Contact

Rating:
Summary: a bore
Review: I have the utmost respect for the late, great Carl Sagan but this story is dull to the point of absurdity.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful film.
Review: It is a very good story and film, although there are some unnecessary cliches and stereothypes in some of the characters. It is very well crafted based on Carl Sagan's novel. Watch it.

Rating:
Summary: A CLOSE ENCOUNTER WITH THE RICHER NOVEL
Review: Although the highly talented, and yes ~ very attractive ~ Matthew MacConaughy, sinks his teeth into the role of Palmer Joss, it is the very existence of this irritating character that dis-shelvels an otherwise 4 star classic. Time and space don't allow a comparative with the novel.......Dr. Arroway has little reason for faith. Her mother died giving birth to her, and her dad died nine years later. What is there left to believe in? Already science-minded, young Ellie Arroway looks to the stars for answers. An accomplished astro-physicist, she declines grants an fellowships to pursue a personal SETI. She falls victim to a series of hoaxes, ad evetually acquires a corporate sponsor in order to advance her agenda. Once she makes CONTACT, her career, and life, become entangled in bearu-theocracy. She copes well. An act of terrorism propels her again into the spotlight, and then into the Vega solar system. There she meets an alien who admittedly takes the form of her late father. She learns about time. Once back on Earth, many are skeptical of her accounts. A lo-tech device offers proof of her testimony, but is shielded from the public. She continues... This truly inspiring film suffers from the impossible combination of religion and science. Although Sagan himself talked the embracement of belief and science (he was a poitician too), the film makes it clear that these agendas cannot collide. Afterall, God is omnipotent. If God wants aliens, God'll have 'em. If the next minute God doesn't want aliens, there won't be none. Same goes for us. There is no common ground. For all its wisdom and insight, its lovely craft, its feel good message, it unfortunately fails as an intelligent film. That is, unless, we admit that peole are indeed illogical. Is that the point? We already know that.

Rating:
Summary: On the top of my sci fi list
Review: I loved this movie for a few reasons. One being that Robert Zemeckis is a great director....and I'm big on good direction.... also...I put it up there with films like bladerunner. I love the story basically. The story isnt just about alien conact and all that, its much deeper. Its all just hidden away behind all that alien contact stuff. Bladerunner and its ideas reflections upon life and death["all those moments lost in time like tears in rain"] and contact, I found as clearly a metaphor for faith. Its got the preist guy, then an 'un beleiver'. Then how the main character thinks she saw somethign yet she cant prove it..... same as religion and faith and stuff....... great film.

Rating:
Summary: Beautiful adaptation of Sagan's novel.
Review: Jodie Foster plays a scientist who is bent on discovering life on other planets. But when experimenting with a machine, she is caught in some sort of space warp, sending her down in a multicolored worm hole. She stops and she is suddenly on a beautiful planet, reminscient of Earth, where she meets her supposedly "deceased" father. She talks to him, never believing that he was alive or that he was an alien. I won't reveal the end, but it is stunning, more beautifully filmed than "Forrest Gump" or "Cast Away," a perfect, beautiful adaptation of Sagan's 1980s novel. Jodie Foster and Robert Zemeckis should have won Oscars for making an incredible science-fiction/drama movie like this. Wonderful and engaging. Rated PG for language and some sexual content.

Rating:
Summary: A Journey into the Unknown
Review: This is one of my all time favorite movies. It is insightful, engaging, and dares to be mysterious. Knowing it is based on Carl Sagan's book adds to the intrigue. I read a lot of science fiction. This movie is one of very few that allows me to maintain a great sense of wonder -- even though I already know the ending, I'd watch it over and over.

Rating:
Summary: Very Intelligent Sci-Fi
Review: I am a huge sci-fi fan and Contact is a movie that I never get tired of. Contact is probably as close to "realistic sci-fi" that there is. No monsters, no gore, none of the usual sci-fi cliche. Some sci-fi fans may find Contact boring and uneventful- I personally find Contact to be extremely exciting and thought provoking. The acting by Jodie Foster, Tom Skerrit, and Matthew McCnaughly is perfection as usual. Contact is a must for a DVD collection. You don't even have to be a sci-fi fan to enjoy this extremely intelligent and thought provoking movie.

Rating:
Summary: There's a fine movie in here somewhere
Review: Imagine if Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey" was made with late-'90's technology and a Hollywood cast, by -- for better or for worse -- the Spielberg disciple who directed "Forrest Gump". You don't have to imagine it, because we have the reality of "Contact". I had a lot of problems with this movie, some of which I'll list later, but overall I enjoyed it a lot.

