Not surprisingly, as its graphic violence is perpetrated by (and eventually directed against) children, Who Can Kill a Child? was very controversial at the time of its release and even banned in several countries. While undeniably chilling, however, the film’s violence is neither gratuitous nor exploitative. It is in the service of a deeply serious meditation on the failure of the old in their moral responsibility to the young—a failure made clear by the movie’s prolog, which catalogues twentieth-century atrocities (the Holocaust and the Vietnam War among them) that, although engineered by adults, had a devastating impact on children. The film implies that the massacre of the old at the hands of the young should be viewed as an act not of senseless murder but of self-preservation.
People are sleeping on this movie honestly
One of the best zombies flim in sometime. There is so much to learn in the movie. Humor, sad, happy and sorrow. No one would expect the movie to be so great. The fun dramatically increase as the movie goes.
Who would guess someone would be so scary as one finally turned in to into zombies. Humans are scary creatures. Selfishness among the same species. No good, no bad. Finally, the one who survives and live on are those who suffered the most.
Spanish mystery thriller about a couple taking in a traumatized little girl with strange behaviors. Starts as a slowburn drama and ends with a wild third act. It started strong and the mystery was intriguing but it got so slow towards the middle that I lost interest. I liked the idea of the chalk lines and the child actor did great.
I think that the mother was trying to save her son from her own self. In my opinion there was no real Babadook, only her deep depression. The book probably was made by her, there is some mention about her being a writer before.
Amazing acting.
I think it's really easy to miss the point of this "horror" film. Keep an open mind to the end and look for the clues.
For me, the Babadook was a manifestation of the mother's grief. The ending feels really awkward unless you think about how people deal with grief. You don't "defeat" it but you manage it. And at any moment it might consume you all over again. The boy isn't allowed to feed it at the end because like grief it can't be completed processed as a child.
The marketing and trailer of the film suggested a horror movie with a creepy monster. That may well be the case, but this is not a conventional horror film at all - there is far, far more to this outstanding film than that. To say more would give away the plot, but clear hints as to the identity of the “Babadook” and how it fits into the narrative ensure the reveal and resolution are unsurprising. That, though, misses the point - here the journey the audience is taken on is so compelling that the reveal and resolution to the story don’t need to surprise. Essie Davies plays a single mother still coming to terms with the death of her husband and the young Noah Wiseman is her son who is exhibiting behavioural issues. They both give outstanding natural performances and the film is rooted in such verisimilitude that the introduction of the horror element almost feels intrusive. Not that this is unsuccessful either - the “monster’ initially lurks in the shadows, creating a palpable sense of foreboding and dread and the sound design of the film helps to emphasise this, creating some wonderfully creepy moments. Fortunately, rather than worrying about horror conventions and gimmicks to scare, the filmmakers explore far more gripping issues and concerns - that of a mother’s struggle to raise a child on her own and cope with unresolved grief, loss, isolation and helplessness. If there was a minor criticism, it is that the final act occasionally focuses more on the conventions of horror and suspense that had been so carefully balanced throughout. But this is a nitpick at best and doesn’t detract from one of the finest films of the year and a strong message that true horror is as firmly rooted in reality as it is in the supernatural and fantasy.
so fucking creepy. i love how it ultimately was a story about the victims and the survivor. there was no part that looked into the grabber’s pov or reasoning, it was all the kids. the other victims were used in a truly heart wrenching way to show finn’s motive and strength and intelligence. also no part of it tried to justify the dad. it was clear he loved his kids, but even his apology at the end fell short to the connection between the siblings.
The one thing that is creepy to me is that, you can see "it" coming from afar so slowly but surely and knowing that no matter where u go "it" will find you. As the saying goes, "you can run but you can't hide".
The title seems to have a double meaning. Not only for the 'monster' of the film, but it is also one of those movies that gets under your skin. I can't stop thinking about it.
The film has very unique feel to it, an 80's vibe, a creepy unique premise and a constant feeling of unease, I can now see why this has been getting so much press throughout the horror scene.
A Must Watch!
I always love seeing Australian cinema out there. And movies about demons...spirits etc. They're something I'm especially keen on.
Talk to Me is about Mia, a girl grieving her mother's sudden death two years prior. She is introduced to this unbelievable game that her classmates play where they set a ceramic hand on the table, grasp it and say "talk to me", leading something out there to come to the other side.
This movie doesn't shy away from gore, and it's especially impactful as the characters are teenagers. The tension builds in each scene, almost explosively delivered in horrifying outcomes (especially given the sound mixing and how freaking loud it is). There's not really noticeable music in this film, just the regular bush doof pumping beats but nothing I really enjoyed and it still keeps its jump scares kind of obvious with the sound cues.
