Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Movie of the year material. I wouldn't say it is my favorite science fiction film just yet...mainly because I have a soft spot for Blade Runner (which I think did a good job with AI), and Ex Machina (another AI film), but I think it handled a first contact scenario better than any film I've seen.

The strength of the film is also its weakness. It focuses entirely on what the source material (Story of Your Life), the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (short version: language dictates perception, and that time is nonlinear. The two ideas go hand in hand.

The problem (from the 10~ negative reviews I read) is that this idea is going massively over people's heads. This is the first time I've ever agreed with the sentiment, if you didn't like it, you didn't get it.

There is zero action in the film. It's not about action. It's not even really about aliens. It is about language and the perception of time.

Sadly, it will not be appreciated for a few reasons.

1) Slow, no action
2) It is too cerebral (aka boring)
3) It has been decried as anti-abortion (a stretch, but if you watch the film you'll see it)

Ta.


have heard mixed reviews but certainly looks interesting.

I didn't like it, and I'm pretty sure it's not because I was too stupid to understand the premise. Of course, if I was, I suppose I wouldn't know it.

I hoped for an interesting sci-fi movie, and what I got was a sad drama with sci-fi window dressing, like The Fountain.

reds8n wrote: Ta.


have heard mixed reviews but certainly looks interesting.

I don't know how 90+% on RT and 8.0+/10 qualifies as mixed, but okay?

Ouze wrote:I didn't like it, and I'm pretty sure it's not because I was too stupid to understand the premise. Of course, if I was, I suppose I wouldn't know it.

I hoped for an interesting sci-fi movie, and what I got was a sad drama with sci-fi window dressing, like The Fountain.

You know, you could have read the source material instead of going in completely blind. Could you explain the premise? I haven't see a single review that didn't like it actually manage to explain the premise.

 trexmeyer wrote:
You know, you could have read the source material instead of going in completely blind.

In my experience good movies stand on their own without requiring one to do pre-work. The argument it's movie of the year but requires you to read the short story that inspired it beforehand is... iffy.

I try to avoid even watching too many trailers if it's a movie I'm excited for so I can go in fresh.

 Ouze wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
You know, you could have read the source material instead of going in completely blind.

In my experience good movies stand on their own without requiring one to do pre-work. The argument it's movie of the year but requires you to read the short story that inspired it beforehand is... iffy.

I try to avoid even watching too many trailers if it's a movie I'm excited for so I can go in fresh.

Agree with these statements completely - if the movie fails to get its point across because it needs you to some 'outside the movie' pre-work/homework, well, that's really more on the movie itself.

I also try to avoid most trailers these days as they really do tend to give away too much of the overall story.

This one looks like it is a 'must see eventually but probably not in the theater' special - and that's OK too.

 Alpharius wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:
You know, you could have read the source material instead of going in completely blind.

In my experience good movies stand on their own without requiring one to do pre-work. The argument it's movie of the year but requires you to read the short story that inspired it beforehand is... iffy.

I try to avoid even watching too many trailers if it's a movie I'm excited for so I can go in fresh.

Agree with these statements completely - if the movie fails to get its point across because it needs you to some 'outside the movie' pre-work/homework, well, that's really more on the movie itself.

I also try to avoid most trailers these days as they really do tend to give away too much of the overall story.

This one looks like it is a 'must see eventually but probably not in the theater' special - and that's OK too.

I respectfully disagree. Having prior knowledge of source material is extremely useful for pretty much any "complicated" movie adaption, i.e. LotR, Narnia, Harry Potter, MCU, DC films, etc.

Having prior knowledge of the material for Arrival lent itself to a different experience than going into it blind. Based on the comments I've read, many people enjoyed going into it blind, but quite a few people that didn't care for the film, didn't get it, and asked a lot of questions about the film that seemed obvious to me.

I've seen a couple of negative reviews that I can agree with. As I said in the OP, the film's pacing, exposition (dialed way back from Story of Your Life), colorization, and lack of character development outside of the lead are going to hurt it. Those are genuine issues with the film.

