I’m beginning to really dislike this insultingly stupid movie.
In fact here is what I wrote about it in another thread a ways back.
What I object to is taking it on faith that some higher power (i.e. alien civilization with hugely superior technology*) is going to come and rescue humanity from certain doom latent to its morally backwards nature. I admit this was much more present in the book. The protagonist makes some statement to that effect very early, when she’s recently finished her PhD or something, after Sagan has lamely spent most of the chapter trying to set up how brilliant she is. Anyway, I ditched the book after the first couple of chapters, but the movie also seemed infused with the whole “we’re backwards come save us” crap from its major characters, admittedly not as much as in the book’s first few chapters.
*(Substitute “god” for “alien civ. with hugely superior technology.” It’s a load of wishful thinking at best, superstitious dreck at worst. It makes the “scientists” hardly better than the fundamentalist Christians in their moral reliance on superstition.)
That’s just what I’d say, although I did finish Sagan’s book. It (along with Tom Clancy’s Patriot Games and Charles Frazier’s Cold Mountain) is one of the few books I can think of that yielded an even better movie. I liked Jodie Foster’s character a lot. It’s exciting when they first receive the alien signal. John Hurt’s eccentric billionaire is a lot of fun. And I have to say, I was genuinely touched when Dr. Arroway sees her “dad” on the beach.
Carl Sagan is one of my heroes too; unfortunately not a great fiction writer. But I enjoyed the book, and was disappointed at how dumbed-down the movie was.
And Zemeckis indulged his one of his bad habits: falling in love with some technological trick and letting it get in the way of good moviemaking. In this case, he couldn’t resist inserting his actors into a scene of President Clinton addressing Congress. Totally unnecessary; brought the movie to a halt, and now makes it dated.
(Zemeckis also has decided that people really want to know all the plot points of a movie before they go to it, so he’s fine with those movie trailers that give everything away. Well, genius, that’s what kept me from buying a ticket for What Lies Beneath.)
But Jake Busey is one crazy-looking mofo. I’d like to see him and his dad co-starring in a movie called Crazy Mofos.
the only thing I remember really clearly is how annoyed I was that in the end it was a mystery of who actually built the transit system, some next higher order.
How is this not just another religious shell game?
Maybe that was the point, there’s always something bigger, smaller etc, but the trite way it was handled left a bad ‘mysterious ways’ taste in my mouth
Exactly.
I thought the movie was okay, but a copout compared to the book. Here’s my take on the book: I believe that Sagan was not opposed to having someone “create” the universe, it’s just that he wanted some sort of evidence. Some kind of proof that there indeed was a creator. Now, as a scientist, what would constitute proof that something(s) created the universe? In the book, Sagan gives us an example. In the book, at the end, there is something fundamental about the universe that they discover which means the universe HAD to be designed and that a code had been placed for us to find eventually. The movie totally skips over this point. All the movie is about is that we made contact with other intelligences and “oh it really happened, otherwise how do you explain the hours of blank tape?”
The book was much more satisfying for me in that it showed to me that “yeah, as a skeptic, this it probably what it would take for me to think that something created the universe somehow.” Skeptics don’t necessarily NOT want to believe, it’s just that we require evidence to believe. And I think with the book Contact, Sagan was showing us “you know what, this is what I think evidence of a creator would look like, not some book written 2000 years ago.”
Gawd I hated this stupid movie. They spent how long grilling all the candidates, asking them what they would ask if they were to make “contact”, Jodie Foster’s character giving some – I don’t remember – heartwrenching? insightful? thought-provoking response. Whatever it was, it was important, and an apparently important part of the plot, as I recall. Then we get to THE moment – she actually MAKES “contact”, and does she ask what she said she’d ask?
HA! NO!
Fucking lame.
No, it’s only a kind of enjoyable movie.
I loved this movie. It touched me; as someone who’s lost both parents (one of them when I was young, though not as young as Ellie) I deepy connect to her longing and drive, and find her conversation with the alien / dad is almost overwhelmingly moving. The thrill of hearing the Message – that insistant, incessant grinding – never fails to creep me out (in a good way!); as does the gang’s realization that there’s a video attached to it. The banality of the SETI crew carving pumpkins to the grandeur of the machine, the horror of Ellie’s discovery of Busey as a threat and its tragic aftermath, and her quiet bravery in preparation for her own launch… Finally the frustration of her being stymied by the lying, cowardly government. I feel it all each time I see it. I just think it was an amazingly well done movie.
I guess I’m not bothered by the aforementioned ‘holes’, as others see them. I can easily fanwank them: Ellie is clearly too flabbergasted to ask the “how much static was there?” question right away, and I’m sure if she would have asked (perhaps she does, afterwards), the government would simply have lied. I get no sense whatsoever that the aliens are supposed to “fix” us or give us all the answers – to the contrary, they’re just as curious and uncertain as we are, as evidenced by MorseAlien admitting that he doesn’t know who built the wormhole transit system either. To me it’s not about religion, it’s about the importance of trying to understand, to fathom the unfathomable, and accepting that while we may not know the answers for sure, the act of searching is what ennobles us.
And in addition to the best opening of any film I’ve ever seen, there’s John Hurt being his cool self. Brilliant music by Alan Silvestri, too.
I defer to those much more knowledgable in film than I. But to me, in answering the OP: for what it’s worth, yes, I think it’s a great movie.
If this is a poll, put me down for a thumbs down.
Contact has uniformly excellent acting, many interesting characters, nice location shots, and high production values in general. The problem lies with the plot and the script. Uneven, intellectually vapid, scientifically inaccurate, and often downright silly, the movies greatest failure is the entire sequence with Foster in the dream-world talking with the alien.
There are, however, some great scenes in the film. The aforementioned ‘get the medicine’ scene – truly amazing filmmaking. The first contact signal, with Foster on walkie-talkie, racing back to the control center – breathtaking. Every scene with Jake Busey – loaded with intensity. Foster unbuckling from her seat, and reaching for her compass – dramatic. The ending is a nice touch, too.
All-in-all, I’d say it’s a good movie, with aspirations to greatness.
Wow. That is brilliant. I almost want to go rent the movie just to watch that. Who set up this shot and what else have they done?
justified or not, i find this sad somehow. i view movies and tv as entertainment, either they do or they don’t. the fact is that you loved it at one point, and now… this is not like a life partner where knowing his or her fault is important for a long term relationship. you had fun watching and re-watching it, there’s no need to listen to the naysayers and regret the good times you had together.
Don’t let the crowd sway you. Who cares if not everybody loves it? If you do and it has meaning for you, that’s all that matters.
Me, I love it. There was a stretch of time when I watched it so often that my budgie would get all excited if I imitated the pulsing noise of the message coming through. I identify strongly with Foster’s character. It is set in the time period when I first entered grad school, and I was directly affected by the federal government’s decision to emphasize funding applied vs. basic research, and I believe we are paying the price of that decision already. Plus, I did my research in the Caribbean, so the fact that she starts out in Puerto Rico is great.
I enjoy the movie on so many levels, and I would put it in my top ten favorite movies of all time. It doesn’t matter to me if it doesn’t speak to most other people, and I’m not ashamed to admit how much I love it. I loved the book too, and have always thought I should go back and re-read it someday.
Anyway, I know what you mean. It’s an incredible movie and worth enjoying on many different levels. Neat to run into someone else who loves it like I do.
Light breaks.
I think (at least I hope) PRR was being facetious. I can’t imagine someone who feels as strongly about a film as he did in the OP would do a 180 just 'cause others bring up aspects they dislike.
Yes, you’ve pinpointed another aspect of Contact that I love – the sheer joy and passion for science and research exuded by its characters, especially Ellie, Kent (based on a real SETI researcher), Fish and, uh, and the other guy on the team (sorry other guy!). Even Palmer is an interesting character who obviously finds science fascinating, despite his beliefs. He manages to be religious without being incurious or intolerant.
Which reminds me: I disagree with the poster earlier who seems annoyed by Palmer’s not being depicted as ignorant enough. Is it really all that rare to find fictional versions of fundamentalist ignorance? Hell, Contact alone had at least two extremely religious yet ignorant types – Rob Lowe as the presidential advisor (who wasn’t necessarily bad) and of course Jake Busey’s character. You could even make an argument that Tom Skerritt’s Dr. Drumlin was both religious (at least he claimed to be) and ignorant too, in his way – despite obviously knowing better, he used religion as an ambitious steppingstone.
With Palmer, I think it was refreshing to see someone who was both genuinely religious and delighted by learning. He didn’t seem threatened by science, and apparently could imagine a universe where science and religion didn’t contradict one another. I don’t necessarily agree with this view, but it’s one I can respect; also, one we rarely see depicted.
Make that three, at least. 
If it’s not in my top ten list (and it might be – I haven’t quantified my favorites in a long time), it’s certainly in my top fifteen.
See, this is what I can’t stand about the movie. I felt that it was somewhat set up to vindicate the anti-atheists (who in my view had been blatantly discriminating against Foster’s character by trying to keep her off the mission). Because in the end, she comes back and has to ask them to take on faith what happened to her, without any evidence. It’s like the movie was trying to teach the “misguided atheist” the lesson that sometimes you have to rely on faith. (I haven’t read the original novel – somehow I doubt that’s how Carl Sagan intended it.)
So, she’s the victim of discrimination, and yet the comeuppance is hers rather than her oppressors. And it’s a bullshit comeuppance – asking someone to accept you as a credible witness to an event vs. asking someone to accept the existence of an invisible, intangible God are totally different things.
Maybe I’m totally misinterpreting it. But it seems to me that when you have a character being denied a job because of a lack of “faith”, and follow it with them being put in a position to learn the value of “faith”, there’s an obvious way to connect the dots.
tim314, I see where you’re coming from with the having to accept it on faith and how it’s her comeuppance, but in reality, (well, movie reality) there actually IS evidence they can rely on: the hours of missing tape. So, whereas it is kinda crappy to have to have her argument rely on “faith,” she is somewhat vindicated in that there is some kind of factual evidence.