Totally agree!

Arrival was an unbelievable product of pretentious gimmickry. It raised lot of expectations as it projected that it was centred on the challenge of communication with a race with totally different & off-worldly language. Instead, the movie landed on a cringe-worthy emotional train-wreck which can only impress simpletons.

Overcoming the challenge of deciphering the alien language was unapologetically & shockingly thrown out of the box and the movie straight away fed the audience a scene, suggesting that somehow someway scientists deciphered their language. That was a downright illustration of lack of creativity and the fact that the movie is not 'intelligent' but an average human drama at its best.

Arrival elevates the appreciation for 'Contact', a movie which had a generous part focussing on deciphering an alien message; from one clue leading to another and then another providing a very intriguing & suspenseful experience.

Instead, Arrival slapped a phony paradox and a fairy-tale-fantasy rule that humans can foresee their future by interpreting the alien language.

@LachieD said:

He's a very talented craftsmen, with a modern and controlled directing style, but I'm not sure how much of an artist. ... Nothing I saw in The Arrival makes me wanna rush to see a movie just because it was specifically directed by Villeneuve.

See, I agree with first half of that first point wholeheartedly, and what puzzles me is how if he is a talented craftsmen with a controlled directing style, he isn't much of an artist, I mean, we could get into a whole generic debate about what art is and the like, but that wouldn't take us anywhere mutually meaningful.

I have to say that I too have seen Enemy, and that movie is one of my all time favourites; everything from the wildly intricate plot, the deeply unsettling visuals and atmosphere and all the symbolism make for one of the most rewarding movie experiences in a long time. And that is a kind of movie that cuts it's audience no slack at all, and while it is rewarding to the more patient viewers it is far from accessible to all. His other movie Prisoners was also one power-packed showdown; Denis is always able to have this restrained, strained tension that bubbles right under the surface and he can maintain this tone consistently throughout the duration of a movie. And in my opinion his movies also have a meditative feel to them, superimposing the underlying tension that provides an interesting contrast. While I agree Sicario was thematically sparser that his other films, it was sound in all the technical aspects of filmmaking.

Now coming to Arrival, I found myself thoroughly engaged in the story, the kind where I sit motionless, eyes glued to the screen, so it was definitely an immersive experience. While I agree the twist was not hard to see coming from at about half way through the movie, I found that the ending itself was beautifully done. Everything from the score to the flashforwards revealing vital information about the nature of the understanding of the non-linearity of time, and the simultaneous confirmation of our creeping suspicions were carefully handled.

I do agree that Denis Villeneuve's films are not Gaspar Noe or Lars von Trier, but I think that doesn't take ANYTHING away from the masterworks that are his own films. What is a mainstream director who is well received? Christoper Nolan, Spielberg, and even Scorcese right? No matter how good their movies really are, their movies all have a distinct mark; a tone, indicative of said directors. The fact that their movies resonate with mainstream audiences, does not detract from their prowess. While filmmakers like Gaspar Noe and Lars Von Trier will forever be stuck making those sex-heavy films that be it as thematically deep and exotic as ever, will never receive love from widespread audiences. Does this make their movies better? Does this make their movies worse? Not at all, each of these directors have found their niche and is staying true to it, and that's all that is required of them.

Also, I thought Moon was well done, mostly due to the central acting performance by Sam Rockwell. And you cite that this movie shouldn't be called smart/serious/challenging because it isn't arthouse SF. But the movie IS serious, with a sombre and measured tone throughout. It IS smart and challenging not because it's simply not transformers, but because while it's ultimate twist is easily understood, the nature of the working of the alien language and it's effect on the human psyche still needs much pondering, and it is this requirement from the viewer to pay attention to proceedings in order to decode it fully that makes it challenging. It simply isn't AS challenging as Enemy or A Gaspar Noe, and thankfully so, because a hardcore arthouse sci-fi wouldn't have done anyone any good, barring a small fanbase, and would lose out so many millions that have now instead seen this movie and subsequently had a rewarding emotional experience. In fact this just adds credit to Villeneuve in that he can alternatively make movies as arthouse as Enemy, and also something more mainstream as Arrival(and yet not as blockbuster-y mainstream as Interstellar), all while keeping the technical aspects of filmmaking at the highest standard.

