Un biologiste s'inscrit pour une expédition secrète et dangereuse dans une zone mystérieuse où les lois naturelles ne s'appliquent pas.Un biologiste s'inscrit pour une expédition secrète et dangereuse dans une zone mystérieuse où les lois naturelles ne s'appliquent pas.Un biologiste s'inscrit pour une expédition secrète et dangereuse dans une zone mystérieuse où les lois naturelles ne s'appliquent pas.
- Réalisation
- Scénario
- Casting principal
- Récompenses
- 17 victoires et 63 nominations au total
- Peyton
- (non crédité)
- Scientist
- (non crédité)
- Special Forces
- (non crédité)
- Special Forces
- (non crédité)
- Special Ops Soldier
- (non crédité)
Avis à la une
There are just too many times that things occur that have no sense or logic. I'm not talking about the "alien" aspect, which is supposed to be somewhat mysterious and incomprehensible, but about the way that the humans in the story act or react to what's going on. The way that the government is handling the phenomenon seems strangely hands-off for what should be the most important event in the history of humanity, and the individuals involved make lots of odd decisions just to drive the story forward.
On top of that, there is a framing device where a survivor is being interrogated about the events of what is shown throughout the movie, and it not only doesn't provide any additional illumination to bother with the clunkiness, it tends to deflate a lot of the tension by giving away certain plot points before you see them on screen. The ending is more just vague for the sense of being mysterious rather than making you really ask questions afterward. I suspect that if you asked the Director how the ending related to the rest of the movie, he would't be able to give more of an answer than he wanted things to be left open-ended.
Finally, the characters are all fairly morose and sedated. There's a (weak) explanation in the movie for this, but the overall low energy makes you not care too much about any of the characters.
Can definitely see why 'Annihilation' has proven to be so polarising with audiences and IMDb reviewers. Had problems with it myself and it didn't quite match up to the brilliance of the idea, but had also a lot of admiration for its brave if imperfect execution and bold ambition. It almost does live up to its idea, but doesn't quite. As somebody who has seen her fair share of films with potentially good concepts marred by underwhelming, and in a lot of cases terrible, execution, that was refreshing.
'Annihilation' is uneven and has problems. Most of the characters, apart from Lena and to a lesser extent Ventress (there was a little with Cass but only for two or so lines in one short scene), are underwritten archetypes, Josie was not very memorable and there was absolutely no point to the man in the stuff with the affair.
Lena's back-story was mixed. It is very nuanced and affecting in the scenes between her and Kane, but is far from successful in the stuff with the affair, which felt out of place, pointless, came out of nowhere when introduced, was ended very quickly and never heard from again. The dialogue is very clunky at times, particularly with Anya and some of the back-story, while there are some less than logical character behaviours and some bogus science, especially the explanation for the mutated insides (beyond moronic and nearly ruined one of the film's most stay-with-the-viewer scenes).
Not entirely sure what my stance on the final half an hour is. It is choreographed cleverly in movement, is visually stunning, is an atmosphere whirlwind and does probe though and discussion. It is also one of the strangest last 30 minutes of any film seen in a while and it takes a lot for me to be confused, this portion of the film was a head-scratcher for me and the aftermath discussion with my sister didn't really clear things up. If it was meant to be ambiguous or open-ended, it for my tastes was taken too far, don't mind being challenged but being confused is a no-no (in no way intended to be snobbish).
However, 'Annihilation' looks wonderful, one of the best-looking films seen by me recently. Some of the landscapes are pretty spectacular, as is the look of the shimmer. The creatures are very well done, especially the bear creature, and evoke a great deal of creepiness. It's beautifully and atmospherically shot and stylishly edited.
The music is haunting and ominous, doing a great providing slow-building suspense and mystery without making it too obvious prematurely. Some clever use of sound too. Some of the dialogue is thought-provoking, like with the interrogations.
