Contact (1997)

Man, this movie is just beautiful!

Imagine Jodie Foster talking about space and aliens. She’d be diving into God, too. How scientists actually deal with faith when facing the unknown. She’d probably claim the entire government is just one actor in disguise—James Woods, maybe?! What else could you even say? Not even going to try to spell Matthew McConaughey's name right. 😁

Honestly? This could've been a masterpiece. It needed to be calmer. They should have leaned harder into those heavy questions about morality, faith, and science. That scene with the crowds of crazies swarming the launch site was just overkill. And that religious fanatic character? Totally useless. The movie feels way too cluttered, like they tried to jam too much in. I actually would’ve preferred if it were a bit slower. Every few minutes, I kept seeing the potential for it to be great. But it just wasn't.

Man, Jodie Foster totally broke me. Seriously. This tiny woman, completely lost in her own science—science she trusts blindly even though it’s actually driven by some deep, hidden faith. Watching her shaking around in that capsule, shouting, "I'm okay to go! I'm okay to go!"... I just lost it. She's incredible.

What? vi What do you guys think about this movie?

blueranger12 said:What do you all think about this movie?

By "you," you surely meant what the highly esteemed and—dare I say—underappreciated gentleman Gregory Smith4 thinks of the film?!

Well, let me tell you.

It was a total nothingness.

Now, let’s just say—hypothetically speaking—that if instead of the rather uninspired Jodie Foster, the lead role had been played by the stunning Halle Berry, the film would have undoubtedly been better received—both by the general public (you lot) and by the critics (me).

Furthermore, if the average American woman—pardon my bluntness, but let's be real—actually possessed the intellect that the below-average American man (the typical Neanderthal) has in such abundance, we might actually be a much smarter, more enlightened nation.

But alas, that is simply not our reality.

🙂 🙂

It’s a shame they wasted such a good concept.

Personally, I think Jodie Foster is an excellent actress, even if she overacts a bit in this one. Matthew McConaughey is solid, Tom Skerritt is fine as usual, and James Woods is just doing his classic thing—being a total smart-ass.

The movie lacks actual grit and fails to drive its point home. It should have leaned harder into those heavy moral and religious questions instead of settling for two-dimensional tropes like cult demonstrations and psycho-religious fanatics.

One more thing: any sci-fi movie that throws advanced tech at you without actually explaining how it works is worthless.

I thought that film was absolutely superb.
It’s visually stunning—truly a feast for the eyes.
And Jodie... well, she's predictably captivating, almost to an overwhelming degree. 🙂

For those who haven't seen it (looking at you, Gregory Smith4), this movie is highly regarded. It isn't quite a masterpiece—not on the level of The Right Stuff, for instance—especially regarding classic hard sci-fi since the science isn't explained deeply enough, but it’s pretty close.

On the flip side, certain parts are explained well enough that they make sense to an average viewer, specifically those bits that usually get skipped over in movies (stuff about frequencies and electromagnetic waves, etc.)...
I guess it's a relatively refreshing change of pace that everything doesn't follow the exact same tired formula...

Even though there's a connection to religion—specifically faith—I didn't take it as some kind of preaching or moralizing. There was zero of that, none at all (unlike how things go back home in our little corner of the world 🙂). Instead, the movie just captures what happens when we actually sit down to discuss these topics; it shows those debates where nobody really wins. I thought that part was handled brilliantly.

In my opinion, the weakest link isn't Nina Violić, but rather James Woods. He's a great actor, but he felt like a casting miss here.

All in all, I'd give it a solid 5 out of 5! 👍

p.s. When Jodie Foster was playing this role, she certainly wasn't "washed up"—she was easily one of the top three actresses in the world back then.
It seems like some people don't really bother with the facts when they comment on movies. 😉

p.p.s. It's interesting, but I don't really think Foster's character had a "hidden religious faith." It felt more like a belief in something much larger than ourselves, something we can't fully grasp because we're just tiny specks on this planet.

Lisa Wilson49 said:p.p.s. Interesting point, but I don't think Foster's character had some "pure faith in herself" in a religious sense. It was more like a belief in something massive and incomprehensible, since we're all just tiny specs on this planet.

Yeah, it wasn't really about religion. It was more that she spent her whole life trying to find her parents. That’s what actually pushed her forward, not just a raw hunger for science or discovery. So, at the end, during that judgment scene, she sees that people are just human—just regular people who have to believe in things. And then that moment where she walks down the stairs and gets into the car while the crowd cheers... I don't know.

Oh, and another tearjerker: that part when she's in the capsule, looking out at those stunning galaxies and saying—They should have sent a poet!

I totally missed the end of the movie—I had to step out right when she was testifying in front of that commission. How does the film wrap up?

Kevin Long20 said:I missed the end of the movie. I had to step out right when she was testifying in front of that commission. How does it wrap up?

Nothing much happens. Since she's a scientist, she basically has to accept that it didn't happen—it’s all just a matter of faith because there isn't any hard evidence.

Meanwhile, James Woods knows she's telling the truth because her camera caught everything—well, nothing. It just recorded 18 hours of absolutely nothing, just like Jodie claimed happened while she was out there.