The story unravels with really great pacing but I found Mia's character development to be a little weak. I can justify it by seeing her as just a teenager out there, lost and alone. She's an outcast because her family changed, no one can relate to her and she's sad and a downer. She's still grieving her mother and the movie's core concept puts her back at the start of her grief journey. She's drawn in by having a connection to someone, by feeling like she's part of a group...which leads her to make poor choices. I did feel like we needed more growth to come through - she has a found family who love her and care for her but she still almost falls to the words of her spirit mum, she's not able to see what's really surrounding her...and that didn't make that much sense to me. It's obvious she cherishes Riley and Jade, and feels loved by them. so I needed more convincing to believe that the script choices were ones she would make.
I did wonder if her wearing yellow in every scene was just style choices or a symbol of her place in her grief journey and joy...but I'm not sure.
I did really enjoy the ending sequences of the film and how it tied back to its lore. It's a solid film and worth the watch.
If you liked the first one you'll like the 2nd one. I loved the first one and loved this one as well. I didn't go into this movie expecting some amazing story that would win some pointless Oscar. I went into it so I could see some over the top cheesy action, a man battling sharks, an octopus and other random stuff. I got every bit of that and more. Just grab your popcorn and sit back for the rode.
THIS IS A PERFECT MOVIE! I really wish for a sequel! :heart: :heart:
First half: Almost family friendly if you take away the kills. Very festive with lots of Christmas decorations, good looking winter landscapes and a cozy looking house set. Some story elements reminded me of The Grinch. It'll lose a lot of people in that first half, it's such a stretch before the action starts and the comedic attempts don't really land. It's constantly on the verge of being campy fun but it never gets there unfortunately. The characters are at least mildly enjoyable and the acting is ok.⠀5/10
Second half: The movie completely transforms into non-stop campy fun absurdity! There's still a few missed attempts but the comedy is now better. The kills look good to me for the type of movie this is (needed more of them though). I like that they took actors of short stature to do the Elves instead of some cheap CGI or something. This half had Krampus vibes. The tone of this movie is the biggest criticism I can give it, it's all over the place... once I finished the movie I can finally confirm this is way more lighthearted and joyful, don't expect actual horror.⠀7/10
screw what the critics say this is a really good movie it has lots of action and is well paced and doesn't drag at all the story is a lot better than the last one it's a very entertaining film if your a fan of the movies like I am seeing "raiders of the lost ark" when I was a kid you won't be disappointed
I'm kind of surprised that there are so many negative reviews for this. Maybe not many people wanted a "what if Superman was actually horrible?" film in the form of a horror flick. I was pleasantly entertained and the biggest criticism I have is that the ending feels wide open for further storytelling that I wished I could dig into. I suppose The Boys helped fill that void, along with comics such as Irredeemable, but this feels like there could be some real good storylines to dig into in a sequel.
This is the Gay RomCom I’ve always wanted. Just like all the other Romcoms, except the main characters are gay and not over the top stereotypes either.
"Saw II" is less exciting than its predecessor. But it is also a big step in the direction that the Saw films became known for in the end. Namely, a larger group of people is locked in some kind of escape room, which they can only leave if they survive a series of brutal traps. As always, an investigation plot runs in parallel, with the police trying to get to the killer. That all works pretty well here, too, as there are a few nice traps, and the typical Saw twist at the end also works. Tobin Bell is given some real time as John Kramer for the first time and does a good job. The rest of the cast is rather average, though. I also sometimes noticed that the script wasn't really meant for the series. All in all, the film is perhaps a little less gross than you'd expect from Saw. At the same time, director Darren Lynn Bousman doesn't quite manage to maintain the thrilling atmosphere of the first part. Overall, though, it's all still pretty solid.
Holy crap! This movie was a mindscrew! I was baffled more than the 1st movie! Can't tell you how much I just wanted Xavier to die. But the fact that it was all prerecorded and Daniel was in the safe, meaning Eric Matthews literally just had to talk to Jigsaw for 2 hours to see his son alive was mindblowing! The call back to the first film with the Dr. Gordon scene and the restroom was whoa! Still, I feel saddened by not knowing what happened to Gordon's wife and daughter after the first film. Can't wait to watch the third movie tomorrow night!
I was plenty interested in this one at the beginning, but once the main character (Lena) joined up with the group of girls it slowly made its way downhill for me.
I found this under a thriller genre list and was expecting the sci-fi aspect as well from the (very) brief description, but not the horror. The other characters came across as so flat and almost; I dunno, generic and cookie cutter like? Standard, overused, vague personalities. I suppose the writers didn't feel like putting any effort into them. I couldn’t remember their respective names; I kept getting them mixed up when I didn't just forget them entirely. (Not much of a spoiler right here; I just like to try and allow others to make up their own minds about some details and not be potentially influenced by what they've read beforehand.)
