Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 3:37:26 GMT
I am curious to hear from those who didn't like Arrival. No criticism at all, we are all entitled to our tastes. Just genuinely curious.
|
|
|
Post by politicidal on Mar 18, 2017 3:39:51 GMT
Really? No love for The Martian? I guess I have to see INTERSTELLAR then.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 6:04:02 GMT
I am curious to hear from those who didn't like Arrival. No criticism at all, we are all entitled to our tastes. Just genuinely curious. I was going to post these comments of mine in a thread on Arrival, but I will do so here and then add them to that thread: *** I basically loathe Arrival, which I saw twice (basically seeing it again, on an Oscar pass, just to check my original assessment and also because it received a slew of Oscar nominations that I found difficult to fathom). And I actually liked it even less the second time—I consider Arrival the most overrated release of 2016 and possibly even worse than Selma, which I deemed the most overrated movie of 2014 despite it, too, being a Best Picture nominee. After seeing Arrival the first time, I ascribed the adjective "lousy" to it after briefly, before the very ending, considering it perhaps "lousy/decent." After viewing Arrival the second time, I just considered it "terrible"—basically carrying the same meaning as "lousy," but indicating my increased frustration with the film. When a movie that you already consider poor becomes even worse to you after a second viewing, that is certainly a sign that it is not going to work for you—even though I fully understood the "plot twist" the second time, which had not fully been the case the first time. Basically, I believe that Arrival is sentimental tripe and a pretentious, draggy affair that—for a ton of critics, viewers, and Academy members—got away with passing off gimmicks and clichés as profound ideas. The film constitutes a classic case of seeming cerebral by creating the illusion of something grand and important while actually being mechanical and hollow—an empty shell, so to speak. The movie tries to be a sort of " E.T. for adults," but without any of the charm, humor, or soul of E.T. Amy Adams is always good, as is a (somewhat wasted, given the size and nature of his role) Forest Whitaker, and some of the cinematography is impressive in terms of epic-looking compositions, lighting, and aerial tracking shots. Otherwise, I feel that the movie is basically a travesty. Yes, it tries to say something about time being nonlinear (which does not make sense on a literal level unless you are entering some outer space realm, which Arrival does not) and regrets or the lack thereof and whether one would redo one's life if one understood the tragedies that would come. But the film engages these ideas in such a pretentious, nonsensical, skeletal manner that I find it completely unconvincing. The clichéd jocularity of the Jeremy Renner character fails to mesh with the film's overall mood and tone (which are sober to the point of extreme and unwarranted self-importance), and some of the lines are incredibly stilted and unrealistic (like when the Whitaker character says something early on to the Adams character along the lines of, "You took care of that insurgent translation," and she replies, "You took care of those insurgents"). Now, I have to respect the fact that some people really respond to Arrival, including a critic such as Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times, whom I like. I guess that for some people, the film indeed plays in a cerebral manner. But again, for me, the cerebral aspects proved extremely pretentious and hollow, basically an indulgence in intellectual gimmickry to try and cover what is actually a banal Hollywood blockbuster. ( The Martian is somewhat similar in that respect, but it is not nearly as self-important or pseudo-intellectual. And I guess that the term "pseudo-intellectual," as much as anything, explains my problems with Arrival. Another adjective that I find apt is "condescending" or "pandering.") If someone found Arrival genuinely moving or felt that it challenged their view of the world, do not hesitate to say so or explain why. I enjoy trying to figure out why movies work better for others than they do for me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 6:10:50 GMT
Intersteller 10/10 Martian 9/10 Arrival 9/10 Gravity 1/10
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 18, 2017 8:11:54 GMT
Here is something else that I did not like about Arrival—something that I had forgotten about yet had observed while viewing the film for the second time.
I am not a political conservative, I do not vote Republican, and I consider religion to be mythology—which can be used productively or abused depending on the person or the group. But I thought that in a couple of aspects, Arrival treated conservatives condescendingly or on a stereotypical basis.
***SPOILERS for Arrival***
In one instance, a soldier is listening on an electronic device to some Alex Jones-type right-wing conspiracy theorist who is ranting about how the government is colluding with or appeasing the aliens—something to that effect. The soldier then decides to sabotage Louise Banks' (Amy Adams) communication mission by planting an explosive, only for the alien to save Louise by banging up against the glass and effectively throwing her back and out of harm's way.