The science of the movie was fascinating (even though I'm not familiar with the source material, the late Carl Sagan probably deserves much credit here). A rag-tag group of science misfits picks up a pulse from outer space, and slowly learns the message contained within. There's a fine moment near the end of this sequence where a video representation of the message is revealed, and it is a truly stunning moment, that carries much drama. The message contains plans to build a machine, which will send one person to a distant star, presumably for enlightenment. The "machine" is gloriously realized. It is both beautiful and believable, its power palpable and awesome (especially in one scene where things go horribly wrong). Director Robert Zemeckis uses his considerable skill at special effects very wisely here, giving us enough to keep the imagination entertained but never overwhelming the story.

Unfortunately, the less technical aspects of the movie are handled quite sloppily.

First, the acting. James Woods and John Hurt, two actors I admire, had a tough time fleshing out their two-dimensional characters. Woods didn't do anything more than show narrow-mindedness and anger, while Hurt was stuck in eccentric billionaire mode. Rob Lowe, also playing a two-dimensional character, was just painful to watch, affecting a hoarse voice and a beatific smile that did little to hide the fact that his character was no more than a fluffy device to introduce basic religious arguments. Ditto Jake Busey, as an over the top zealot who carried the added detriment of an albino fright wig and "evil" white-eyes. Tom Skerritt fared better, although he was miscast. Skerritt is usually fine when playing the saintly father figure; here he's asked to be a slick, egotistical bureaucrat, and doesn't pull it off. Which brings us to Matthew McConaughey. I had no problem with his acting, but the character was completely implausible. A man with a self-help book at number one on the bestseller list would not get this much time with the President, especially if his ideas were as lame as Matt's 'Palmer Joss'. He represents a bigger problem with the movie, in that the fight between science and religion is handled in a very passionate, but utterly simple-minded way. I suspect that some of the book's big ideas and arguments were dumbed down for a mass audience. It's unfortunate, wasting an opportunity for intelligent mass discourse.

The lone bright spot in the cast is -- duh -- Jodie Foster. I admit to being ambivalent about Foster in the past, but here she won me over. Her Dr. Arroway is meant to have passion, drive, brains, desire, spunk, and innocence. Foster pulls off all of these traits wonderfully. There were some moments near the end, when Arroway takes flight ("They should have sent a poet," she cries when confronted by an ineffable view of space), that in the hands of a lesser actor would be hokey. Foster gets them all right.

I get the impression that Zemeckis himself doesn't trust the weight of the ideas he's putting forth here, because he does several things that distract the audience from them. First, the relationship between a young Arroway and her father was manipulation of the highest order. It's pop psychology that anyone can understand on an emotional level, rather than the intellectual level, which should have been the movie's strength. Also, he employs "testimony" from real-world media figures (it seemed like the entire staff of CNN appeared on screen at one point or another) to lend the ideas credibility. In fact, the ideas were undermined because of this. The same can be said for his liberal use of news footage of President Clinton, whose intentionally vague speeches are supposed to relate to the film's narrative, but rather prove distracting.

There is a lot of potential in "Contact". I was gripped by the story, even though a lot of the times I felt like a machete-wielding explorer hacking my way through a jungle of debris to get to it (I have the sneaking suspicion that Zemeckis realizes this, for he includes a take-off of the line "Dr. Livingstone, I presume"). It is visually stunning, engrossing, and, if you can turn off your cynicism for awhile, believable.

Rating:
Summary: It captured Carl Sagan's point of view escence
Review: Before you read the novel you should read Sagan's COSMOS in which book Dr. Sagan sets the idea of how human race would be contacted by a civilization form from outter space. Both scopes, scientific and pseudo-religious, are considered by the last minutes of the movie. Even when Dr. Sagan was an atheist he left a margin for a religious explanation of what the heaven is. Altough I do not agree with the believe that humans somehow survive death I just loved how the movie toched so sensitive topic.

Rating:
Summary: Carl Sagan is probably rolling in his grave...
Review: I am a fan of Robert Zemeckis, however, I think he did not honor the memory of Carl Sagan when he made this movie. Zemeckis' style is very centered around character relationships development. I think that two of the greatest films that he has made certainly hit upon these points (Forrest Gump and Cast Away). The film version seems to lose the great character development that the book emphasizes. If you are going to buy this, make sure you read the book after you see the movie. This isn't to say that I think you should see anything more than the first scene, of course.