Is self-destruction a biological impulse, or a psychological one? Does it depend on the person or the circumstances? How far would you go to find out whether that impulse lives in you?To Inspire questions like that is one hallmark of great science fiction, and Alex Garland`s Annihilation, a loose adaptation of Jeff VanderMeer`s 2014 book of the same name, definitely has that going for it. But unlike Garland`s directorial debut, the celebrated Ex Machina, Annihilation is a little rough around its shimmering edges.The movie, like the book, follows a biologist (Natalie Portman) who embarks with several other scientists on an expedition into a mysterious zone (Area X in the book, The Shimmer in the movie). The zone is surrounded by a strange barrier that lets people enter, but rarely allows them to leave. Inside, communications are blocked, and elements of the natural world--plants, animals, and beyond--take unnatural shapes. The book implies these phenomena may be alien in origin; the movie states it outright in the opening minutes, when a meteor from outer space strikes the base of a modest coastal lighthouse and The Shimmer starts to spread. It`s not unlike the spaceship scene that opens The Thing, and it`s equally unnecessary.That`s just one of the many, many ways that Annihilation strays from its source material, particularly if you consider the other two books in The Southern Reach Trilogy, Authority and Acceptance, both also published in 2014. Garland has admitted he wrote the movie`s script before books 2 and 3 were out, and he`s yet to read them. Unsurprisingly, Annihilation as an adaptation has more in common with something like Blade Runner--Ridley Scott famously never even finished the Philip K. Dick Book, Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?--than one more faithful to the original.None of that is to say it`s bad, but be warned: If you read the book, watching the movie will give you whiplash. And if you didn`t, it might anyway.Annihilation`s structure of ...
|
