Pretentious and predictable with annoying flshbacks that interrupt a straight story telling. And its really not that great of a story to begin with -- you know its going to be one of those gauzy anodyne kumbaya pieces of mush 15 minutes after the opening. There is no credibility to it. Go see War of the Worlds instead.
3
'Close Encounters of the Third Kind,best compares with this mysterious movie.Though,I believe Nothing will EVER compare to final landing scene of the 'MotherShip,in Close Encounters.
This was an intriguing film that Just barely missed the mark and that sadly may disappear in the same puff of smoke,in which the aliens Vanish...
If any earthling - or, for that matter, alien - can "communicate" the plot of this baffling, pretentious film to me, I'd be much obliged.
2
The reviewer, Manohla Dargis, seems not to have understood the movie, for the review has nothing pertinent to say about the interplay of themes and filmwork, about the personal struggles to deal with new perceptions through language and time, and the ethics of the choices which Louise makes.
9
I have seen this film 6 times. I loved it. This line from this review was bodacious: " Once she settles in, the movie gets its groove on. "
1
Of all the reviews of this movie which I have read, this one is the least savvy and the least insightful. The reviewer talks around the movie because she plainly does not understand it. Case in point: not a single mention of the way the film juggles time. The three opening shots--table with two wine glasses, newborn, small girl--all take place after the heptapods have left. Are they flashbacks or flash forwards? The reviewer need not answer such a question, only pose that the movie challenges us about the linearity of time and language (it matters that the girl's name is a palindrome, Hannah).
16
She certainly does address the time element, as in: "Mr. Chiang not only raises questions about the nature of reality and what it is to be human, but he also embeds them in his writing through different verb tenses and times. ... The movie — the script is by Eric Heisserer — does something similar.
2
If you thought this movie was mainly about aliens, you missed the point.
11
My son, speaking of our dog, said to me the other day "I can't imagine what thoughts he could have without the ability to use language."
Those people who say "Of course aliens could easily communicate with us!" have, obviously, never tried to speak dog.
This movie is about dogs learning to speak human.
Those people who say "Of course aliens could easily communicate with us!" have, obviously, never tried to speak dog.
This movie is about dogs learning to speak human.
3
The movie was boring and disappointing, with 2 intertwined storylines that are barely connected in obscure scenes. As noted in other comments, this is one of those alien movies where on the one hand the aliens are obviously super-intelligent and adept as opposed to us, and on the other hand there are issues and problems which arise that ought be relatively simple compared with all else they have accomplished. It is another wise aliens-silly and scared humans-important lessons movie ala The Day The Earth Stood Still. Hard to believe this was nominated as an Oscar-level film.
2
Like most movies, but particularly with the topics covered here, there are just inconsistencies. There were many in this one. E.g., don't tell me that creatures who with likely light speed travel and power over gravitation as these creatures do (I'll leave it at that so as not to spoil anything), can't avoid foreseeable dangers and can't manage to easily communicate with humans, if only with pictures. I read a good bit of a book in German a few weeks ago with Google translator, for crying out loud, and we are clearly not at their scientific level.
But, it doesn't matter. Like with relationships, movies are more about how they make you feel and we should all know about suspending disbelief. And this movie, while at times poignant, made me feel good and evoked a sense of wonder.
But, it doesn't matter. Like with relationships, movies are more about how they make you feel and we should all know about suspending disbelief. And this movie, while at times poignant, made me feel good and evoked a sense of wonder.
5
I think what you missed, David, is that it was not how well the aliens can understand and communicate with humans in OUR language, but in how and why humans need to understand and communicate in the language of the ALIENS. That language is the secret of the kind of advanced communication that humans would need to thrive into the future, and there was simply no way for the alien message to be communicated unless humans were encouraged to learn the alien's language. Doing that was the key to the whole enterprise in which the aliens were engaging humanity.
22
They understood everything we were doing and what humans wanted to in the rest of the world. They wanted humans to learn their language, since the language was the weapon. They always new our language. They were making sure we learned theirs. Of course, the story in the movie we are referring ;)
5
"And, as it revisits some of the uncertainties in “2001” — free will, extraterrestrials, God — it seems to turn inward instead of out. (It does both.)" What on earth does this mean?
2
It means that while Dr. Bank's (played by Ms. Adams) inner life and resolution of its inner conflicts figure strongly, they also reflect the outer life of humanity and the required resolution of its conflicts for humanity to survive and thrive into the future.
5
M. Villeneuve stole the "they need to see me" scene from Fred Scepisi's ICEMAN, where Timothy Hutton takes his mask off so that flash-frozen Neanderthal John Lone can see him.
Interesting movie, but ultimately it left me a bit flat. It was both too long and too short at the same time. Too much time spent on nothings while simultaneously not bothering to flesh out the meaningful parts of the story.
5
Loved the movie. Afterwards loved the short story.
1
Hallmark Channel makes 'The Day the Earth Stood Still'. I couldn't believe anybody bought into this. Poor Forest Whitaker. Must a' really needed the money.
4
When you're a Forest Whitaker you don't do these films because you need the money, you do it because the money they offer you is astronomical. With some exceptions (Jeremy Irons is one) It's very hard for the very rich to realize
that they are rich enough.
that they are rich enough.
1
..as usual the non-hominoids aliens unclothed - Amy should have stripped down to match them...
5
The whole story was nonsense. Aliens as advanced as the seven-footed critters floating in mist would have learned Earth languages long ago and communicated in the usual high-tech ways. And the humans' method of 'teaching' the aliens English was laughable, with little chalkboards held up so the eyeless octopi could read them. The dialogue was totally uninteresting. The characters' emotional interaction couldn't be very meaningful or touching, because so little was said. The two language experts apparently learned the aliens' language to a certain extent, but no explanation was given as to the details of how, or what the symbols meant. Once you get used to the special effects, floating monolith, floating heptapods, and that happens quickly, it's just another ordinary sci-fi yarn. Not worth a second viewing.
16
Foolish Earthling.
15
I think you missed the point that the aliens exist in time as one whole. Thats why Amy Adam's character doesnt get the understanding about the phone call until she "remembers" it from her future.
The point of the movie is that maybe humans have to turn their understanding of things inside out to really understand them. You havent managed to do that with even this movie so I think we may be up for a collective human fail on this.
The point of the movie is that maybe humans have to turn their understanding of things inside out to really understand them. You havent managed to do that with even this movie so I think we may be up for a collective human fail on this.
12
On the contrary, one of the cleverest aspects of the film was how it conveyed the process by which humans learned the alien language. This was the key to the entire purpose of the alien visit. See also my response to David Eisenberg, above.
6
I have seen "Arrival" three times. Each time, there was something more--something I missed--something I hadn't picked up on before. A marvelously rich, complex film!
Again and again, I found myself thinking of T. S. Eliot's masterly "Four Quartets"--with its epigraph from Herakleitos: "The way up and the way down are one and the same." Like T. S. Eliot, Louise is grappling--is she not?--with the mystery of time. Learning (thanks to her immersion in the language of these mysterious "heptapods") to see her life not as a series of discrete points but a continuous whole. She learns to embrace that whole--the love, the joy, the pain waiting for her. She embraces all of it. A marvelous concept!
And non-linear language! And a non-linear experience of time! Questions like this (in the language of John Keats) "tease us out of thought"--indeed they do! but we never give up those questions, do we. We turn them over again and again--"If only! . . . ." we murmur to ourselves. "If only! . . . . "
"Time present and time past / Are both perhaps contained in time future." I ever a film was created around a philosophical premise, "Arrival" is that film.
Difficult, yes! especially on the first viewing--but well worth watching. Again and again. Thank you for this review. Fascinating!
Again and again, I found myself thinking of T. S. Eliot's masterly "Four Quartets"--with its epigraph from Herakleitos: "The way up and the way down are one and the same." Like T. S. Eliot, Louise is grappling--is she not?--with the mystery of time. Learning (thanks to her immersion in the language of these mysterious "heptapods") to see her life not as a series of discrete points but a continuous whole. She learns to embrace that whole--the love, the joy, the pain waiting for her. She embraces all of it. A marvelous concept!
And non-linear language! And a non-linear experience of time! Questions like this (in the language of John Keats) "tease us out of thought"--indeed they do! but we never give up those questions, do we. We turn them over again and again--"If only! . . . ." we murmur to ourselves. "If only! . . . . "
"Time present and time past / Are both perhaps contained in time future." I ever a film was created around a philosophical premise, "Arrival" is that film.
Difficult, yes! especially on the first viewing--but well worth watching. Again and again. Thank you for this review. Fascinating!
43
Intriguing movie, but it falls flat in the end. In the end, a total letdown.
4
Granted I am picky to the point that most of my friends and family will not see a movie with me much less discuss one. So I'll be a bit picky.
She (Adams) is in the spaceship, after having bolted on a space suit, has had a harrowing and chaotic moment which to me seemed like it was a gravity shift, and only then does she say to the head guy "What do we do next?". Didn't she have briefing sessions? Training time? She asks "What's next?" when she's two feet away from the aliens?
