Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What was the overlap in your opinion? (Also a follow-up question for Ouze.)

I should again emphasize I only saw half of The Void, but it was just a general feel, the otherworldly, occulty, eerieness of it. In this case it was extraterrestrial rather than... extraplanar, I guess? But the vibe felt similar. I know that's pretty nebulous.

Is a certain "mysteriousness" factor perhaps applicable?

Yes, there's a strong element of them dealing with something that is beyond the human capacity to understand.

That's one of my big takeaways, too. It's been a bit since I read the book, and I'd like to give it another read once I get it back from my friend (I burned through it in a day or two, couldn't put it down), but the whole idea behind exploring Area X was to try and analyze something almost completely inexplicable. The 'weird' elements of the Void, rather than the stabby-cultist elements, are where it's most similar.

Probably. Gonna go see it this weekend, I think.

Just finished it. Hugely disappointed .

I strongly feel that ambiguity is a thing.

But is it the thing?

Like I say, I am attracted to this movie by its reputation for being open to interpretation. Some people would call that ambiguity. But there is another group of words (vague, vacuous, pretentious) that people also associate with ambiguity.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I strongly feel that ambiguity is a thing.

I agree. But surely the point of ambiguity in a movie is to provoke the viewer to consider what the movie is (or might be) about?

I didn''t feel that this particular movie warranted such ambiguity. I didn't feel it had a particularly meaningful "message" to spend days pondering on in the first place.

Still, who knows? Maybe I'll wake up tonight at 3 a.m. and think "Holy Gak!!!" .... "THAT's what it meant!"

 Manchu wrote:
But is it the thing?

Is ambiguity the thing? I leave that to others to decide.

ike I say, I am attracted to this movie by its reputation for being open to interpretation. Some people would call that ambiguity. But there is another group of words (vague, vacuous, pretentious) that people also associate with ambiguity.

Professional reviewers seem to like the film. Even Screen Junkies and Red Letter Media liked the film. Everyone I know in real life and online who has seen it did not like the film. I have heard that it has all of the pretentiousness of Ex Machina with none of the having-a-pointness.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 War Drone wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I strongly feel that ambiguity is a thing.

I agree. But surely the point of ambiguity in a movie is to provoke the viewer to consider what the movie is (or might be) about?

That's one interpretation.

I didn''t feel that this particular movie warranted such ambiguity. I didn't feel it had a particularly meaningful "message" to spend days pondering on in the first place.

Still, who knows? Maybe I'll wake up tonight at 3 a.m. and think "Holy Gak!!!" .... "THAT's what it meant!"

(Stepping out of the joke...) I really don't enjoy ambiguity for the sake of it. I don't like films that ask the audience to complete them or to work hard for the payoff. The film has to earn being thought about. There are hundreds of great, thought-provoking films out there I'll never get around to seeing, so "you only get out of it what you put in" just doesn't cut it for me.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Professional reviewers seem to like the film.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I have heard that it has all of the pretentiousness of Ex Machina with none of the having-a-pointness.

So pretentious and pointless?

I didnt find either ex machina or annhilation pretentious.

Ex machina had a pretencious character IN it. But the movie itself was justva pretty good ai movie.

Annhilation was mysterious in a thing man was not meant to know kind of way. I like things where we dont get all the answers.

Just want to address this very last bit, as it's basically what's bugging me about the movie....

 Lance845 wrote:
I like things where we dont get all the answers.

Was there actually a "question" though?

Positives.

It's damn pretty. In 4K HDR it's amazing, it really helped me dial in some settings I'd been fiddling with on my tv.

The Skull Mimic-Bear and Alligark are both interesting creations and neat sequences.

It does an interesting job of presenting some really quite horrific ideas in a really attractive way.

There's definitely plenty to reward rewatching if one is sufficiently motivated. The transfer of the forearm tattoo and the implications being one I noticed too late to unpick.

Negatives.

Ambiguity feels like an excuse rather than an intent.

None of the characters are particularly engaging, and the reactions and dynamics between the group don't feel like they've been "earned." I get that three of the party have known each other for a while by the time the film starts, but other than some pretty clumsy exposition in a boat, little is done to really convey that to the viewer.

Pacing is a little uneven.

Some flashbacks serve to only really undermine one's sympathy for the main character. Although they do make her motives less obvious.

I'm not sorry I watched it, but I likely won't ever feel the need to rewatch. It felt like it wanted to be (what would have been) a cool action movie but was also trying hard to be something more cerebral, and didn't really put enough into succeeding at either. But I had Netflix already, so I'm not going to lose too much sleep over being moderately entertained for two hours. If I'd gone out and bought a ticket at the cinema (which I may well have done, having been intruiged by the trailer) I might feel more strongly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 War Drone wrote:
Just want to address this very last bit, as it's basically what's bugging me about the movie....

