From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:26:17 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 15 23:07:24 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news.algonet.se!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: chuckd21@southeast.net (Chuck Dowling) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.current-films,rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 6 Jul 1997 17:22:20 GMT Organization: Chuck's Movie Reviews Lines: 61 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5pok8c$gs@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer36.u.washington.edu Content-Type: text NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r #08119 Keywords: author=dowling X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer36.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7517 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1402 Contact (1997) NO STARS out of ***** - Cast: Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, James Woods, Tom Skerritt, Angela Bassett, John Hurt, Rob Lowe, David Morse. Written by: James V. Hart and Michael Goldenberg. Based on the novel by: Carl Sagan. Directed by: Robert Zemeckis. Running Time: 150 minutes. Hollywood, and specifically Robert Zemeckis, has given me a cure for insomnia which will never fail to work. "Contact" is just about the most painfully slow, dull, and lifeless film I have ever had the misfortune to sit through in a movie theater. Now, as I have been reading the advance reviews for "Contact" it seems that my opinion here is going to be in the minority. I've read statements like "It's one of the best films of the decade" and "Hollywood has finally come close to perfection". So I feel as though I'll need to over-justify many of my comments. First off, I am all for long movies, just as long as it's a good movie. If a film can maintain it's level of entertainment, it can go on forever as far as I'm concerned. So when I say that "Contact" is way too long, which it most certainly is, don't dismiss it as that I just hate long movies. Second, there doesn't have to be action or mayhem going on in a film for it to entertainment. I'm not a brainless drooler who's only entertained by stuff blowed up real good. Some of my favorite films are dramas, with very little going on in them. But they have a compelling story and characters who are interesting, unlike "Contact". "Contact" is all about listening for radio signals from outer space for signs of intelligent life. Sounds exciting doesn't it? The opening shot of the film, a very lengthy pullback through the universe, shows us how far our own radio and television signals are able to reach. But this goes on WAY too long, and sets the stage for the film's utter boredom. In the first 45 minutes, not much happens. You'd think that this would the time where characters are developed, but not so. There just really isn't anything going on. Astronomer Jodie Foster meets up with hunky Matthew McConaughey and the two immediately jump into bed together. This is character development? Then, a signal is received from outer space. Finally, something interesting. But amazingly, the scene is so dull, and done with a total lack of energy that who would care? Foster discovers this signal, and then for ten minutes babbles nothing but complex scientific jargon about it to her co-scientists which left me completely lost. What exactly is going on? Take some advanced science classes and maybe you too can understand. >From that point on, I was pretty much looking around the theater for something else to look at. So to go into the details about the remainder of the film would be impossible to do, since it never got more interesting than the theater ceiling. I do know that James Woods and David Morse are completely wasted in very small roles. Robert Zemeckis, please don't follow the path which you are on. Joel Schumacher awaits you at it's end. [PG] -- Chuck Dowling Visit Chuck's Movie Reviews at http://users.southeast.net/~chuckd21/ Over 1,600 movies rated and/or reviewed! Movie news, film related links, and reader's reviews. From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:26:20 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 15 23:07:25 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news99.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!nntp.uio.no!sol.net!newsfeeds.sol.net!europa.clark.net!mis3!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: leeper@mtgbcs.mt.lucent.com (Mark R Leeper) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 8 Jul 1997 16:20:27 GMT Organization: Lucent Technologies Lines: 127 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5ptpcb$c2o@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer27.u.washington.edu Content-Type: text NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08149 Keywords: author=leeper X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer27.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7541 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1410 CONTACT A film review by Mark R. Leeper Capsule: The first contact with an alien race has a huge impact on society. We see that impact through the eyes of one woman who devoted her life to the search for extraterrestrial life. The film adaptation of Carl Sagan's CONTACT is in some ways a betrayal of Sagan's philosophy and has some hefty revisions to the book. Knowing that I would like to down-rate CONTACT, but I have to admit what remains is a substantial and intelligent film. CONTACT was produced by Sagan and his wife, Ann Druyan, and that may be why so much of the film was on-track. While not perfect, it is the best science fiction film we have gotten in a good long time. Rating: low +3 (-4 to +4) 8 (0 to 10) Spoiler warning: there are minor spoilers in the main body and larger ones in the afterward. Jodi Foster has obviously gotten a little more sanguine