And the cutaways during the gravity shift were of high tech equipment registering who knows what on analog VU meters???? Like I had on my 1957 Wollensak tape recorder?
She (Adams) is in the spaceship, after having bolted on a space suit, has had a harrowing and chaotic moment which to me seemed like it was a gravity shift, and only then does she say to the head guy "What do we do next?". Didn't she have briefing sessions? Training time? She asks "What's next?" when she's two feet away from the aliens?
And the cutaways during the gravity shift were of high tech equipment registering who knows what on analog VU meters???? Like I had on my 1957 Wollensak tape recorder?
5
"That's one small step for man, one giant leap for mankind.....
Uhhhh, Houston?"
"Go ahead Tranquility."
"What do we do next?"
Uhhhh, Houston?"
"Go ahead Tranquility."
"What do we do next?"
2
It was lost on me.
5
Nice movie. But it has some grave problem with its ethics. Three things stand out: The aliens actually change our civilisation by giving us the tool of time. "Tool/weapon opens time" as they declare. When has it been alright for an advanced visitor to do that? Seems like the anthropologist that brings a hammer or similar. The human civilisation will be changed forever. Second: did we actually consent to helping them in the future? Or did they more or less force us to accept this "wonderful" gift. This is a problem of consent, and it does not seem fair. We don't even know what we are supposed to do in return. Not a fair deal. Third: the woman decides to have the child with the man though she knows that the girl is going to die. When the man/husband finds out he understandably leaves the relationship. She choses for him also regarding children. How many could he or even they have had if they had did it otherwise? The decision does not seem fair. Last: The Einsteinian space-time universe this takes place in seems very conservative and cold. Almost evil. Nothing can change. Even when an alien die this is just a process ending. No big deal. Al we are left with is some sad feelings, for a time. In a universe which is frozen. And that is the metaphor of Einstein's universe: a frozen river. Nothing can change. Dantes famous hell was not made of fire - it was made of ice. Everything has stopped, there is no more life. So the Aliens did in fact conquer us, it would seem...
5
I would have to see it again to explore your points of views which I find quite valid...However in all logic if you "see" your "lifetime" as a whole will it means that you would not want to live some parts of it because they could be painful? It seems to me that all life have pains that are not avoidable and are parts of what makes the "fabric" of the whole self. Would you not plant roses and cut them because you know that they will not last. For me I understood that having a non-linear vision of time meant that she also understood the early death of her daughter did not erase or negate all the experiences of joy and beauty that she was to experience as well as it does not diminish the importance of her Daughters's own life experience. Do we not know that all we do will one day will be dust, that we will die and so our children preferable after us? Knowing specifically the moments of future painful experiences does not change the fact that not knowing will not make them happened. And who knows, maybe if we try to change the future to avoid all pain in life then it may well be that we would experience no great joy and learn very little about ourselves and create a world that know no transformation and worse no renewal...
5
I had many of the same misgivings as you, until I read the short story after seeing the film (I read it twice) & then watching the movie again. ( thought it was a beautiful film). The tool (weapon) they give is the symbolic "written" language, which is way more complex than any spoken language. They experience time in a forward and backward direction (hence the important of Hannah's name) and it is reflected in the written/ circular designs they create which are very complex equations. In the book the "spoken" sounds do have meaning and are explained, but it is the symbolic images that is the key to communication with them, and to see the future. That is why Louise writes the book (that's not in the short story, by the way, but she does becomes sort of an expert in the language). The heptapods do not effect any changes in the course of history because of their ability to see forward and backward - that is just "what is", so there's no point in denying it. So Louise comes to understand that refusing to have the child that she knows will be lost to a rare disease, just like she knows that Ian will leave her when he tells him she knows the future - its going to happen anyway.
The movie suffers from a poor transition - from her first experience of the symbolic language to how she learns to understand it.. could have used more scenes like "Ian walks". The story spends more time on that. BTW. the story doesn't not have as neat an ending. It's is well worth reading!
The movie suffers from a poor transition - from her first experience of the symbolic language to how she learns to understand it.. could have used more scenes like "Ian walks". The story spends more time on that. BTW. the story doesn't not have as neat an ending. It's is well worth reading!
3
I enjoyed the movie, but I didn't enjoy seeing the Chinese government save the world yet again (remember The Martian?). It's such a transparent marketing gimmick that it's hard to take the movie seriously.
3
When the Chinese foot a large portion of the bill, you make the Chinese look good. Makes perfect sense. Get used to it. If Native Americans were an important demographic to the Studios in the heyday of Westerns, you'd have seen a lot more dead whites.
3
Sorry, but whatever you may think of the Chinese, their story is far more complex and important than you can imagine, not the least because they represent the most populous nation and largest single segment of humanity on Earth. They will be a major factor in our future whether we like it or not.
4
A standard American sci-fi flick. The world is facing an apocalypse or a universe-changing moment, and all that matters is the healing of an American family problem though millions are dead. The first half hour or so is intellectually interesting, intriguing, and then the usual swamp opens up.
3
A) I fail to see where in the movie it was demonstrated that millions were dead.
B) The movie was made "in" Hollywood. Do you really expect them to make a film about a Venezuelan family? Sheesh.
B) The movie was made "in" Hollywood. Do you really expect them to make a film about a Venezuelan family? Sheesh.
1
There was a beautiful message here, that the human species could progress by learning and using a universal language, not English, something that the Bannonite Trump theorists would never tolerate.
5
the discussion of language was superficial. the story about relationships was maudlin. i like interstellar, 2001, solaris, and ET a lot more. the film looked cool. but i wanted more about language. i wanted more science with my fiction.
4
This movie left me feeling like I need more. My brain was buzzing in a way because it's not often it gets to think outside the 'universe' box. We only use a small portion of our brain. I wish science could figure out a way to use all of it then maybe we could see the future or have super powers. Ha! Love movies that make me see/think differently like Interstellar. Beautifully crafted and Amy Adams,like always, is wonderful.
5
That's a myth. We do use all of our brain. Maybe at any given time we are only using a portion of it but we do use 100% of our brains.
8
Don't jump to conclusions about everyone; Trump voters.
1
This is a beautiful, powerful film and an important one, too, although it will be lost on many who are merely looking for good sci-fi. The sci-fi is not in the foreground here. Fully worthy of contemplation, a second viewing, and more contemplation....
18
I think Amy Adams is the best actress of this generation.
4
I think Amy Adams is, of her generation, the Meryl Streep of my generation. It is such a pleasure to watch her assume a role that within minutes I am forgetting Amy Adams and completely immersed within the character she lives. Just as in any Meryl Streep movie, I recall the character, the emotions, the life, and the nuance of the movie. In plain words: I do not go to see a movie because Meryl Streep is the lead-in. I go to see the movie because Meryl Streep will lead me into the fullness of the experience. Amy Adams is also likewise. Both are able to embody the story being told.
5
Just saw this in a local independent theater.
Terrific film that was well-acted and directed. Sure, there's plenty to critically chip away at, but on balance the questions the film asked were worthy ones.
The troika of actors who brought the film to life were very good. The timeline of the movie interesting enough and discreet enough for us to continually think about it until the following day.
Thanks to the poster who informed me that her child and the physicist's child didn't happen until after the encounter with the aliens.
But how did she know the phone number to call?
The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist either. The "future" is only one of our mental constructs. Life only happens in the this moment. What happens next is infinitely variable.
And so it goes...
Terrific film that was well-acted and directed. Sure, there's plenty to critically chip away at, but on balance the questions the film asked were worthy ones.
The troika of actors who brought the film to life were very good. The timeline of the movie interesting enough and discreet enough for us to continually think about it until the following day.
Thanks to the poster who informed me that her child and the physicist's child didn't happen until after the encounter with the aliens.
But how did she know the phone number to call?
The past doesn't exist. The future doesn't exist either. The "future" is only one of our mental constructs. Life only happens in the this moment. What happens next is infinitely variable.
And so it goes...
10
"But how did she know the phone number to call?"
It was apparently on the cell phone of the base commander that she lifted off one of the situation tables to make the call. She had to have searched the Contacts on that phone in hopes of locating one that might be for the Chinese commander, and apparently succeeded.
It was apparently on the cell phone of the base commander that she lifted off one of the situation tables to make the call. She had to have searched the Contacts on that phone in hopes of locating one that might be for the Chinese commander, and apparently succeeded.
1
The Chinese commander showed it to her in the future, on his phone.
She can see the future, as with the visions of her child.
5
Sorry, admittedly I dislike the science fiction genre a lot, but even so this movie was awful. Couldn't understand more than half the plot which seemed contrived to the hilt...totally forced, just awful.
11
So you don’t like sci-fi movies to start with, BUT this movie was just awful?
LOL...Thank you for your insightful review!
1
Just watched the movie... I have to say, albeit some silly scenes, this was a very good movie. People seem to have not noticed that this is a movie that plays in reverse, and the real movie about Dr. Banks starts at the end of the movie.
The interaction/communication with the aliens are very much the interaction Dr Banks has with her yet unborn daughter, very limited and difficult at first, and yet, when faced with the truth, very fulfilling and encompassing. We can see that Dr Banks talks to the alien in a watered filled space, just like a womb.