I've seen a couple comments saying it is stupid because

I loved it. This was the antidote to that crappy Independence Day movie that I sorely needed.

The acting was excellent, as was the writing. At least one reviewer thinks Amy Adams will get nominated for best actress from this.

Plus The Whittaker with...a New Jersey accent.

And the soundtrack! It was 2001 level awesome.




Also side bit, but one of the last images where trucks are rolling up but then some tanks come...literally cruising through the field next to them and outrun them was sneakily cool.

I had no idea this was based on any existing source material, let alone that it's "required reading" before seeing the movie.

Thanks for the heads up.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I had no idea this was based on any existing source material, let alone that it's "required reading" before seeing the movie.

Thanks for the heads up.

Its not required reading. I had no clue about it until the credits.

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I had no idea this was based on any existing source material, let alone that it's "required reading" before seeing the movie.

Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah, if this requires reading, I'll take a pass. This is a movie, it's not supposed to have homework.

Seriously though, movies should be able to stand on their own merit without people knowing the source material. Knowing the source material should only matter for easter eggs or teasers like in the MCU movies.

Forest Whitaker was terrific, but that's like saying water's wet.

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I had no idea this was based on any existing source material, let alone that it's "required reading" before seeing the movie.

Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah, if this requires reading, I'll take a pass. This is a movie, it's not supposed to have homework.

Seriously though, movies should be able to stand on their own merit without people knowing the source material. Knowing the source material should only matter for easter eggs or teasers like in the MCU movies.

As stated its not. I've heard of the story.

Looks neato. I'll wait for HBO to get it.

Meh, the trailer ruined it for me. I might watch it at some point if it ends up on Netflix.

 Frazzled wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 Nostromodamus wrote:
I had no idea this was based on any existing source material, let alone that it's "required reading" before seeing the movie.

Thanks for the heads up.

Yeah, if this requires reading, I'll take a pass. This is a movie, it's not supposed to have homework.

Seriously though, movies should be able to stand on their own merit without people knowing the source material. Knowing the source material should only matter for easter eggs or teasers like in the MCU movies.

As stated its not. I've heard of the story.

I believe it now!

Prestor Jon wrote:
Meh, the trailer ruined it for me. I might watch it at some point if it ends up on Netflix.

How so?

I've been thinking about this since it was posted.

In the interest of fairness I feel like I should probably mention that I may have had subconscious reasons for not liking the movie - I can't really get into the details without a lot of spoilers, but one of the characters has a backstory that pushes a lot of unpleasant buttons from my own personal history I wish had remained unpressed. I suppose it's hard to enjoy a movie that reminds you of the worst parts of your life regardless of how good the movie is on it's merits.

Anyway TLDR the fact I didn't like it doesn't mean someone shouldn't go see it on my advice. I didn't like it, but it wasn't a stinker to avoid either like Batman vs Superman or Independence Day: Resurgence, which are just legitimately gakky movies.

 Ouze wrote:
Batman vs Superman

You shut up!

The Sons of Marthas was a great concept for a movie!

I don't think you need pre-work for this movie, so don't let that put you off. Thoroughly enjoyed the movie without having read the short story or knowing what it was about beyond it being to do with first contact.

I will say though that if you have read any (proper) sci-fi in the past that will put you in a better stead for understanding what's going on, just in that it will allow you to think a little bit 'outside of the box'

Frazzled wrote:And the soundtrack! It was 2001 level awesome.

It was brilliant wasn't it. Also worth watching the director's other film, Sicario, which I believe had the same people working on the sound. On home release now so I'd recommend a decent (and base-y) home cinema system.

The strength of the film is also its weakness. It focuses entirely on what the source material (Story of Your Life), the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis (short version: language dictates perception, and that time is nonlinear. The two ideas go hand in hand.

 trexmeyer wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Meh, the trailer ruined it for me. I might watch it at some point if it ends up on Netflix.

How so?