on science for gifted children since she directed and starred in LITTLE MAN TATE. That was the film in which she had a budding scientific prodigy saying "I am working on an experiment involving sulfuric acid, lasers, and butterflies." In CONTACT she plays one of those prodigies grown up in a film considerably more positive on science. This is the story of the career of the fictional Dr. Eleanor Arroway (Foster) who at an early age was bitten by the astronomy bug. Her mother died giving birth to her and her father, Ted (David Morse of THE CROSSING GUARD) instilled in her the love of science to devote her career to SETI, the search for extra-terrestrial life. The SETI project turns out to be professional suicide in the field of astronomy. But she feels compelled to listen to the sky and to search for signs of intelligent life. The career choice earns her no respect from her colleagues, and it makes life a constant set of battles for even minimal funding. Her chief nemesis and occasional boss David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt), National Science Advisor to the President, who one way or another betrays her at every opportunity. A one-time lover and sometimes adversary is Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), a failed priest who becomes a sort of Billy Graham figure. When funding has run out and Drumlin is forcing her off the Very Large Array, the huge radio telescope made of twenty-three dish antennae, in the desert of New Mexico, suddenly she hears a signal that can mean only an intelligent alien broadcast. This is a scene we have seen recently in INDEPENDENCE DAY and THE ARRIVAL, but never with the scientific verisimilitude that we have here. Arroway announces to the world that contact has been made and nothing is ever the same again. And now the film takes off and continues as a high pace until the end. We start with a very believable picture of just what would happen if such an announcement were made. The National Security Advisor Michael Kitz (James Woods) struggles to take control of any information received from the aliens, so does Drumlin, each trying to get the ear of the President. (My credits list has Sidney Portier playing the President, but apparently in a last minute substitution they have William Clinton in the role. The film is, after all, directed by Robert Zemeckis who had several Presidents appearing in FORREST GUMP. It is sure to be a controversial piece of casting, but I think Clinton does a fine job as the President.) CONTACT is not just a political drama about the after-effects of contacting alien life in space. This is a long film that keeps going and going--almost three hours long--and if you have seen the trailer you will find that the science fiction content is certainly there if you wait for it. If you have read the book, you may be a bit disappointed, since there is far more science fiction content in the original story, but the film does not exactly remain earthbound either. The opening sequence demonstrating for us how far into the galaxy our radio broadcasts have reached is both breath-taking and scientifically informative. The film is almost worth seeing just for that sequence. Other scenes are technically impressive, but a little nonsensical. In one tracking shot the camera leads Arroway running up a flight of stairs and into a bathroom and in the end we see we are seeing her in the medicine cabinet mirror and have been through the scene. There is enough good in CONTACT to make a film I would give very high marks to, and enough that is irritating for me to really down-rate it. Generally when that happens I try to excuse the faults. So while I thought there was much that was dishonest about CONTACT, overall I would have to give it a low +3 on the -4 to +4 scale. SPOILER WARNING Visually you could not ask for a lot more from the film, with one major exception. While it is not chock full of special effects and the mattes of the Transporter seen from a distance are not convincing, the design of the Transporter is just about as believable as an interstellar transporter could be. The scenes of the Transporter running were stunning, and the journey was terrific though perhaps a little derivative of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. Then she plops down at the far end and it is the "Oh, shoot!" experience. What a failure of imagination! It was like watching THE BLACK HOLE II. There is so much that is right with this film and so much that is wrong, it is hard to know where to begin to evaluate the ideas. The film I would have liked to see is the one this would have been if Carl Sagan had not died during the production. I cannot be positive it would be different, but aspects of this film seem to run very counter to what I understand as Sagan's philosophy. Places where the book took chances and had some engaging thoughts about religion and faith have been reframed to change their meaning. Certainly false information would never have been added to the arguments in the film. (The film claims that 95% of the world's population believes in a Supreme Being. Actually about 21% of the world is atheist or non- religious and while there may be some who believe in a Supreme Being among the non- religious, there are certainly also atheists and agnostics who at least nominally belong to religions. This also makes the dubious assumption that Confucians and Shintoists believe in a Supreme Being. The 95% figure used in the film is wildly inaccurate.) What I did find surprising was people in the audience getting angry because the "hero" of the film implied that she was either an atheist or an agnostic. She never tries to convince anyone to agree with her, she simply explains why she believes what she does. Other people punish her for her belief and nobody in the audience got (audibly) upset about that. Apparently with everything else this film does, it gets people agitated at its ideas. The novel actually had a nice piece looking at what could be a proof of the existence of God, while the film turns into an affirmation of religious faith in its final scenes. And Arroway complains that Drumlin tells the people what they want to hear about his views on religion! Mark R. Leeper mleeper@lucent.com Copyright 1997 Mark R. Leeper From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:26:23 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 15 23:07:27 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lejonet.se!newsfeed1.telia.com!masternews.telia.net!newssrv.ita.tip.net!ubnnews.unisource.