Sure, you could always have some Timothy McVeigh type in the military, but keep in mind that McVeigh became a terrorist after serving in combat in Iraq in 1991—who knows what exactly that experience did to him? And there are obviously some soldiers who listen to Alex Jones or whomever, but the chances of them going out and sabotaging their own army, while on duty and in uniform, are microscopic. Yes, Arrival is obviously a movie, but I found this development to be condescending and preposterous in any event, as in real life, a mere grunt surely would not be able to just walk into a highly sensitive and supposedly secure military area, where crucial diplomacy was occurring, and plant a bomb with no checks or protocols to stop him.
Then there is an instance where the media mentions a church in North Dakota (or one of the Dakotas) whose congregation members had burned themselves alive because they believed that the aliens' arrival was a sign of Armageddon. And, sure, there are religious crazies out there and Arrival is just a movie, but in this way, too, I felt that the film was treating conservatives and the "Heartland" condescendingly—inadvertently pandering, in a sense, to conservatives' stereotypes of Hollywood and its supposedly snobbish manners and elitist mores.
These matters are not big deals by themselves, but they epitomize the ways in which I find Arrival haughty, pandering, and clichéd while straining to come across as earnest, noble, and sophisticated.
... just some honest observations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 18, 2017 12:33:44 GMT
Here is something else that I did not like about Arrival—something that I had forgotten about yet had observed while viewing the film for the second time. I am not a political conservative, I do not vote Republican, and I consider religion to be mythology—which can be used productively or abused depending on the person or the group. But I thought that in a couple of aspects, Arrival treated conservatives condescendingly or on a stereotypical basis. ***SPOILERS for Arrival***In one instance, a soldier is listening on an electronic device to some Alex Jones-type right-wing conspiracy theorist who is ranting about how the government is colluding with or appeasing the aliens—something to that effect. The soldier then decides to sabotage Louise Banks' (Amy Adams) communication mission by planting an explosive, only for the alien to save Louise by banging up against the glass and effectively throwing her back and out of harm's way. Sure, you could always have some Timothy McVeigh type in the military, but keep in mind that McVeigh became a terrorist after serving in combat in Iraq in 1991—who knows what exactly that experience did to him? And there are obviously some soldiers who listen to Alex Jones or whomever, but the chances of them going out and sabotaging their own army, while on duty and in uniform, are microscopic. Yes, Arrival is obviously a movie, but I found this development to be condescending and preposterous in any event, as in real life, a mere grunt surely would not be able to just walk into a highly sensitive and supposedly secure military area, where crucial diplomacy was occurring, and plant a bomb with no checks or protocols to stop him. Then there is an instance where the media mentions a church in North Dakota (or one of the Dakotas) whose congregation had burned themselves alive because they believed that the aliens' arrival constituted a sign of Armageddon. And, sure, there are religious crazies out there and Arrival is just a movie, but in this way, too, I felt that the film was treating conservatives and the "Heartland" condescendingly—inadvertently pandering, in a sense, to conservatives' stereotypes of Hollywood and its supposedly snobbish manners and elitist mores. These matters are not big deals by themselves, but they epitomize the ways in which I find Arrival haughty, pandering, and clichéd while straining to come across as earnest, noble, and sophisticated. ... just some honest observations. Thank you so much for responding! interesting analysis.I did not pick up on any left wing bias, and I am right leaning, but you make a good argument for it being there. I saw the mention of the cult as something that added a bit of realism. I think if we did have a visitation like the one that happened in the film, it is very possible that something like that would happen (remember the Hale-Bopp comet cult?). I guess that I just saw them using the military as the film's antagonist, adding some conflict to the story. I also felt like it was a message about how, in comparison to an advanced civilization, our warmongering looks like a primitive behavior. Again, your argument for it being pandering and cliched is a fair one. I agree that Forrest Whitaker was under-utilized, and his scenes are one of the weaker aspects of the film. The message about love and loss is what really sold me on this film. I felt it was done in a non-patronizing and relate-able way, and really spoke about the human experience. Love, loss, and mortality are themes that are pretty universal, and I thought they were handled elegantly. I didn't find it pretentious at all, so it is so interesting to me that others did. Granted, I am not educated about film making or screen writing. I just like what I like I really loved how the aliens were portrayed, both in look and behavior. It felt real for me, and it has become one of my favorite portrayals of alien life in film. The complicated process of trying to learn their language also played real to me, and I thought how they communicated was fresh and original in the sci-fi genre. Again, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. If there is one thing I miss about IMDb, it's conversations like this one on all the individual move and TV boards.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 19, 2017 9:28:47 GMT
