@microscope said:

Arrival is a sci-fi/chick flick, most men won't like it. The movie answered no questions about the aliens motive in 3000 yrs, and there won't be a sequel, so it's just a long predictable drama.

I hate to wade in here, but I would again like to say that I think the scores on aggregators like RottenTomatoes can give a false impression of the overall tone of the reviews. I was comparing RT's scores for Alien: Covenant (yes, I obsess) and while the RT score currently stands at 75%, the score on Metacritic is at 61. Metacritic either does a better job of parsing the reviews for tone or it allows the reviewers to provide a more granular review percentage so that their score gives a better impression of the overall weight of the positives to negatives.

I actually prefer Cinemascore to all of them, since it's an active survey taken from average moviegoers after a film's release rather than from critical reviews. Frankly, I feel that many of the critics polled by RottenTomatoes just plain suck. Their reviews are pedestrian, unprofessional, or even intentionally contrarian. As such, I vastly prefer anonymous polls such as those favored by Cinemascore.

I went back and looked at the Cinemascore on Arrival and it rated a "B" at release. That's a fair score, but hardly wildly popular as the RT score might indicate. I'd much rather listen to the score given by an average joe, who had to pay their own money to view a film with an actual audience, to a critic who might have watched the film in a marathon session mixed in with several other films to write his columns for the month.

I haven't seen Arrival, and I'm not terribly interested in it, but that's where I tend to go if I'm on the fence. And no, I don't think there are that many paid reviewers, at least not enough to influence the score, although there are ABSOLUTELY reviewers will will dependably write positive articles for otherwise bad films for the attention.

Out of curiosity I just checked about 10 movies with Cinemascore, and they are aligned almost perfectly with user reviews at RT/Metacritic.

I typically disagree with user reviews even more than even RT (which is typically way, way off the mark).

User reviews are usually meaningless for many, many reasons.........So many that I'm too lazy right now to get into it.....haha.

Well, for what it's worth (probably nothing) I really, really liked Arrival. (5 out of 5 for me on the TMDB scale). I saw it twice in the theater, and twice more after I purchased it on Blue-Ray.

However, I'll admit I haven't met anyone in real life who thought it was great: One woman, 32, thought it was okay, as did her much older boyfriend. One man, 49, thought it was also okay (he said he disliked that it had virtually no "action.") Another coworker, 65, did not like it at all (again, not enough action).

I was 41 when I saw it; I liked that it was more cerebral and that it didn't rely on action sequences. I didn't mind that the film never explained what was going to happen in 3,000 years; I'm fine with it being left up to the viewer's imagination; in my view, that wasn't the point of the film anyway; instead, it was about exploring a first contact scenario, and also the important subplot of Louise and her daughter. The aliens were almost of secondary importance, as far as I am concerned.

But all of this is just my opinion; it is fine, microscope, if you didn't like Arrival.

Are you defining "cerebral" as "intellectual rather than emotional or physical"? If not, how are you defining it?

What are some examples of "cerebral" in the movie?

I'm defining cerebral as intellectual; I think emotional can apply to any kind of film. Personally, I thought Arrival was extremely emotional, with regard to the mother-daughter subplot; and I didn't think that emotionality detracted from the film one bit (in fact I think it added to it).

SPOILERS FOLLOW!!!

Examples of cerebral in the movie, for me, was in the way that it didn't try to explain everything. Instead, that was left to the viewer to interpret. We don't know what Louise said to the Chinese general, but we can guess it was something very sweet his late wife said to him, or perhaps even something about the future appearance of the aliens (and yes, in this day and age, I know there probably is a translation floating around on Google; but I don't want to know, nor do I think we are meant to know exactly).

We don't know what Hannah died from-- again, that's left to the audience.

We don't know what the aliens' crisis will be in 3,000 years-- it's not terribly important, and again, we can guess if we want to.

We're not really sure if Louise has always had a sense of future events, or if the aliens merely enhanced her ability or gave it to her altogether through their language. I believe, to some degree, she already sensed future events all her life, and the aliens merely enhanced it-- but again, interpretation is left to the individual audience member.

A film does not have to be cerebral to be good; for example, I enjoyed Terminator 3. I thought it was an entertaining summer popcorn movie; but cerebral it was not.