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news-ge.switch.ch!news.grnet.gr!btnet-feed3!unlisys!fu-berlin.de!news.apfel.de!howland.erols.net!europa.clark.net!mis3!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Dean Thomas Sebastian Carrano Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 8 Jul 1997 16:20:45 GMT Organization: Taoist Law School Youth Lines: 121 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5ptpct$c2t@nntp5.u.washington.edu> ~Reply-To: dcarrano@wesleyan.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: homer27.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08151 Keywords: author=carrano X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer27.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7585 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1418 CONTACT Starring Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, James Woods, Tom Skerritt, Angela Bassett Viewed July 5, 1997 at advance screening in Forest Hills, NY Capsule Review: Slow-moving tale lacks promised payoff. But some good moments along the way. 5 out of 10. At my viewing of this film, I sat next to THE KIDS YOU DON'T WANT TO SIT NEXT TO. They seemed to be expecting "Contact" to be along the lines of "Independence Day". "I better see some aliens!" they demanded of the screen many times, and emphatically urged the story onward at every turn. I didn't share their impatience, but you gotta admit, this movie was LONG. It was about two and a half hours long, and seemed longer (unlike, say, "The Godfather", which is a three hour movie that seems like two hours max.) For me, the pacing worked fine at first. The movie begins with an epic sequence. The camera begins with a view of earth, and then pulls farther and farther back, taking us past each planet in the solar system. As we leave earth behind, its sounds - radio and TV broadcasts which meander randomly through space - fade out until we hear dead silence. "We get the point already!" cried the kids, but the camera kept going and silence otherwise reigned. The spectacle, especially the dramatic use of total silence, was reminiscent of 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, and the scene lived up to that high standard. All these celestial wonders, we are meant to understand, have long been contemplated by our heroine, Dr. Eleanor Arroway (Jodie Foster). Since the thrill of this movie is anticipation, I have to be pretty careful here. Suffice it to say that "Ellie" has devoted her life to listening for signs of extraterrestrial intelligence via the use of massively high-powered radio equipment that I couldn't even begin to explain. This is far from fictional, and indeed, a mark of the film throughout is that it takes great pains to set itself in the real world and to avoid asking the audience to suspend disbelief. The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) government project is going on as we speak. It's based in New Mexico, and uses the famous Very Large Array to listen for sounds of alien life. After some setbacks, Ellie is able to use the SETI equipment for her research. Needless to say, everyone thinks she's a flake and the government, represented by the grandstanding science advisor David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt), wants to cut her funding and use the money for more "practical" applications. Ellie's research is about to be terminated when...she hears something. A message that could only be produced by an intelligent life form. From then on, we watch the biggest news story in history develop through the eyes of Ellie, its central figure. This movie reminded me very strongly of two other films. One was 2001, mentioned above. The other is THE ABYSS. 2001, THE ABYSS, and CONTACT are all epics dealing with the first meeting of humanity and an alien race. 2001 is the longest film of the three. However, I would submit that it has the most "payoff." Even though we can argue for hours about what "really happens" in that famous final scene, we accept it as a fitting conclusion. It fits in with the mythos that the story has created. It is sufficiently dramatic. We may not feel totally satisfied, but we take this as a sign that some mystery is still retained, rather than as a flaw in the storywriting. By contrast, THE ABYSS does not deliver that tremendous kick. And CONTACT is much, much worse in this regard. If I were the aliens, I wouldn't even bother to call us collect with the information they impart, much less go through all the trouble they did. It is a supreme disappointment. At the one moment where the movie needs inspired dialogue (or monologue), the script fails. One aspect of what Ellie learns from the aliens is brought out by her relationship with Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey). Ellie is an atheist; she sees no scientific evidence of God and thus cannot believe. Palmer is an ex-priest and best-selling spiritual author who believes that science and technology are separating us from ourselves. The relationship reminded me of AGNES OF GOD, where Jane Fonda and Anne Bancroft might as well have had "REASON" and "FAITH" stamped on their foreheads. If you're going to go this route, at least make it a little more subtle. Palmer doesn't have to be the spiritual