Auslöschung

Eine akademischere Version von Das Ding aus einer anderen Welt in einem grünen Urwald (und am Strand). Ein Mainstream-Stoff, ein wenig zweitklassig, aber mit interessanten Ideen. Die Steigerung ist eine bisher nie gesehene unheimliche Begegnung der dritten Art. Man ist von der Unwirklichkeit fasziniert und möchte darin so viele Antworten wie möglich finden. Die Abschlussszene kehrt zu Genre-Regeln zurück, sie ist aber eine Delikatesse. Garland ist kein Hitmaker, sondern ein Hardcore-Science-Fiction-Autor. Arrival handelte über die Relativität der Zeitwahrnehmung, Auslöschung ist über die Relativität von biologischen Formen des Lebens. Völlig unterschiedlich, in beiden Fällen aber ein brillanter, inhaltlich ehrgeiziger und innovativer Science-Fiction-Film. (24.12.2018)

The less sense there is, the stronger the fate, or how not even a mutated extraterrestrial ecosystem isn’t enough for someone to act with some sense with their protozoan intelligence, isn’t it, Marceloo? But on the other hand, I wouldn’t take Annihilation as a deeply philosophical work, either – the fact that anyone can get frustrated because of that is funny. Portman and four more scientists, about whom a lot can be written (though certainly not that the director has made them likeable) go to investigate a Zone… and they find pretty much what the trailer promised, although there is less survival and mutated creatures than expected. Then it nicely goes to a highly atmospheric and wordless mind-fuck, but there’s nothing unpredictable about it, either. In a Nolan film, Nataly would have spoken a lot in the end and that would be it. I really enjoyed Annihilation, it’s visually excellent, the special effects are engaging and here and there it pushes the mind into a nicely dark direction. But I have a soft spot for sci-fi premises like this, in any media, and I’m really interested in the book version now. But I don’t think this film is that awesome, really; my expectations were perhaps a little higher. (12.03.2018)

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. (16.04.2020)

Garland weiß ich wegen einer Sache ganz besonders zu schätzen: wie er es schafft, die Kritiker mit seinen aufgedunsenen und in diesem Fall mit einfach so zusammengestellten B-Filmen zu verblöden, damit diese von einem Science-Fiction-Meisterwerk schreiben. Das ist im Falle eines Films, der selbst im Fernsehen nicht allzu gut aussieht und überall dort vage ist, wo er konkret sein sollte, und überall dort, wo er vage sein sollte, wiederum konkret, ein wirkliches Meisterstück. (14.03.2018)

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. (12.03.2018)

I was captivated by the trailer the other day, I'm not so impressed with the film in the end, but it's still a decent genre film with an excellent idea. Four female scientists, each specialized in something different, go to explore a new area where the laws of nature don't apply and where no one has ever come back alive. It's great idea, but I felt it didn't get as much space as it could have. The film is unnecessarily hampered by flashbacks that aren't very entertaining and it shows in the pacing. There's a great scene with a white crocodile and a mutant bear that wreaks havoc in a cabin and there's one excellent gore scene with a ripped jaw, that really had me going crazy with joy. The final philosophical half hour didn't impress me that much and I found the finale quite confusing. I would definitely add more mutated animals and anything from nature in general to make it more satisfying. The film is definitely worth recommending for the idea, the visuals and the bear, though it’s not great. 70%. (18.03.2018)

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. (13.03.2018)

