>2001 Space Odyssey meets Apocalypse Now meets Eastern mysticism
Is this THE great sci-fi film of the 21st century?!
Fugging incredible work.
>2001 Space Odyssey meets Apocalypse Now meets Eastern mysticism
>2001 Space Odyssey meets Apocalypse Now meets Eastern mysticism
Is this THE great sci-fi film of the 21st century?!
Fugging incredible work.
It was mid and your a pseud for fawning over it
its only mid if you are a fricking intellectual troglodyte. i mean it takes a while to build into it but thats part of the beauty, masquerading as a mid- action film when really it is an intellectual tour de force with some peak special effects and cinematography
Can you explain what the message was then? I guess I am a moron because it seemed like an average scifi flick. If this is a masterpiece than ad astra is too
it was exploring eastern mysticism... moshka, extinction, nirvana, annihilation
it was exploring the concept that self is everywhere, no boundaries. at the same time self is nowhere (the buddhist inversion of brahmic philosophy which is essentially the same thing from xifferent perspective)
the refractions of the dna expressed very well the loss of boundaries as creature identities and life forms meld with each other. you and everything else. the huntes and the hunter. the mirroring dance.
there are no explicit boundaries so much to say at the end
when the dude asks
"are you lena?"
she doesnt answer because
THERE IS NO FACT OF THE MATTER
she cannot know
does not know
there is no fact of it.
she has melded with the universe
which in itself is not a self... it goes toward something mindlessly like a robot. no goal. it just does. the entropic forces of the universe dissipating. driving to annihilation in its swallowing up of everything
and then you see life and death are the same thing
note oscar isaacs character immolating in the buddhist meditation position like enlightenmwnt sitting side by side with the black hole on the otherside of the room (in the lighthouse)
the fricking juxtoposition of life and death
self and no self
its the fricking same thing
thats what the movie is about.
>le cool visuals
You're probably a woman.
It's the best Predator movie we could hope for. The women get offed one by one and are grossely incompetent. On top of that you get the ambiguous ending. I liked it.
Challenge me on how it is not a spiritual succesor to 'Predator'. It came out when 'Woke' was in full swing without being obnoxious. Netflix movie to boot.
No one cares about your shit opinion.
The sound was amazing too. It got a theatrical release in Canada iirc.
>Predator
>Philip K. Dick
>The Thing
there is no reason why PrepHole shouldn't like it.
It has nothing in common with Predator. Your convoluted arguments are moronic.
>DUDE BARBIE IS THE SPIRITUAL SUCCESSOR TO MOBY DICK BECAUSE THERE ARE MALE CHARACTERS IN BOTH!!!
>Elite team gets offed one by one by a foreign entity of which they know nothing about
>Machineguns, army shit
>body horror, jump scares
it has plenty in common with 'Predator'. You just don't like it because it has women. Ffs, they are even portrayed as moronic. Stick to 'Alien' and muh Sigourney Weaver you dumb chud.
The books are really great. The movie was dogshit. Had some decent visuals but fell way short of picturing the unexplainable cosmic voodoo that is described in the books.
uhh thats because
like any good sci fi film it actually isnt about sci fi shit. it doesnt matter if the fricking voodoo shit was unexplained or the plot unresolved
BECAUSE THATS NOT WHAT THE FILM IS ABOUT
its a fricking meditation on life and death, self and no self, the destruction of boundaries between things.
plotgays will be btfo by this film but that iant why its great
You like shit films mate. The films you are describing are the worst ones.
no you are just a brainless cretin kys
No, honestly the kind of movies you are describing are a waste of time and annoying as frick. You like shit films. Ever wondered why no one else seems to like them either?
whta kind of films you like watching? just brainless entertainment? marvel-gay bullshittery? i feel sorry for you. theres a time and a place. maybe save it for tv series. for actual works of art like film i prefer actual intellectually powerful abstract works. tv is the kind of thing i just put on when im eating a meal and i dont have to concentrate too much
>It's okay that they butchered the plot because the plot doesn't matter
Then make another film Black person. I watched it because it was advertised as an adaptation of the book, not because I was interested in Alex Garland's midwit intellectual jerkoff.
that's the worst garbage in the world. "it's [genre] but don't worry, not really! it's actually about loss or whatever! we ELEVATED it." then why didn't you just make/watch a drama about loss, you tard? rendering a bunch of cgi alien shit is the best way to talk about human emotions, really? the movie is two hours of footage of things it's NOT about? that's horseshit, you're just insecure about your own taste and want an excuse to engage with your genre shit and still feel like a grown-up. i'm reminded of something stanislav lem said about the novel solaris when the dumb clooney movie came out: that if he wanted it to be "actually" about love then he would have called it "love," he called it solaris because it actually IS about an alien entity called solaris. but all the morons always want it to be about something else
>"it's [genre] but don't worry, not really! it's actually about loss or whatever! we ELEVATED it."