leader of the country; he could just be a guy that Ellie likes who has strong beliefs. As it was, these scenes were very unsubtle. Moreover, they were wrongly motivated. The movie assumes that science and religion are irreconciliable. This is just not true. Many scientists believe that the order they study - the beauty of the rules - could only have been created by a supreme being. This is a perfectly self-consistent viewpoint. The dichotomy - the assumption that one must choose between either science and reason, or religion and faith - simply does not exist. However, since the movie does set up this dichotomy, it is to its credit that Ellie does not become a religious convert. One cannot help but be impressed by the plausibility of the "science" scenes. I suppose this is what happens when you have Carl Sagan working on your movie; the late, great astronomer not only wrote the novel on which the movie is based, but co-wrote the screenplay and served as co-producer. The news coverage of the event, and the reactions of the masses, are also very realistically portrayed. As I said, the movie sets out to make us believe that this could happen in our world tomorrow. However, that impression is undermined by the final scenes. At a Congressional hearing, Ellie is grilled by another nasty government guy, Michael Kitz (James Woods). Ellie is supposed to be the smartest person in the room, and there are any number of ways in which she could have answered the questioning so as to make Kitz look absolutely ridiculous. Instead, she is made into another victim of the supposed reason/faith dichotomy. The last half hour of this movie needs serious editing. So does the first half hour, which does not contribute enough to the story to pull its weight. To sum up: The special effects are spectacular. (Although everyone in the theater laughed at the computer-enhanced appearances of Bill Clinton as himself. I know FORREST GUMP director Robert Zemeckis likes to do this, but it was really gimmicky and detracted from the mood here.) The story, although it moves slowly, gets you excited when it does move. You'll believe in the story, and you'll be on the edge of your seat as the film moves towards its climax. And then you'll say, "Yeah...and?" 5 stars out of 10 Movie review by Dean Carrano - dcarrano@wesleyan.edu (This is my first review. Please send comments!) From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:27:24 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 15 23:07:28 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Steve Rhodes Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 10 Jul 1997 15:43:01 GMT Organization: Tandem Computers Lines: 124 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5q2vu5$rco@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer07.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08178 Keywords: author=rhodes X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer07.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7567 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1412 CONTACT A film review by Steve Rhodes Copyright 1997 Steve Rhodes RATING (0 TO ****): *** Blind astro-audio specialist Kent Cullers (William Fichtner) lampoons, "Dr. Arroway will be spending her precious telescope time looking for." "Little green men," says Dr. Eleanor Arroway (Jodie Foster) completing his sentence. CONTACT is director Robert Zemeckis's latest and most ambitious production ever, tackling nothing less than the question of whether we are alone in the universe, as well as whether there is a God, and whether it matters what your opinion is on the subject. Robert Zemeckis is known for high concept movies with big name stars. Most of his films, like ROMANCING THE STONE, the BACK TO THE FUTURE trilogy, and FORREST GUMP, have been both critical and financial successes. Since he became famous, his only flop has been DEATH BECOMES HER. CONTACT has a galaxy of stars (Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, James Woods) and many minor, but still luminous celestial bodies (Angela Bassett, John Hurt, Tom Skerritt). Moreover, Michael Goldenberg's script is based on a novel by our era's most famous proponent of the cosmos, Carl Sagan, and on a story by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. In short, the film's credentials are impeccable. Few films glorify the unknown and relish ambiguity to the extent that CONTACT does. It even dares to pose many more questions that it ever attempts to answer. Most audiences, including the one at my press screening, have applauded at the film's conclusion. Still, some viewers will undoubtedly walk out complaining. More than that I cannot say about the ending without revealing key aspects of the story's resolution. The film starts with 9-year-old Ellie, played in an incredibly moving performance by Jena Malone, calling far away on her ham radio as well as gazing at the stars with her dad, Ted (David Morse). Her mom died at childbirth, and in a traumatic scene soon after the film opens, her dad dies too. Although rated PG, this cerebral film will probably bore younger kids for whom it is also inappropriate. Beside the death of a parent, for which Ellie thinks herself partially responsible, there is also a scene where the heroine goes to bed with a guy as soon as she meets him. Jodie Foster, who has given few mediocre performances in her career, stretches herself with this one. Foster, who has tough down pat, usually has trouble looking vulnerable. Dr. Arroway, a relentless researcher who searches deep in space for signs of intelligent life, is made human by Foster. With her pony tale, glasses, and make-up Ellie usually looks like a harmless, but attractive nerd. She rails against the establishment as personified by the President's National Science Advisor, David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt). ("Ellie, still waiting for E.T. to