Arrival II: The Sequel We Didn't Need

Hollywood has done it again, folks! In a world where creativity seems to be on the decline, the powers that be have decided to grace us with "Arrival II," a sequel to the 2016 sci-fi film that left audiences scratching their heads and liberals swooning over its "deep" message. The original "Arrival," directed by Denis Villeneuve and starring Amy Adams, was released in November 2016 and took place in various locations around the globe, focusing on the arrival of mysterious alien spacecraft. The film was praised for its unique take on communication and time perception, but let's be honest, it was a snooze-fest for anyone who prefers their sci-fi with a bit more action and a lot less pretentiousness.

Now, in 2023, the sequel is set to hit theaters, and it's clear that Hollywood is once again banking on the same formula that made the first film a critical darling. But do we really need another movie that spends more time on philosophical mumbo-jumbo than on actual entertainment? The answer is a resounding no. The original "Arrival" was a film that tried to be profound by focusing on the complexities of language and time, but it ended up being a drawn-out lecture that left audiences more confused than enlightened. The sequel promises more of the same, with a plot that reportedly delves even deeper into the abstract concepts that made the first film a chore to sit through.

Let's talk about the characters. Amy Adams is back, reprising her role as linguist Louise Banks, and while she's a talented actress, her character was about as exciting as watching paint dry. In "Arrival II," we're supposed to believe that Louise is once again the only person on Earth capable of communicating with the aliens. Really? In a world full of brilliant minds, she's the only one who can crack the code? It's a tired trope that feels more like lazy writing than a compelling narrative choice. And let's not forget the aliens themselves. In the first film, they were giant, squid-like creatures that communicated through ink blots. It was a novel idea, sure, but it quickly became tedious as the film dragged on. Are we really supposed to be excited about seeing more of these ink-squirting cephalopods?

The setting of "Arrival II" is said to be even more global than the first, with locations spanning multiple continents. But does that really matter when the story is as dull as dishwater? The original film's globe-trotting was nothing more than a backdrop for endless scenes of people staring at screens and talking in hushed tones. The sequel is likely to follow suit, offering little more than a series of pretty landscapes to distract from the lackluster plot.

And then there's the why. Why make a sequel to a film that, while critically acclaimed, wasn't exactly a box office smash? The answer is simple: Hollywood is running out of ideas. Instead of taking risks on new and innovative stories, they're content to churn out sequels and reboots of films that have already proven themselves to be safe bets. It's a sad state of affairs when the most exciting thing about a new movie is the hope that it might be slightly less boring than its predecessor.

In the end, "Arrival II" is shaping up to be yet another example of Hollywood's inability to let sleeping dogs lie. The original film was a self-contained story that didn't need a follow-up, but here we are, being subjected to yet another unnecessary sequel. For those who enjoyed the first film's cerebral approach, "Arrival II" might be a welcome return to form. But for the rest of us, it's just another reminder that sometimes, less is more.