" open. But would be interested to know how others interpreted it. Thats an interesting way to look at it. If it’s a sign of love than the shimmer will live on when they reproduce and have a kid. Obviously their DNA changed and the shimmer is in them so maybe it’ll just get passed on and on? Also I didn’t notice this the first time but when Kane first comes home to Lena and it focuses in on the glass of water... the reflection of Kane’s hand side by side with the glass is the wrong direction. Same with Lena in the end. The camera focuses on the glass and her hand reflection is the wrong way. Any ideas of what that might mean?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 25, 2018 2:47:58 GMT
The fact that you loved mother! gives you a free pass in my book. Several, in fact. OT but I would still like to know what was so lovable about mother! to you/others? I know you’re not asking me but I LOVED ‘mother!’. I don’t understand why people could dislike it. All I can say is that the film just clicked for me and I was just there. Aronofsky throws all his world views into the film and I loved that it was communicated metaphorically. I loved it from start to film finish and is my second favorite Aronofsky film.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2018 2:52:24 GMT
OT but I would still like to know what was so lovable about mother! to you/others? I know you’re not asking me but I LOVED ‘mother!’. I don’t understand why people could dislike it. All I can say is that the film just clicked for me and I was just there. Aronofsky throws all his world views into the film and I loved that it was communicated metaphorically. I loved it from start to film finish and is my second favorite Aronofsky film. I did enjoy the first half and I recognize the qualities the actors delivered. I didnt even mind Aronofsky chose the metaphors he did, for expressing his world views (why couldnt he, right?) but I thought it went too far and became too didactic, like it didn't trust the audience enough and I dont like when movies hand walk you through their vision like this. Plus I couldnt get on board with his vision of god. I am an atheist but to me it was one of the most insulting/wrong/bad portrayals of god (and I loved Last Temptation of Christ). Portraying god as someone this self-centered and self-indulged just rubbed me the wrong way I guess. But I do give him kudos for being brave enough to create this interesting piece and releasing it into the world. It certainly is a movie everybody will remember.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 25, 2018 2:55:20 GMT
I dont usually like those endings but I didnt really see it the same way TaylorFirst1 did. My interpretation was the alien (now morphed with Kane) gave Lena a message from Kane (sign of love, devotion but also forgiveness) and realized he is now at the mercy of the humans (who are probably not going to treat it right). So I didnt really see it as "too" open. But would be interested to know how others interpreted it. Thats an interesting way to look at it . If it’s a sign of love than the shimmer will live on when they reproduce and have a kid. Obviously their DNA changed and the shimmer is in them so maybe it’ll just get passed on and on? Also I didn’t notice this the first time but when Kane first comes home to Lena and it focuses in on the glass of water... the reflection of Kane’s hand side by side with the glass is the wrong direction. Same with Lena in the end. The camera focuses on the glass and her hand reflection is the wrong way. Any ideas of what that might mean? to me it was clear that no way the shimmer would live on. About the hand to me that was a foreshadowing of Kane being Fake Kane and could also be seen as a sign that Lena is a FakeLena. After all we do only have her account of what went on. And the one thing I couldnt quite buy was why would the shimmer stop mirroring he movements at the exact moment of her giving it the granade? How convenient, right? I think maybe it did not stop mirorring her and maybe what we get in the end is FakeLena. What do you think about that?
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 25, 2018 5:53:52 GMT
It felt like The Cloverfield Paradox in a forest. The plots of both seemed to grant scientific license to throw whatever the filmmakers wanted onto the screen, and the results were mostly laughable for me (be it a reanimated arm or a talking bear). Not to mention, now that I think about it, cribbed from other movies people call garbage. Plant mutations - Troll 2. Time distortion - Blair Witch (2016). The characters were either annoying (Imitation Vasquez), poorly acted (European woman who can't do an American accent to save her life), or forgettable (everyone else) . That and the frame story, which tells you upfront that Portman is the only one that makes it, didn't help the film's ponderous pacing, which actually made me fall asleep at one point. The parts of the plot I didn't know weren't hard to predict. Portman finds a charred corpse? I know who it is and what that means. They hear the voice of a dead teammate? I know where it's coming from. Portman encounters the T-1000? I know what it's going to do it and how to defeat it. I got more self-indulgence than intelligence out of it. It was like I was waiting for the movie to catch up with me instead of the other way around. Yet fans of the film (not necessarily you) and the people behind it would have me believe I'm an idiot who just didn't understand it. Fair enough, I guess we’re just on completely different pages. I will admit that mrs bear lady (one who got her jaw ripped off) was annoying, not great at acting, and delivered a few lines of cringy dialogue. You gave legit criticisms so anyone that calls you a “idiot” is prolly a Alex Garland fanboy. I went on reddit the other day and it seems like Garland has a similar following as Chris Nolan (People who will suck the director off no matter what). I LOVE both Garland and Nolan but sometimes fan bases just ruin everything. Yeah. I didn't know that, but been a bit quiet on my opinion since I knew after I saw it that it would probably attract those types of people. I almost didn't make a video review (and I'm still not really promoting it). I'm glad you liked it though, and that the last 20 minutes were so emotional for you.