call?" he chides.) When he cuts her funding, she goes on a frenzied search for private capital. Although outwardly resolute, her nerves speak of an inner fear of losing it all. When the inevitable call from space comes, Zemeckis stages it so that Ellie is away from the command center. This way he can build the tension as she races back barking a constant stream of orders on her cell phone to her fellow researchers. Easily, the best part of the show is not the acting but the science. How an alien civilization chooses to communicate is certain to fascinate everyone, especially those of us with backgrounds in the language chosen -- mathematics. You will never guess who appears in the first television transmission from deep space. Only a highly imaginative script would dream it up and complement it with a plausible explanation. James Woods, arguably the best villain in the movies today, plays the President's National Security Advisor, Michael Kitz. Kitz wants to militarize the project immediately. He has seen enough science fiction movies to know that aliens mean destruction. In the past, Matthew McConaughey's skills as an actor have revolved around his ability to look pretty while delivering his lines in a haughty manner with a whispery enunciation. His bland performance in CONTACT as Palmer Joss, a "man of the cloth without the cloth," is consistent with the rest of his career. The writer on issues of religion and technology pens such words as, "We shop at home, we surf the Web, at the same time we're emptier." His character and the whole pseudo-religious babble of the story should have been eliminated. The movie even has Rob Lowe, of all people, show up as a ridiculous Christian theologian named Richard Rank, an obvious put-down of Ralph Reed of the Christian Coalition. The script has the good sense to include some humor to accompany the picture's seriousness. "So there's life on other planets," opines Jay Leno in his nightly monologue. "That's sure going to change the Miss Universe contest!" And near the spot where Dr. Arroway heard the transmission from space, people encamp Woodstock-style in a scene straight out of MARS ATTACKS! or INDEPENDENCE DAY. The best small role in the film belongs to John Hurt as S.R. Hadden, a Howard Hughes-style recluse and engineer extraordinaire. And the picture's best technological gadget is the contraption built to whisk away someone to visit the aliens. Who decides who will be the lone astronaut is another of the film's conundrums. In perhaps its least believable part, the panel includes a theologian. And in the piece de resistance, belief in God is made a litmus test for space travel. CONTACT drags frequently and runs too long at 2:30. It is rated PG, but kids will probably need to be 9 or 10 to appreciate it. I recommend this highly inventive film to you and give it ***. A version without the pseudo-religious aspects and without McConaughey would have earned a higher rating in my book. _______________________________________________________________________ **** = A must see film. *** = Excellent show. Look for it. ** = Average movie. Kind of enjoyable. * = Poor show. Don't waste your money. 0 = Totally and painfully unbearable picture. REVIEW WRITTEN ON: July 8, 1997 Opinions expressed are mine and not meant to reflect my employer's. From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:27:45 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 15 23:07:29 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter0!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Michael J. Legeros" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 10 Jul 1997 15:44:04 GMT Organization: None Lines: 66 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5q3004$rd9@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer07.u.washington.edu Content-Type: text NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08181 Keywords: author=legeros X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer07.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7568 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1413 Contact (1997) A movie review by Michael J. Legeros Copyright 1997 by Michael J. Legeros (WB) Directed by Robert Zemeckis Written by James V. Hart and Michael Goldenberg, based on a story by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan, based on the novel by Carl Sagan Cast Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, James Woods, Tom Skerritt, William Fichtner, Angela Bassett, John Hurt, Rob Lowe, David Morse, Jena Malone MPAA Rating "PG-13" Running Time 150 minutes Reviewed at The Imperial, Cary, NC (05JUL97) == Reliable Robert Zemeckis (FORREST GUMP) directs this glossy, easy- to-follow adaptation of Carl Sagan's science-fiction novel, about a radio astronomer (Jodie Foster) who intercepts the first intergalactic e-mail addressed to the planet Earth, and then finds herself at the center of controversies political, religious, and scientific. (As the trailer so kindly gives away, the alien-o-gram contains a blueprint for a transport device. And you can guess who has a First Class ticket.) Closer to a character study than an epic sci-fi flick, CONTACT has a little of something for everyone. There's action, with people running around a small lab, shouting technical terms and excitedly staring at computer screens. (Who knew that radio astronomy involved so much adrenaline?) There's romance, involving a hunky religious scholar (Matthew McConaughey). There's intrigue (of the White House variety), some real suspense (how about those countdown sequences!), a couple of science lessons (hey, you learn about prime numbers *and* Occam's Razor!), a surface-level discussion of faith versus proof, and, even, the occasional hint of hilarity. (Check out the lunatic fringe that sets up camp outside Cape Canaveral. I spotted an Elvis impersonator.) And there's so much more: great