You pretty much hit the nail on the head here. Anyone who disagrees is either a fanboy or hasn't watched the movie.

Agreed.very good movie but I needed a stronger climax for it to linger longer in the minds. Mind you I had not read the book. To me it was a bit similar to Sicario - very good movie but still lacking some thing unlike say the director's 'Prisoners' which was a brilliant one.

yeah ok, agreed, the movie is quite enjoyable if not taken too seriously, and despite its flaws I would recommend it. I just get frustrated that the society of critics gets so excited about this type of movie and write incredibly overblown praise for it, so that I go to the movie with such high expectations. I liked it, but it's not worth the 90%+ on Rotten Tomatoes, I'd give it 7/10, that's with a plus point for the lead performance, and a minus point for slight pretentiousness and flaky science.
5 people liked this comment

I appreciate your response.
Let me go here;

1. It's "simplistic" because it's a movie. Can we agree on that?
2. I'm sure you understand that the true nature of time is little understood by science. Every schoolchild knows about Einstein's theory of relativity, how our perception of time can be speeded up or slowed down depending on how it is observed. Time may not be "non-linear" but our perception of it may not be what we assume it is.
   Anyway, it's not a scientific dissertation, it's a movie. It's entertaining to play with wild theories like this in film.

Imagine that.

It sounds like you had some assumptions about what a sci-fi movie should be "about" and this failed to confirm your assumptions.
I can allow for some flakiness in the science if it's not THE WHOLE PLOT of the movie, but in this case they might as well just have used a deus ex machina and have the Aliens give Louise a magic crystal ball. The technical explanations of language structure and time are fine, but to make the jump into non-science (ie nonsense) and suppose that her brain can be altered by the "universal language" to see into the future is too silly, and has no basis in any known physics.
Furthermore, such a simplistic depiction of non-linear time requires a completely deterministic block-universe, with no free-will, and thus paints a depressing pointless picture of humanity in the universe - everything that will ever happen is already determined and can not be changed.
5 people liked this comment

It sounds like you had some assumptions about what a sci-fi movie should be "about" and this failed to confirm your assumptions.

Imagine that.

Yes you are right. They do try to make it as real as possible. But still not real.
And no ones review will tell if you like something or not, not matter how it's written. I like some actions films and some not. Some mystery films and some not and sci if films and some not, some comedies and some not. Anyone who says right, the film has action ISPs so does like it and the has no action there I like seems pretty simple to me

7)this is a fictional universe. It's how it works in this fictional universe. It's not a documentary or physics paper. You might aswel go to a marvel comic forum and tell them Stan lee is wrong about spider man, he can't spin webs and climb walls, becuase human's can't do it
That argument fails. Every universe has to have rules and a consistent logic. In this case, they try to make it as realistic as possible, so that the normal rules of our world apply. Obviously, it's aliens, but the idea is how such an interaction
could
play out. They're using actual real-world people and ideas to explain a concept, so it's fair to criticize that concept according to the physics of our actual world.
Learn a lesson from it too, stop reading movie reviews. I haven't read one in 20 years. Al they are is some other person's opinion on a subjective piece of art. In the scheme of you enjoying rhe movie or not, it means zilch.
Hopefully this person won't learn that lesson, as it's a terrible one. If not reading reviews works for you, great. I'm glad you found something that works. But reviews offer a good resource for people who understand what they are and how they should be used. They are commentaries on movies by people who are knowledgeable in that area. The most important concept in using reviews is looking at why they're good or bad. I'll use an example:
Movie X is an action movie. You want to see it because it looks like it will have good action, even though it might be lacking in plot, acting and characterization. Reviews are generally terrible. It gets a 25% on Rotten Tomatoes. But looking at the reviews, you realize they mostly say it had great action, but it failed at plot and acting.
Since the one thing they said was good about it is the one reason you wanted to see it, you go see it and like it.
Most critics realize why a movie was made and for whom, and they address that in the review. Reviews for Twilight generally acknowledged it was a teen movie and will probably appeal to its target audience, for instance. In Movie X's case, they might even point out that it's entertaining enough if all you want is some good action. But the reviewer still has to judge it based on the usual standards for movies.
Then again, I have two little kids, and so have very little time to see movies. I have to pick and choose carefully, so I need a resource that helps me determine with some degree of certainty which movies are worth my time.

Somethings u need clarified.
1)Chinese don't want to attack for that reason, they want to attack becuase they misunderstood their message. They thought 12 become 1 and use weapon meant we want you idiots that can't get along to fight one another to death for our entertainment and the Chinese didn't want that
2)it does not break the laws of physics. I this fictional universe the laws physics are different. In this universe there is no time. Heptopods process things simultaneously And infinately, huamns process this sequentially and finitely. We confuse the sequential processing as time. When really there is no time in this universe. she can't see the future as their is no future. She has memories of what's always happened for enternity. Heptopod's are gallileo and capernicus, they come along and show the churches (human's) view of existence is wrong.
3)you misunderstand the point of the child bit. All the emotional stuff was removed from the book for the film, it's quite possibly the least emotional film I've ever seen of its kind. The point of the child is to show the mother can't decide to not have a baby, she's already had a baby. Nothing she can do to change it
4) the women is not magic. She writes a book on the language and teach it in class. Eveventuall epthe whole of humanity will see the universe exactly like an heptopod. Everyone will have access to their omnicient and omnipresent self in their exitence experience.
5) how can the movie or its makers think this concept is original? it's based on a story that was wrote approximately 15 years before it..
6) Murphy's law applies here. Everything that can happen, will happen, as already happened and will always happen, infinitely so.p
7)this is a fictional universe. It's how it works in this fictional universe. It's not a documentary or physics paper. You might aswel go to a marvel comic forum and tell them Stan lee is wrong about spider man, he can't spin webs and climb walls, becuase human's can't do it
Now I've set some stuff straight for, why don't you review it again, this time without all the emotional crap. Learn a lesson from it too, stop reading movie reviews. I haven't read one in 20 years. Al they are is some other person's opinion on a subjective piece of art. In the scheme of you enjoying rhe movie or not, it means zilch.
You disliking it for what you've said so far is exactly the same as the Chinese wanting to attack the aliens.