Contact | Jena Malone, David Morse | Contact is clearly not "an awful waste of space."

Contact | Jena Malone, David Morse | Pretty good film about truth seeking dressed up as a science fiction / alien tale

vhs video:

Contact

	Contact Jena Malone, David Morse Warner Studios, 1997 average customer review:based on 423 reviews view larger image
	for more information click here

highly recommended

Contact is clearly not "an awful waste of space."

The big thing that suprised me from this movie upon further examination is the strength with which carl sagan, an self-confessed atheist, gave to the character of palmer joss, a man of the cloth "without the cloth". Its wonderfully refreshing to see a script that doesn't present the faithful as delusional and unintelligent, but rather those with humbled opinions that deserve as much merit as anything scientific. The point-counterpoint conversations between ellie and he were marvelous (I'd need proof...Did you love your father? Prove it), and only added to the beauty of this film. The effects, as breathtaking as they are, only exist to serve the plot, and my only wish was that I could have seen this is theaters. Oscar material for Best Picture, IMHO, but back in '97, no one was gonna dare take a chance during the year of Titanic, a movie that I felt fell victim to the fx, and lost all feeling. John Hurt, fantastic as always. Tom Skerrit as a true a$$, and James Woods, as small his part was, marvelous. I can't say enough good things about this movie.

for more information click here

Pretty good film about truth seeking dressed up as a science fiction / alien tale

While this movie is often held up as a science fiction story about first contact with beings from another world, that is only the framework for what the story of this movie is about (I have not read the book and do not know if the book is similar to the movie, but the Carl Sagan was involved in the screenplay). Contact also refers to the human search for truth and what coming into contact with that is like. This isn't a particularly subtle story, but it does have a strong point to make about the humility true seekers of truth have versus those who talk about truth, but distort and destroy as they advance some other agenda.

A mistaken view of the movie would be to see it as science versus religion or as reality versus faith. Sagan is actually pointing out the similarity of scientific truth seeking and faith - a lesson that Eleanor Arroway (played by the great Jodie Foster) eventually learns as she is persecuted for the reality she experienced, but cannot prove. She even refers to her experience as a vision in trying to describe it. And her soulmate, the man of faith Palmer Joss (played quite well by Matthew McConaughey), supports her testimony and sees something in the search for truth through science that he had not suspected.

The bad guys in the film are on both sides and are portrayed a bit ham handedly, but are well acted by Jake Busey as Joseph, and James Woods as Michael Kitz. Joseph is the wild eyed "prophet" whose vision of the truth leads him to reject anything that science has to say (except the making of explosives, apparently), and Michael Kitz is a cynical politician who "investigates" Arroway's experience, but who is really using her to try and advance his political career. (Why they simply didn't have someone else go through the machine to verify what Arroway said one way or the other eludes me - maybe the story made up some "reason" to prevent that logical next step.) So, this way the story pairs Arroway and Joss as true seekers who have humility and devotion to the truth, but who have different approaches. Their love story shows them as soul mates not only in love, but also in their love of truth. Then we have the idiot bad guys Joseph and Kitz who have other desires and only pretend to be seeking the truth. They already "know" their truth and aren't seeking anything.

The other characters all help dress out this theme and add to an interesting story, but this is the main point of the story and makes for a pretty good film. Just don't expect a terrific science fiction / alien film, because that is not what this really is.

for more information click here

You don't see any aliens in the book either

Which I thought I might remark to people who complain about the "anticlimactic" ending. Well what would it be like if the ending has aliens showing Jodie Foster the secret of life the universe and everything and sent her home with a pat on the head? Apart from being quite beyond the capability of even Carl Sagans mind, by showing only the traces of aliens the sense of the unknown is kept. You're kept thinking "Oh come on I wanted to see more! What were they really like?" Sure you may be disappointed by being given only a little information but if it was all explained to you with nothing left to the imagination the sense of disappointment would be greater. The aliens are kept mysterious to keep you curious. Human beings like to wonder. In effect the viewer (and reader in the case of the book) is given a "teaser". If it gets you wondering about what's really out there, then I think Carl Sagan has accomplished what he really intended.

Overall I think the book is more thought provoking, but the movie does have good points in the visual effects area. In particular, the 3 minute opening scene showing the pan away from earth, moon, solar system, cometary cloud, nebuale, galaxy to other galaxies and beyond gives a real sense of scale to the universe, much more than simply words could desribe. It's one thing to say "billions and billions" but to *see* the universe visually is quite another. The scene where Jodie Foster floats down from the sky to the beach world is uncannily dreamlike too. And of course the movie soundtrack is very good too.

Overall a quite enjoyable film, but not quite a "classic"

for more information click here