photography, exceptional effects, a ready-made supporting cast (James Woods acting antagonistic, Angela Bassett being stern, etc.), loads of convenient dramatic invention (look, there's someone on the gantry who shouldn't be there!), and cameos by, I believe, CNN's entire on-air staff. Everything fits together exactly as it should and, at times, almost painfully perfunctorily so. (Is this the most exciting boring movie of the summer? Or does that distinction belong to FACE/OFF?) Yup, everything fits together very nice and neat, except for the ending, which, depending upon your sensibilities, is either a major or minor botch. (I found it as distracting as Foster's narration during her magic carpet ride.) When all is said and done, no one in the film, including Foster's seemingly smart cookie, thinks to ask the obvious and most logically scientific response to the hubbub: "repeat the damn experiment and see if you get the same results." Sigh. Well, if nothing else, CONTACT is a summer movie that (a.) makes you think and (b.) makes you think about the scientific method and, hell, that's more brain power than you've probably used in the last six weeks. And you *do* get to see stellar sights, such as the sculpted profiles of McConaughey and Foster, when they turn away from the camera to kiss. Have you ever seen such perfect noses? Grade: B - Mike Legeros - Movie Hell http://www.nonvirtual.com/hell/ From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:27:57 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 15 23:07:31 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news.algonet.se!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Laurie D. T. Mann" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 12 Jul 1997 15:14:29 GMT Organization: CityNet, Inc. Lines: 31 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5q870l$r8s@nntp5.u.washington.edu> ~Reply-To: lmann@city-net.com NNTP-Posting-Host: homer31.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08191 Keywords: author=mann X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer31.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7584 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1417 Contact - a solid 8 on the IMDB scale - is one of the few intelligently written and acted SF movies I've seen recently. SF movies tend to be either complete logical blowouts (Independence Day/Jurassic Park/Fifth Element) or farcical (Men in Black). While Contact has some problems with time (a multi-national project costing hundreds of billions of dollars completed in under three years based on schematics from out of this world?), it's mostly right on target. What made this movie particularly good is the time Roboert Zemeckis took with his direction. Many SF movies are audio/visual assaults on the senses. There's an awful lot of quiet against a panorama of some of the finest special effects ever created. The first two minutes of the movie set the tone and style for what's to come. When there is a visual assault late in the movie, it's a brief interlude comparable to the climax of 2001. The performances are pretty good - Rob Lowe is so smarmy as the Ralph Reedish-character you want to slap him - and Zemeckis wisely doesn't let the special effects overshadow the characters. People complained about the insertion of Bill Clinton video in this movie, but I thought it mostly worked. I would like to have seen a little more of John Hurt as the mysterious billionaire, but I suppose it added to his mystery. I think Carl Sagan would have been proud of how his baby turned out. From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:28:13 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 15 23:07:32 1997 From: bhoffman@ix.netcom.com (Ben Hoffman) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 14 Jul 1997 15:39:16 GMT Organization: None Lines: 106 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5qdh74$3ud@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer01.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08205 Keywords: author=hoffman X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer01.u.washington.edu Path: news.ifm.liu.se!genius!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news.kth.se!nntp.uio.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in3.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7606 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1421 CONTACT The opening scene of CONTACT is the most awesome (in the sense of "fantastic") several minutes of great special effects as we are hurtled away from Earth at a huge speed. Our planet becomes a globe, getting smaller and smaller as we speed by the other planets of our solar system. Earth becomes a mere dot as we continue the speeding away from our solar system, past the Milky Way and on and on. Simply stunning. That alone is just about worth the price of admission. CONTACT could not have chosen a better time for its theatrical release. While through the ages people have wondered about the stars and many have begun to wonder if there were possibly some kind of life in some distant solar system, the soft landing of our space probe on Mars must certainly have revived new speculation and interest. While Carl Sagan, on whose book CONTACT is based, when asked if he believed in some highly-evolved life elsewhere in the infinitely vast universe, replied "The key word in that question is 'believe.' And in my view, you believe only on the basis of compelling evidence." In short, that evidence was never forthcoming to him. Perhaps more important, however, was how he and his wife, Ann Druyan, felt about how such an event if it ever did happen would affect the inhabitants of our planet. That is what his book is about. What happens to religious belief if it turns out that "there is someone out there" when according to the Bible, God placed Man on Earth; that the stars and sun and moon are there only