And when Dr. Banks and the team interacts with the aliens behind the screen, I believe it's Director Villeneuve's statement about his own personal relationship with movies, culling and assessing meanings from the images projected from the film screen, that auditory is time-bound but images are not.
I have more but I'll refrain...
The interaction/communication with the aliens are very much the interaction Dr Banks has with her yet unborn daughter, very limited and difficult at first, and yet, when faced with the truth, very fulfilling and encompassing. We can see that Dr Banks talks to the alien in a watered filled space, just like a womb.
And when Dr. Banks and the team interacts with the aliens behind the screen, I believe it's Director Villeneuve's statement about his own personal relationship with movies, culling and assessing meanings from the images projected from the film screen, that auditory is time-bound but images are not.
I have more but I'll refrain...
12
Sometimes the destination is the journey. Arrival takes us on a journey where the destination is the point of departure. This movie is not about Sci Fi. Sci Fi was just the chosen vehicle. Just like it was in Kubrick’s 2001. Our human perception of linear time is the key that unlocks the door which ultimately leads not to time travel but to the irrelevance of linearity of time. It’s impossible to truly talk about this movie without spoilers, so, I understand how difficult it must have been for M. Dargis to review it for the NYT.
If one’s mind can wrap itself around existence, linear time and the decisions we make, you are going to love this movie and think of M. Dargis’ review as a worthy effort. If you just want Sci Fi you won’t be disappointed either, but then the references in the review to Kubrick’s 2001 or to a woman who finds herself will remain elusive.
For myself, I can’t wait to watch it a few more times to discover more and more with each viewing.
If one’s mind can wrap itself around existence, linear time and the decisions we make, you are going to love this movie and think of M. Dargis’ review as a worthy effort. If you just want Sci Fi you won’t be disappointed either, but then the references in the review to Kubrick’s 2001 or to a woman who finds herself will remain elusive.
For myself, I can’t wait to watch it a few more times to discover more and more with each viewing.
9
I have seen this movie twice as a download, then once in the theatre, and am now watching a DVD from Paramount. I vote on awards. I loved it.
7
As an escape artist, I am sure that you would appreciate this movie, Houdini, because high quality sci-fi movies are always excellent escapist fare.
"Arrival" is one of the best sci-fi movies of modern times IMO. Einstein said that the past, the present and the future all happen simultaneously and that time is illusion; and I suspect that the book, on which the screenplay is based, was inspired by Einstein's view in this respect.
"Arrival" is one of the best sci-fi movies of modern times IMO. Einstein said that the past, the present and the future all happen simultaneously and that time is illusion; and I suspect that the book, on which the screenplay is based, was inspired by Einstein's view in this respect.
7
I wish I could have heard the voices in the movie. I don't know if was the theater or the mix but It seemed like they were whispering. Now I have to wait for the Blu-ray so I can watch it with subtitles.
7
There were times when I thought that was intentional: a movie about the difficulty of understanding language, so you had a hard time understanding the English, too? Would they go that far?
2
Them dang helicopters gave me fits with this!
Yet another attempt by Hollywood at creating a sci-fi film that explores the extraterrestrial world and alien life. A different strategy while approaching the subject of aliens, however, was addressed. Amy Adams no doubt is a phenomenal actor but it appears that she is the only one who can communicate with the aliens. This creates a very cliche situation of the "special" protagonist who has distinct talents. That being said Arrival is a great addition to the list of very engaging sci-fi films but with a more philosophical twist. A worthy contender for many awards but nothing too extravagant. A relaxing movie that can be enjoyed after a long day that will provoke thought. Arrival is a fascinating movie that deserves the publicity due to its talented cast. I realize that I have mixed views but the feelings a subject provokes is not in my control
1
Amish, I think you are forgetting that others are communicating in limited ways till she makes the break through to reading there 'written words'. Recall the scenes where the Chinese government panics over what the aliens write. Watch closely, it's there.
1
Saw "Arrival" with adults and our children -- young adults who like the Marvel movies and video games. Everyone loved it: intelligent and thoughtful, confirming that good science fiction does not have to be loud, aggressive and violent.
4
A beautiful film. Its centerpiece is the powerful message about how changed our world would be if we were to collectively experience the world through a non-linear sense of time. The circle. The interconnection of everything. What is ironic is that we do not need to wait for "alien" contact to meet such "aliens." They live among us. They have gathered at Standing Rock to stand for the circle, the sanctity, connection, 7 generations, respect for ancestors and future generations. Having lived and worked with, and counting as friends Native people I found this film particularly powerful, beautiful and full of the irony that the "wisdom" the aliens bring to earth, lives among us in the Indigenous peoples of the world. If we are to survive as a species and a living earth, it will only be because we learn the language of the circle from them, before our lineal Western concept of "progress" destroys us all.
47
This movie was very entertaining, but if I see another film using "on the nature of daylight" by Max Richter as the background music for emotionally loaded scenes, I'm gonna flip out.
4
B+ Intriguing but a bit hard for an old man to follow. I always like Amy Adams a real person rather than a Fox News bimbo.
1
Sharknado had better special effects and fewer plot holes.
5
Strange review, as it doesn't mention the major theme of the movie - language and interpretation. Both the concrete part of learning to interact with the aliens as well as the idea of language creating our way of thinking (whether true or not) were major parts of this movie.
26
Two words to save potential viewers a lot of trouble...don't go.
Why? because this bit of cinematic detritus is underwritten and overproduced, self-involved, overripe banana without enough dialog to spread on a ham and cheese sandwich and not enough logical plot to get you to the nearest Starbucks restroom.
Why? because this bit of cinematic detritus is underwritten and overproduced, self-involved, overripe banana without enough dialog to spread on a ham and cheese sandwich and not enough logical plot to get you to the nearest Starbucks restroom.
11
I went to see this movie with my 23-y.o. daughter, a creative-writing grad student whose genre is YA science-fiction. She was able to follow the leaps in time, no problem. Me, 40 years her senior, not so much. Instead, I found the fascinating language of the aliens more intriguing. In any case, we both loved the film.
The next day, I asked my daughter if she'd thought about the movie. Yes, she said. So had I. I'm still thinking about it, a lot -- which says something about a movie's ability to elevate awareness above the shallow clutter.
The next day, I asked my daughter if she'd thought about the movie. Yes, she said. So had I. I'm still thinking about it, a lot -- which says something about a movie's ability to elevate awareness above the shallow clutter.
54
From "Arrival" we see a story that is not as smart as it could be, attempting to trick the audience with a false sense of deepness and philosophy. The thoughtfully incorporated ideas are betrayed by the shallow inclusion of maudlin scenarios, which at times seem to emulate a Lifetime movie. To be blunt, this isn't really a Science Fiction film, but a waffling drama centered in human emotions.
Adams' lead character is written in like a soggy sponge sitting in a bathtub filled with her own tears of uncertainty, dragging the movie down from any visceral wonder or surprise you may feel in the film regarding the alien life forms and their reasons for arriving on Earth.
The rest of the characters are somewhat expendable, leaving the lead heroine to tell the entire story herself from a monotone perspective. When you add in an underdeveloped love story, enemy nations exhuming motivations from the Vietnam Era, a few mysteries based on fractions, and finally, a generous extra sprinkle of sadness with a sickly child character, what you are left with is a mopey, moody movie I would actually put in the genre of "Cry-Fi".
Despite cinematic qualities, and tacking on a "happy" ending, the movie fails to edit out the slow moments, never really focusing on the parts that are fulfilling, engaging and mysterious. To be fair, the movie did leave me pondering something odd though - If they arrived in spacechips, did they leave because we didn't provide them with guacamole?
Adams' lead character is written in like a soggy sponge sitting in a bathtub filled with her own tears of uncertainty, dragging the movie down from any visceral wonder or surprise you may feel in the film regarding the alien life forms and their reasons for arriving on Earth.
The rest of the characters are somewhat expendable, leaving the lead heroine to tell the entire story herself from a monotone perspective. When you add in an underdeveloped love story, enemy nations exhuming motivations from the Vietnam Era, a few mysteries based on fractions, and finally, a generous extra sprinkle of sadness with a sickly child character, what you are left with is a mopey, moody movie I would actually put in the genre of "Cry-Fi".
Despite cinematic qualities, and tacking on a "happy" ending, the movie fails to edit out the slow moments, never really focusing on the parts that are fulfilling, engaging and mysterious. To be fair, the movie did leave me pondering something odd though - If they arrived in spacechips, did they leave because we didn't provide them with guacamole?
13
Very much agree with this. I'm wondering, have you read Chiang's original story? Most of the points you mentioned were handled much better in the short story (which didn't have the sickly child subplot nor the extensive focus on the cliched military aggression etc). I was very disappointed too to see how Villeneuve & co. butchered the wonderful source material. This could've been a masterpiece. But I'd rather read the short story again than re-watch the movie.
2
Two words: causal loop.
Well, a couple more: Amy Adams is great.
Well, a couple more: Amy Adams is great.
