And because despite my quip, I'm actually far more interested in actually talking movies here (and politics only really to the extent they relate to movies).
On
Nocturnal Animals--
Stewball wrote:A point, or at least one that wasn't buried in a tar pit somewhere.
There was a lot to take away, and points that I don't think were buried. Probably the most obvious is the parallels between physical violence and emotional abuse, and how emotional abuse can be equally devastating.
On
Arrival--
Yeah, they turned out to be basically good guys, but the producers just couldn't resist pushing the Adrenalin button for the typical monster lovers in the audience before their benign character was revealed.
Ok, that makes sense. But they actually turned that on its head, so it was confusing to me that you described it as devolving into monster movie. I do agree that it was a weakness.
And besides that, the ending felt unfulfilling or unfinished, sort of like a plea for viewers to clamor for a sequel.
Unfulfilling, maybe. Unfinished? Definitely not. There's no way you could or should do a sequel. My problem with the ending was that it offered the twist, but then did not really offer any insight. It raised interesting questions without exploring them at all.
[spoiler]For example, is there free will at all? If Adams sees her future, does she have the power to change it at all? Did she wish she could? I actually read the novella before seeing the movie, so the twist itself obviously wasn't a surprise to me. I was hoping for a little more exploration of those ideas, which I didn't get (and which is explored more in the novella). It just let the obvious questions linger, which isn't terrible, just that I hoped for more.[/spoiler]
