what was the movie analyzation

what was the movie analyzation

Setting is a description of where and when the story takes place.

  • through dialogue?
  • by the way they speak?
  • physical appearance? thoughts and feelings?
  • interaction – the way they act towards other characters?
  • Are they static characters who do not change?
  • Do they develop by the end of the story?
  • What type of characters are they?
  • What qualities stand out?
  • Are they stereotypes?
  • Are the characters believable?

What was the movie analyzation
I want to ensure that my thoughts encourage readers to create a constructive discussion around the film, or help them decide whether or not the movie is for them. And hopefully, the audience will have as much fun reading my review as I did writing it.
I also try not to take many notes while I watch the movie—if you’re jotting down a long critique or opinion while watching the movie, you can miss brief, yet vital moments. I will however, write down a word or phrase that stands out so that I can recall scenes or story information that catch my attention and that I deem important. This will help later when I’m constructing my review—for brief summary recaps, breaking down the themes, and reflecting on the direction or acting.

What was the movie analyzation
Our eyes into this nightmare belong to Goreng (Ivan Massagué), who volunteered to enter the prison to quit smoking and read a book (everyone is allowed one item), without fully understanding what he was in for. His first cellmate explains the process of The Hole to Goreng as the film opens on level 48. By that time, there are usually some leftovers on the platform. But the evilest part of this system, and arguably the film’s most clever societal insight, is that inmates change floors every month. So you could be relatively happy on 8 one day and then on 133 the next day. And if you’re wondering how these people survive when they’re on the lower floors, you might not be ready for the grisly place this movie goes.
It’s interesting to consider how the TIFF Midnight Audience Award winner “The Platform” would have tracked a decade ago. It would have had a limited theatrical release, gaining a cult following in midnight screenings around the world before really catching fire on DVD as a word-of-mouth genre hit. All of those steps are gone in 2020, and it’s now on Netflix for millions of people to watch this weekend. Of course, access to good films—and this is a good film—is what matters, especially during a quarantine, but I wonder if it will get the same traction as it’s buried on an overcrowded service as it would have if people had passed it along the old-fashioned way. Seek it out. Tell your friends. It’s worth a look.

What was the movie analyzation
If you’re wondering how much has been spoiled at this point in the review, the answer is almost nothing. “Annihilation” really becomes itself once the team crosses that threshold into the woods, a fascinating setting for a sci-fi flick that reveals itself slowly. This is not an alien planet, and yet there’s a sense of danger and some sort of biological aberration within these woods. Garland reveals just enough at every turn to keep us confused but also in the moment with Lena and the crew. It’s a film that balances disorientation with the grounded performances of its cast, who keep us engaged in each interaction, believing the danger as it unfolds. “Annihilation” could have easily become campy or silly. If I described some of its scarier scenes, you might laugh, but Garland finds a way to make the insanity work, and watching that balancing act can be invigorating.
“Annihilation” is an exercise in maintaining tone and keeping the action of the piece relatable enough so that it doesn’t spin off into something easily dismissible. Cinematographer Rob Hardy, who also shot “Ex Machina,” works with Garland to use the natural world as effectively as the pair used those sleek lines and reflections of the lab in their previous film. And the sound design, especially in the climax, is spectacular, keeping us disoriented and frightened with atonal noises that almost sound like they’re turning in on themselves. Most of all, the artistic success of “Annihilation” comes down to the way Garland metes out information visually. He’ll often show us one thing and then subvert it with the next image, which is an ambitious but perfect way to tell a story about duality and corruption. There’s also a centerpiece scene involving an attack at night that’s straight-up one of the most terrifying things I’ve ever seen in terms of design and direction. It reminded me of the first time it’s clear that everyone is probably going to die in John Carpenter’s “The Thing.”

What was the movie analyzation
[With Annihilation now available on Hulu, we’ve decided to repost this article.]
Once Lena and the team are inside the Shimmer, they start noticing mutations, and those mutations stand in for the cancer (the tumor at the heart of the Shimmer) affecting other cells. Garland is basically taking a biological phenomenon and staging something similar to Fantastic Voyage, except instead of the scientists shrinking down to go inside someone’s body, the body they’re investigating is the Earth. Everything gets messed up because of mutations, and as Radek later explains to the group, they’re basically inside of a prism, so everything is refracting. Minds, bodies—everything gets screwed up because that’s what cancer does to a healthy body.



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *