What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

"Arrival" the movie (1 Viewer)

I"m not surprised.  This is the same director who made Sicario and that movie was one of the best movies I have ever seen.  I"m pumped to go see it.

 
I've only seen a couple from this director  (Incendies and Prisoners) but they were both outstanding. Very excited to see this one 

 
Is it based on a book? If so, should you read the book first? Is it a movie that will be ok on small screen?

 
Is it based on a book? If so, should you read the book first? Is it a movie that will be ok on small screen?
Based on a short story. I usually have the best experience if I watch the movie first. If I enjoy the movie I'll then read the book for additional details. Doing it the other way around tends to lead to disappointment for me.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Is it based on a book? If so, should you read the book first? Is it a movie that will be ok on small screen?
Based on a short story. I usually have the best experience if I watch the movie first. If I enjoy the movie I'll then read the book for additional details. Doing it the other way around tends to lead to disappointment for me.

Edited 34 minutes ago by sports_fan
Sometimes I go the other way, not wanting the movie to ruin a good book.

 
TripItUp , thank you. I read your OP this morning as I was contemplating playing hookie from work. Just now saw it -- wow! Pretty thought provoking. Amazingly done -- still have questions but wow...

 
For those of you going to see this, understand that it is a very contemplative movie. It requires patience and focus. I would 100% see this in the theater not just because of the cinematic experience, but also to avoid the many distractions that often accompany home viewing. 

Do not read the spoiler tag below unless you've seen the film.

I was a mess during the last 10 minutes of the film, for pretty obvious reasons to those who know me here. I spent 14 months hoping and praying that my child wouldn't die, and one month knowing that he would. I now have scars on my soul and psyche that will never heal. I can't imagine enduring that for 14+ years. And yet, I understand her choice (to the extent it was a choice), because I wouldn't trade those 15 months for anything. Many of the greatest moments in my life happened during those 15 months. They mean everything to me. And given the chance (or the choice), I'd live them again in a heartbeat.

I guess for many, that may be a secondary aspect of the film as opposed to the central theme, but to me, it was the most monumentally powerful cinematic experience I've ever had.
 
A couple questions:

When the colonel came back to pick up Louise in the helicopter, I missed the exchange about what the other linguist said about the Sanskrit word for war.  Can someone fill that in?  Presumably it revealed that the Berkeley prof wasn't as knowledgeable as she was. 

When she is talking to her daughter about telling her dad "the thing she knew," she said that his response was that she made a mistake. Do you think the mistake he was referring to was telling him, or was it choosing to have her daughter in the first place?
 
I was reading some reviews on this film after seeing it, and I thought this user review was really good (includes plot details/spoilers):

A flat out, stone cold, science fiction masterpiece

10/10 | ryanjmorris | 11 Oct 2016

Louise Banks (Amy Adams) is a linguist who teaches at a College. One day, twelve giant spacecrafts appear in random locations across the world overnight.

Louise's skills make her a requirement for the U.S forces, who recruit her - and mathematician Ian Donnelly (Jeremy Renner) - to attempt to decode and translate the language that the creatures inside the spacecrafts are using in order to prevent a global war. Alien invasion films have, frankly, been done to death. Arrival's script - penned by Eric Heisserer and adapted from Ted Chiang's short story "Story of Your Life" - is ingenious in that it finds an entirely new angle to focus the whole thing on. Rather than start a war and depict the bloodshed and trauma of an alien invasion, Arrival focuses on the struggle to communicate with the creatures (dubbed "Heptapods"), and what the aftermath of this could lead to should it not go to plan. The whole thing is pieced together like a piece of art - the performances, dialogue, cinematography, soundtrack, screenplay, editing and direction all form one elegantly structured whole. It's a simply astonishing feat of film making.

