Sometimes you're a writer/director and your first movie is flawless. Some way, somehow you managed to fit all of the pieces together perfectly to craft a masterpiece. Why this is good: you can immediately establish yourself as a force in Hollywood, one that actors desire to work with, production companies desire to fund, and audience members desire to go see. Why this is bad: it's hard to go up from there. Alex Garland's first film as both writer/director was the sickeningly great Ex Machina back in 2014. It's a perfect little movie that has stayed with me after each viewing. I eagerly awaited his next venture, but knew he would have a hard time topping his first effort. His second film as writer/director is Annihilation. And while it's put together better than someone with lesser chops than he, it doesn't hold a candle to Ex Machina in terms of greatness or emotional resonance.
Going into the weekend of its release, for some reason I had the crazy notion that it was going to do very well at the Box Office. I thought it was going to be the film to knock Black Panther back a peg or two. I thought the star power of Natalie Portman and Oscar Isaac, the premise, and Garland's name attached would be the driving force to get audience asses in seats. What I didn't realize is that Garland is not a household name yet (and, unfortunately, neither is Ex Machina - as it is more of an underrated cult hit than a movie held in high esteem by the masses). I also didn't realize that Paramount Pictures, who released the film, gave up all hope on the film entirely. Last year, Paramount didn't have a great year (Monster Trucks, Rings, Ghost in the Shell, Baywatch, Mother!, Suburbicon, Daddy's Home 2, and Downsizing all underperformed). So, needless to say, they needed to start the year off right. Their first move was to make a last-ditch effort to make some money off of the terrible Cloverfield Paradox by selling it to Netflix. And Annihilation-- didn't have a much better fate. Yes, it made it to theaters here in the states, but in other countries, it was sold to Netflix to premiere only 17 days after its theatrical release. That, plus the lack of TV spots and overall advertising in general, Annihilation has all but been given the Cloverfield treatment. And it's much, much better in terms of quality. Though, the conclusions of each film are reminiscent of one another (I'll explain in a bit).
Based off a popular book series, Annihilation features an alien "comet" striking Earth and then surrounding ground zero with a large shimmering bubble (labeled "The Shimmer"). For years, soldiers and scientists and researchers have been going into The Shimmer and only one has returned-- Natalie Portman's husband Kane (Oscar Isaac), who has come back sick and fallen into a coma. Finally, it's time to send in the women. Portman leads a team into The Shimmer to discover just what's causing this ever-expanding bubble to take the lives of so many people, possibly find a way to stop it, and discover what's happened to her husband. Obviously, all is not kosher once inside. Different species of flowers have mutated to become one, animals have combined DNA (like a killer croc with a shark's teeth), and slowly their minds start turning into paranoid mush. I'd never heard of the book series, but it sounded like a pretty decent sci-fi thriller to me. And with Garland's name attached-- I was in.
The result is very Garland-like. He took a lot of risks with the script and the story, and a lot of it paid off. He's not your typical JJ Abrams type of sci-fi writer/director. He's more of a cerebral one. He's not here to give you big neon-sign'd answers to questions you have and he looks deeper into stories thematically. However, he may have dug himself a little bit too deep with this one artistically. This is fine to do as an artist, but you run the risk of alienating your audience-- which is something I think has probably happened with this film. It's easy to get invested in the story. It's a big sci-fi thriller mystery movie with hybrid animals and badass chicks at the center of it. I knew halfway through the movie that I was probably not going to get all of the answers to all of the questions that were forming in my head during the film, but I was hoping for at least a few. And this is where the movie fails-- most of the answers to most of the questions are left intentionally ambiguous (similar to The Cloverfield Paradox-- see, I said I'd explain!). When a viewer becomes this entangled with story, we want/need a little bit of clarity toward the end. We're not asking for a complete explanation, just something to satiate our curiosity since we took the trip. And Garland doesn't give it up. I felt betrayed by the ending and the fact that I got nothing. Then, there's a last ditch effort at the end that feels like it's setting up for a sequel.
The major problem with this is-- your average joe moviegoer isn't going to accept Garland's ending as anything but "artsy bullshit". I'm already a fan of his, and even I didn't accept the ending. I was mesmerized by everything in the movie, but the end, even to me, felt like a cop out. Like the TV show Lost that posed too many questions they didn't know how to answer-- or didn't want to. However, the movie isn't a total loss. It is hauntingly beautiful. I thought I hadn't seen a movie as aesthetically gorgeous as Arrival, but Annihilation ups the ante. The visuals, coupled with the eerie and oddly relaxing soundtrack made for a very thrilling movie-going experience. Portman is great, as are the rest of the actors (even if I didn't personally care much for Oscar Isaac's attempt at a "southern accent"). So, it's hard for me to recommend the movie knowing that while I'm confident you will enjoy most of the film, the ending will undoubtedly leave you as unfulfilled as I was. It's also a movie that probably should be seen in theaters due to how viscerally impressive it is, but I don't know if I can justify paying for it. I guess the answer lies here-- if it interested you, see it. If not, wait.
C+
No comments:
Post a Comment