But, these are just my opinions. Others may have different ones.

So the "intellectual" elements were the ones that were not in the movie/story?

THEmovieExpert--

Ha! I think that's a bit simplistic, don't you?
2001: A Space Odyssey, was cerebral. There was a whole lot left unsaid; it was up to the viewer to watch and come to their own conclusions. So was the (non-SF) Walkabout, a "mind-massaging" film in the words of critic Leonard Maltin.

Arrival also fits that bill-- thought-provoking, dreamy and ethereal, even, one could say, spiritual.

But, THEmovieExpert, I don't think you agree-- and that's okay; so we'll just have to leave it at that.

@microscope said:

Did you like Contact?

Contact is a nice example of a good sci fi movie that needed some time passing by. I remember many reviews back then were full of disappointment she only met her ol' dad after all the efforts and phantastic voyage. Today it's widely considered to be a pretty good movie. Could it be the same with Arrival?

@wreckage3001 said:

@microscope said:

Did you like Contact?

Contact is a nice example of a good sci fi movie that needed some time passing by. I remember many reviews back then were full of disappointment she only met her ol' dad after all the efforts and phantastic voyage. Today it's widely considered to be a pretty good movie. Could it be the same with Arrival?

Are you referring to critics or movie goers in regards to Contact?

@Badlands1 said:

@microscope said:

Arrival is a sci-fi/chick flick, most men won't like it. The movie answered no questions about the aliens motive in 3000 yrs, and there won't be a sequel, so it's just a long predictable drama.

I don't think it was a chick flick. Actually I didn't like it at all. Just not my type of SciFi and I've been a fan since childhood. I'm just talking for myself not all women.

I just watched The Towering Inferno. That was exciting! I am checking out a new way of finding good films so I can avoid all this stuff I hate. Arrival and Birdman in the same week was too much for me.

@northcoast said:

THEmovieExpert--

Ha! I think that's a bit simplistic, don't you?
2001: A Space Odyssey, was cerebral. There was a whole lot left unsaid; it was up to the viewer to watch and come to their own conclusions. So was the (non-SF) Walkabout, a "mind-massaging" film in the words of critic Leonard Maltin.

Arrival also fits that bill-- thought-provoking, dreamy and ethereal, even, one could say, spiritual.

But, THEmovieExpert, I don't think you agree-- and that's okay; so we'll just have to leave it at that.

Imagine the "cerebral" level if they left out even more. It would be off-the-charts-cerebral.

@microscope said:

It isn't a populace though, look at all the people who hate the movie, they are all over the place. The reviews don't reflect that. Also paid for reviews is well proven now. Also you spelled your name wrong.

Look at all the people who love Twilight, they are all over the place. Have I been deluded this entire time? Is Twilight actually a carefully constructed masterpiece?

Opinions are subjective. People are very different. Arrival is for some people, but not others. Twilight is for some people, but not others.

I personally would not trust the opinions of a lot of people who dislike Arrival not because they dislike Arrival but because of the reasons they give. Reasons that are demonstrated in this quote:

@northcoast said:

One man, 49, thought it was also okay (he said he disliked that it had virtually no "action.") Another coworker, 65, did not like it at all (again, not enough action).

These people are not idiots. They just have different values when it comes to cinema than I do.

@Geff said:

I guess don't trust the rating system then. Fairly simple solution.

I happen to be part of the, according to you, small minority who who like Arrival. My impression is validated by the rating, unlike yours. As a result, I have no cause to doubt the legitimacy of the rating. You have not provided sufficient evidence to convince me.

Your argument (if I'm correct) is: Just because it can happen and it has happened in the past (you have not shown sources in regards to this claim), means that it is happening now. A possibility does not imply a certainty.

It really comes down to whether or not you agree with the rating. If you agree with the rating, it's legitimate, if you disagree with the rating then it's illegitimate.

I'm glad to hear that you appreciated it. Even still, I think you will find it profoundly far more inspiring once you deconstruct the full meaning. I have not met one-person to this day that has fully understood the film, even amongst people that loved the movie, although, I'm sure they must exist. Myself and the writer/director can't be the only ones. It says a lot, that even when 99% viewers cannot deconstruct the full meaning, the intuition of many grasps that there IS something deeper going on in this story/picture.