FROM THE ORIGINAL CINEMASTERS ARCHIVE
Annihilation
I did not really peg this movie as one you’d consider a horror movie. But after watching it, I have to say it’s definitely got some solid horror elements to a science fiction/action kind of film. I put it on the list as Paramount+ sold it as a horror film. I think at the time I was just being pretty open to anything I had any potential interest in and adding it to the list. It was the notion that if I cast a wide enough net that I’d have some semblance of choice when it came to deciding what I was going to watch each day. Not that there isn’t because clearly this is entirely voluntary and each day thus far I’ve made a pretty reasonably selection. But knowing that the pool starts to get shallow at the end of the month, I didn’t want to have simply 31 entries which would make things far slimmer in the pickings department come time for Halloween. That’s not to say this one didn’t have merit. The film is written and directed by Alex Garland of “Ex Machina” fame. I was a big fan of that movie. I enjoy movies that marry intellectual quandary well with the demands of a big studio. Many times big named studios are good for popcorn movies but don’t have much in the way of movies that make you think. Garland is fairly deft at provoking your mind to have to wander through the narratives in his film. This movie was just one that I had been aware of but it’s time had kind of come and gone. It wasn’t on my list, simply my radar. There are plenty of films like that and many times when that window of opportunity evaporates, it’s hard to go back and revisit films. I often find now that I don’t tend to search very often through the older films many streaming services offer because they are just as keen on me to watch the new stuff. So it takes a venture like the 31 Days of Horror to seek out movies like this and that’s why I do it. Because sometimes you find things you simply missed that were really enjoyable.
As always, lets hit the positives first. As I touched on, this film makes you think. Just in it’s general direction, the dialogue feels elevated and there are so many aspects of the plot direction that require you to follow along closely. This is not a movie you put on and play on your phone. The film demands your engagement but rewards you for complying. It pulls you into this sci-fi world where our protagonist has lost the love of her life. Natalie Portman plays Lena, whose husband Kane, Oscar Isaacs, has been gone for a year. As a military man, he is presumed dead. Lena has had a difficult time letting him go and her grief on screen is quite palpable. Flashbacks to scenes with Kane are bright and joyful. Her present existence is cold and scientific. She shuts herself off to the world. It’s only after he returns out of nowhere after his year of absence that answers begin to appear along with a great many more questions.
Kane’s return prompts a medical emergency where he is rushed to the hospital. On his way, the ambulance is overtaken by the standard shadowy government convoy of black SUV’s and the two of them are whisked away to a secret facility. It’s here we begin to learn about “The Shimmer” it’s this alien presence that has overtaken a physical space and formed a refractive bubble around it, hence the name “The Shimmer”. They have sent a number of teams inside it to collect whatever information they can, to no avail. We find out that Kane was a member of one of these teams. His return marks him as a lone survivor so you can imagine their interest in both his experience as well as anything he may have shared with Lena in confidence, further pulling her into this web. Her prowess as biologist lends credibility and expertise which eventually secure her place on a team that will also be exploring the depths of this shiny mysterious place. With the perimeter continuously expanding, there is an urgency to their exploration as the inevitability for this presence to engulf the globe inches closer. I don’t necessarily intend on walking through the entire plot of the film, but more to demonstrate, hopefully, that there is a sincere curiosity that is created very early on in the film and it only mirrors the subject of it’s exploration, “The Shimmer” insomuch as you want to figure out what is going on inside of it.
The other aspect of this movie that I really enjoyed was how they combined elements of the action with the horror. We are often presented with the notion of a certain level of expertise for characters in a story. We’ll be given the notion that a unit of soldiers are the highest trained and deadliest the military has to offer only for them to be instantly gobbled up or dismantled by some monster or equally heinous villain. Some of it is to try and showcase how formidable the monster is while other times I feel like it’s the opposite in presenting the idea that the best we have to offer has nothing in the way of defeating the antagonist thereby instilling a different sort of fear in the lack of hope. What I appreciated about this film was that the mission we were following was an all female one. What I liked about this was it wasn’t showy or important to highlight this. It simply was the state of things. I’m a firm believer that in many instances, especially in movies, the toughness of a character has nothing to do with them being a man or a woman. I find it to be in how the character is written and what the actor does to bring that to life. Natalie Portman did a fantastic job of exhibiting incredible strength through many vehicles in the movie. She was physically tough when she had a very real interaction with a crocodile like creature in the film. She was notably intimidated by the size of the beast but it did not deter her from coming to the aid and ultimately rescuing one of her fellow scientists directly as well as the whole team in the end. She was mentally fortified. One of the mantras they repeated in the story was that teams either went in and were murdered by what was in the shimmer or they went crazy and killed each other. So not only was the tactile world around them a potential foe in that it could attack them in any number of ways, but also the prospect that whatever happened inside the shimmer could prey on them mentally, causing significant chance for a breakdown there. So the sheer tyranny of will that Lena possessed throughout the entire film was impressive.
The “negatives” of this movie. I say it like that because for the most part I really enjoyed the film. Production wise it was a real visual treat and the story married with it well. The acting was strong and the narrative was compelling. If I had to pick on one or two things I’d have to say the first is the pacing of the film. It never felt long but there were times it felt like it dragged a little. I think the only way really to have cleaned it up would have been to shorten the film but I also don’t know that it would have done it any service. I think there’s a real possibility that, to a degree, this film needed to drag a little. I could be wrong. But I think the slow burn was intended to stoke the madness flames. The longer you’re in there, the greater chance it plays with your mind. Which feeds into the only other flaw in my estimation. While I do appreciate a thinker, sometimes if you lean too heavily into that it can load up your plate. There’s elements of the story that are presented at times to pose questions. Everything feels interconnected well but in doing this, sometimes you can have too many branches blossoming at once, meaning you can pose too many questions for me to keep all of them straight at the same time. They’re thought provoking both within the framework of the film and also in a larger, existential kind of way that’s meant to follow you outside of the theater. They’re questions that cause you to discuss the film with others to get different opinions and thoughts on how things worked out. I’m all for this. However, you can sometimes end up with lingering branches that need to be pruned. I never made it to the finale of “Lost” but when I asked someone who had about “the numbers” (IYKYK), there was no resolution to that. At least none that I ever gleaned from anyone. There could have been. But to the best of my knowledge it was just a plot device that was fodder for a great many water cooler discussions that lead to nowhere. I don’t feel like it was over the top at any point, and I won’t list specifics in case I just missed something like a dunce and don’t want to pigeon hole myself into ridicule. None of this really ruined the movie for me in any way. So please do not take these as detractors. This is just where I would put anything down that rubbed me the wrong way with the movie.
Ultimately I think I’m going to give this movie a C+. While I did enjoy it, I never felt like it pushed that boundary enough to where I felt like I needed it on my shelf with the rest of the collection. It’s definitely one I could see myself revisiting at some point. For all the praise I give Ex Machina, that one isn’t on my shelf either. I think the + on the C+ is that door I leave myself open that perhaps on subsequent viewings where I peel back and discover some other layers to the film that it ultimately crosses that boundary and makes it’s way on to the shelf. But for now, I would definitely recommend the movie for a watch and I’m entirely open to watching it again myself. It was a fun, different kind of horror movie that played with some interesting dynamics you don’t see in a lot of your standard fare at Halloween time. There weren’t a lot of jump scares or slashers. It was a nice, and very welcomed shift from a lot of the other stuff I’ve been watching. That about wraps it up though for this one. Until next time, I’ll catch you on the flip side.