It pays to put off seeing some films until the effects of the PR massage have worn off and the wave of reviews and screams on social networks and databases has dissipated. One can then approach those films largely free of the ballast of responses and expectations. Annihilation is a case of a work that not only benefits from the viewer having a clear and open mind, but to a significant extent absolutely requires it. This is not a sci-fi movie that takes pride in its scientific credibility, but rather in pure wonderment drawn from new worlds and forms in which it urges viewers to immerse themselves. The appearance of fauna and flora here can evoke the apocalyptic and environmental visions of Hayao Miyazaki. Except unlike those visions’ ecological logic of cause and effect, and thus the effort to move from parasitism to symbiosis, the world of Annihilation has no logic, meaning or goal. Its only principle is assimilation and transformation through growth. Garland introduces motifs of loss and self-destruction into his loose adaptation of the original novel of the same name and concurrently adds in the backbone of a possible interpretation of the entire narrative as metaphors for the turbulent dynamics of a relationship between two people and their complicated path back to each other, whereas it is an unavoidable fact that the end of a journey cannot be the same as the beginning. Thanks to its intentionally enigmatic nature, however, Annihilation works best as an expedition to another world that is extraordinarily captivating due to its grotesque monstrousness, unsettling volatility and spectral beauty. In today’s deluge of blockbusters heading out to new planets that remain pleasantly conventional, Garland has succeeded in bringing an element of fascinated wonder back to film. (25.09.2020)

A pure and, in places, really terrifying horror with an inconclusive ending. The hypnotic atmosphere of the survey mutating the national park is perhaps disrupted a little inter by the memory sequences, but they are important too. Garland cleverly layers a story full of memory holes and, through hints, sets the scene for a mind-fuck finale, which deserves deeper analysis, not so much of what happened, but more like why. The tricks are sufficient, even if a little unbalanced. The overall visual is just wow. The human trees, moldy bodies and all the other mutants serve to advance the story. The acting was flawless, with Isaac being the most intriguing of all. Another great job after Ex Machina. (14.03.2018)

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. (15.05.2018)

Dieser Film hat mir mehr als der gelobte Streifen Arrival gefallen. Natürlich war es in vielen Hinsichten ein anderer und deutlich bescheidener Film, der seinen TV-Ursprung nicht verheimlichen kann (im Unterschied zu anderen Netflix-Filmen, die ich bisher gesehen habe). Er hatte aber eine ausgezeichnete Stimmung und war originell. Seine Figuren haben mich interessiert und er hat in mir ein angenehmes, abenteuerliches und entdeckerisches Gefühl hervorgerufen. (27.12.2018)

The first three quarters are chilling, carefully escalated sci-fi with effective psychological insight and a wonderfully disturbing setting that was a lot of fun to discover. The last 20 minutes or so are a philosophical mindfuck that did not satisfy me at all. Garland is a smart filmmaker who keeps a firm grip on the viewer’s attention and knows how to tighten it with the patient development of each motif or with unsettling violence. It’s a pity that in the end I don’t really know what I should take from this film. Perhaps that it certainly belongs in cinemas, just like the excellent Natalie. Weak 4*. (06.12.2018)

Die Szene mit dem menschenähnlich jammenden "Bären" und die psychopathische Aufnahme mit dem Bauchschneiden sind die Höhepunkte dieses überfüllten und verwässerten B-Movie-Sci-Fi, das in den ersten beiden Dritteln noch irgendwie Interesse weckt, aber letztendlich in einer unbefriedigenden, mysteriösen Täuschung versinkt, die aus Motiven zusammengewürfelt ist, von denen die Hälfte völlig flach und bedeutungslos ist und die andere Hälfte zwar sehr interessant ist, aber am Ende in einem bedeutungslosen "Ich weiß es nicht" des Helden gipfelt. (07.06.2018)

Right at the start of the year, a visually beautiful and original sci-fi film that just proves Netflix is on an incredible rise and has no shortage of innovative approaches. The visuals just blew me away, but so did the ideas the film presents. This is smart sci-fi that wants to say something, and it is beautiful to behold. (18.03.2018)

An altogether likeable compromise between a magnificently heavy yet intimate sci-fi story. What I liked best about it was the gradual escalation of thriller and slight horror elements. On the other hand, I can't shake the feeling that much more could have been extracted from such an ambitious subject. In terms of narrative, Annihilation holds quite a lot back, and in the end in particular seems rather disorganized. (09.07.2020)