to give us light. Sagan also wanted us to realize the incredible, just about incomprehensible, vastness of the universe. What happens to those who see aliens from another planet as potential enemies. In the film, Michael Kitz, (James Woods) is the head of government security, reacting to the news that we are getting a message form outer space as a time for increased security. Never mind that it is pointed out to him that it is more probably that "anyone" capable of contacting us must have a superior intelligence and would be unlikely to be warlike as we stupid Earthlings are. Ever since Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) was a little child, she was interested in stars and space. Many were the hours she spent listening to her short wave radio hoping to hear something other than static from outer space. While still young, her father died. Ellie continued her studies and went on to become a respected scientist in the field of radio. Pretty nearly the whole scientific community looked upon her obsession as being on the kook side but her persistence got her some time to use the satellite antennas to search the heavens. Hour after hour, day after day, Ellie listened until one day she heard something odd, something she had never heard before, and it had a pattern. It was coming from a distant star, Vega. Getting her fellow scientists to monitor the sounds, they discover that the noises (sounding like grunts from a Jurassic Park dinosaur) were in fact spaced to coincide with prime numbers. That was proof this was not some strange static. Idiots such as Michael Kitz wanted to know how come the messages were not in English. Ellie had to explain to him that English is not likely to be spoken in other solar systems but mathematics would be a universal language. Quickly, all the nations begin to ponder the significance while the hucksters get busy with Vega fairs and people come flocking to them as if to a picnic . . . or looking at the antennas as they would when they believe a picture of Jesus is weeping. In short, the world is in a turmoil and so are their leaders. President Clinton gives some reassuring words on TV. The story has many facets, all of interest. Jodie Foster give her usual wonderful performance. Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), is a respected religious scholar and high up in the government hierarchy. He and Ellie are in love . . . more or less. S R Hadden (John Hurt), is an eccentric billionaire who takes an interest in Ellie's behalf to help her combat those who would thwart her. For instance, the first trip to VEGA is not given to Ellie who is most deserving, but to some other prominent scientist, David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt). Rachel Constantine (Angela Bassett) is the President's press secretary. CONTACT is one terrific film. The sets, which include a space ship readied to visit Vega, are perfect. Many are the questions that are raised as various events unfold. These are answered in a most satisfying conclusion. There was one point where I thought there was a cop-out; I could not believe Sagan would have opted for that. However it turned out to be logical, not at all the cop-out I had feared and I sighed with relief. I wanted nothing to spoil this most entertaining, exciting and informative movie that will give you pause to ponder some of the questions it raised. Directed by Robert Zemeckis who gave us FORREST GUMP. 4 bytes 4 bytes = Superb 3 bytes = Too good to miss 2 bytes = Average 1 byte = Save your money Copyright 1997 Ben Hoffman From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:28:18 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 15 23:07:33 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!sn.no!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!newsfeed.direct.ca!news-sea-19.sprintlink.net!news-in-west.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!192.220.251.22!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: me@alanine.ram.org (Ram Samudrala) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 15 Jul 1997 03:43:48 GMT Organization: University of Washington Lines: 129 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5qerlk$g9c@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer32.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08221 Keywords: author=samudrala X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Organisation: Movie ram-blings: Originator: grahams@homer32.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7596 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1420 CONTACT A film review by Ram Samudrala *spoiler warning* When I was a kid, I was the only one on the block who watched Carl Sagan's Cosmos diligently. While it was boring even given my interest in cosmology, there were moments which really enthralled me and captured my attention. I expected /Contact/ to be similar: a few flashes of brilliance, but mostly boring. I was pleasantly surprised; my attention was held for the entire 2.5 hours. /Contact/ comes close to being a perfect movie. It has action, effects, a great story, realistic science-fiction, and some great acting. While there a few holes in the science aspect (which I'll discuss later), the story is convincing. The main plot is the interception of an alien communication by Eleanor Arroway (Jodie Foster), the decoding of the communication to reveal a transport, and the actual contact between humans and aliens. Mingled in with all this is a power-play from many ends, those wanting to make the first contact, those wanting to use the technology for their own ends, and those fearful of the technology. /Contact/ is filmed in a highly non-conventional manner, with a slow introduction and a fast-paced ending which makes one want to give up bungee jumping and start listening for signals from outer space. Every aspect of the movie is brought out excellently, from