>excellent reviews about this everywhere
>decide to watch it
>typical american military bullshit action flick
>literally nothing new or innovative
>find out it's just getting those reviews because of the "muh stronk independent female lead character"
I never knew the plague of political correctness would reach cinema.
You've just experienced mainstream Villenueve. The Arrival is even worse than this shitfest
Blunt's character is anything but strong or independent in the film, did you even watch the film or were you too triggered by the female lead?
I don't necessarily hate a movie because the lead is a female character, that's just retarded, for example I really liked We Need to Talk About Kevin and Easy A, even though they were entirely centered about the female lead, I still thought they were great.
What I meant is that this movie is nothing new, nothing entertaining, plot is stupid and the acting/directing is very mediocre. Yet still it's getting great reviews just because of Kate.
>inb4 pleb user cares about reviews
It's still bullshit and not fair.
I didn't read any reviews so I'm kinda firing in the dark on this, but I thought the movie lent its success to the fact that Emily blunt's character contrasted so sharply with the roles of Josh brolin and benicio del Toro, and without her their actions wouldn't have seemed so dramatic. But if you got rid of her then it wouldn't be anything different from that Netflix original series or the other projects involving the war on drugs.
Arrival is kino
Sicario is a boring overrated shitfest
2/10 troll attempt
retards
How is it a typical military action bullshit flick?
the CIA operation is illegal and the audience is supposed to relate with Blunt and see Brolin/Benicio as villains
it doesn't romanticize the military at all
>arrival is kino
Literally rolling my eyes. It was dogshit and a dogshit attempt
I was also disappointed with it. I expected some elite soldiers or city of god epicness but all it was was a gritiness action movie
You are genuinely the stupidest person I've seen post on Sup Forums in a long time. I don't even like the movie but nothing you said is correct.
Braindead tumblr posters even complained that the woman character wasn't strong, also failing to understand what the movie was about.
This is what happens when you let DPs make movies. I think Orson Welles commented on how modern directors are just glorified cameramen who know nothing about story, plot, characters, motivation, except sacrificing all of the former for a "pretty" shot. They are hacks.
Holy fuck get the fuck outta this board, you have to be 18 to post here
This entire thread encapsulates Sup Forums perfectly.
>it's not fair!
wew buddy
it left me wanting more of anything
I was thinking well the protagonist is lame maybe the story will be complex
well the story is basic maybe the action is good
well the action is sparse and without tension maybe the conclusion will be good
nope expected conclusion with cliche ending
>>typical american military bullshit action flick
how to let us know you either haven't seen it or are just trolling
0/10
>"muh stronk independent female lead character"
You haven't seen the movie. Fuck off, retard.
I hope this is bait but let's assume that you are just a sub intelligent human being uncapable of constructing an actual argument.
The film is critically acclaimed because of it's execution.
The narrative is told primarily visually through framing and composition, not with expository dialogue and on screen text.
Every filmmaking element serves the narrative perfectly, the editing is on point, cinematography, soundtrack, sound design, production design, blocking everything.
Villeneuve has showed once again that he is a master of tension building and releasing at the right time.
Also the film showes you both sides of the story without prefering any, letting you choose what you think is the more "moral" thing to do.
>literally nothing new or innovative
So every quality movie has to revolutionize filmmaking?
No Country for Old Men is considered as one of the greatest films of recent time, what is new or innovative in terms of filmmaking in that film?
Also about you absurd "political correctness" line, just so you know Armond White, the most politically incorrect critic of them all, absolutely loved Sicario and the rest of Villeneuve's films.
There are so many spelling errors in the first 2 sentences I hope for your own sake you're baiting.
There is also nothing resembling an argument in your post. You just said "I like the editing, I like the directing, I like Villeneuve, I like the story, and so do critics!"
I loved Sicario.
>typical american military bullshit action flick
>"muh stronk independent female lead character"
nice try
Not him but pointing out grammatical errors just makes you look like even more of an idiot, because spelling mistakes don't detract from an argument.
And he did make arguments, OP implied a movie must revolutionize film to get good reviews, he pointed out this isn't true.
He described how the narrative was told not through characters giving heavy handed exposition through conversation. Some more stuff but I cba, did you even read the post?
Why Arrival was shit:
>In the first drafts of the script, the "gifts" to humanity were meant to be different pieces of technology given to each landing site, with the U.S. receiving plans for a spaceship capable of faster than light travel, China receiving a design that revolutionizes life support, Peru getting the key to manipulating gravity, Japan receiving a way of creating water from air, Britain receiving the formula to build a composite hull that is impervious to cosmic radiation, and Saudi Arabia getting celestial coordinates. However, this was all changed when Denis Villeneuve saw Interstellar (2014) and told the screenwriter to change the "gifts" to something else, in order to avoid similarities between the two films.