I watched it again last night.
I have to say that not only is it one of the best sci-fi movies I have ever seen, it is one of the best movies overall that I have ever seen.

So many people seem to have hated it, though.

What's your take on it?
Loved it?
Hated it?
Indifferent?

Why?

There's a movie called Contact?

Hmmm....

Didn't Carl Sagan write a book called Contact?

**puts 2 and 2 together....**

Was that movie written by Carl Sagan?

The movie was based on the book.
Carl wrote the novel but not the movie.
http://us.imdb.com/Title?0118884

Loved it. Though it might be too slow for some i, however, was tense throughtout the whole movie thinking whats next....what will happen.

I really need to watch it again. I saw it when it first came out and thought it was pretty good but not great. I think I will appreciate it more now however...

Contact was a reasonably good film despite its necessary simplicity. But I do stand with Mr. Garrison's review of the film, for those that recall.

:m:,
Tiassa :cool:

I enjoyed it. I guess I was just hoping for more at the end, even if the end itself was cool, it could have been cooler. However, when I shed the skin of adolescence and step into my filmmaker wannabeshell, I decide that, although the film didn't have artsy camera angles or amazing acting (the script didn't call for it, it's not to say the actors were bad, I think they all did as well as they could with the script). The story itself was a cool one, if a bit cliche--a heroine whose parent dies early on. The characters weren't bland, they were good, just not extraordinary. So what you get is a good but not extraordinary film.

My favorite scene is the very end, when she holds the stars in the palm of her hand. Just thought it was cool.

Maybe I'm not in to film making and I am mostly a watcher, but I think there was some nice camera work and special effents throughout the movie. The dramatic pullback throguh the universe, the shot with the mirror in the bathroom, the worm holes. I think all of them were interesting to say the least.

I really enjoyed the movie and I have owned it on DVD for quite a while now. I am not a big Jodie Foster fan, but I think she played the role well. Palmer Joss is a great charactor, he almost makes me want to believe in god... at least if I lost 40 IQ points.

I read the book in High School while it was in the theatre and didn't see the movie until a while later. Of course the book was better than the movie, but I don't think they did a bad job at all.

I will say that the commentary on the DVD where Jodie Foster talks is proof positive that she is nothing but professional about acting. Albeit it was damn boring after a little while (Yeah I am that guy that watches movies with commentary on).

I'm glad someone else liked it, I was starting to feel like I was the only one. I assumed that people hated the ending when the said they didn't like it, but they seemed to equally hate all parts. This even came from Atheist and Christian friends alike! What gives?

I suppose I have liked this movie for too long and too fiercely to ever cast doubt on any part of it. In my eyes, it is untouchable, and a work of perfection. I, too, read the book, but I think the paring down of the book (a 5 person crew) into the movie version, which focuses on one person's journey, is brilliant.

But what's best about Contact is not the fiming of the actual movie- it's good, but not masterful. The story itself is at once emotional and philisophical, in that (by what I have gathered as clues) she never went into space, and her journey paralleled that of the religious journey carried out by her love interest. I had to watch it several times to pick up on the message, which was the ubiquity of the religious expereince in all parts of life, and through all (supposedly) non-religious belief systems. The integrity of Ellie's own scientifc journey is totally disproved by scientific empirisism, and the bridge between believers and non-believers, which has a huge role in her inner conflict, is bridged.

Well. That just about proves I'm a fanatic.

;) -Jon

You missed something.
She DID go into space.
The Confidential report stated that there was approxiamtely 18 hours of static recorded on her headset recording device.

However, teh parallel you mentioned still stands because she does not know (nor does moat anyone else) that there was 18 hours of static on the device, so tehre is no proof that she can hold-up and say, "See! It IS true!"

I thought Contact was an okay movie; maybe a six on a one-to-ten scale.

I thought it was visually interesting, but a bit too long for what we got out of it.

And even though I am not religious, I felt the film went out of its way to bash religious people (specifically Christians) to the point of being unrealistic. Do you really think someone so nutty that he would argue that we can't return communications from aliens until we find out if they are Christians would actually have a seat at a conference with the president? Unlikely. I haven't read the book, so I don't know if the anti-religion slant was from Sagan himself or from the people who made the film.

And yes, Tiassa, I remember Mr. Garrison's review of the movie.

Originally posted by Galt
Do you really think someone so nutty that he would argue that we can't return communications from aliens until we find out if they are Christians would actually have a seat at a conference with the president?

Yes.
Have you ever read teh religion forum here?
Have you ever heard of GW Bush? :D

I honestly don't think it had an anti-religious slant at all.

I think that the key religious character (Palmer) was respectfully and convincing portrayed as an honest, well-grounded religious person.

He isn't played in a negative light at all.
In fact, he was (with the arguably obvious exception of Jodie Foster's character) the most positive and human aspect of the film.

