Alex Garland’s bravura sci-fi horror failed to draw in viewers in 2018. Did audiences and execs fight shy of its ambition?
Why it was a good idea (on paper)
From Marvel alumni to mutant bears, Alex Garland’s loose adaptation of Jeff VanderMeer’s 2014 novel spliced audience appeal with arthouse ambition. A star-powered female ensemble (Natalie Portman, Tessa Thompson, Jennifer Jason Leigh and more), hard sci-fi ideas, hairy horror: here was a high-concept, mid-budget genre piece with brains.
What went wrong?
Too brainy for some. Some of the tension over Annihilation centred on disputes between Skydance Media exec David Ellison and producer Scott Rudin over changes following poor test screenings. The way Garland tells it, Ellison wanted Portman’s biologist, Lena, to be less self-destructive, a shift that would alter the film’s thematic thrust. Ellison also thought the final alien/Portman dance was, quoting Garland, ‘too weird’. Rudin/Garland wouldn’t budge, so Paramount released at cinemas in the US, Canada and China but relegated the film to Netflix elsewhere. Perhaps Paramount were cautious after earlier sci-fi letdowns (Star Trek Beyond, Ghost in the Shell) and ambitious auteur gambits (Aronofsky’s inferior Mother!). Perhaps a depressing lack of faith in female-fronted genre pieces factored in. Either way, whether this vote of low studio confidence dented its returns or not, Garland’s Ex Machina follow-up under-performed at theatres. Annihilation ‘shimmered’ for most viewers at home, locking Paramount and audiences in a dance of minimised risk.
Redeeming feature
A psychedelic fantasy brimming with ideas about evolution and the pull of danger, Annihilation ranks among the headiest modern sci-fis. Portman is ace and Ben Salisbury/ Geoff Barrow’s shuddering score rules.
What happened next?
Garland embraced TV with Devs, before stoking debate in cinemas with Civil War. He’s now talking retirement: can you blame him?
Should it be remade?
Nobody needs a doppelgänger of a great movie, but it’s notable tha
