Annihilation

The intriguing trailer with "The Alien" melody sold me on watching Annihilation in theaters instead of waiting for it to appear on Netflix. The synthesized notes promised an eerie, captivating, and horrific journey into Alex Garland's adaptation of the first book of the "Southern Reach" trilogy. And horrific is right. Horrifically disappointing.

The film follows Lena (Natalie Portman) and fellow scientist/volunteers into a mysterious "Shimmer" that changes the land it encroaches upon. All of the previous military volunteers that have entered are never heard from again, except for Lena's husband (Oscar Issac). In order to save her husband from mysterious health problems, Lena joins a group of scientists to study the "Shimmer" and reach its core at the lighthouse. Interestingly enough, the group is all female, which reflects our current climate of the all female dream team (Ghostbusters, Ocean's). The film has a great cast with amazing performances, blah blah blah. Okay, now that we got that out of the way, let's get to the negatives.

In the "Shimmer," the group makes groundbreaking discoveries, while attempting to survive. But the film digs its own grave when it comes to caring about the characters and building suspense due to its opening, which shows Lena post journey out of the "Shimmer" being interviewed by scientists. She mentions who dies, who goes missing, and the very fact that she's there in a lab room confirms that she survives as well. So scenes later where danger is imminent, we already have a good idea as to what will happen. Talk about fun.

When we compare Annihilation with Alex Garland's previous sci-fi film, Ex Machina, the flaws become obvious. Unlike Ex Machina, Annihilation is not focused. It's an adventure, drama, fantasy, horror, mystery, and thriller. There's the aches of love, the influence of psychology, the beauty of evolution, the creation of monsters, the existence of aliens, and the crisis of existence. The film spreads itself too thin, with more ambitious topics than there are baddies in Spider-Man 3. I would rather watch a story that delves into one or two of these ideas, than try to tackle many parts of a different whole.

Like Arrival (which is a much better alien mystery), Annihilation relies on several twists of its own. But compared to the weight that they're given, the twists don't hold enough impact or surprise. You could even say that the final twist is a failed attempt at an Inception like ending. With Inception, viewers are so engrossed with the dream world and its implications that the twist of whether Leo's character is still in a dream or not comes naturally. In Annihilation, a question is asked in the end which falls flat on itself like a teenager trying to sound deeper than s/he actually is. The question shouldn't have been asked. It easily takes away the buildup of the final scene and makes the whole ending laughable.

David Ellison, financier at Paramount, was concerned that the film was "too intellectual" and "too complicated" and wanted changes to be made to appeal to a broader audience (in order words, dumb it down). I couldn't disagree more, not for the same reasons as the director, but because there's nothing complicated about the film. Intellectual? Sure, it deals with science. But the actual science within the "Shimmer" is completely fictional and relies on the entertainment value to make any of it believable. Complicated? Now that's just an insult to moviegoers. Although don't be surprised if you run across several people who bought into the film as thought-provoking. On the surface, it's shrouded with stupendous fantasy. But at its very core, like the one in the "Shimmer," it is as purposeless as the alien that lives there.

Chad: 3/5 (Still, the movie is really pretty (e.g., effects, Shimmer, Natalie Portman) and the soundtrack is chilling.)