6
I saw this film last night, and was riveted throughout. It's not an action movie, it's quite the opposite - very subtle, quiet, introspective and thought-provoking. A cerebral type of science fiction that forces the viewer to meditate on time, life, death, and love. I found it to be almost spiritual/mystical in nature, and want to see it again in order to understand the bits I missed at first viewing. If you're looking for a Star Wars-type movie, don't bother. If you care to go deeper into the meaning of things, then this is the film for you!
72
Great well-written surmise. I agree completely. A VERY special film....
1
I had high hopes for this film, and was thoroughly disappointed.
I couldn't get over these logic flaws:
-these advanced interstellar aliens could travel light years across space, but we, humans, could figure out their language first (before they figured out ours)
-the alien ships just disintegrated? really? what happened to the aliens inside?
-after the "renegade" soldier secretly planted the bomb, there was absolutely NO reaction when it went off... nobody was angry, surprised, afraid about what the aliens might think (or consider that the aliens actually created the explosion), and most importantly, try to find out what happened? I mean, the main characters only almost died.
What is this movie about? If you knew your future child was going to get sick and die, and you knew the pain and heartbreak that would follow, would you still try to make a baby?
I couldn't get over these logic flaws:
-these advanced interstellar aliens could travel light years across space, but we, humans, could figure out their language first (before they figured out ours)
-the alien ships just disintegrated? really? what happened to the aliens inside?
-after the "renegade" soldier secretly planted the bomb, there was absolutely NO reaction when it went off... nobody was angry, surprised, afraid about what the aliens might think (or consider that the aliens actually created the explosion), and most importantly, try to find out what happened? I mean, the main characters only almost died.
What is this movie about? If you knew your future child was going to get sick and die, and you knew the pain and heartbreak that would follow, would you still try to make a baby?
7
Saw it last week and was extremely disappointed. Maybe my friend and I are slow on catching on to the plot. It wasn't until the end that we figured out what was going on. We go to a lot of movies and saw this due to good reviews.
We like a story, not into action films nor science fiction.
We like a story, not into action films nor science fiction.
Josh, look up the word "conundrum"
4
@Josh
1. The purpose of the visit was to give the human race their language, which enables causal loops. Humans had to learn it to understand the technology of the aliens.
2. Look up "suspension of disbelief"
3. See #2
1. The purpose of the visit was to give the human race their language, which enables causal loops. Humans had to learn it to understand the technology of the aliens.
2. Look up "suspension of disbelief"
3. See #2
4
"Language is the glue that binds civilization," Ian reads from the preface of Louise's book on that very subject. We learn towards the end of the movie, through a series of flashbacks and flash forwards, I'm not always sure which, that the Others (as I will call them) have brought a gift to the humans, a language that once learned at all hegemonic sites, will unite them in a common (and less hostile) understanding of each other. Well, we have just lived through a brutal campaign where language was mangled beyond recognition, words were jagged spears, and the citizens of just one nation, our own, were anything but united. I was hoping for Louise's sake that The Others would carry her off with them, and take me along for the ride. But my bad luck, the movie ended, the lights came on, I trundled home, and fell into my chair in front of the computer only to read about our President-elect who is still incensed over barbed comments from a cast member of Hamilton. My advice to The Others: don't bother with us, we are beyond redemption.
56
I liked this film very much, was riveted by it, and there was some applause at the conclusion. The film made me feel a little bit better about re-entering our world which has been so trashed by that horrible campaign and the even more disgusting outcome.
11
The best scene in the film was when the helicopter picked her up and they fly in. Then the first alien visit was intense. The first half hour was riveting. After that the film slowly went down hill for me -- all the figuring out of the the language. And the stupid bad guy looming. The scene where the alien was interpreted with text at the bottom of the screen was absurd, almost comical. And why did dynamite blow up during their second or third talk with the aliens? Louise talking Chinese on the phone while people pointed guns at her -- stupid. It had really great parts, and profoundly stupid scenes.
14
Please see movie again. Everything is connected!
8
Mercy Wright - I was so affected by this film. I saw it today and it's an incredible, soft, commentary on the linear lives most of us lead (and it's so much more, too!)...That linear point of view leads to all the potentially 'wrong' conclusions the military & governments in the film tend toward. Its message may be too at odds with what is generally accepted as 'reality,' but it really shifted my brain/heart/consciousness in a way that I hope only continues to blossom. There are no mistakes! Everything has a purpose.
7
Although this is a good movie, I don't think it's as strong as the reviews it's been getting. It doesn't come close to Interstellar. It's more similar in tone and pacing to "Melancholy" or "Another Earth". It's more of a philosophical movie that could have done a lot more. Very little is revealed about the aliens and I feel the movie could have been a lot stronger if the translator's visions could have revealed a little about the alien future. I enjoyed the setup during the first part of the film but left disappointed by the looseness of the conclusion.
4
The problem for some viewers, as the comments go, is that they are hoping for an action film with explosions, gunfire and general screen mayhem that is all fixed at the end by a handsome hero. As the review explains, this is a film for thinking people, not teenagers expecting Tom Cruise. In fact, its not really even science fiction, rather a new genre of film called philosophical fiction. Not for everybody, but it will be a life-altering experience for some.
58
We did not hope for action, just a good story that was half way believable!That is the trouble with so many of today's movies- action takes the place of a good story.
5
I agree. Don't you just hate action movies that masquerade as sci-fi movies? Arrival is nothing like that sort of movie. It is a brilliant non-action sci-fi which provokes one to think about, if one is so inclined: the nature of time, human communication with humans and non-humans, the human condition, global cooperation, love, peace, war, death and other matters. It explores more issues than "2001: A Space Odyssey" and "The Day the Earth Stood Still", both of which are brilliant sci-fi movies too.
2
Very, very well written and acted. The ideas explored in this movie are thought provoking, and above and beyond the usual generic sci-fi/alien movies. Definitely some things that could have been improved (Forest Whitaker's character doesn't fit well; some scenes are a little far fetched). To me what makes a movie great is not necessarily how "entertaining" it is, but the impact it has on you and its ability to make you think about it long after leaving the theater. That is what this movie did for me- I have been thinking about it for days! Also really appreciate whoever created the trailer for this movie, I had no idea what the outcome was going to be, and I never would've guessed. Already want to see it again so I can piece everything together.
30
Agree completely. I’ve seen a lot of movies, and sometimes muse if I’ve seen it before. Not so much with this one!
Another great film from Denis Villeneuve.
If you have not seen his "Incendies, " prepare to be blown away!
If you have not seen his "Incendies, " prepare to be blown away!
8
An excellent movie. It should make us all think about how we humans will communicate with and treat extra-terrestrial beings when our civilization does deal with this reality. There is no question they are out there and have shown themselves to us. They have not yet presented themselves in the overt manner shown in this movie, but that day will come. We should all start thinking about it. In the meantime, go see this movie.
8
Aliens haven't shown themselves at all. There is no such reliable evidence. Nor is it likely to ever happen. Interstellar space is just too vast.
6
One of the points of a review is to indicate whether I should spend my money on the movie, book, music being reviewed. Thankfully, there are comments that do that, since Manohla Dargis regularly ducks that responsibility.
13
It seems to me the Manohla Dargis's reviews are mostly a synopsis of the plot line, not a very satisfying read and in some cases a bit of a spoiler.
Overall I found the story intriguing but the amount of time spent on working out the tedious details was overly long. The positives: intellectual aspects that are very thought-provoking, Amy Adams was excellent. Many stunning visuals. Negatives: the music was ham-fisted and intrusive at times, as though it wanted to "be" the story rather than help tell the story. Much suspension of disbelief is demanded of the viewer (like all SciFi's) but this one required that you accept that beings intelligent and clever enough to build transport and then travel through (apparently) parallel universes (?) were totally unprepared to communicate with Earthlings. Did they go to all that trouble to give us a lesson in cooperation? Seems a bit of a stretch.
I liked the movie. I would recommend it and will probably try to see it again sometime, just to find the clues I probably missed.
Overall I found the story intriguing but the amount of time spent on working out the tedious details was overly long. The positives: intellectual aspects that are very thought-provoking, Amy Adams was excellent. Many stunning visuals. Negatives: the music was ham-fisted and intrusive at times, as though it wanted to "be" the story rather than help tell the story. Much suspension of disbelief is demanded of the viewer (like all SciFi's) but this one required that you accept that beings intelligent and clever enough to build transport and then travel through (apparently) parallel universes (?) were totally unprepared to communicate with Earthlings. Did they go to all that trouble to give us a lesson in cooperation? Seems a bit of a stretch.
I liked the movie. I would recommend it and will probably try to see it again sometime, just to find the clues I probably missed.
10
A few people have commented that Star Wars fans will hate it. Yes and No. If you are expecting to see Star Wars like action then yes, you should probably pass on this. I'm a Star Wars fan who thought Arrival was very good. Its all about expectation setting. There are many facets to the science fiction genre. If you limit yourself to only enjoying a portion of what science fiction has to offer then you may not get much from this film. If you are open to more than just laser fights and space ships then you may find this very thought provoking. I enjoyed the film as well as the review and some of the more thoughtful explanatory comments here. A second viewing is almost a must though.
