Interesting or Boring, Depending on a Viewer's Taste

Rating: 7/10 (23 February 2017)

Having read many good and bad reviews of this film, I am not going to go into too many descriptive details as to why I liked this movie, or give away anything too specific as to its plot or conclusion. Instead, I'm going to simply warn those away who might find this film a big yawn. If you are someone who wants cowboys and Indians in space, light sabers, funny looking aliens who happen to speak English, clearly defined good or evil adversaries shooting at one another and blowing things up, then this film will offer you nothing. Clearly, many viewers either felt this movie was a drag or saw themselves as being intellectually superior to its creators. There were complaints of plot holes, clichés, slow pacing and my favorite, pretentiousness, an overused word that often just means the subject was too deep to trouble one's brain over. Some people just want to be entertained, and that's fine, and others don't want to be lectured to, and I get that, too.
There is an attempt in this movie to offer some kind of hope that the divided nations of this world might work together someday for a common cause. Some reviewers seem to hate this kind of wishful thinking, finding such ideas trite, and I even read some political rants blasting the film for its liberal appeal and/or its sentimental, romantic sub-plot. These are all valid criticisms, but I don't happen to share them.
For my money, this good-looking, atmospheric bit of science fiction story-telling beats most of the big special effects blockbusters of the past thirty years by miles. It reminded me of previous attempts at using science fiction to ponder big ideas, like the definitive film in this genre, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY (1968), and later, THE MAN WHO FELL TO EARTH (1976), CONTACT and GATTACA, (both 1997), DISTRICT 9 (2009), CLOUD ATLAS (2012) and INTERSTELLAR (2014), all varied attempts to get at something deeper than flying saucers and silly monsters. Some of these movies had bigger special effects, faster pacing or greater mass appeal. There is a dreariness to the design of ARRIVAL, but this wet, misty grayness perfectly fit the story. What really boosted this movie to a higher level was the fine acting by Amy Adams, Forest Whitaker and the rest of the cast. Yes, ARRIVAL is a bit slow moving, and although the musical score is beautiful, it was a little too present and insistent for my taste. Those were my main criticisms. I also wish the film makers had taken a cue from Hitchcock and sprinkled the script with a good dose of humor. But being a serious attempt at getting at some fundamental human questions, which have never been simple - how we communicate with those who don't speak - or think in - our own language, how we relate to time, our past and our future, how we overcome our deepest most common fears in order to avert human disasters - well these things probably left little room for jokes or sight gags.
Those of you who have seen this film and liked it, I urge you to read the "Trivia" section on ARRIVAL, which includes a lot of clues and information as to how the writers and the rest of the creative team packed the script with references to other stories, movies, characters and their names, and even vintage television. This section enriched my understanding of this work.