(I forgot to mention that I think Jodie Foster is very sexy, and this character was of her sexiset. :D)

Originally posted by one_raven
Have you ever read teh religion forum here?

I wasn't aware that any SciForums members had the ear of the president. Remember; I'm not saying this as a religious person but as an objective observer. That scene in the movie was pretty ridiculous.

Look at it this way:

What would the reaction have been had Rob Lowe's religious nut character been replaced by a flaming homosexual in a pink Hawaiian shirt screaming, "We can't communicate with them! Why, we don't even know if they thupport thame-thex marriageth!" There would have been an uproar about blatant negative portrayals of certain groups, and rightly so.

Originally posted by one_raven
Have you ever heard of GW Bush? :D

Yes. What about him?

Originally posted by one_raven
I honestly don't think it had an anti-religious slant at all.

Did you actually watch the movie? With the exception of Palmer Joss, who I will address in a moment, every religious person in the movie was portrayed as either a complete moron, a brainwashed cultist or a terrorist.

Originally posted by one_raven
I think that the key religious character (Palmer) was respectfully and convincing portrayed as an honest, well-grounded religious person.

Yes, but that one "religious" person in the movie was the guy who basically turned his back on his faith (Roman Catholocism) to write books about how science is exploiting third-worlders. His role in the movie was not so much to argue in favor of religion but rather to keep Ellie Arroway's militant atheism in check. I am not saying that there was anything wrong with his role. I actually thought he was the most likeable person in that movie. I just wouldn't count him as a positive or even neutral portrayal of a religious person. He was more like a positive portayal of a basically spiritual - rather than religious - person.

Originally posted by one_raven
He isn't played in a negative light at all.

Nor was he portrayed as particularly religious.

Originally posted by one_raven
(I forgot to mention that I think Jodie Foster is very sexy, and this character was of her sexiset. :D)

I kind of liked her in Panic Room. It could be my inner-geek speaking, but I think she looked pretty hot in those horn-rimmed glasses.

Originally posted by Galt
Look at it this way:

What would the reaction have been had Rob Lowe's religious nut character been replaced by a flaming homosexual in a pink Hawaiian shirt screaming, "We can't communicate with them! Why, we don't even know if they thupport thame-thex marriageth!" There would have been an uproar about blatant negative portrayals of certain groups, and rightly so.
But, don't you think that Rob Lowe's character was well balanced nicely with Matthew McConaughey's character?
I do.

Do you really think that the President doesn't have an advisor (at least one) that would be representative of the extreme Christian Right?
Of course he would.
I imagine that a LOT of people in this country could identify with Rob Lowe's character.
And the only real job the president has is keeping his job.
He does this by making as many people as possible happy.
He would want the viewpoint from the major perspectives of his constituants.

I think the real purpose of it was the writer's way of showing the issue reflected in the eyes of vastly different perspectives.
But I don;t think it was unrealistic at all.

Originally posted by Galt
Yes. What about him?
I think he is an intolerant Religious nut (just like his daddy).
But that has nothing to do with this conversation, I guess.
Just an off-handed comment.

Palmer did not turn his back on his faith at all.
He simply turned his back on the cloth because he was unable to keep his vow of celibacy.
He was absolutely a religious character, just not "technically" a priest.

She did look pertty damned hot in "Panic Room". :D

Did you actually watch the movie? With the exception of Palmer Joss, who I will address in a moment, every religious person in the movie was portrayed as either a complete moron, a brainwashed cultist or a terrorist.
No.
Just Rob Lowe and Jake Busey.

Originally posted by one_raven
But, don't you think that Rob Lowe's character was well balanced nicely with Matthew McConaughey's character?
I do.

I don't. Palmer Joss was a nice counterpart to Ellie Arroway. There were not nutty atheists to play opposite Rob Lowe or Jake Busey.

Originally posted by one_raven
Do you really think that the President doesn't have an advisor (at least one) that would be representative of the extreme Christian Right?

I'm sure some presidents would have a conservative Christian advisor. The questions are whether said advisor would be that nutty and why an equally nutty atheist wasn't present to provide balance.

Originally posted by one_raven
I imagine that a LOT of people in this country could identify with Rob Lowe's character.

There are many political/social leaders in this country who appeal to weirdos. The fact that only the Christian ones were present in this film is why I consider it biased.

Originally posted by one_raven
And the only real job the president has is keeping his job.
He does this by making as many people as possible happy.
He would want the viewpoint from the major perspectives of his constituants.

The president at the time was Bill Clinton. How many people who thought the way Rob Lowe thought would be considered a Clinton constituent?

Originally posted by one_raven
I think the real purpose of it was the writer's way of showing the issue reflected in the eyes of vastly different perspectives.
But I don;t think it was unrealistic at all.

But it didn't show these "vastly different perspectives". It just showed a bunch of religious nuts who committed mass-murder and terrorist acts.