|
|
|
Post by moviebuffbrad on Feb 25, 2018 6:09:46 GMT
The characters were either annoying ..… That and the frame story, which tells you upfront…. Yet fans of the film (not necessarily you) and the people behind it would have me believe I'm an idiot who just didn't understand it. I agree the characters were mostly annoying and I also didn't enjoy the frame which tells you upfront what it does. But I would be interested to know how you interpreted the end and how/why would anyone claim you didn't understand it? That's the thing, I don't know. I found the whole thing pretty straightforward and easy to follow, sans perhaps the final shot, yet there's been this narrative since the test screening that "it's too smart for some people". Reminds me of WB saying basically the same thing about BvS. As for the ending, either what we saw actually happened, or the T-1000 succeeded and the Portman being interviewed isn't the real Portman. I like ambiguous endings, but in this case I didn't care too much since I don't care about the character.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 25, 2018 15:01:59 GMT
OT but I would still like to know what was so lovable about mother! to you/others? Aronofsky is one of my all time favorite filmmakers. I loved the way he took his passion for environmentalism and his anger at humanity's mistreatment of the Earth and chose to hang that emotion on a structure based on a re-telling of the Bible, but all compressed spatially and temporally over nine months in a single house. No one else would have thought of doing it that way. I also liked the way he forced the movie to be from her point of view the entire time (66 minutes of the running time consist of close ups on her face). All the performances were fantastic, and the final 20 minutes were bonkers, but in a good way.
|
|
|
Post by faustus5 on Feb 25, 2018 15:05:27 GMT
Plus I couldnt get on board with his vision of god. I am an atheist but to me it was one of the most insulting/wrong/bad portrayals of god (and I loved Last Temptation of Christ). Portraying god as someone this self-centered and self-indulged just rubbed me the wrong way I guess. But that portrayal was both perfectly consistent with the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, and especially consistent with the vision of God held in the minds of religious folks who deny climate change and oppose environmental regulation. That's a version of God who has no problem with humanity destroying the planet so long as they are sure to worship him.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Feb 26, 2018 3:19:48 GMT
Plus I couldnt get on board with his vision of god. I am an atheist but to me it was one of the most insulting/wrong/bad portrayals of god (and I loved Last Temptation of Christ). Portraying god as someone this self-centered and self-indulged just rubbed me the wrong way I guess. But that portrayal was both perfectly consistent with the Bible, particularly the Old Testament, and especially consistent with the vision of God held in the minds of religious folks who deny climate change and oppose environmental regulation. That's a version of God who has no problem with humanity destroying the planet so long as they are sure to worship him. thats true. i forgot about the super mean egotistical and extremely needy god from old testament. " show meh u love meh, gimme your son, or else". who does that? other than really creepy stalkers/exes/criminals? yes, christian god apparently. lovely. yes please, sign me up, hurry. :-)
|
|
syafiqjabar
Sophomore
@syafiqjabar
Posts: 185
Likes: 33
|
Post by syafiqjabar on Mar 2, 2018 6:40:59 GMT
Its released on Netlix everywhere except for Canada and the US who gets it in theaters. I heard that it's producers fighting with each other. One (who is the higher-ranking guy in the studio) thinks this movie is too smart for the general audience and wants to Alex Garland to make changes to the movie. The other one have faith in Garland and defends his work, refusing to let any changes happen. So in retaliation the first guy pulls Annihilation from release in most of the world and sells it to Netflix.
|
|
|
Post by Nora on Mar 2, 2018 16:43:58 GMT
Its released on Netlix everywhere except for Canada and the US who gets it in theaters. I heard that it's producers fighting with each other. One (who is the higher-ranking guy in the studio) thinks this movie is too smart for the general audience and wants to Alex Garland to make changes to the movie. The other one have faith in Garland and defends his work, refusing to let any changes happen. So in retaliation the first guy pulls Annihilation from release in most of the world and sells it to Netflix. i read it was because of budget regarding marketing. and i see some value to that argument. marketing it ww and as a mainstream movie would easily double the budget, and maybe not get as many extra viewers as this is a movie for a quite particular movie goer i think. A) you have to be a sci-fi fan and B) you have to be willing to think throughout and after C) you have to be ok with meditative movies D) you have to be ok with movies lead by and focused on women. hehe. no, I mean it, to me it was actually one of its weakest points that they formed females only group. then all the bad decisions they made during their trip could easily become an ammo in the argument "well, had they had a guy with them, this wouldn't have happened". Alex Garland/Natalie Portman fans will find this movie regardless of its limited distribution, and maybe there is not that many more viewers that would go see it, you know? Look at the domestic numbers. Poor. So I "get it". But I do feel bad for all the sci-fi fans out-there getting robbed of the cinematic experience. That sucks. All new movies should be available in theaters in my world, but Especially sci-fi flicks.
|
|