11
The essential idea of the film - that aliens have a different conception of time, and that moments do not pass linearly like beads on a string - owes much to the Tralfamadorians of Kurt Vonnegut's Slaughterhouse 5. That classic included a heavy dose of humor and an ironic philosophy which is absent in Arrivval - to be replaced by a more serious insight into what it means to be truly alien, and the complications that will impose for communication. It seems to be difficult enough for members of the same species to communicate when they belong to different ethnic groups and social status.
11
Loved it. Like another commenter, the opening scenes choked me up. I thought it was an utterly beautiful film and will probably see it again before it leaves the theaters. I loved Guardians of the Galaxy and a good action sci fi. This is not that kind of science fiction film. It is thought provoking and is the kind of movie that leaves space all around the narrative you can debate with whomever you see it with. Again if you are expecting an action film, you will be disappointed. But its a terrific movie.
15
One of the most moving and spiritual films I've seen in a long time. The entire row had tears silently streaming down their faces. Amazing.
41
A film that is beautifully thought provoking in its subtlety and visual expression. Amy Adam's performance injects the film with a sincerity that elevates it to masterpiece level. Sure it's not filled with action...but In a genre saturated with cliches and predictability, the Arrival brings an original and deeply philosophical perspective. Highly recomend.
30
This movie was fantastic, and I honestly don't recognize it in the negative comments I'm reading here. This is sci-fi for grown-ups, meditating on the profound relationship between time and humanity, on crossing oceans of understanding in a world of divisions. I can't wait to see it again...
85
A movie for parents
I don't believe most people who watched this movie got this. As a parent, I would find it hard to believe that any none parent who watched this movie can really conceive the emotion being shared. Having a wife who works in oncology, I cant really convey how this exact thought has seen some long nights.
That being said, this movie was intentionally slow. I went to see it with a friend who likes all things to blow his mind. To him, sci-fi needs to be visually amazing and magnificent with a story that is loud and aggressive. This is not that movie. At least not from that view.
As the movie tries to propose, you must look at it from completely different point of view that is almost inaccessible without actually being "there". The beauty in this movie is its patience. The point to the movie is time. We really like to feel, as humans, that we have a great grasp on time and how to perceive it but in truth we really don't. How would you explain a memory? You can explain details, ideas and its impact on you but that memory is existing in a dimension that no one else but you gets to experience and feel. Kinda like a movie no one else can watch but you have to explain to others afterward.
In essence these beings were helping themselves by helping us conceive a paradox that is essentially beyond our limits. I agree with this movie, that math won't be our great communicator.
Long story short this is fantastic movie!
I don't believe most people who watched this movie got this. As a parent, I would find it hard to believe that any none parent who watched this movie can really conceive the emotion being shared. Having a wife who works in oncology, I cant really convey how this exact thought has seen some long nights.
That being said, this movie was intentionally slow. I went to see it with a friend who likes all things to blow his mind. To him, sci-fi needs to be visually amazing and magnificent with a story that is loud and aggressive. This is not that movie. At least not from that view.
As the movie tries to propose, you must look at it from completely different point of view that is almost inaccessible without actually being "there". The beauty in this movie is its patience. The point to the movie is time. We really like to feel, as humans, that we have a great grasp on time and how to perceive it but in truth we really don't. How would you explain a memory? You can explain details, ideas and its impact on you but that memory is existing in a dimension that no one else but you gets to experience and feel. Kinda like a movie no one else can watch but you have to explain to others afterward.
In essence these beings were helping themselves by helping us conceive a paradox that is essentially beyond our limits. I agree with this movie, that math won't be our great communicator.
Long story short this is fantastic movie!
45
It's Fall and it's time for football. If you are not into the sport how about football shaped space vehicles? Actually half footballs, but I quibble. Let's take a trip to central casting, let's get some sterotypes---I need a couple of noble scientists, maybe one male and one female so a little romance can develop, they also need to be a little bit rebellions at the right time; also a grumpy military man, with a good heart, also add some right wing military nuts who try to screw everything up without being detected; now a sinister CIA man, who always seems to hang around. What you get is "Close Encounters of the Third Kind", but a lot darker and less charming.
I found the film pretty, but predictable. It left me a little cold. It makes you wonder why super intelligent aliens want to help us in the first place
I found the film pretty, but predictable. It left me a little cold. It makes you wonder why super intelligent aliens want to help us in the first place
5
Maybe you missed the line about how the aliens helped the humans now because in 3 000 years the aliens would need the humans' help?
5
I really liked the movie, especially the mystical aspects of the movie where Amy's character was able to see future events in her life.
I most liked it however, because my wife it allowed my wife to forget for a few hours her feeling of anger at and betrayal by other smart college educated women voting to blow up the country, just to see what the explosion looks like.
I most liked it however, because my wife it allowed my wife to forget for a few hours her feeling of anger at and betrayal by other smart college educated women voting to blow up the country, just to see what the explosion looks like.
93
I get the theme, the idea that communication is difficult when basic reality is different between the communicators. Also it has what would you do if you knew what you would likely do. The title of original work is actually very telling.
It was the conflict on the human side that seemed forced to give artificial tension. Aliens landing in fields are not reasons to burn down grocery stores or fire missiles. In reality, the efforts shown in the movie would have gone on for decades, with no reason not to share the info. Probably humans would have grown bored with the visitors. The aliens did not really say anything. Instead, we have the standard idea of humans acting stupidly.
It was the conflict on the human side that seemed forced to give artificial tension. Aliens landing in fields are not reasons to burn down grocery stores or fire missiles. In reality, the efforts shown in the movie would have gone on for decades, with no reason not to share the info. Probably humans would have grown bored with the visitors. The aliens did not really say anything. Instead, we have the standard idea of humans acting stupidly.
7
Good spaceships, passable aliens, and pretty much everything else stunk so bad that within an hour I wanted to walk out. Trite "science," unfocused direction, muddy visuals, and poor story telling. Save your money.
6
"...staring into the void, leaps [out of time and] into life and finds [love, grief, understanding and] herself."
2
I can never tell if Manohla's reviews are good or bad - if she is recommending the film or not. Instead they are always just a run down of all the positive and negative aspects of a film.
And is that really such a bad thing?
4
she made the film a critics' pick. maybe that's the tell?
2
Have not seen the film,
but the review seems to, me, if only me,
to have failed to make me want to see the film.
Could nothing more have been said about the Aliens
unless it turns out the Aliens are in our minds or are us ?
but the review seems to, me, if only me,
to have failed to make me want to see the film.
Could nothing more have been said about the Aliens
unless it turns out the Aliens are in our minds or are us ?
2
Watch the movie!
1
A wonderful thought provoking film, thoroughly enjoyed it. No space guns, no action fights, just reflections on time, communication, misunderstanding, anxiety, the future , the past, mortality, choices. Amy Adams is a gem. If you like straight forward plot lines then maybe not for you. It's a film not a movie. More along the lines of Interstellar.
56
Oh, God, I hope it is at least a little bit better than Interstellar. I really wanted to go see this film.
1
It isn't. It is boring and fake.
2
Totally disagree. It's a boderline great film. Villeneuve is a great filmmaker, no question. I for one would highly recommend this movie for people who appreciate thoughtful, non-traditional Hollywood films. Sort of an accessible Tarkovsky. The first minute or two brought me to tears - Great filmmaking! And Ms. Adams is superb.
30
Movies like "Star Wars" and and "Star Trek" although billed as science fiction
play really like "Cowboys and Indians in Space". They contain nothing truly
alien.
People criticize movies like this for being incoherent, or unexplained
non-sense. But those are the very qualities that make for the best sci-fi.
Sci-fi should always move you past your preconceptions and leave the unknown sustained for the imagination to feed on. That's the whole thrill of it. Else all you have is a human drama with some astro eye candy.
That the aliens of this movie can't communicate with humans isn't irrational
to me. Neither can humans really communicate with ants. (Recently I've come to doubt that humans can communicate with humans, as evident by the election.)
Another movie of this ilk is "Under the Skin" with Scarlett Johansson, where
even more goes unexplained and is completely open-ended. It asks from the
viewer patience and imagination, and has perhaps 2% eye candy, but it will have you brooding over it's meaning for days. "Star Wars" fans would hate it.
play really like "Cowboys and Indians in Space". They contain nothing truly
alien.
People criticize movies like this for being incoherent, or unexplained
non-sense. But those are the very qualities that make for the best sci-fi.
Sci-fi should always move you past your preconceptions and leave the unknown sustained for the imagination to feed on. That's the whole thrill of it. Else all you have is a human drama with some astro eye candy.
That the aliens of this movie can't communicate with humans isn't irrational
to me. Neither can humans really communicate with ants. (Recently I've come to doubt that humans can communicate with humans, as evident by the election.)
Another movie of this ilk is "Under the Skin" with Scarlett Johansson, where
even more goes unexplained and is completely open-ended. It asks from the
viewer patience and imagination, and has perhaps 2% eye candy, but it will have you brooding over it's meaning for days. "Star Wars" fans would hate it.
74
"...I've come to doubt that humans can communicate with humans..."
