» Click to show Spoiler - click again to hide... «
QUOTE(QuickFire @ Feb 7 2017, 07:08 PM)
I don't think there was much to spoon feed. The movie is a skeletal remains of ideas, with no flesh around those ideas. Every idea is either poorly developed, or not brought to an adequately fleshed out conclusion. The non-linear time perception feels tacked on to the ending, and then retrospectively sprinkled throughout the film to make it artificially appear that it was foretold and developed.
The climax to the most conventional part of the story -- the government's reaction to the aliens -- is laughable. Are we really to believe that the entire decision for China not to attack the alien hinges on a random call from the US repeating the words of a dying wife from a deathbed? Would the first reaction really be "hey, this US woman knows the words of my dying wife, so we definitely should not attack the aliens", or would be more likely be "I can't believe the US dared to spy even on our deathbeds!". The whole global politics presented was terribly shallow.
For the first 2/3 of the movie I was wondering about the purpose of Renner's character, because he was so utterly useless. There was some sprinkling of hints that he fancied Adams, and through that I knew that he would be something important by the end. But it doesn't excuse the fact that his presence was so underwhelming for most of the film.
Wanna quickly write something before 'consulting' IMDB ...
Although I have similar "That's it?" feeling by the end of the movie, during the credit I ponder back and compared it to movies like Contact rather than Interstellar....and do agree that Arrival is an elegant piece of film.
I'll throw my 2cents here ... Arrival is a sci-fi movie, but for me it got religious theme as well.
In Contact, the main point is personal experience being categorized as faith, either in science or religion.
In Arrival, the main point for me is the transcendence of human beings' brain from within.
In Contact, maths is the universal language, and the first contact isn't the prime-mover/God, but just a fellow star-traveller race which uses human appearance coz we can't perceive their metaphysical nature yet (here, a lot of viewers were disappointed, but I equate it to religion too; our senses can't comprehend the nature of God yet until heaven/nirvana/etc.).
In Arrival, we're learning a higher visual language which could make us godlike, making time just another dimension which we could perceive non-linearly ... which lead to another point in the movie, would we change things if we knew the outcome? Arrival didn't touch on universal what-ifs, just personal experience such as having a child. Here, I relate this to religion again, afaik, Christians believe that time for God isn't linear.
Both Contact and Arrival got sub-plot of someone trying to sabotage the whole thing.
Asides from the emotional feel of the film which I guess resonates with most critics, the theoretical aspects are quite solid as well ... linguists and linguistic engineers must have been trying to prod for errors, and based on the theory mentioned in Arrival stating that our brain could be re-wired through forms of languages, I guess they're wondering if there exist a language which could unify the whole race of humanities and at the same time evolve us into a 'higher' being.
Film technicalities ... I like the low-rumbling sound mixing ... the editing is nicely paced for me as well, not too slow, not too frantic.
Now, I wanna know .... does the name Hannah and its palindrome nature can be applied to the film Arrival itself? Can the film be viewed from the end to the beginning like Memento? (I would like also to read, if any, Christopher Nolan's opinion on Dennis Villeneuve's take on this theoretical work). What's with the 3,000 years in the future aid? Important or just a sequel device? (Where are you, Another District 9??).
Anyway, with my liking of Prisoners and Sicario, I'm really looking forward to Blade Runner 2049.