This movie truly was overrated tripe.
-
Pequod88 — 9 years ago(January 31, 2017 12:35 PM)
Arrival seems to have disappointed those expecting a typical sci-fi genre exercise. The film is so much richer than this. The complexities of language, non-linear perception of time, and loving in the face of certain loss and heartache are handled deftly and with nuance. This kind of storytelling is all too rare in mainstream cinema. The novella is adapted for film with very little sacrificed, much gained. Amy Adams, always good, is a revelation here.
The creative use of time is at the heart of the successful adaptation. I recommend David Bordwell's thoughtful piece on Arrival, and larger issues of chronology and storytelling:
http://www.davidbordwell.net/blog/2016/11/23/arrival-when-is-now/
Arrival is absolutely one of the best films of the year. -
kenny-164 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 07:00 AM)
Pequod,
I agree.
Part of the problem is the way the whole industry has to deal with the marketing of these films. They want to draw in people who they think by (especially in the trailer) pushing buttons of expectations that that will lead them to go to the Cineplex and lay out their money.
So some of those people, people who prefer a more conventional sci-fi genre film, do go and are not pleasantly surprised but are disappointed. And then some of those people come here to complain that Arrival did not meet their expectations of what the film "should" have been about.
I get all that. But I would prefer that those people would be more open minded and not insist that films adhere to tight genre conventionalities. -
kenny-164 — 9 years ago(February 01, 2017 07:05 AM)
I plead innocent to being arrogant. I am instead tired of negative trolls posting here how the film failed to live up to their expectations. that some film that on its merits is a very good film nonetheless failed to meet such expectations is hardly a valid indictment of the film itself.
I totally understand the problem of misleading marketing of films, but Arrival is hardly the first film to be so accused. Maybe read a review or do something other than rely on the studio's marketing to decide what to see.
Or enjoy the film for what it is rather than complaining about how it did not accord with your expectations.
And to say what I said is false is itself a lie. I accurately characterized the OP's objections, as he himself confirmed in his very revealing response. -
itziktamar — 9 years ago(February 04, 2017 01:34 PM)
This is a brilliant post, captures the movie perfectly.
For me it was a 6/10. The concept is quite cool but the delivery and character choices were so very terrible and mind numbingly slow. You know a movie is done wrong when you find yourself staring at a screen for 15 seconds waiting for the image to change.
Also, sticking the shells in every poster and trailer and then keeping as a "surprise" in the begining of the movie was so stupid We know what it looks like, move on please.
Move on please should actually be motto for this movie. -
MechanicalWhispers — 9 years ago(February 05, 2017 08:56 AM)
I would agree, only so much as to say that the movie wasn't even a 6/10. Maybe a 4.5. It had some nice visuals, but felt extremely empty. And I love slow movies. But the movie still has to be intelligent and purposeful in its slowness. Characters lacked depth and didn't really make me care what happened to them. I also love how lax the security is around the ship. Anyone seems to be able to casually visit at any time. This movie was light years away from having the substance, impact, and emotional depth of "Contact". In fact, it made me want to watch "Contact" immediately after, just to feel like I didn't waste my entire evening on something so banal as "Arrival".