I originally gave it to three stars, but when I came out, I heard a man in the same elevator say to the woman, "It's the aliens who gave the heroine the ability to predict the time."
Because the original work is very unsuitable for adaptation, I have adjusted my expectations before watching it. If the movie can meet the minimum expectations - as long as it can focus on the "stalk" that makes it the core of the original work, it can be called a masterpiece, even if it is cut for the effect of the film. It's okay to drop the inference process that is too geek. But it turned out to be like this magic stick... I don't believe that there is any viewer who has not read the original book, and after reading it, they will not feel that this is a story of "Goddess heroine superpower acquisition".
In the unnecessary first half hour, all kinds of fears, radiation, global riots, and chaos. If you don’t engage in global crises, you can’t tell stories, right? If you don’t delay time with tricky scenes, you can’t call it a science fiction movie, right?
Villeneuve must have misunderstood science fiction.
Such an important role as a physicist, Ferma's shortest time rate described by him in the original book is extremely important for understanding the language and logic of the heptapod. He was cut down to nothing, and the meaning of his existence was only the heroine. Provide a "non-zero-sum game", and the rest of the time is reduced to a heroine's background board, oh my god.
Because there is no explanation for the exploration process of translation, the final effect is that the heroine has a bug-like understanding of the heptapod language. This is probably why so many people will think that the heroine is "the man of heaven" after reading it.
It is a joke that the heroine uses the pad to construct the text of the heptapod. The act of "grouping sentences" itself is contrary to the language logic of the heptapod. How can it be possible to perceive the future from this process? Non-linear, not just drawing a circle is called non-linear, director.
It doesn't even have the non-linearity of the heptapod text in uppercase and bold, I bet if you ask ten viewers out of a movie theater if they remember the word non-linear, eleven will have a black question mark. I can't blame the audience for misunderstanding. What level of audience can understand the essence of the original after watching such a genius film adaptation?
After reading a few "interpretations", I explain the nonlinearity of time from various details that you can't possibly notice and associate in the movie theater, and tell you that it is a masterpiece because you can't understand it, please, A film that cannot explain clearly to the audience in the language of the lens is a failure. The part of the movie "God" can only be attributed to the original work, but it has not yet reached one-tenth of the "God" of the original work.
I can't forgive the director's sloppy handling of linguistics. Linguistics is almost separated from fatalism in the film. Even if I don't want to sacrifice literary and artistic temperament and become too geek, how much time can it take to talk a few more theoretical knowledge and give the conclusion directly Marking out the key points for the audience to read aloud and recite it can also avoid misreading by most people. A small story is stretched into two hours, and most of the essence is cut off, leaving only the skeleton, and stuffed into those unnecessary and old-fashioned panic and Crisis, shooting such a pot of porridge with few grains of rice, this adaptation, Ted Jiang wanted to hit people.
View more about Arrival reviews