 Lance845 wrote:
I like things where we dont get all the answers.

Was there actually a "question" though?

Spoiler:

I'm sure the debrief scenes with Natalie Portman are important - more important than at first glance (see ... fething thread "has" got me thinking about the movie after all..). But I don't feel there's much ambiguity about her (or her ill-cast husband). They're both essentially alien-human hybrids, no? She was already mutating before encountering her clone in the lighthouse, and we know the returned Kane is his clone ... I guess I do kind of wonder now why her clone burnt everything down ... hmmm ... OK, there's a question I suppose ... Gak...

Phosphorous burns like a bitch. I didn't assume it was deliberate.

Thanks all for helping me decide to wait for streaming on this one.

 Azreal13 wrote:
The transfer of the forearm tattoo and the implications being one I noticed too late to unpick.

I'll admit,

 Lance845 wrote:
Ex machina had a pretencious character IN it. But the movie itself was justva pretty good ai movie.

Yeah, I thought Ex Machina was a terrific movie. The ending was terrific.

 Ouze wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
The transfer of the forearm tattoo and the implications being one I noticed too late to unpick.

I'll admit,

Spoiler:

I noticed the forearm tattoo wasn't present earlier in the movie but inexplicably was later, but I didn't understand the significance until you posted this.

edit: never mind

I liked it enough to buy the books. They're very different, but equally good.

If I had to summarise the whole thing, it would be the word "transition". It's like all those surrealist paintings by Rene Magritte of things becoming other things, changing and twisting. Can a mountain shaped like an eagle ever become one? Is it still just a mountain?

I mean, the answers in the real world are obviously "no" and "yes" respectively, but the film makes it about the individuals - what do you lose, and what do you gain by the becoming of something, or someone else?



I'm nor sure that pure ambiguity is the aim of the film or books - I think there's a deliberate attempt to show our complete incomprehension of the situation, and a desire to spark some kind of reaction. I can see why it went straight to Netflix - I think standing up and thinking "WTF did I just watch" was meant to be part of the reaction, adn I'm not sure how well it would have gone down.

Or I could be talking gak. Definitely worth reading the books and seeing the film though.

This thread has actually moved me from being hugely disappointed to somewhat re-intrigued (as well as caused me to think I really am thicker than I already suspected anyway ...).

Will be giving it a thorough re-watch!

This movie has been being advertised on my facebook feed for weeks. I'm sure most of you saw the trailer. Honestly the movie looks like crap - I think a lot of people thought the same so they decided to sell out to prevent getting smashed at the box (which was sure to happen). I really like Portman also - shes probably my favorite actress. This just isn't a good fit for her.

This is really a great sign though - netflix starts doing more of this - I might never have to go to the movies again.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 War Drone wrote:
This thread has actually moved me from being hugely disappointed to somewhat re-intrigued (as well as caused me to think I really am thicker than I already suspected anyway ...).

Will be giving it a thorough re-watch!

I wouldn't be re-intrigued for that reason. They said the same thing about Cloud Atlas but it was actually the worst movie in history.

 War Drone wrote:
This thread has actually moved me from being hugely disappointed to somewhat re-intrigued (as well as caused me to think I really am thicker than I already suspected anyway ...).

Will be giving it a thorough re-watch!

Well I think we all feel that way I still have no idea what the last, trippy half hour of the film was about (more annihilation?), or the mimicry of the humans (nature adapting, fitting in?).

"Transition zone" gets mentioned a lot in the book, so I figured that was figurative as well as a literal description of coastal marshland, but there's also a ton of stuff that isn't in the film and is deeply, deeply weird and creepy.

The Magritte thing hit me today - as I say, I could be talking rubbish.

I noticed the tattoo right at the end - I'll need to watch it again as well!

Yeah, I only noticed the tattoo very late, too.

And Azreal didn't think the clone burning it all down did so deliberately, I thought it looked very deliberate, so I wanna watch that again for sure. (I wonder if that self-destruction stuff that was mentioned by the lead-doctor was something Portman's char transferred to her clone?)

Enjoyable film, nothing really new but nicely put together and paced, it did remnd me of some other novels - am sure the Nano Flower is a bit like this - need to re read it.

Professional reviewers seem to like the film.

No interest in what they think or say. I watch a film to make my own mind up.

I would say the books are worth reading if the film intrigued anyone.

The second one has parts that reminded me of Catch-22.

Saw it. Loved it.

Very different from the book in parts, but that doesn't bother me as much as it normally does; I think it comes down to the fact that it held strongly to the eerie, otherworldly feeling that pervaded the novel. That held up really well.

Probably going to have to use some of the more gruesome bits for Only War or Dark Heresy inspiration sometime...