A biologist's husband disappears. She puts her name forward for an expedition into an environmental disaster zone, but does not find what she's expecting. The expedition team is made up of the biologist, an anthropologist, a psychologist, a surveyor, and a linguist.
This film was based on the first book in the "Southern Reach" trilogy. See more »
This one is a character error and also a continuity error. During a scene outside the village house where in a previous scene a bear had attacked the group, Natalie Portman and one of the crew members are talking together. The crew member is supposed to have damaged arms from self inflicted wounds and thus wearing long sleeves all the time, but in this scene she has her arms revealed and they are clean of injury. In the next scene, the wounds are rendered and flowers are blooming out of them. See more »
What did you eat? You had rations for two weeks. You were inside for nearly four months.
I don't remember eating.
How long did you think you were inside?
Days. Maybe weeks.
What happened to Josie Radek?
...I don't know.
What about Sheppard? Thorensen?
[...] See more »
After watching this film I read the reviews voted "most helpful," which all were long lists of plot holes and logical inconsistencies. They are absolutely right. I didn't think about it while watching the film, but when it's pointed out, yeah, nothing in this movie makes much sense.
But I still really liked it. It's creepy and atmospheric and more concerned with the psychology of people on a suicide mission than on the nuts and bolts of scientific investigation. It's often intense , usually beautiful, well acted, and had some really weird and mesmerizing moments.
I won't argue that you should forgive it for its plot holes, or that it has any deep meaning, or anything like that. In fact, it's probably easier to make a convincing argument against the movie than for it. I'm just saying, I really liked it.
492 of 646 people found this review helpful.
Was this review helpful to you?
| Report this