Originally posted by one_raven
I think he is an intolerant Religious nut (just like his daddy).
But that has nothing to do with this conversation, I guess.
Just an off-handed comment.

I don't think Bush is intolerant at all. I think he does more politically correct butt-kissing than any other president I can think of.

Originally posted by one_raven
Palmer did not turn his back on his faith at all.
He simply turned his back on the cloth because he was unable to keep his vow of celibacy.

A celibacy vow is one of the most important aspects of priesthood, isn't it?

Originally posted by one_raven
He was absolutely a religious character, just not "technically" a priest.

He played a would-be priest in title only. His role was to counter Arroway's militant atheism, which any agnostic could have done. He was not a particularly religious character in deed or word.

Originally posted by one_raven
She did look pertty damned hot in "Panic Room". :D

Oh yes. :D

Originally posted by one_raven
No.
Just Rob Lowe and Jake Busey.

Rob Lowe, Jake Busey and Jake Busey's followers, who were pretty much the extent of the truly religious characters in that movie. Hence my claims of bias.

Originally posted by Galt
A celibacy vow is one of the most important aspects of priesthood, isn't it?
Yes, it is important. That is why you should not decide to become a priest if you can't handle it. Why do you think priests molest children? Those that do it can't handle the celibacy.
He played a would-be priest in title only. His role was to counter Arroway's militant atheism, which any agnostic could have done. He was not a particularly religious character in deed or word.
You are right, he did sleep with Ellie. But isn't that supposed to be the draw to christianity? You can do whatever you want and there will always be forgiveness? I don't know a single person that does not sin in some way no matter how religious they are.
Rob Lowe, Jake Busey and Jake Busey's followers, who were pretty much the extent of the truly religious characters in that movie. Hence my claims of bias.
I'm sure in Contact 2 we will see hwo teh christians will handle it when they have control of a project like this. Maybe we will get to see the atheists protesting the church where they are secretly building the machine so they can throw it in teh back yard and proclaim it a miracle of God. (Like atheist protest like that, and I think the church needs to whip itself up a new miracle if they want to keep profits up.)

Okay. Now I am just being biased. I apologize, but I think you have to understand that the crazy religious people would be the ones protesting, not your grandma who is counting rosaries and doing hail mary's so that her cookies are extra delicious for you.

Originally posted by Ectropic
I really enjoyed the movie and I have owned it on DVD for quite a while now. I am not a big Jodie Foster fan, but I think she played the role well. Palmer Joss is a great charactor, he almost makes me want to believe in god... at least if I lost 40 IQ points.


It' so semi-smart to not believe in god :)
Who or what else can be responsible for all of this?

I really loved Contact aswell.

I saw Contact and I loved it. And like a lot of people have said I felt that I was the only one. The first time I watched it I thought it was anti-religion but then I took the message to simply be that of belief. Everyone believes in something that is unexplainable. And this becomes faith. Everyone has faith in something, therefore everyone has a belief system, therefore everyone is religious.

I was disappointed at the end but then I realized that of course we all will be disappointed when/if we figure out what is the meaning of life.

Great movie.

2001, A Space Odyssey is another one. If the scene were the neanderthal picks up the bone and then its a spaceship isn't the best scene in movies, I don't know what is.

Originally posted by Ectropic
Yes, it is important. That is why you should not decide to become a priest if you can't handle it. Why do you think priests molest children? Those that do it can't handle the celibacy.

I don't buy that excuse for a second. If these pedophile priests were just horny guys looking to score, they would seeking out adult partners. When I'm in the mood for sex I go to clubs and bars and pick up women. I don't rape the neighbor children.

My guess is that these pedophile priests are just sick people who would likely be preying on children whether they chose to be priests or not. It just so happens that a life in the priesthood gives them plenty of opportunities for access to young children.

Originally posted by Ectropic
You are right, he did sleep with Ellie. But isn't that supposed to be the draw to christianity?

I'd definitely convert to Christianity if I doing so would allow me to score with Jodie Foster. :D

Originally posted by Ectropic
You can do whatever you want and there will always be forgiveness? I don't know a single person that does not sin in some way no matter how religious they are.

It's not an issue of whether or not people sin, because we all know they do. The point is that Palmer Joss was spiritual man who rejected some of the more important tenets of his faith. He wasn't what one could truly consider a religious character.

Originally posted by Ectropic
Okay. Now I am just being biased. I apologize, but I think you have to understand that the crazy religious people would be the ones protesting, not your grandma who is counting rosaries and doing hail mary's so that her cookies are extra delicious for you.

I'm not disputing that crazy religious people would be up in arms about something like that. I'm only pointing out that the movie kind of paints all religious people as crazy, murderous terrorists.

hate the book

hate the movie


hate religous messages in books

hate religious messages in movies


hate the book

hate the movie