The belief of the protagonist the tools =/= weapons. The knife is one of the oldest tools known to humanity dating back to Neolithic times and it is both a tool and a weapon. Every weapon is a tool and most tools can be used as weapons. The kind of politicized semantic gamesmanship portrayed by such faulty reasoning turned me off from the movie because it implies a certain underlying current of political thought runs through the movie.

Army bad! Scientist good! That sort of thing?

Like that movie with Rain Man and the President from Deep Impact and the President from House of Cards and the President from Hunger Games with the reeceses monkey and the disease?

Prestor Jon wrote:

 trexmeyer wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:
Meh, the trailer ruined it for me. I might watch it at some point if it ends up on Netflix.

How so?

The belief of the protagonist the tools =/= weapons. The knife is one of the oldest tools known to humanity dating back to Neolithic times and it is both a tool and a weapon. Every weapon is a tool and most tools can be used as weapons. The kind of politicized semantic gamesmanship portrayed by such faulty reasoning turned me off from the movie because it implies a certain underlying current of political thought runs through the movie.

I think instead you need to view as a study of society and how human beings of different 'groups' are inherently un-trusting of one anothers motivations. What the aliens were saying and the reaction by the human beings said something about how we are, which I think was the point (rather than it being something that was politically motivated off towards one political tangent or another). At least that was how I took it.

It was brilliant wasn't it. Also worth watching the director's other film, Sicario, which I believe had the same people working on the sound. On home release now so I'd recommend a decent (and base-y) home cinema system.

Indeed. Sicario's soundtrack was as disturbing as it was striking.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:
Army bad! Scientist good! That sort of thing?

Like that movie with Rain Man and the President from Deep Impact and the President from House of Cards and the President from Hunger Games with the reeceses monkey and the disease?

No

 Ouze wrote:
I've been thinking about this since it was posted.

In the interest of fairness I feel like I should probably mention that I may have had subconscious reasons for not liking the movie - I can't really get into the details without a lot of spoilers, but one of the characters has a backstory that pushes a lot of unpleasant buttons from my own personal history I wish had remained unpressed. I suppose it's hard to enjoy a movie that reminds you of the worst parts of your life regardless of how good the movie is on it's merits.

Anyway TLDR the fact I didn't like it doesn't mean someone shouldn't go see it on my advice. I didn't like it, but it wasn't a stinker to avoid either like Batman vs Superman or Independence Day: Resurgence, which are just legitimately gakky movies.

Would you be willing to put in spoilers what bothered you? I am thinking of taking my wife to see this movie, but certain things can ...trigger her. For example, the first ten minutes of Up had her sobbing for days and we will never see that movie again. I'd like to avoid that happening again.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
I've been thinking about this since it was posted.

In the interest of fairness I feel like I should probably mention that I may have had subconscious reasons for not liking the movie - I can't really get into the details without a lot of spoilers, but one of the characters has a backstory that pushes a lot of unpleasant buttons from my own personal history I wish had remained unpressed. I suppose it's hard to enjoy a movie that reminds you of the worst parts of your life regardless of how good the movie is on it's merits.

Anyway TLDR the fact I didn't like it doesn't mean someone shouldn't go see it on my advice. I didn't like it, but it wasn't a stinker to avoid either like Batman vs Superman or Independence Day: Resurgence, which are just legitimately gakky movies.

Would you be willing to put in spoilers what bothered you? I am thinking of taking my wife to see this movie, but certain things can ...trigger her. For example, the first ten minutes of Up had her sobbing for days and we will never see that movie again. I'd like to avoid that happening again.

 Ouze wrote:
...Independence Day: Resurgence...

It was worth the 3.00 USD I paid to rent it on DISH.

Would you be willing to put in spoilers what bothered you? I am thinking of taking my wife to see this movie, but certain things can ...trigger her. For example, the first ten minutes of Up had her sobbing for days and we will never see that movie again. I'd like to avoid that happening again.

The Wife and daughter literally forbid me from seeing UP, likely for similar reasons.

Thanks for the heads-up, Trex.

Okay, some one please put in spoilers for me what's triggering about Up.