Watching this again. What does /tv/ think of Arrival?

Arrival is part of a recent series of movies I'd describe as Dunning-Kruger Sci-Fi. Along with Interstellar and to a somewhat lesser extent The Martian, they perfectly play to the crowd that fancies themselves as (and, to be fair, may truly be) smarter than average audiences but are not as smart as genuinely "smart people." They are movies designed to make the audience feel smart by introducing complicated and heady concepts, and then holding the viewer's hand the entire way through until there is next to nothing to be left up to interpretation.

If you didn't already know the twist in Arrival by the time she was in the milky section of the ship with the aliens AT LEAST, you perfectly fit the audience I am talking about.

There is no reward for being smart while viewing these movies because everything is eventually spelled out in big fridge magnet letters. Any clever idea is made so transparent that even the most simple in the audience will get it. It also removes any reward for rewatching or trying to figure out what you just saw.

Granted, there is a difference between Arrival and Interstellar. I think where Interstellar was pretending to have a brain it actually didn't have, Arrival has a brain that it is refusing to let the audience use.

Completely disappointing movie.

Also
>so that just happened

File: 1487118740324.jpg (233KB, 387x468px) Image search: [Google]

233KB, 387x468px

>>84394379
>>84394390
Nice one samefag.

Sliding

File: amyadams-lacma07.jpg (2MB, 2083x3000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2083x3000px

Favorite flick of 2016. Or maybe 2nd after The Invitation.

The daughter stuff and the visuals got to me more than the sci-fi stuff.

And boob sweat merchant was good in it.

>>84394350
>What does /tv/ think of Arrival?
Why the fuck would you care? Are you retarded?

Kill yourself, asswhipe

>>84394390
That is quite the interpretation, I don't think it has much to do with being smart (or maybe i fall into the crowd), it's just a movie, a movie (in my opinion) about a mother who makes the choice of marriage and having a child despite knowing the child will die and her husband will divorce her because of her knowing that it would happen. (I don't remember if he divorced her because she knew it would happen or just that it was to much of grief to continue the marriage because of the death of their daughter, hence why I'm watching it again.)

>>84394390
sounds like you fancy yourslef smrter than average audiences nerd

>>84394350
Great film. Like his last one. I have hopes for his next one even though it will probably break his streak

>>84394597
cool

>>84394350
it was shit and fuck you

>>84394390
god damn you are so stupid. if i was next to you when you typed that i'd slap your fucking face.

>he watches movies to """""""""""think""""""""""""

would you have preferred just 90 minutes of on screen calculus so you could """"""""think""""""?

i really liked it. I appreciate a movie that can close all it's loops and answer all its questions and just be over, and not have stuff hanging out at the end. Plus, the attention to detail and the attempt at an accurate first contact scenario was dope. The international politics, the quasi-alex jones plot thread--it was all thoughtful and done very well.

>>84394350
I forgot already, somebody please refresh my memory- who did Villeneuve originally want as the male main? I forgot but it made sense when I heard it. Was it Guillermo? Or Gillenhall? Can't recall

>>84394350
The twists were a little predictable. It had an interesting premise but doesn't really do enough with it.

>>84394794
i agree with you.

>>84394350
6/10

>>84395684
How would you rate Sicario?

>>84395902
7/10

>>84395684
(I'm asking to see if I agree with you on more than one level.)

>>84394350
I loved it, best film of 2016

>>84395684
>>84395934
I agree with you on both.
What's the last 8 or 9 you saw?

its Villeneuves worst yet, but that's largely a result of the cringey script rather than how competently the film was assembled. it really just goes to show that Blade Runner 2049 is not the surefire bet I thought it'd be prior to seeing this movie.

File: Heptipod.jpg (24KB, 503x716px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 503x716px

>>84394390
This, and also there is no satisfying conclusion to this film. The aliens come and go and you're left saying "Oh I see she inherited their power of perceiving non-linear time".

The only thing I'll give this movie is the way they handled her finale interaction with the aliens. After it shows their full bodies the shots will swap between focusing on the trunk of the alien and the human-like crest at the top of their bodies.

I liked this because it shows that because of our instincts to always find a face, we'd struggle with which part of a an alien being to look at when communicating.

Is it like an octopus with the "face" being near the "legs" or is it oriented like a human with the face at the top of the creature? I found that attention to the detail in the shots alone to be great directing.