Arrival finds strength in just about everything it is comprised of. It does this to such an extent, in fact, that it's almost impossible to break it down into individual pieces. Amy Adams is superb here, giving a subdued but deeply moving performance. A lot of the film rests on her shoulders for its twists and turns to stick the landing, but she carries it without breaking a sweat. Never given any big Oscar-esque moments, Adams tells Louise's story in her softest moments and through her body language. It's an astoundingly delicate performance. Renner is also solid, and accompanies Adams nicely, even if he can't help but feel woefully overshadowed. Louise as a character is the film's most exciting element - a woman that uses her knowledge and skills to change the world in ways it has never been changed before, all of which comes down to language. When Arrival ends, you will spend hours thinking about yourself and the language you speak and use every day. The potential behind this story was astronomical, and it delivers in spades.

Much like in his previous film Sicario, Villeneuve has created a masterful aesthetic in every way. The film's soundtrack, courtesy of the terrific Jóhann Jóhannsson, is a sublime array of thumping horn arrangements and softer pieces. The cinematography (by Bradford Young) is breathtaking, bringing in references and odes to other sci-fi classics (notably 2001: A Space Oddysey) but successfully acting as a perfect match to the tone of each sequence. The flashback sequences focused on Louise's young daughter look and feel like forgotten memories, while the moments inside the spacecrafts feel entirely alien. The production design is stunning, the large pitch black objects hovering over the cities feel instantly dark and foreboding, and the brief sights of the creatures we're given reveal something wholly original. In terms of technicalities and aesthetic, Arrival is a thing of beauty - a unique, visually resplendent film that you never want to take your eyes off of.

But where Arrival hits perfection, though? The emotion. The power behind the story, and the direction the story takes in its tremendous final act. This is what makes Arrival such a phenomenal film. It sets up a story (an already thought-provoking and well paced one, at that), and then smoothly transforms into something much bigger than you could ever have expected it to be. Another stroke of ingeniousness is that the film doesn't do this in one movement. Rather than drop one bombshell and change its direction, Arrival slowly sets up a series of events, then puts them in motion one by one, binding everything neatly around its central character. Y'know that feeling you get when an absolutely killer plot twist lands? Arrival will give you that feeling for the entirety of its final act. It is, of course, entirely possible to work out where it is headed. I did, as a matter of fact, and it just made the whole thing feel that little bit more special. You either work it out and watch as it comes to life before your eyes, or you cluelessly dedicate your time to its finale and feel mesmerised at each and every turn. Whichever you experience, it is wonderful.

Arrival is a film that feels thrilling in its own unique little way. When it ends, and you discuss it for hours (which is inevitable), you'll find yourself not focusing on the aliens. You'll be focusing on the emotional power of it all, on the human side of the story. I've deliberately left a lot out of this review, just to avoid spoiling the direction the film takes in its final act. The power behind the constant twists and turns is game changing; it proves that science fiction can be, despite what the name might imply, the most human genre to make a film about. Arrival has some stunning imagery and effects to play around with, but instead it focuses on language and conversation. It focuses on humanity and time and memory, and all that is worth fighting for on this planet. It is a breathtaking achievement, and one I already cannot wait to experience countless times again. In a year riddled with emotionless superhero films and crude comedies, Arrival is a godsend. Villeneuve has been on the verge of a masterpiece for the last few years, and he has finally landed it. Arrival is a film for the ages. Seek it out at all costs, and let it transport you across time and space only to bring you back down to Earth, evoking a feeling you may never have experienced before. This, people, this right here is why I adore cinema. 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And seriously, do not read these spoilers unless you want the movie ruined for you. 
Thanks for this GB.  Really interested in this movie, gonna steer clear of this thread for a while so as not to risk anything.   

 
A couple questions:

When the colonel came back to pick up Louise in the helicopter, I missed the exchange about what the other linguist said about the Sanskrit word for war.  Can someone fill that in?  Presumably it revealed that the Berkeley prof wasn't as knowledgeable as she was. 

When she is talking to her daughter about telling her dad "the thing she knew," she said that his response was that she made a mistake. Do you think the mistake he was referring to was telling him, or was it choosing to have her daughter in the first place?
To #1, my wife and I couldn't tell either. The voices were too low in the mix to hear over the chopper. 

To #2, I took it as her having the child knowing full well it was destined to die young.  I'm assuming he felt responsible in that as well even though he didn't know. 

