also you copied the wrong sentence from my post

Or did she?

Hee.

THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY WANT YOU TO THINK.

Just saw Arrival. Clearly I need to get in the habit of coming here before I see a movie to ask if it involves a child dying. Because it was a really beautiful movie and very well done, but Jesus H. Christ, I was not really prepared for that, and it was a little embarrassing to be (as far as I could tell) the only one sobbing at the end. And the beginning. And I was holding it in as much as I could.

Now back to read what everyone else said about it.

More Arrival:

Vonnie said, "I also feel like they didn't spend near enough time shedding light on the analysis of Heptapod B (the written language) and how not only deciphering it but the ACT of writing it and immersing oneself in it, is essential in understanding their worldview. Tl;dr I wanted the movie to be nerdier but understand why they short-charged that element from the story, etc."

I actually felt like that worked pretty well (not having read the story yet). I'm interested to dig deeper into that idea, but I thought that came through well enough in the movie that I got what I think you're getting at, in particular with the scene where she writes the language herself with her hands. It was clear, at least, that writing it opened up a whole new level of understanding to her.

Totally agree with y'all that Amy Adams was fabulous, and Jeremy Renner gave good eye-candy.

I was somewhat surprised to read that the whole international conflict/cooperation part of the story was added for the movie, not part of the story. I can see how the story would work without it, though I'd think it would significantly change one of the themes of the movie, i.e. the importance of communication (with other humans, not just with the aliens).

A couple of you have said that the movie is really addressing the question of how you make choices when you already know the future, or about predestination vs. free will, but that element of the story seemed a little anemic to me. I would have liked to dig deeper into that question, although I also figure it would have wrecked me even more than I already was. I had a lot of questions about whether Louise's choice to have Hannah was really a choice at all, and if so, how she could have done it. It's a huge burden for her to carry that choice, and that knowledge of what's going to happen; I would have liked to know a little more about how she made that decision, if indeed she had any choice in the matter.

I think what I'm getting is that I should read the story. Which I wanted to do before seeing the movie, although when I came out of the movie I thought, "Jesus, I can never read that story." But maybe it would help me process some of what I'm feeling.

You guys, why haven't I been watching Magic Mike XXL for the last three weeks?? It is good for what ails you.

Moana was fantastic, for anyone who needs a dose of Lin Manuel but can't get Hamiltickets. The story is a very well-done Disney princess movie (think reverse Little Mermaid sans love interest), the animation is gorgeous, and the music is terrific.

The music really isn't similar in style or tone to Hamilton, but there are clearly musical intervals and beats that LMM really likes because they show up everywhere. (The karaoke version of You're Welcome makes it really obvious, because you can sing the lyrics to Washington On Your Side instead of the actual words and it works better than it should. And I keep wanting to add "and it would be enough" to the end of How Far I'll Go.)

I just saw the 1922 silent film, Safety Last.

That film knows how to build the tension. Toward the end half the audience, including me, were gasping and chewing their knuckles.

Kate, Re. Arrival:

I actually felt like that worked pretty well (not having read the story yet).

The story goes into more details about intricacy of the alien language. It also delves into physics (which the movies doesn't do at all) and manages to find a way to tie the two disciplines together for betterment of the story. The movie does an admirable job, but as someone who's loved the story for 10+ years, I can't help but go, "but if they ALSO included that bit! And this other one!" while totally understanding why things had to be cut and/or added for cinematic retelling. :)

Re. free will vs. predestination discussion (following includes spoilers for the short story): I revisited the story after the movie and in the story, it is pretty clear that Louise has no choice but to reenact her life as she sees it laid out in front of her. Which seems bleak and pointless when stated flat like that, but in the story, Ted Chiang manages to imbue her acceptance of what is to come with tremendous grace and meaning. In the story, her daughter dies in her 20's in a climbing accident, which could have been easily prevented had Louise truly had a choice in the matter. I suspect this struck the screenwriter as too passive and futile (I happen to disagree), hence the change in the movie. It hasn't been discussed much in the review of the movie because it's so spoilery, but it is a pretty big fundamental change in one of the core concepts of the story.

I think what I'm getting is that I should read the story.

Yes, you should. I'm curious to see how people who saw the movie first would take the story.

Cereal: Went to see Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them over the weekend.

The Bad: I thought the world-building was pants, and the two leads, fairly devoid of personalities. I know he has an Oscar and all, but the sooner Eddie Redmayne figures out how to act without creating his characters out of a collection of ticks, the better. I think he's talented, but whenever I see him on screen, I feel like whatever is supposed to be the core truth of his character is buried underneath all the flashy jazz hands. Also, the pacing seemed kinda off? The movie seemed curiously low energy in parts for all the fanciful stuff that was happening on the screen.

The Good: It looked FANTASTIC. The creatures in particular were marvellous (that Niffler had about 100x more personality than its handler, I'm just saying). Kids are gonna be bananas for the film and it's gonna sell so many toys, my God. Like, I'm in my 40's and I totally want some merchandise. The visual effects folks have outdone themselves.

The two supporting characters in the adventure (Queenie and Jacob), while somewhat one-dimensional, were ADORABLE. The scene in which Queenie assembles the strudel in air! Their sweet little romance! I was charmed.

True to the Potter tradition, I thought the antagonists were dynamite. The Obscurus was a great concept and genuinely frightening, and Ezra Miller KILLED as the tormented young wizard. If the muggles/no-maj thing was an allegory for racial injustice, Obscurus seemed like it would map easily onto closeted homosexuality, especially given the disturbing relationship Credence had with Graves, which had a tinge of dangerous predatory sexuality. Which makes mapping it to closeted gayness incredibly problematic. But Grindelwald is canonically gay, I think? Their scene in the alley was so upsetting yet charged, it was kinda difficult not to see it (or maybe 20+ years in fandom has fried my brain, I don't know.)

Count me in among the folks who thought Colin Farrell was AMAZING (he had so much menacing presence) and was crushingly disappointed when he turned into Johnny Depp.