I just saw Annihilation and I have some Thoughts, but they're probably not that well formed yet. I do appreciate that the screenplay mostly stayed true to the essence of the book without attempting to be a literal adaptation, which makes it easier to treat each as their own beast.
Also Natalie Portman did an amazing job, which is not a sentence I think I've ever typed before.
I just saw Annihilation and I have some Thoughts, but they're probably not that well formed yet. I do appreciate that the screenplay mostly stayed true to the essence of the book without attempting to be a literal adaptation, which makes it easier to treat each as their own beast.
Also Natalie Portman did an amazing job, which is not a sentence I think I've ever typed before.
When I heard about the bolded I let out a sigh of relief. I had no idea how they were going to do a literal adaptation of the book/series.
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
Garland says he wrote the script after reading the book once and didn’t consult it while writing. “A dream movie about a dream novel,” he said (or something to that effect)
ok having walked home, some not-really-but-slightly-more-spoilery-thoughts
I'm trying very hard not to compare the movie and book, because I really do think they're two different things, but it's hard not to let my feelings about the book colour the movie. I think watching the film then reading the book might produce a better effect?
So for me the book is characterized by massive ambiguity, which plays out on several levels. I'd say the main thematic difference between the two pieces of media is that the movie has far less.
- some of the ambiguity had to be lost in order to film the book at all, and overall I liked a lot of those choices. The visual iconography was fantastic, though I would have appreciated more indulgently beautiful scenes, like the one of the fish from the boat - it would have made more play off that gorgeous/deadly dichotomy. I also thought the on-the-fly pseudo-physics explanation of how the phenomena was affecting the plants and animals was rather charming, and the way the cinematography played with that idea by shooting through plastic and glass and windows was really neat.
- some ambiguity was lost in creating a tighter, more self-contained and narratively structured story. I'm a bit more on the fence about that, but probably it was necessary to squeeze the book into a single film AND have people actually come and see it
- and the part I'm least on board with is that they dropped a lot of the moral ambiguity. The book is dripping with it - the characters and their motivations and their actions; the way the Biologist and through her, us, relate to the landscape; the behaviour and nature of the bureaucracy driving the expeditions - and much of that was dropped, or at best hinted at. It felt like someone somewhere down the line just didn't trust the audience, and maybe they were right not to, but I think the opportunity was there to create a really morally complex piece of cinema, and they kind of bailed.
so I think it was nearly an amazing movie, but thanks largely to the last bit (not trusting the audience) it fell a bit short of the mark. Interesting, but not nearly as affecting or novel as it could have been
Garland says he wrote the script after reading the book once and didn’t consult it while writing. “A dream movie about a dream novel,” he said (or something to that effect)
That actually feels like a pretty good way to go about it in this case. Almost like the script is a fever dream remembrance of the book.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
the funny thing about the trailers for red sparrow is they don't tell you how it's going to be so bad
I'm very curious to know the details
Also, I couldn't help myself and looked up the summaries for the Area X books
Man, the Annihilation novel is almost completely different. And knowing my own taste in stories, my gut says I would end up feeling very frustrated with the series.
Stilts on
0
Options
GreasyKidsStuffMOMMM!ROAST BEEF WANTS TO KISS GIRLS ON THE TITTIES!Registered Userregular
Red Sparrow, aside from being wildly problematic with all regards to sex and consent and female agency, is just really boring and confusing
0
Options
Metzger MeisterIt Gets Worsebefore it gets any better.Registered Userregular
Finally got around to seeing Jesus Christ Superstar at the vehement behest of my husband and sister. We watched the version with Tim Minchin. It was alright!
From what I understand, the movie TRIES to drill into the sexual aspect and highlight how shitty it is that it's a staple of the spy genre
But in practice it just sounds miserable and boring
Personally, my favorite thing about that film is the Network TV-ification of the swearing in the scene where he smashes the car. It's second only to what they did to the "Yippie-ki-yay motherfucker" one from Die Hard.