And your pejorative, ignorant remark about "'Star Wars' fans" is Exhibit "A".
Many fell in love with the story in 1977. You do realize we've all since grown wiser, well-read, well-educated, and far more complex than our teenaged selves? You do understand that Star Wars and, especially, Star Trek were merely first, important steps into a wider intellectual world? And even though we've developed complexity, we can still see great value in these stories and harbor deep affection for their early impact on the evolution of our lives of mind.
The "Star Trek" movies are based on a groundbreaking series with lasting impact on many fields; the first of its television kind to tackle the questions of human existence amidst great technological and social change. When touring NASA facilities, I've often come across "Star Trek" ships and "Star Wars" action figures. But you already know those scientists and engineers "would hate" "Arrival".
Just because you loved something as a child, let's say ice cream, how does continuing to love it as an adult preclude any ability to appreciate complex "grown-up" cuisine? Please spare us the simplistic assumptions until you've actually engaged someone like me in a discussion of science, philosophy, history, spirituality, global affairs, film, and literature including a broad range of science fiction over the last century and before declaring "'Star Wars' fans would hate it".
And your pejorative, ignorant remark about "'Star Wars' fans" is Exhibit "A".
Many fell in love with the story in 1977. You do realize we've all since grown wiser, well-read, well-educated, and far more complex than our teenaged selves? You do understand that Star Wars and, especially, Star Trek were merely first, important steps into a wider intellectual world? And even though we've developed complexity, we can still see great value in these stories and harbor deep affection for their early impact on the evolution of our lives of mind.
The "Star Trek" movies are based on a groundbreaking series with lasting impact on many fields; the first of its television kind to tackle the questions of human existence amidst great technological and social change. When touring NASA facilities, I've often come across "Star Trek" ships and "Star Wars" action figures. But you already know those scientists and engineers "would hate" "Arrival".
Just because you loved something as a child, let's say ice cream, how does continuing to love it as an adult preclude any ability to appreciate complex "grown-up" cuisine? Please spare us the simplistic assumptions until you've actually engaged someone like me in a discussion of science, philosophy, history, spirituality, global affairs, film, and literature including a broad range of science fiction over the last century and before declaring "'Star Wars' fans would hate it".
2
Having seen the movie, I'm surprised--and a little dismayed--by just how much Ms. Dargis reveals about the plot. Still, I think her review is spot on. In my opinion, what prevents 'Arrival' from being a great movie as opposed to just a good one is that it doesn't focus enough attention on the very important questions it raises.
7
Not a bad movie but would have been a lot better if it had more than one interesting character.
4
Liked it a lot and gave it four out of five stars.
2
Suffocatingly boring and mindless. Pretensious, absurdly amateurish. Watching those circular images meant to be the alien communication mode amidst the darkened tunnel the audience was placed made me want to dash not walk out of the movie house. A sham foist upon movie goers eager for entertainment .
7
I had been looking forward to 'Arrival' for months when I drove to the first showing on its opening day yesterday, having become a devout fan of Villeneuve's films in recent months.
But my tinnitus was flaring and my nerves on edge, and when I parked my car I misjudged a curb and thumped a tire violently against it so hard I wondered if the car's frame might be damaged. Then I wasted a couple of dollars trying to charge two hours of parking on a meter in a one-hour-limit parking zone. So I had to move to a parking garage knowing I would owe another two dollars later.
Getting out of the car I bumped the pocket where I carry my eyeglasses when I'm wearing prescription sunglasses. I heard them crack and carefully fished them out to find a retaining band broken and its lens loose in the carry bag. Still I pressed on and determined to hold the lens in place for the movie's two-hour running time.
I sat through the whole film gently pinching the lens into the frame except for a few minutes when I sacrificed bioptic vision to rest my fingers.
Like another viewer who shared his experience here, I noted that the film was unusually dark and dimly shot throughout, as if I were wearing my sunglasses in the theater. Did I like it? I'm not sure, as I was too emotionally jangled and distracted to pay attention
I ruined the experience for myself and should not have gone into the theater after I broke my glasses, which Costco repaired at no charge immediately after the movie was over.
But my tinnitus was flaring and my nerves on edge, and when I parked my car I misjudged a curb and thumped a tire violently against it so hard I wondered if the car's frame might be damaged. Then I wasted a couple of dollars trying to charge two hours of parking on a meter in a one-hour-limit parking zone. So I had to move to a parking garage knowing I would owe another two dollars later.
Getting out of the car I bumped the pocket where I carry my eyeglasses when I'm wearing prescription sunglasses. I heard them crack and carefully fished them out to find a retaining band broken and its lens loose in the carry bag. Still I pressed on and determined to hold the lens in place for the movie's two-hour running time.
I sat through the whole film gently pinching the lens into the frame except for a few minutes when I sacrificed bioptic vision to rest my fingers.
Like another viewer who shared his experience here, I noted that the film was unusually dark and dimly shot throughout, as if I were wearing my sunglasses in the theater. Did I like it? I'm not sure, as I was too emotionally jangled and distracted to pay attention
I ruined the experience for myself and should not have gone into the theater after I broke my glasses, which Costco repaired at no charge immediately after the movie was over.
2
(All the transpired was deserved given the utility of what you described.)
1
Really enjoyed the movie. For a film about visiting aliens, this was a very human story. Clever and interesting twists. Thoughtfully rendered story, and proves you don't need to overdose on special effects or artillary to have a great sci-fi flick. Amy Adams was great, as was Forrest Whittaker. If you do not like slower paced, quiet films which show restraint, this film is not for you.
12
"Arrival" is not a science fiction parable, unless the critic really believes that some day we will be visited by oblong objects in the sky. Rather, it is a science fantasy movie that seems to be as much about obfuscation as the oblong.
The genre-typical struggle between wanting to know more about alien visitors and wanting to protect ourselves from their unknown quality and mysterious goals is given just about the most vague dramatization in the history of cinematic narrative. Other reader's comments of tedious, boring, etc. are accurate. Here's another one: a snooze.
Villeneuve is a master all right, a master of misguided (inept) genre films. "Sicario" stands out for its travesty of having the central character, played by Amy Blunt, completely absent at the confrontation with Mr. Big. That was a good move, Villeneuve!
"Arrival," to a similar extent, obliterates the drama of man vs. alien that goes back to my knowledge 75 years in the history of cinema and without replacing such with anything coherent, insightful, or innovative (except for the shape of the spaceships).
Fortunately, movie-lovers still have Cameron's masterpiece, "Aliens," to see or, going back farther, the Hawks/Nyby landmark movie, "The Thing." Watch those (even again) to experience the drama of man against extraterrestrial nature before you waste a dime, or your time, on this.
The genre-typical struggle between wanting to know more about alien visitors and wanting to protect ourselves from their unknown quality and mysterious goals is given just about the most vague dramatization in the history of cinematic narrative. Other reader's comments of tedious, boring, etc. are accurate. Here's another one: a snooze.
Villeneuve is a master all right, a master of misguided (inept) genre films. "Sicario" stands out for its travesty of having the central character, played by Amy Blunt, completely absent at the confrontation with Mr. Big. That was a good move, Villeneuve!
"Arrival," to a similar extent, obliterates the drama of man vs. alien that goes back to my knowledge 75 years in the history of cinema and without replacing such with anything coherent, insightful, or innovative (except for the shape of the spaceships).
Fortunately, movie-lovers still have Cameron's masterpiece, "Aliens," to see or, going back farther, the Hawks/Nyby landmark movie, "The Thing." Watch those (even again) to experience the drama of man against extraterrestrial nature before you waste a dime, or your time, on this.
4
Questions for the crew here (read no further if you haven't seen the movie, big spoiler alert coming).
1. Is the child her first? In other words, the section where the child dies is in the future relative to when the aliens arrive on her timeline?
2. If we help the aliens 3,000 years in the future, does that mean the one's that arrive here are that old, so they can communicate up and down their timeline? Otherwise, how would they know that? Or if their lives overlap, could they pass the message up and down the chain?
3. She said her husband left her because he wasn't able to grasp something she told him. Does that mean he never learns the language sufficiently to perceive time forward and back?
Thanks.
1. Is the child her first? In other words, the section where the child dies is in the future relative to when the aliens arrive on her timeline?
2. If we help the aliens 3,000 years in the future, does that mean the one's that arrive here are that old, so they can communicate up and down their timeline? Otherwise, how would they know that? Or if their lives overlap, could they pass the message up and down the chain?
3. She said her husband left her because he wasn't able to grasp something she told him. Does that mean he never learns the language sufficiently to perceive time forward and back?
Thanks.
3
I hope someone answers, David--I have the same questions myself!
SPOILERS! DO NOT READ BEFORE SEEING THE MOVIE!
Okay, my answers won't make much sense unless you're clear on this: The aliens don't experience time as a linear 1...2...3...4... sequence. They know the totality of their lived experience, all at once.
When the linguist learns their language, it reshapes her own brain, and she experiences time the same way. So while we are MEANT to think we're seeing flashBACKS (from the past), in fact, she -- and we -- are seeing flashFORWARDS (from her future.)