--

liked it a lot.  My only issues actually stem from the Adams/Renner future relationship. Like they start dating and she knows that they'll parent a child with a disease and this never comes up all those years?  She never mentions that they'll get divorced?  I don't know if I find that selfish or what. 

Also even though shes allegedly the best in her field, no one else was able to master this language and have the same experience?  Like Renner was a smart dude, theres a translation guide to the language and he seemed to know what he was doing in their talks, but he never got the Shining to know what was going to happen?

just nitpicks. 9/10. 
 
Last edited by a moderator:
To #1, my wife and I couldn't tell either. The voices were too low in the mix to hear over the chopper. 

To #2, I took it as her having the child knowing full well it was destined to die young.  I'm assuming he felt responsible in that as well even though he didn't know. 

--

liked it a lot.  My only issues actually stem from the Adams/Renner future relationship. Like they start dating and she knows that they'll parent a child with a disease and this never comes up all those years?  She never mentions that they'll get divorced?  I don't know if I find that selfish or what. 

Also even though shes allegedly the best in her field, no one else was able to master this language and have the same experience?  Like Renner was a smart dude, theres a translation guide to the language and he seemed to know what he was doing in their talks, but he never got the Shining to know what was going to happen?

just nitpicks. 9/10. 

Louise and Ian have the conversation in which Ian states that when becoming immersed in a new language, some people experience brain rewiring.  My guess is that didn't happen for everyone, and clearly didn't ever happen for Ian. It does seem like it may have happened to Shang.
 
A couple questions:

When the colonel came back to pick up Louise in the helicopter, I missed the exchange about what the other linguist said about the Sanskrit word for war.  Can someone fill that in?  Presumably it revealed that the Berkeley prof wasn't as knowledgeable as she was. 

When she is talking to her daughter about telling her dad "the thing she knew," she said that his response was that she made a mistake. Do you think the mistake he was referring to was telling him, or was it choosing to have her daughter in the first place?

1) The other professor said the Sanskrit word for "war" means "conflict." When the Colonel asked her what it means, she replied "a desire for more cows."

2) For the conversation with her daughter, did Dad say she made a mistake, or did she say she made a mistake? I thought she said something like "Dad left because I made a mistake." When the girl said "He doesn't look at me the same anymore," I took the whole conversation to mean Mom made a mistake in telling Dad what was to come. 
 
For those of you going to see this, understand that it is a very contemplative movie. It requires patience and focus. I would 100% see this in the theater not just because of the cinematic experience, but also to avoid the many distractions that often accompany home viewing. 

Do not read the spoiler tag below unless you've seen the film.

I was a mess during the last 10 minutes of the film, for pretty obvious reasons to those who know me here. I spent 14 months hoping and praying that my child wouldn't die, and one month knowing that he would. I now have scars on my soul and psyche that will never heal. I can't imagine enduring that for 14+ years. And yet, I understand her choice (to the extent it was a choice), because I wouldn't trade those 15 months for anything. Many of the greatest moments in my life happened during those 15 months. They mean everything to me. And given the chance (or the choice), I'd live them again in a heartbeat.

I guess for many, that may be a secondary aspect of the film as opposed to the central theme, but to me, it was the most monumentally powerful cinematic experience I've ever had.

I kind of think its the point of the entire film. Louise even asks Ian at the end: "If you knew how things turned out in life, would you do anything different" or something to that effect.

This question was what my wife and I talked about on the way home. We don't have kids yet, but neither one of us really had an answer. I think the joy would outweigh the pain, but I can't imagine having to make that choice. 
 
  It felt like it wanted to be Contact but Contact did a lot of this way better.  I'm not sure what anyone is seeing in the acting.  None of the actors were even asked to show a range of emotions.  Hawkeye and the general were almost emotionless.  Amy Adams really didn't sell me on the anguish of what she was going thru compared to what other actors might have done.  She showed more emotion on the phone at the end than with anything regarding her daughter which was weird.  

 
Wow! Great to see all the positive reviews. I'll wait for DVD but am looking forward to it now.