Things increasingly became ultra weird and creepy and wayyy too long and drawn out. The last 30-45 minutes were the worst. I was getting bored and anxious for it to just be over already. The ending was essentially a non-ending; a big build up to a two second non-surprising surprise.
As a big lover of rainbows and iridescence, I was a bit disappointed that “the shimmer” and its effects turned out to be so horrifying. I was hoping for the possibility that it was just a misunderstood phenomenon at first and a mystery to unravel, but actually be good for humanity; not destroy it.
I’m skimming over other reviews on IMDb right now and while the movie has a notably decent overall rating, it seems I’m not alone in feeling that this was tedious as hell to get through. Many didn't feel that way and loved this, but many also hated it. I felt that Ex Machina (done by the same director) was a decent film and I chose to watch it a second time. Under the Skin has also been mentioned alongside this film. While I rated that a 6 for various reasons, I didn't actually care for it personally (more like a 4) and wouldn't give it another go. I don't suppose that helps you decide whether or not to watch Annihilation for yourself, but maybe? I also read this was based on a book and that the film finale was drastically changed from it. I might look into it out of curiosity.
Oh! And how could I forget? In order to throw in some sexuality/bare skin they put in an utterly pointless scene where it's revealed that the main character was a fucking cheater. Her partner in crime loved his wife though. rolls eyes
1 / 2 directing & technical aspect
0 / 1 story
1 / 1 act I
1 / 1 act II
1 / 1 act III
1 / 1 acting
0 / 1 writing
0 / 1 originality
0 / 1 lasting ability to make you think
0 / 1 misc
5 out of 10
While a good film in itself; call me old fashioned but the book and the series is better.
It may be that if you come to this without having read each book when it came out you won't feel like anything is missing. But for me it just didn't quite mesh, for anyone loving that it's an all female expedition - that's just how it is in the book it's not written in to appease or enrage anyone.
From this version with the characters having names, to the myriad other forms it diverges from the books. It just feels too much has been lost.
I won't ruin anything if you do read the books. Which I would totally recommend and have been doing so for years.
This move plays more on the love/wonder/drama aspect of things--not so much thriller/horror/sci-fi. There are only 3 (maybe 4) short scenes with any sci-fi and/or horror.
Of course people will immediately think of other sci-fi titles for comparison and reference, but what I enjoyed about Annilation is that it is basically Alice in Wonderland, except where Alice is a biologist, and Wonderland is an area of genetic corruption. I was intrigued, and entertained, and I enjoyed the visuals, which were curious and beautiful, but not over-done. One flaw is that out of four characters we only really get to know one.
I'm sorry, but this was boring to watch.
Visuals are nice, but CGI was a bit over the top.
Story moves slow and I can't say that either horror or thriller labels would fit this film.
Maybe it's meant for an artistic intellectual audience.
For me it disappointed and won't recommend to watch this..
I have seen some bad movies. This? It was bad on a whole different level. An inexplicable circumstance never defined. Plot points that made NO sense. *!!!
I watched trying to determine in Natalie Portman was a good actress. This movie was just awful. Gina Rodriguez... Tessa Thompson... Oscad Isaac... Jennifer Jason Leigh... WHAT THE * WAS THIS??!!!
Alex Garland wrote & directed this. Dude you explain anything. As visually captivating as some of it was everything else was just nonsense. That ending made no sense.
The movie touches on a lot of topics, and shows a lot, but never ultimately explains what happened, it just happens with no explanation.
The ending with Lena fighting her doppelgänger and detonating the phosphorus grenade was awful. What did the alien ultimately want? It is unclear.
[5.4/10] The benefit of the cinematic form is that it’s malleable. A great movie can be a self-serious naturalistic drama or a zany, loosely-plotted comedy. It can have a tight three act structure or it can have a messy spillover of events that fit a different tone. You can do a million things with two-hours of screen time in a million different ways, and as a reviewer, I try to keep myself open and generous to the new and different ways inventive auteurs find to take advantage of the medium.
But the problem with Annihilation is that the things it's good at -- its visuals and its final, captivating sequence -- feel disconnected from the ways in which it is a movie. If you stripped this film for parts and just extracted certain images or scenes, you would find compelling bits and pieces. And yet, as an all-encompassing piece of art meant to tell a story, meant to introduce characters, meant to make you care about what’s going on from the first minute to the last, it falls woefully short.
The film tells the story of Lena, an ex-soldier/biologist who ventures into a mysterious zone called “The Shimmer” to try to find out what happened to her dying husband. She teams up with four other scientist/soldiers to investigate the bizarre happenings inside, where no communications can reach the outside world and from which no one has ever returned. The expedition goes predictably awry quickly, with Lena and her crew finding signs of other failed attempts while they try to make sense of the unknown phenomena all around them.
