Rotten Tomatoes
Cancel Movies Tv shows

The Arrival Reviews

E.T. would find it false propaganda, but for fans of the genre, it's standard sci-fi with all the needed ingredients.

| Original Score: 2.5/4 | Feb 25, 2022

The film starts to fall apart at the introduction of the aliens themselves, which suffer from dated special effects and an immediate aura of disbelief.

| Original Score: 6/10 | Sep 9, 2020

The CGI alien special effects are only so-so, but the film is rich in ideas, well-executed and is pleasingly entertaining even if silly.

| Original Score: B | Feb 13, 2017

Less an alien invasion movie than a conspiracy film (it just hapens to turn out that the conspirators are aliens).

| Apr 21, 2009

What it lacks in sophistication (everything), it partly makes up for in sheer gall.

| Feb 9, 2006

You know a movie's in trouble when it's called The Arrival and nothing arrives -- the film's aliens are already here.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Oct 14, 2005

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Aug 12, 2005

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Apr 8, 2005

The aliens-among-us plot gets a very entertaining and inventive update.

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Oct 29, 2004

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Mar 1, 2004

Full Review | Original Score: 4/5 | Feb 10, 2004

Full Review | Original Score: 7/10 | Jun 4, 2003

Full Review | Original Score: 3/4 | May 20, 2003

A good premise, hampered by a weak ending.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | May 12, 2003

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Feb 17, 2003

...it ultimately seems apparent that the movie would've been well-served had it topped out at 90 minutes (ie it's too long and feels it).

| Original Score: 2.5/4 | Sep 25, 2002

It's a strong, lean piece of writing that moves quickly. Nothing is wasted, and nothing happens the way you'd expect.

| Original Score: 3/4 | Jun 18, 2002

Sheen is working outside of his element, but the energy he puts into his multidimensional character helps keep the story moving.

| Jun 5, 2002

| Original Score: 9/10 | Jan 1, 2001

No logic, little character development and a thin story that is supposed to be compensated for by startling effects.

| Jan 1, 2000

Load More