Thank you so much for responding! interesting analysis.I did not pick up on any left wing bias, and I am right leaning, but you make a good argument for it being there. I saw the mention of the cult as something that added a bit of realism. I think if we did have a visitation like the one that happened in the film, it is very possible that something like that would happen (remember the Hale-Bopp comet cult?). I guess that I just saw them using the military as the film's antagonist, adding some conflict to the story. I also felt like it was a message about how, in comparison to an advanced civilization, our warmongering looks like a primitive behavior. Again, your argument for it being pandering and cliched is a fair one. I agree that Forrest Whitaker was under-utilized, and his scenes are one of the weaker aspects of the film. The message about love and loss is what really sold me on this film. I felt it was done in a non-patronizing and relate-able way, and really spoke about the human experience. Love, loss, and mortality are themes that are pretty universal, and I thought they were handled elegantly. I didn't find it pretentious at all, so it is so interesting to me that others did. Granted, I am not educated about film making or screen writing. I just like what I like I really loved how the aliens were portrayed, both in look and behavior. It felt real for me, and it has become one of my favorite portrayals of alien life in film. The complicated process of trying to learn their language also played real to me, and I thought how they communicated was fresh and original in the sci-fi genre. Again, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. If there is one thing I miss about IMDb, it's conversations like this one on all the individual move and TV boards. The concern regarding how we would communicate with aliens and try to decode their language is worthwhile, I concur. Although I obviously did not feel that Arrival did much with it beyond the surface elements, I do like the concept. (By the way, does anyone remember what the Whitaker character later stated after Louise told him to ask the Cal-Berkeley linguist for the Sanskrit word for something or the other? When the Whitaker figure meets Louise the next time, he mentions this matter, but I missed exactly what he says.) I also agree that the idea of love, loss, and whether one would relive one's life, or aspects of one's life, if one understood the tragedies to come is compelling. I just felt that these ideas did not receive a real exploration and that the narrative more or less exploited them in an inorganic and superficial manner, but I respect the fact that they worked genuinely and soulfully for you and some others. I guess that to put it another way, I sort of see two different films here—an alien blockbuster with some cursory intellectual potential regarding linguistics and also an intimate, emotional chamber piece about loss and hope. Arrival connects the two in a way that feels strained, ostentatious, and threadbare for me. Did you see director Denis Villeneuve's previous film, Sicario (2015)? Many people really seem to enjoy that movie, and I enjoyed it much more than Arrival, for sure. But although Sicario possessed some major strengths in terms of cinematography, editing, action, location shooting, and atmosphere or milieu, I ultimately considered it just "decent" because the plot amounted to a typical revenge/conspiratorial potboiler, while the movie nonetheless strained to suggest some social significance that the narrative failed to support. I feel much the same way about Arrival: the narrative mechanics are robotic and turgid, straining to suggest a transcendent meaning. On the other hand, I can see how you and others find a certain grace and humanity in some of Arrival's elements. Had those elements been situated differently, I might have enjoyed them too. In any event, I would love to see Amy Adams and Forest Whitaker in a movie where Whitaker plays a larger and more integral role; I feel that they both bring a lot of humanity and authenticity to the screen.
|
|
|
Post by hardball on Mar 19, 2017 11:32:12 GMT
Interstellar The Martian Arrival
Gravity
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 15:40:55 GMT
Interstellar The Martian Gravity
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2017 18:33:41 GMT
Thank you so much for responding! interesting analysis.I did not pick up on any left wing bias, and I am right leaning, but you make a good argument for it being there. I saw the mention of the cult as something that added a bit of realism. I think if we did have a visitation like the one that happened in the film, it is very possible that something like that would happen (remember the Hale-Bopp comet cult?). I guess that I just saw them using the military as the film's antagonist, adding some conflict to the story. I also felt like it was a message about how, in comparison to an advanced civilization, our warmongering looks like a primitive behavior. Again, your argument for it being pandering and cliched is a fair one. I agree that Forrest Whitaker was under-utilized, and his scenes are one of the weaker aspects of the film. The message about love and loss is what really sold me on this film. I felt it was done in a non-patronizing and relate-able way, and really spoke about the human experience. Love, loss, and mortality are themes that are pretty universal, and I thought they were handled elegantly. I didn't find it pretentious at all, so it is so interesting to me that others did. Granted, I am not educated about film making or screen writing. I just like what I like I really loved how the aliens were portrayed, both in look and behavior. It felt real for me, and it has become one of my favorite portrayals of alien life in film. The