But science fiction has never been about the "science" and that includes Lem's novel.
did i say it was?
Then how's Annihilation any different?
well, according to this thread annihilation is NOT about what's shown on screen but actually something else. according to lem, solaris is about exactly what's described on the page. that's the difference.
wtf are you talking about. great thing about sci fi is you can talk about philosophocal themes which cannot be described or explored effectively in everyday life. self and identity are things particularly well explored by supernatural elements and sci-fi. without those elements all you get is pretentious existential bullshit like camus or some shid which isnt actually about identity but is about some moany dude. in sci fi you can talk directly about identity. its why sci fi thought experiments feature prominently in the philosophy of identity
>its a fricking meditation on life and death, self and no self, the destruction of boundaries between things
okay, what did you learn about life and death, self and no self and the destruction of boundaries between things from the film "annihilation" starring natalie "remember when i was 12" hershlag
read the post above. its to you too.
Lmao
"My movie doesn't have to make sense well, because!"
Literally a woman.
I love it when pseudo intellectuals attempt to overanalyze trash media like this film, there's an entire israelitetube subculture that exists for this purpose.
It's literally just Roadside Picnic
Tarkovsky is an unrivalled filmmaker in his domain. Master of visual form. Buy not sure I am so into his philosophico-religious ramblings
>group goes to ayylmao land site
The similarities end there, big boy. Obviously Stalker is better but not everything has to be Tarkovsky to be good
Absolute shit. Don’t get memed. I have warned you.
Gay movie for dumb gays
>>2001 Space Odyssey meets israeli actress cucking her husband with a black man
I hate sci-fi horror.
What was the purpose of the interracial cheating scene?
it gave her extreme guilt to the point where she didn't care if she died
It was just okay with a few standout designs and scenes. Super weak characters and writing.
>character-homosexual
uhh ye your opinion is instantly invalid
It was great. PrepHole doesn't like it because they can't help self inserting as the cuck character
It was OK. Not something I'd go out of my way to rewatch but I liked it very much the first time around. I agree it's one of the best sci-fi movies in the past how many years, but that says more about the state of the genre, than about this one movie in particular.
keep all the monsters and the basic idea
get rid of the women, literally no women unless one of the soldiers is using one as a Fleshlight at the start before the mission
get rid of the diversity, obviously, unless you're doing a global team where the best of the best are sourced from different countries, and make sure they're roided-up good and proper,
I nominate Michael Ironside as one of the senior officers at home base who mentally prepares the men for their mission
you'd have yourself a big fricking hit, no problemo
>book gets adapted accurately
>AAAAAH NOOOO YOU HAVE TO SWITCH ALL THE CHARACTER GENDERS I'M BEING TRIGGERED
frick the book.
you're right sister, it was written by a white male
Way too many females in the film
You fricking pleb, it's literally a poor-man's Stalker.
its intellectual themes are better than stalker. as i said before tarkovsky was a great cinematician but his philosophical religious shit was rubbish because he was a christian
just fricking drivel
it can spund kinda poetic at times when the characters do monologues but tarkovsky has nothing worthwhile to say because he is a christian. christianity is bullshit homosexualry .
tarkovskys christian beliefs occlude and obfuscate what could be a very interesting intellectual message in stalker but he muddles it
because tarkovsky is obsessed wirh a return to christiaan ideals
and that is philosophical drivel, homosexualry
because the world isnt fricking christian. its utter chaos. we struggle through it aimlessly. there is no return. so tarkovsky most of the time is talking utter incomprehensible shit
there is still some good existential shit in stalker but tarkovsky ruins it himself.
stalker is best viewed as an atmospheric piece for its visuals
>2001 Space Odyssey meets Apocalypse Now
That's Ad Astra
Which was boring
Pitt's got some trash movies under his belt. Good thing he's pretty. He's just not good as a leading man.
hes a mediocre actor. his supporting actor oscar winning role was mediocre