That’s pretty much it. Jodie just goes back to listening to the sounds of space...

Henry Barrett11 said:Since she's a scientist, I guess she just has to accept that it never actually happened and that it's all just a matter of faith...

She’s simply acknowledging that her experience can't be proven—that according to the strict rules of empirical science, "it didn't happen"—yet she remains absolutely certain that it did occur. She has come to terms with the inherent limits of scientific inquiry without losing her confidence or her sense of optimism. Her belief isn't rooted in a deity, but rather in herself, in human potential, and in the possibility of other intelligent life.
It really comes down to the distinction between organized religion and true spirituality as an essential part of the human condition. 🙂

Man, this movie was honestly so dumb, even if it’s a decent enough watch the first time around... I almost gagged at all that shallowist theological philosophizing... I haven't heard such surface-level nonsense in ages... and then that whole awkward ending where he tries to justify himself to the commission? TOTAL TRASH 🙂

swiftcobra15 said:She accepts the fact that she can't prove her experience—that by the rules of hard science, "it never happened"—but she’s still dead certain that it actually did. She recognizes where science hits a wall, but she hasn't let that kill her confidence or her optimism. She believes, but it isn't about believing in God; it's about believing in herself, in human potential, and in other intelligent beings.
That's the fundamental difference between being religious in a theistic sense and having spirituality as a core part of being human. 🙂

You're right. 👍

Personally, I thought the movie was pretty decent, though I might suggest picking up the book as well; I feel like the book goes into much more detail on certain aspects of the story...

The movie’s alright by my standards because the science actually holds up, unlike total junk like Deep Impact or Armageddon.🙂

The film does a fairly decent job of capturing Sagan's "romantic" take on humanity, life, our world, and space.

One could argue that Sagan was just as much the director here as Zemeckis (they collaborated on the project until Sagan's passing in 1996, after which the film was completed and dedicated to him).

Compared to the book, the movie is stripped down to the bare essentials, yet it avoids descending into pure stupidity. It doesn't fall into that trap of typical Hollywood nonsense where the plots are so naive they couldn't even fool an infant.

The visuals and the core concept are excellent, though I feel that Robert Zemeckis's pathetic, Forrest Gump-style approach ultimately prevented this from becoming a truly extraordinary masterpiece.

A movie where the director actually manages to get a real American president to play himself can't be half bad. Still, it feels a bit naive of me to think they built that machine so quickly...

nimblemarlin17 said:A movie where the director actually manages to get a real American president to play himself can't possibly be bad. Though, I suppose I'm being naive thinking they could build a machine like that so quickly...

Heh... if you feel that way, then the special effects actually worked. It really comes down to some brilliant editing, which I suspect Robert Zemeckis has been obsessed with since his days working on Forrest Gump (with the whole John F. Kennedy bit), so he just applied that same logic here... they basically spliced Bill Clinton from one of his speeches into the scene, though I honestly can't recall what he was actually talking about in the real speech.

Regarding the construction of the machine—it isn't a matter of being naive. It’s never really about how long it takes to build something—well, most things—it's always about the budget.

Technically, you can pull almost anything off in a very short timeframe—barring certain sci-fi impossibilities—provided you have the cash. The film explicitly mentions that this is the most expensive project in human history.

I think you might be oversimplifying things there, Richard Howard2. It’s not always just about the budget, either. Sometimes you run into these massive technical hurdles that just can't be fixed overnight.
Especially when you think you've nailed all the physics and chemistry and everything else perfectly, but then the actual testing goes totally sideways and nothing works the way you imagined. 🙂

Anyway, I felt that specific part of the movie was a bit off too... it felt almost too much like a Hollywood cliché (🙂 ), where we're just super geniuses who can solve any problem in a heartbeat.

They really could have stretched that out a bit more and actually shown us the complications. After all, we aren't dealing with Earth's atmosphere here; we're talking about space, which is a completely different beast.

🙂

swiftcobra15 said:She basically accepts that she can't prove her experience, and by the strict rules of hard science, "it didn't happen," yet she’s still certain that it actually did. I guess she realized where science hits a wall, but she didn't let that kill her confidence or her optimism. She believes—not necessarily in God, but in herself, in what humans can do, and in other intelligent life out there.
It feels like the difference between being religious in a traditional sense and just having spirituality as a core part of being human. 🙂

👍
That was honestly my favorite part of the movie. He had to include that little touch of theism, otherwise, it would have just been another surface-level blockbuster without any real substance. I mean, realistically, anyone would feel that way regardless of their actual beliefs.
We'd all just be left with a million questions and fears and... whatever else.
🙂

Fast & Furious said:He had to throw in those theological undertones. Otherwise, it would’ve just been another shallow, surface-level blockbuster without any actual substance.

But why not do the opposite? Add some blockbuster energy so it isn't just pure religious preaching. That’s what I’d do. That’s how it should have been. Instead, we ended up exactly how you described.

Yeah, true. Then the people who already can't stand blockbusters and Americans would just go after him even harder, and the ones who actually appreciate him now—not counting the general audience—would probably just toss him into the "trash" pile.

So, I guess it's better this way. 🙂

Man, honestly... who can ever actually please everyone? 😉