Our first hint that she is as confused as the audience comes when she asks the aliens: Who is this girl? She doesn't know. Because thus far in her life, she experienced time as a human, and has no "memory" of things that have not yet happened.
But when she becomes fluent in the alien language, she also becomes fluent in time, and understands that the girl is the daughter she has not yet had.
Okay, so to answer your questions:
1. The daughter is in the future.
2. The aliens might be at the start of their lives, and know that 3000 years in their future, they need help. Much as the linguist learns the Chinese military leader's phone number from a "memory" of her own future, months or years later from the moment she dials the phone.
3. The husband did not want to know the future -- he says it was the "wrong choice" to tell him their daughter's fate. Knowing the language gives you full awareness of your entire lifetime, so he probably opted to not learn it.
Hopes this helps!
Okay, my answers won't make much sense unless you're clear on this: The aliens don't experience time as a linear 1...2...3...4... sequence. They know the totality of their lived experience, all at once.
When the linguist learns their language, it reshapes her own brain, and she experiences time the same way. So while we are MEANT to think we're seeing flashBACKS (from the past), in fact, she -- and we -- are seeing flashFORWARDS (from her future.)
Our first hint that she is as confused as the audience comes when she asks the aliens: Who is this girl? She doesn't know. Because thus far in her life, she experienced time as a human, and has no "memory" of things that have not yet happened.
But when she becomes fluent in the alien language, she also becomes fluent in time, and understands that the girl is the daughter she has not yet had.
Okay, so to answer your questions:
1. The daughter is in the future.
2. The aliens might be at the start of their lives, and know that 3000 years in their future, they need help. Much as the linguist learns the Chinese military leader's phone number from a "memory" of her own future, months or years later from the moment she dials the phone.
3. The husband did not want to know the future -- he says it was the "wrong choice" to tell him their daughter's fate. Knowing the language gives you full awareness of your entire lifetime, so he probably opted to not learn it.
Hopes this helps!
53
I wonder how many other viewers did not grasp these significant aspects of the story and in doing so might have under-appreciated the deeper meaning and unique plot twists. Interestingly enough, unlike time and space, the one thing that neither aliens or humans can control is their own mortality.
2
A big disappointment for me. This movie is not in the same class as "2001" for sure. In an attempt to humanize a grand event, the movie actually trivialized the event itself. (Spoilers follow) A good idea is wasted on "world peace" as the shallow theme. "Nonlinear time" is a nice element but it's inorganically mixed in. The "Personal pain" theme shows off Amy Adam's performance skills nicely, but it's simply too trivial in the face of such a monumental event.
1
What's more monumental than losing your child?!
6
Sorry but I have to agree with the negative reviews of this film. I am a fan of Amy Adams but feel she was not the best choice for this role. I kept thinking about Jodie Foster or Ellen Page as a better fit-- someone with more intellectual gravitas for this role. Aside from the casting, I also agree with previous posters regarding the very dark lighting of the film-- the pictures in this news article are much brighter and much more color saturated. They should turn up the lumination in the movie theatres.
5
I agree about the lighting. And where did the reviewer learn that one of the spaceships was named Stanley Kubrick?? I was watching for that and never caught it.
1
This is a wonderful film. My fifteen-year-old son, who loves all the super hero movies, was as transfixed as I was. This is about as smart and absorbing as popular entertainment gets. If sci fi is your thing, this film will not disappoint.
32
The Fandango reviews made me expect a brainy flick and smart dialogue. I was already tired, but that was not the only reason I was falling asleep. Very disappointing, rather stupid sensationalism, and a weak ending. Sigh.
6
Sigh, how disappointing. Incoherent and often tedious. Narratively a mess. Amy Adams gives her usual great performance but without a story line and concept to match. Close Encounters and 2001, A Space Odyssey have nothing to worry about.
15
No offense to Amy Adams who is just about superb in everything she does, but this film is full of itself. Please, can you be a little more beside the point and ponderous. All the dusk/dawn, gray day-ness overload, makes it really believable, yeah. Never an interior shot with a light on. And how coy the low sound of newscasters, could you be more pretentious. And all the gobbledygook about alien calligraphy. Please, help me. And all for the big pay off one line, paraphrased from Amy, 'they are giving us the gift of their relationship to time, not linear for them." And the nonsensical physic babble in Mandarin no less phone call to China's premier, please. That's it. Two freaking hours of dark stuff and sound you cannot hardly hear, and that never ending, overwhelming string music at the ending. This is the school of 'see how mysterious I can make a film substituting screen fodder for substance and relatable ideas. Mr. Villeneuve can you make it any more boring next time.
25
The style of this film is reminiscent of The Tree of Life. Or a Calvin Klein Obsession commercial. (I keep confusing the two). Amy Adams is a wonderful talent, and she shows it in this film. But she's not enough to save the half-baked way in which this story is told. Good special effects. Strong cast. But, unfortunately, mediocre script and direction, which adds up to deficient storytelling. Two out of five bags of popcorn.
5
Very good film. The color was not very good in one movie theater. A little better in another. The best color of the film looked better in the previews and here.
3
"Two people divided by a common language". The half-American and half-English Winston S. Churchill. A cookie is a biscuit when you mind the gap.
Communication is a recurring theme in science fiction alien contact. From sound and light in Close Encounters to metaphor in an episode of STNG to dirty jokes in a short story. Biology drives perception including smell, light wave lengths and touch. Culture drives communication. The notion of private ownership of land is normal in some cultures and extraordinary in others.
In 2001 Kubrick did not depict the aliens because he did not feel that he could credibly imagine them. With the diversity of life based on carbon on Earth his humility was understandable. By biomass and longevity the social insects particularly the ants are the dominant intelligent life forms on Earth.
Communication is a recurring theme in science fiction alien contact. From sound and light in Close Encounters to metaphor in an episode of STNG to dirty jokes in a short story. Biology drives perception including smell, light wave lengths and touch. Culture drives communication. The notion of private ownership of land is normal in some cultures and extraordinary in others.
In 2001 Kubrick did not depict the aliens because he did not feel that he could credibly imagine them. With the diversity of life based on carbon on Earth his humility was understandable. By biomass and longevity the social insects particularly the ants are the dominant intelligent life forms on Earth.
5
Both 2001 and CE3 raised telepathy as a means of ET aliens communicating with humans.
2
I saw the film and was positively pleasantly surprised and pleased by the tenor, tone and substance. Science fiction is an apt medium metaphor for commenting on current human events and conditions. Placing a female at the center of the story is cultural commentary.
What makes us human in a vast universe is a mystery about the meaning and purpose of life. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Wallace, Mendel, Watson and Crick replaced many a deity and prophet. Astrobiology has no subject and thus is not a science. The only alien life that we know lives on Earth.
Abandoning a deity for an intelligent advanced alien race is another hubris conceit that places humans at the center of the universe worthy of contact or conquest.
Whether or not we are alone or one of legion is profound.
What makes us human in a vast universe is a mystery about the meaning and purpose of life. Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin, Wallace, Mendel, Watson and Crick replaced many a deity and prophet. Astrobiology has no subject and thus is not a science. The only alien life that we know lives on Earth.
Abandoning a deity for an intelligent advanced alien race is another hubris conceit that places humans at the center of the universe worthy of contact or conquest.
Whether or not we are alone or one of legion is profound.
2
I haven't seen the movie yet, but the story appears to have a glaring problem: Super-advanced aliens visit earth but can't figure out how to speak any human language or communicate with us effectively? Not likely.
11
If you see the movie you'll know that's not a flaw, it's a feature
21
There is a unspoken assumption in your comment which is sort of the whole point of this movie.
13
Are humans more advanced than ants? Can humans speak to ants?
13
I saw this movie today with some friends,it got good reviews, Amy Adams and aliens. How can you go wrong? This movie is confusing, things happen that make no sense, Jeremy Renner has about 10 words in the movie. Our girl Amy is great as usual, the aliens were interesting, but the movie was boring, and a waste of time.
15
Agreed! Extremely boring and nonsensical.
5
@Ron C., and Steve:
It's been done how many times?
Off the top of my head ...
"The Day the Earth Stood Still"
"The Thing" (several versions)
"Close Encounters of The First Kind"
"Independence Day"
"Invaders from Mars"
"Contact"
Probably a dozen more where they came from, or a score, forgetting all the execrable "Star Wars" and "Star Treks" clones, sequels, prequels, spin-offs.
Each of those and probably this one, too, suffers from the same plot-origination drawback: it's a blank slate impossible to fill because nothing remotely like it has ever occurred. It triggers nothing in our collective consciousness because the piano key isn't connected to any hammer, so it hits no notes. And no one is clever enough to anticipate all the ways such an encounter might play out, go wrong or be indescribably weird.
"Indescribably".
That's the flaw. Filmmakers don't handle "indescribable" well because they must show and tell 24-frames per second. when it comes to alien encounters they aren't weird enough to paint onto that blank slate values and emotions that are remotely genuine -- fear aside; why it isn't possible to key scenes.
Because an actual encounter with actual aliens has never happened locked doors remain locked. Audiences can't open them then pass through, entering the next room, why movies in this genre are static, with unfulfilling resolutions.