complicated process of trying to learn their language also played real to me, and I thought how they communicated was fresh and original in the sci-fi genre. Again, thanks for the detailed and thoughtful response. If there is one thing I miss about IMDb, it's conversations like this one on all the individual move and TV boards. The concern regarding how we would communicate with aliens and try to decode their language is worthwhile, I concur. Although I obviously did not feel that Arrival did much with it beyond the surface elements, I do like the concept. ( By the way, does anyone remember what the Whitaker character later stated after Louise told him to ask the Cal-Berkeley linguist for the Sanskrit word for something or the other? When the Whitaker figure meets Louise the next time, he mentions this matter, but I missed exactly what he says.)I also agree that the idea of love, loss, and whether one would relive one's life, or aspects of one's life, if one understood the tragedies to come is compelling. I just felt that these ideas did not receive a real exploration and that the narrative more or less exploited them in an inorganic and superficial manner, but I respect the fact that they worked genuinely and soulfully for you and some others. I guess that to put it another way, I sort of see two different films here—an alien blockbuster with some cursory intellectual potential regarding linguistics and also an intimate, emotional chamber piece about loss and hope. Arrival connects the two in a way that feels strained, ostentatious, and threadbare for me. Did you see director Denis Villeneuve's previous film, Sicario (2015)? Many people really seem to enjoy that movie, and I enjoyed it much more than Arrival, for sure. But although Sicario possessed some major strengths in terms of cinematography, editing, action, location shooting, and atmosphere or milieu, I ultimately considered it just "decent" because the plot amounted to a typical revenge/conspiratorial potboiler, while the movie nonetheless strained to suggest some social significance that the narrative failed to support. I feel much the same way about Arrival: the narrative mechanics are robotic and turgid, straining to suggest a transcendent meaning. On the other hand, I can see how you and others find a certain grace and humanity in some of Arrival's elements. Had those elements been situated differently, I might have enjoyed them too. In any event, I would love to see Amy Adams and Forest Whitaker in a movie where Whitaker plays a larger and more integral role; I feel that they both bring a lot of humanity and authenticity to the screen. I watched this again just to answer your question. He says some word in Sanskrit that I couldn't make out. It wasn't the word for "war" that Louise told him to ask the other linguist about about. It meant "a desire for more cows." That's why they acquiesced to to Louise's demand to be there in person to translate, she really was the best known linguist in the world. I will add that the dialogue between Whitaker and Louise could have been stronger, but I really love the contrast between the alien life and our own. The military from around the world, the fact that countries would not share information with each other to their own peril, and how the alien life, who made no threat towards us, were treated, was a very powerful message, I feel. And the movie did it by showing us, not telling us. There was no admonishment from the aliens or anyone else about the frivolity of war, or an encouragement for everyone to get together and sing Kumbaya. It just portrayed the highest life forms on Earth doing what comes natural to them, in contrast to an advanced species.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Mar 20, 2017 15:57:34 GMT
1. Interstellar (10/10) - Just incredible, one of the best cinema experiences I've ever had. 2/3. Gravity (10/10) - I actually really didn't like Gravity when I first watched it (5 out of 10, maybe 6 out of 10). I saw it at home on dvd. The second time I bought the 3D blu-ray version and I watched it at home at full volume and with the lights turned off. It was like I was watching a completely different movie. 2/3. Arrival (10/10) - One of the best movies of 2016. 4. The Martian (8/10) - Great movie, but not as amazing as the other three. I watched all of these movies at least twice and The Martian was the least interesting upon rewatching.
|
|
|
Post by kuatorises on Mar 20, 2017 16:00:44 GMT
I really hated Gravity.
|
|
|
Post by joekiddlouischama on Mar 22, 2017 22:54:18 GMT
I watched this again just to answer your question. He says some word in Sanskrit that I couldn't make out. It wasn't the word for "war" that Louise told him to ask the other linguist about about. It meant "a desire for more cows." That's why they acquiesced to to Louise's demand to be there in person to translate, she really was the best known linguist in the world. I will add that the dialogue between Whitaker and Louise could have been stronger, but I really love the contrast between the alien life and our own. The military from around the world, the fact that countries would not share information with each other to their own peril, and how the alien life, who made no threat towards us, were treated, was a very powerful message, I feel. And the movie did it by showing us, not telling us. There was no admonishment from the aliens or anyone else about the frivolity of war, or an encouragement for everyone to get together and sing Kumbaya. It just portrayed the highest life forms on Earth doing what comes natural to them, in contrast to an advanced species. Thank you, I appreciate that. I understood the point of the scene, but I kept missing what exactly the Berkeley linguist had told the Whitaker character (and which he then told Louise). Your last point is an intriguing one.
|
|