 
  It felt like it wanted to be Contact but Contact did a lot of this way better.  I'm not sure what anyone is seeing in the acting.  None of the actors were even asked to show a range of emotions.  Hawkeye and the general were almost emotionless.  Amy Adams really didn't sell me on the anguish of what she was going thru compared to what other actors might have done.  She showed more emotion on the phone at the end than with anything regarding her daughter which was weird.  

I don't think it was weird at all. During the film, all of her "dreams" are about a child she doesn't know.  She felt this grief, but didn't understand why and was more confused than anything. Full on anguish would not have made sense.  That is why her performance in the present day scenes were so artful. As for her emotions in the "dreams," nearly all of them were with her daughter. It is perfectly understandable that a mother would try to be strong in front of her child. And I do recall that we caught a glimpse of her breaking down in a hospital hallway (I've been there).  The scene where she was standing off to the side while the doctor was examining the daughter (presumably preceding the initial diagnosis) was haunting. From my perspective, Adams gave an incredibly genuine nuanced performance, portraying confusion, grief and ultimately acceptance in an understated and wholly realistic manner devoid of manufactured Hollywood melodrama. It was a pitch perfect performance in my opinion.


 
Nah, go see a matinee. I think the big screen would be worth it for $10. 
Yeah, I think it's definitely a big screen preferred movie. The ships and the aliens, while understated, are pretty awesome to see on a large screen. 

Also this is the type of movie that if spoiled, it'll change your entire viewing experience. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nah, go see a matinee. I think the big screen would be worth it for $10. 
I got a nice home theater in my basement and I hate the distractions of a movie theater. I think the last movie we saw in a theater was The Departed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The short story did not add much to the movie. It's only 60 pages. The movie was able to capture it well. I liked the adaptations the movie made and preferred it in many instances. I enjoyed the short story but in all honestly you're not missing much if you choose not to read it.

The author seems to have a strong track record, however. I'm looking forward to reading some of his other work.

 
. I would 100% see this in the theater ...to avoid the many distractions ... 

I was a mess during the last 10 minutes of the film, for pretty obvious reasons to those who know me here. I spent 14 months hoping and praying that my child wouldn't die, and one month knowing that he would. I now have scars on my soul and psyche that will never heal. I can't imagine enduring that for 14+ years. And yet, I understand her choice (to the extent it was a choice), because I wouldn't trade those 15 months for anything. Many of the greatest moments in my life happened during those 15 months. They mean everything to me. And given the chance (or the choice), I'd live them again in a heartbeat.

I guess for many, that may be a secondary aspect of the film as opposed to the central theme, but to me, it was the most monumentally powerful cinematic experience I've ever had.
Thanks. For exactly this reason, I'll watch it at home.  

 
While I think this is a really good film, I think people should temper their expectations a bit lest they come away disappointed. It definitely won't be for everyone particularly with respect to it's sometimes glacial pace. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
 Very good movie.  I think I will enjoy watching it the second time better as I know what to look for.   

 
I heard it got amazing reviews and A great Rotten tomato score so I was pumped to see it.

Not a huge fan. The inner linguist in me enjoyed it, but the sci-fi nerd in me didn't.

To be honest, it made such a small impression that I don't think I've even thought about the movie once in the 3 days since I've seen it. 

The twist was cool, I followed the whole thing, and even helped explain what happened to some of those I watched it with. 

But overall..a forgettable movie.

 
  It felt like it wanted to be Contact but Contact did a lot of this way better.  I'm not sure what anyone is seeing in the acting.  None of the actors were even asked to show a range of emotions.  Hawkeye and the general were almost emotionless.  Amy Adams really didn't sell me on the anguish of what she was going thru compared to what other actors might have done.  She showed more emotion on the phone at the end than with anything regarding her daughter which was weird.  
Complete opposite for me.  I thought this one took everything Contact did to the next level - the consequences for Earth, the emotions, the small nerdy science details. 

I really loved this movie, and it took a bit of energy to not lose it in the theater during a couple spots. 

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top