Movies are metaphors. What metaphors apply when the principal antagonist is an emotional void, a complete and utter cipher?
It's been done how many times?
Off the top of my head ...
"The Day the Earth Stood Still"
"The Thing" (several versions)
"Close Encounters of The First Kind"
"Independence Day"
"Invaders from Mars"
"Contact"
Probably a dozen more where they came from, or a score, forgetting all the execrable "Star Wars" and "Star Treks" clones, sequels, prequels, spin-offs.
Each of those and probably this one, too, suffers from the same plot-origination drawback: it's a blank slate impossible to fill because nothing remotely like it has ever occurred. It triggers nothing in our collective consciousness because the piano key isn't connected to any hammer, so it hits no notes. And no one is clever enough to anticipate all the ways such an encounter might play out, go wrong or be indescribably weird.
"Indescribably".
That's the flaw. Filmmakers don't handle "indescribable" well because they must show and tell 24-frames per second. when it comes to alien encounters they aren't weird enough to paint onto that blank slate values and emotions that are remotely genuine -- fear aside; why it isn't possible to key scenes.
Because an actual encounter with actual aliens has never happened locked doors remain locked. Audiences can't open them then pass through, entering the next room, why movies in this genre are static, with unfulfilling resolutions.
Movies are metaphors. What metaphors apply when the principal antagonist is an emotional void, a complete and utter cipher?
2
Outside of the set up(Act I), ARRIVAL, was confused and at times tedious. The supposed invasion seemed never to pose a real threat even though news reports and telephone calls were used to up the tension. Also I had a problem with how the alien language was deciphered. There was no "Ah Ha" moment to let us know what was going on. All of a sudden the code was cracked and the planet was saved. There were no thrills in this thriller no matter how you say it.
9
Aliens have been here and were shock by the stupidity of the human race. They want nothing to do with us.
25
They were so shocked, one of them just became the US President, to have a little fun, maybe just to kill some time, or to help us kill ourselves.
30
Lets not forget the chestnut film Cocoon full of humor and imagination. And we know we all do that "they are out there" don't we?
2
Amy Adams is a tremendous, remarkably versatile actress and long overdue for an Oscar. How interesting that she and her Oscar rival/American Hustle co-star Jennifer Lawrence are both in science fiction movies this season.
18
And she's in this movie with the former mayor of Camden, NJ. Or was that Jeremy Renner from American Hustle?
1
I think the movie was made in anticpation of Hillary winning, and her iintroudction to us of the people to whom she owes allegnence. Her new world order.: Reboot Hollywood, its Thrump time.
1
Dream on. Hollywood producers are, whether you believe it or not, in it for the money. Would you roll your millions on the outcome of a presidential election? And, if that's the case, what were all those really bad Marvel movies made in anticipation of?
4
Uh....with respect, that's a reach. It was taken from a short story and apparently tries to adhere to it. The original character in the story is a woman, Louise Brooks and the character in the film is the same.
9
Uh, that's "Louise Banks". Louise Brooks was a whole nother flapper.
3
Has everyone already forgotten "Contact"? Still the most intelligent alien-contact film yet, and without panicky crowds, screaming jets or clench-jawed military men.
86
So happy you mentioned "Contact" & agree with you on every point! Fortunately this movie compares favorably with it. "Arrival", like "Contact", is for deep thinkers while providing a heartfelt cinematic experience.
11
I agree that "Contact" was a good sci-fi film, but it too had panicky, irrational crowds and clenched-jawed military men.
8
Woo-hoo! A NYTimes pick!
I checked out Ted Chiang's collection of short stories from the library and I have been reading and re-reading the stories.
The original story "Story of Your Life", which is the basis of the film, is haunting and enigmatic. Does Louise Brooks come to see her entire life enabled by the aliens in her youth, or is she simply remembering it at the end of her life? The constantly shifting tenses in Chiang's prose and the careful construction of the sentences create a mood which I found deeply effecting.
There is a considerable amount of information about conventional linguistics and physics in the short story, but non-scientists should not be put off by that. The story does require deep reading, and I found myself lingering over the sentences, trying to extract all of the meaning. A reading experience unlike any other.
Other notable stories in the collection, entitled "Stories of Your Life And Others" are "Tower of Babylon" , "Division by Zero" and "Hell is the Absence of God". The individual stories have received many SF literary awards.
I am encouraged to see this film from the trailer and am prepared for a different, but rewarding , experience than the story. And hey, it has Amy Adams as well, who delivers her lines with remarkable nuances.
I checked out Ted Chiang's collection of short stories from the library and I have been reading and re-reading the stories.
The original story "Story of Your Life", which is the basis of the film, is haunting and enigmatic. Does Louise Brooks come to see her entire life enabled by the aliens in her youth, or is she simply remembering it at the end of her life? The constantly shifting tenses in Chiang's prose and the careful construction of the sentences create a mood which I found deeply effecting.
There is a considerable amount of information about conventional linguistics and physics in the short story, but non-scientists should not be put off by that. The story does require deep reading, and I found myself lingering over the sentences, trying to extract all of the meaning. A reading experience unlike any other.
Other notable stories in the collection, entitled "Stories of Your Life And Others" are "Tower of Babylon" , "Division by Zero" and "Hell is the Absence of God". The individual stories have received many SF literary awards.
I am encouraged to see this film from the trailer and am prepared for a different, but rewarding , experience than the story. And hey, it has Amy Adams as well, who delivers her lines with remarkable nuances.
49
Did you really just need to spoil the film?
6
I'm glad someone did! The review was of no help letting us know how the movie ends. I prefer knowing how the movie is going to play out, so I can decide whether or not to see it.
1
I've seen the movie and read the story, and I don't think what Robert says spoils the film - I mean, yes, I guess now you know she survives the events in the film - but you expect that anyway in a Hollywood movie - the real questions are how, and why, and what happens along the way...
2
Thanks for nothing. Was that fine point about Villeneuve's style really worth spiking the moment for those of us who were still looking forward to seeing Sicario?
2
oh for heaven's sake. the movie has been out for almost two years. this suggests that no one should talk about any movie ever--what if someone has not yet seen "casablanca"--should no one mention that this is the start of a beautiful friendship?
17
"Simmer down now," Mr. S.! That one lower-case-ess "spoiler" from "Sicario," in this review, won't ruin _squat_ in your anticipation (and enjoyment) of that movie. I recommend you see "Arrival" asap (as I am soon leaving the house to go do!), then rent/stream/grok "Sicario" -- you won't be disappointed...
5
Really? Sicario was released almost 14 months ago, has been available on DVD and streaming since at least the Spring and is currently showing on Netflix. Dargis' allusion to the movie was not out of place.
Sicario is a worthy movie for you still, and nothing was "spiked" in the reference. Manohla Dargis' obsevation on Villenueve's style was spot-on.
Sicario is a worthy movie for you still, and nothing was "spiked" in the reference. Manohla Dargis' obsevation on Villenueve's style was spot-on.
9
Judging from the coming attracticons I was expecting a film more evocative of Close Encounters of the The Third Kind than 2001. Not so according to this review. I will see iit this weekend.
4
Twilight Zone episode 'To Serve Man'?! They finally translate the alien book and discover that it's a cookbook just as the alien spaceship full of humans is departing earth to the alien planet.
40
This was a mind blowing and stunning picture, one of the best I have ever seen. With all that's happened this week, I personally consider it the last dying breath of Western neoliberal imagination. Without curiosity, rationality, detached thinking and wide-eyed imagination, it will be the turn of some other civilisation to take over the reigns of the world.
107
Your concerns are beautifully stated, but I don't believe we need to sit back and watch this happen. We may be invigorated by the effort to reassert the power of the intellect.
11
It's not "reigns", but "reins" (as in holding the reins). Pass it on.
10
Might want to open that up a bit. Especially in light of recent events. In Jeremy Narby's book, 'The Cosmic Serpent' the author has an encounter with the voice of DNA (Think the Burning Bush), where he (humanity?) get upbraided as to who knows what is in charge.
In light of the fact that Evolution sometimes appears to act like a stumblebum, either term suffices.
In light of the fact that Evolution sometimes appears to act like a stumblebum, either term suffices.
2
I loved this film, and it led me to the award-winning story, a bit more abstract, which one can find online. The idea that we can find a way to communicate with extraterrestrials is so entrancing. I just hope we can also find a way to communicate effectively with each other before we destroy this precious planet.
149
A common myth about the kangaroo's English name is that "kangaroo" was a Guugu Yimithirr phrase for "I don't understand you." According to this legend, Cook and Banks were exploring the area when they happened upon the animal. They asked a nearby local what the creatures were called. The local responded "Kangaroo", meaning "I don't understand you", which Cook took to be the name of the creature. This myth was debunked in the 1970s by linguist John B. Haviland in his research with the Guugu Yimithirr people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kangaroo
11
Yes. This is presented in the movie as Ms. Adam's character makes a point, only to have her debunk it herself a moment later to Mr. Renner's character.
19
The story mentions that it is not true.
13
I am glad to know the details of the debunking. Thanks for this.
3