Yeah I understand that. A lot of people outside academia hated the movie because it was too confusing. I don’t actually think a movie needs action to be good, a lot of my favorite don’t have serious action. I don’t need a fight scene to keep me entertained
Interstellar actually uses one of the same principles as Arrival, which is non-linear time. Essentially time moves in a circular pattern, and everything we do in the past, present, and future is already predetermined and unchangeable (expect that Interstellar argues that it is). Everything happens for a reason, and people should do what they can to give to the greater good of their species.
While Interstellar falls apart on some of its principles, Arrival is unique in that is so principled that it could almost be classified as scientific theory. Arrival doesn’t attempt to break the rules for the sake of plot like a lot of sci-fi movies do, which is why I think it’s much better than the other two.
Arrival isn’t actually based that much on hard science either because it pulls most of it’s material from the social sciences. The film is modeled around theories like Sapir-Wharf (essentially language is in-permanent, ever changing, and doesn’t actually mean shit (except to those it means something to).
I just think it’s a well made film, in an era of film where it’s about big budget fights, copy-paste plots, cool visual effects, and sexual tension. The film largely does away with those things, and remains a masterpiece in practical story telling. While the story itself seems rather unbelievable to most people, it’s actually more believable than something like Inception, or Planet of the Apes, or the Shape of Water, etc. All films that have received more credit because they drop the reality of their material to satisfy a larger audience that doesn’t want their beliefs challenged.
I will say that from a critical perspective, I see Arrival and Interstellar as equals, with the likes of Inception not too far behind.