Ah, it stinks, it sucks, it's anthropologically unjust
My friends and I went to Lebowski Fest in Louisville one year back in like 2005 or 2006, and we ended up getting interviewed for some documentary some guy was filming that eventually ended up as a special feature on the 10th anniversary edition dvd. However, we were lazy about sending in our release forms and we had to settle for just having our names included in the "Special Thanks" section of the credits.
Still pretty cool though. Big Lebowski is one of my favorite movies.
Personally, my favorite thing about that film is the Network TV-ification of the swearing in the scene where he smashes the car. It's second only to what they did to the "Yippie-ki-yay motherfucker" one from Die Hard.
You see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?!
+9
Options
Bloods EndBlade of TyshallePunch dimensionRegistered Userregular
Posts
I'm okay with this headcanon.
grinding nemo
Not a good movie. Not a good performance.
it's definitely very similar to Abe Sapien's origin, except with a thirsty cleaning woman instead of Hellboy
critters 2 is a perfect film and i will fight anyone who disagrees
I love that theater, I’ve only been there twice though, first for I’m Not There (which was bad) and then again for The Wrestler (which was incredible)
There's definitely a lot of that sort of retro-futurism and art deco design work that looks really fantastic.
Also Natalie Portman did an amazing job, which is not a sentence I think I've ever typed before.
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
When I heard about the bolded I let out a sigh of relief. I had no idea how they were going to do a literal adaptation of the book/series.
Origin ID: Discgolfer27
Untappd ID: Discgolfer1981
So for me the book is characterized by massive ambiguity, which plays out on several levels. I'd say the main thematic difference between the two pieces of media is that the movie has far less.
- some of the ambiguity had to be lost in order to film the book at all, and overall I liked a lot of those choices. The visual iconography was fantastic, though I would have appreciated more indulgently beautiful scenes, like the one of the fish from the boat - it would have made more play off that gorgeous/deadly dichotomy. I also thought the on-the-fly pseudo-physics explanation of how the phenomena was affecting the plants and animals was rather charming, and the way the cinematography played with that idea by shooting through plastic and glass and windows was really neat.
- some ambiguity was lost in creating a tighter, more self-contained and narratively structured story. I'm a bit more on the fence about that, but probably it was necessary to squeeze the book into a single film AND have people actually come and see it
- and the part I'm least on board with is that they dropped a lot of the moral ambiguity. The book is dripping with it - the characters and their motivations and their actions; the way the Biologist and through her, us, relate to the landscape; the behaviour and nature of the bureaucracy driving the expeditions - and much of that was dropped, or at best hinted at. It felt like someone somewhere down the line just didn't trust the audience, and maybe they were right not to, but I think the opportunity was there to create a really morally complex piece of cinema, and they kind of bailed.
so I think it was nearly an amazing movie, but thanks largely to the last bit (not trusting the audience) it fell a bit short of the mark. Interesting, but not nearly as affecting or novel as it could have been
That actually feels like a pretty good way to go about it in this case. Almost like the script is a fever dream remembrance of the book.
I am, however, now very interested in the books (particularly the sequel).
Red Sparrow is very bad
The trailer definitely gave me a strong suspicion that it would be.
I'm very curious to know the details
Also, I couldn't help myself and looked up the summaries for the Area X books
Man, the Annihilation novel is almost completely different. And knowing my own taste in stories, my gut says I would end up feeling very frustrated with the series.
That was the whole pitch.
“You haven’t seen this before! It’s crazy, she seduces dudes but she’s a killer can you believe it???”
But in practice it just sounds miserable and boring
Yeah? Well ... you know, that's just like ah ... your opinion, man.
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
How good is John Goodman in that film
“My dirty undies, Dude.
The whites.”
Personally, my favorite thing about that film is the Network TV-ification of the swearing in the scene where he smashes the car. It's second only to what they did to the "Yippie-ki-yay motherfucker" one from Die Hard.
Still pretty cool though. Big Lebowski is one of my favorite movies.
You see what happens when you find a stranger in the Alps?!