Regardless of any reservations with some of the storytelling, 'Annihilation' is a triumph in terms of atmosphere and as an experience film. There is a slow-building tension that doesn't become dull, enough of it is thought-provoking, tense and emotional and there is a subtle tension. Two scenes stand out, and are two of the most disturbing scenes of any film in a long time. One was with the mutated insides, word of warning- don't watch this while eating, being someone who made that mistake. The other was the second bear attack, a creepy build up then crescendoing in a way that was unnerving and truly frightening. The film is also thematically interesting, familiar themes in both the genre and in Garland's previous work but built on a grander level.
Most of the acting was good, especially the astonishing Natalie Portman giving one of her better performances since 'Black Swan'. Oscar Isaac and Jennifer Jason Leigh are the best in support and Gina Rodriguez fares quite well. Tessa Thompson is too underused to make an impression and her character too bland. Garland directs with great skill.
Overall, not quite brilliant and sometimes frustrating but ambitious, admirable and interesting. 7/10 Bethany Cox
But I still really liked it. It's creepy and atmospheric and more concerned with the psychology of people on a suicide mission than on the nuts and bolts of scientific investigation. It's often intense , usually beautiful, well acted, and had some really weird and mesmerizing moments.
I won't argue that you should forgive it for its plot holes, or that it has any deep meaning, or anything like that. In fact, it's probably easier to make a convincing argument against the movie than for it. I'm just saying, I really liked it.
ADDENDUM: I looked at the user reviews recently (2024) and the top reviews are no longer lists of plot holes. The people who enjoyed the movie, like me, have since my review pushed the naysayers down. Which I fully support.
In slamming the movie, I saw one reviewer compare it to Sunshine, which he also hated. That review was what actually flipped the switch and got me to watch it, but I'd say that is a good test. If you don't like movies like Sunshine (also written by Alex Garland), you probably won't like this.
Le saviez-vous
- AnecdotesDue to a poorly received test screening, David Ellison, a financier at Paramount, became concerned that the film was "too intellectual" and "too complicated," and demanded changes to make it appeal to a wider audience, including making Natalie Portman's character more sympathetic and changing the ending. Producer Scott Rudin sided with Garland in his desire to not alter the film, defending the film and refusing to take notes. Rudin had final cut.
- GaffesSentries would never light the inside of a watchtower, which would illuminate themselves and make it impossible for them to see anything outside.
- Citations
Lena: Why did my husband volunteer for a suicide mission?
Dr Ventress: Is that what you think we're doing? Committing suicide?
Lena: You must have profiled him. You must have assessed him. He must have said something.
Dr Ventress: So you're asking me as a psychologist?
Lena: Yeah.
Dr Ventress: Then, as a psychologist, I think you're confusing suicide with self-destruction. Almost none of us commit suicide, and almost all of us self-destruct. In some way, in some part of our lives. We drink, or we smoke, we destabilize the good job... and a happy marriage. But these aren't decisions, they're... they're impulses. In fact, you're probably better equipped to explain this than I am.
Lena: What does that mean?
Dr Ventress: You're a biologist. Isn't the self-destruction coded into us? Programmed into each cell?
- ConnexionsFeatured in Chris Stuckmann Movie Reviews: Annihilation (2018)
- Bandes originalesHelplessly Hoping
Performed by Crosby Stills & Nash (as Crosby Stills and Nash)
Written by Stephen Stills
Licensed courtesy of Warner Music UK
Published by Gold Hill Music Inc (BMI)
Meilleurs choix
Détails
- Date de sortie
- Pays d’origine
- Site officiel
- Langue
- Aussi connu sous le nom de
- Aniquilación
- Lieux de tournage
- Former RAF Bentwaters, Woodbridge, Suffolk, Angleterre, Royaume-Uni(Exterior shots of army base)
- Sociétés de production
- Voir plus de crédits d'entreprise sur IMDbPro
Box-office
- Budget
- 40 000 000 $US (estimé)
- Montant brut aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 32 732 301 $US
- Week-end de sortie aux États-Unis et au Canada
- 11 071 584 $US
- 25 févr. 2018
- Montant brut mondial
- 43 070 915 $US
- Durée1 heure 55 minutes
- Couleur
- Mixage
- Rapport de forme
- 2.39 : 1