'Annihilation' has cheesy visual effects

There are times when the film skirts silliness, but director Alex Garland has a gift for locating the horror inside that silliness.

Paramount Pictures/Skydance/AP
'Annihilation' stars Natalie Portman.

“Annihilation” is a trippy metaphysical science fiction movie that summons up a slew of other movies – among them “Stalker,” “The Thing,” “Alien,” “Apocalypse Now,” and, most often, “2001: A Space Odyssey” – and yet it doesn’t quite resemble any other film. Writer-director Alex Garland’s last movie was the extraordinarily atmospheric AI horror film “Ex Machina,” and he double doses on atmospherics here. Based on the first novel in the “Southern Reach” trilogy by Jeff VanderMeer, it’s about Lena (Natalie Portman), a biologist and former Army soldier whose husband (Oscar Isaac) has been missing for a year on a top-secret military operation. When he mysteriously returns, he is practically catatonic and, as soon becomes apparent, gravely injured.

It turns out that he is the sole survivor of a series of military missions into a coastal disaster zone that is code-named “The Shimmer” because of the iridescent haze encircling it. Lena, in the company of four other women scientists – played by Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tuva Novotny, Tessa Thompson, and, best, Gina Rodriguez – volunteers for the next mission into the rainbow-tinged wilderness. She wants to root out the mystery in order to save her husband.

Garland is great at setting a tone of creepy ominousness, and the women’s foray into the swampy terrain is an unnerving blend of lustrous loveliness and split-second horror. But the visual effects throughout the film are often disconcertingly cheesy, and the pulp elements pile up with an extra serving of gore. The flashback/flashback structure employed by Garland keeps splintering the mood, and there are times when the film, with its humanoid lichens and mutated bears and crocodiles, skirts silliness. But Garland has a gift for locating the horror inside that silliness, and this is what gives the film such a kicky, off-center quality. You laugh at it and gasp at it simultaneously. Grade: B- (Rated R for violence, bloody images, language, and some sexuality.)

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.