The result comes off like a Predator clone as presented by David Lynch. That description may sound exciting, or at least interesting, but the truth is that for it’s first hundred minutes or so, Annihilation is a remarkably boring film given its premise. Generic military types with barely-sketched personalities wander anonymously through the jungle where little of substance happens between the occasional, solid set piece. Director Alex Garland can’t spice up his standard issue, Star Trek-esque “hey, there’s some freaky stuff going down on that planet” narrative with anything approaching real character or intrigue. It leaves the whole exercise feeling like an hour and a half of treading water to justify the film’s grand, final showpiece.
That showpiece is a doozy. If you lopped off just “The Lighthouse” segment of the movie, apart from the doldrums of the setup and the ponderousness of the frame story, it would be an incredible short film. The demoscene-esque symmetry and variation of the energy blob that Lena confronts, the Del Toro-esque figure who consumes her teammate and withstands her bullets, the mirroring alien creature that moves just so and eventually erupts into a singular immolation, all grab the viewer’s attention and evince a mood and a vision that are abstract, palpable, and transcendent, but all but missing elsewhere in the film.
The worst part of the whole endeavor is the dialogue. There’s a thudding quality to almost every exchange, where people declare exactly what they’re thinking, robotically convey some exposition that’s already obvious to anyone with a brain, or speak in bland action movie clichés. There’s always some artifice to movie dialogue, but holy hell, nobody in the world talks like this. I initially wanted to attribute it to the stupefying effects of The Shimmer, but the truth is that everyone in the movie speaks in the same awkward, stilted rhythms regardless of where they’re in the alien zone or not. The merits of this film are far and away on the visual side, and it seems like the verbal side was massively neglected by comparison.
The runner up in that department is the characters. No individual’s personality is depicted through action, everyone’s backstory is just announced, either by another character or through the patently unnecessary frame narrative. But hey, that’s OK, because everyone is a flat, stock archetype anyway, whom you’ll forget as soon as they’re picked off or disappear or get transmogrified into something else. Even Lena, who should be compelling given her losses and purpose, is a weird blank space in the middle of the film, barely defined despite being the nominal driver of the action.
That action, thankfully, isn’t bad. Apart from that impressive final sequence, the only thing to really recommend Annihilation is its production design and aesthetic, with remixed flora and fauna that stand out amid the film’s otherwise soporific qualities. True to a film starring Natalie Portman, there’s a bit of a Star Wars prequel vibe to some of the CGI, but most of it is forgivable, and when the lights go low and the digital seams don’t show, the film’s capable of some real terror and awe.
Unfortunately, the same can’t be said for its mystery and themes. It becomes clear what’s going on within The Shimmer fairly quickly -- that whatever this entity is has been remixing and mashing up the various inputs its found on our planet is. But that doesn't stop our heroes from wandering around and puzzling over it for god knows how long. By the same token, the film tries to connect everything to a grand theme of unconscious self-destruction being our downfall, cellularly and socially, rather than external malady or directive choice. But while it’s an interesting idea, it’s lost in a sea of tepid scenes and tin-eared dialogue trying to dramatize it.
That’s the overarching problem with Annihilation. It fails at the things that you need to sustain a film: character, story, theme, pacing, dialogue, intrigue. But it succeeds at the things that could exist apart from the structure and be just as good, namely the raw imagery of the piece and the almost baletic, psychedelic sequence at the end which the audience only vaguely needs the backstory provided to appreciate. There’s things worth salvaging from this film -- bravado sequences that almost justify the experience -- but they come apart from, or at the expense of, the things essential to the form.
Annihilation is an interesting, occasionally astounding art project, but it’s not much of a movie.
I thought Ex Machina was (although flawed) an excellent movie, Annihilation was just crap though. Apart from the outfits, there was nothing even remotely military about any of them, the whole thing just didn't know where it was going or why, it was a huge confused mess. It probably would have made a good TV episode in an anthology show, but just not enough there to make a decent film. It put me in mind of Arrival (easily the worst sci-fi movie of recent times), low-brow junk masquerading as high-brow gold. Both were designed from the ground up to make stupid people think they are really smart. If a film is advertised as 'highly intelligent' they should at least be moderately intelligent, but this doesn't even come close. The fact the ending is somewhat ambiguous and there are several different theories about it doesn't mean the film is cleaver, it just means the ending has more than one interpretation. I'm not saying films should spoon feed you all the answers, in fact, I hate when that happens, It's great being able to contemplate a movie and it's meanings after the fact, the problem here is it gives you so little of worth to actually think about.