Sure you can say that we should just agree to disagree and maybe we SHOULD do just that, because at the end of the day, nothing anyone says here can change anyone else's experience of the movie.

I thought it was rather good. It's underplayed in tone and direction - it's not a flashy sort of movie. Most sci-fi flicks are of the CGI overload variety - they're created to impress via the visuals on screen, not to stimulate the mind of the viewer. Arrival did pose some interesting questions about the nature of humanity, life beyond Earth, the nature of love, losing love etc.

Perhaps the distinction I'm trying to make between an artist and a craftsmen is a somewhat misleading and a distinction that is in reality vaguely defined.

I was just trying to emphasize the lack of innovation and audacity in Villeneuve's approach to filmmaking, in my opinion, compared to the guys I mentioned, and all in connection with/reaction to public's perception of the opposite. With this I'm not judging the quality and value of individual creations these specific directors produced and will produce in the future. All are capable of delivering poor work, and actually "artists" have a bigger chance to "slip up" than craftsmen with sound control of their craft while taking no or little risks. I just commenting on them as authors and what to me, when thinking about a specific filmmaker, motivates me to go out and see a movie in the theatres or buy a DVD.

But I would definitely separate Scorsese from Spielberg and Nolan. In all honestly, I don't see Nolan being capable to produce something so unique as Taxi Driver, The King of Comedy, After Hours or Gangs of New York. That fighting scene at the beginning of Gangs of New York, the intro to it as well, is such a marvelous display of both art and craft I was awed, and it's sort of filmmaking that electrifies me. I don't see much of that level of mastery over the medium in directors like Villeneuve, Nolan or Spielberg to be honest. But, maybe a lot of it is a matter of taste.

I still remain unimpressed with the Arrival. It is a honest opinion I had after watching it. A film either hits you or not. This one didn't. The whole seriousness of the film, it's somber tone, the challenging theme and the questions it asks are not enough for me to detract from its negative aspects, the pedestrian direction, clichéd usage of film language (the Dangerous Minds article mentions few very on point details about this), forced plot expositions, all too familiar promotion of Americans as the one rational and sound nation on the planet and so on. It just felt terribly, terribly mainstream and safe. It functions on that MODEST level, but showcases very little of anything else, all what people are trying to slap onto it when praising it.

This is all coming from a guy who is willing to say he loved Tarkovsky's Stalker, but hated his Solaris and considers Soderbergh's adaptation to be superior. So there should be no rules when thinking about films, but I'm finding very few film-lovers who are consistently willing to operate in that mode.

But I digress.

In conclusion I would like to say that a serious/artistic approach to a film by an acclaimed filmmaker can fail, while the opposite can absolutely succeed, and even transcend the "modest" intention of the filmmaker. I'm just annoyed when certain works are over-praised by mere perception of the value of labels they carry (serious, challenging, thought-provoking), or , in the other extreme, berated by default for being openly simplistic and mainstream.

To me it is important how a creative work functions within its intentions and goals, how it truly stands alone, not the image it (tries to) communicates and the perceived value of that image.

I agree, I've seen this and Enemy, both of his works come off as silly and masturbatory as his formula seems to simply be to substitute a coherent story and plot for artsy-ness.

@StonerWithaBoner said:

practice safe lunch use a condiment.

Amazing, I'm stealing that.

I see your point about Arrival being a bit conventional, when compared to films of the past, but I can't say the same about Incendies, Enemy or even Prisoners.

The way he deals with adult, i.e. non-infentile, themes in his films while continuing to make an entertaining genre experience isn't very safe compared to his contemporaries, but probably is safe when you compare it to films from the late 70s or such.

I agree I did not get this film, I read what most people were saying about it, but when the film was over it was like a big nothing burger.