Arroway's initial interception of the alien signal to her travel through a wormhole and encountering aliens, which is done in the best manner possible. There are some breathtaking visuals. The acting by most of the characters is great. I'm sure Foster will be remembered during next year's Academy Awards. While I don't like Matthew McConaughey's acting, he is passable here as Palmer Joss (though there are times when he appears to be sleep-talking). The performances by Tom Skerritt as David Drumlin, Arroway's mentor with his own ambitions; John Hurt as S. R. Hadden, an eccentric billionaire; James Woods as Michael Kitz, the skeptical National Security Advisor; and Jena Malone as young Arroway are particularly excellent. One great aspect is the combining of what we perceive to be part of the real world (clips of Clinton, Leno, Bernard Shaw, etc.) interspersed with the fiction of the movie. Robert Zemeckis, one of the directors whose work I've consistently found to be thought-provoking, knows that to weave a good and believable story, one must mingle facts with speculation. The biggest flaw I found in /Contact/ is with the amount of time elapsed during Arroway's encounter with the aliens, which ends up being a fairly crucial part of the movie towards the end. According to Arroway, she spent eighteen hours away from Earth. As far as the people on Earth are concerned, she never went anywhere. This sets up a situation where her experience has to be taken on faith and this is good for the story, but consider this: relativistic theory says the faster your speed, the lesser the amount of time taken for an event as measured by your clock. This isn't platitude, but rather illustrates the notion of relative time. If you travel in a straight path from point A to point B on Earth by an aeroplane and it takes 5 hours, then if you travelled at the speed of light between the same points, and you took a longer, more circuitous route, the time taken, as judged by your watch, would be zero. In fact, this is brought out earlier in the movie: Joss points out that Arroway will be travelling at near light-speeds, and when she returns the people she knew on Earth would no longer be around. This is because travelling at near the speed of light, she would age only a fraction of the time she would have aged had she been travelling at the speed of Earth. Yet, in the movie, the reverse is what happens, i.e., her "watch" measures eighteen hours, whereas the "watch" on Earth measures a fraction of a second for the loss of contact with her transport. This implies that the speed she was travelling at while she was away was a lot slower than the speed of Earth. This is highly incongruous, to say the least. While this inconsistency can be explained in a hand-waving manner (with emphasis on the waving part), no attempt is made to account for it (which I think is at least necessary given Joss' initial statement). I've not read the book this movie is based on, but I'd be very surprised if Sagan used the same situation to enable people on Earth to discount Arroway's experience. In all but a few other respects (the percentage of people on Earth believing in a god, for example), the writers appear to have taken great pains to ensure a certain scientific validity to their plot. Arroway's actions at the end, when she is asked to explain her journey, are, in a sense, insulting to the scientific profession. While a scientist may believe life exists on other planets, a good scientist will do their best to falsify hypothesis they come up with (in a Popperian spirit), even in a case where all their senses scream that the hypothesis is true. None of us as scientists would (rather, should) publish or expose our opinion to the world in a formal manner without suggesting ways to prove our hypothesis false (especially in a grant application). In this case, I think Arroway had plenty of opportunities to falsify her hypothesis. The reason Arroway gives at the end for her actions is a cop-out, given her reputation. Finally, we come to a topic that is addressed in a seemingly dichotomous manner in the movie: religion vs. science. Science is a matter of faith to many people, and could even be considered one's religion, as the movie tries to bring out. But unlike most orthodox/institutional religions, science not only encourages, but also /requires/, that you constantly question your faith and find ways to disprove what you believe. I've found that if you stop looking when you've found what you wanted to find, it results in pathological science. That fundamental difference between science and religion alone makes it more likely to find "truths", if they exist, using the scientific method than any other. This all relates to the question about the existence of a god or God. The problem with that question is that it takes on the form of a bad hypothesis, in that it does not easily lend itself to falsification (to prove it false, one would have to scour the entire universe). The real question is whether God's existence is relevant to our lives, and further, whether /a/ given god's existence is relevant (after all, the notion of a Christian God, or a similar omnipotent omniscient deity, has its own problems in terms of reconcilation with the beliefs of the people on this planet, and also leads to fundamental inconsistencies). Initial answers to these questions can be found in the phenomenal work done by physicists in the 20th century. All this discussion goes to show /Contact/ is a great movie, in that it is provoking and stimulating intellectually, while providing a nice visual spectacle. While the amount of depth in the story itself is negligible, there's a lot a viewer can get from it. Don't miss this one. email@urls || http://www.ram.org || http://www.twisted-helices.com/th Movie ram-blings: http://www.ram.org/ramblings/movies.html From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:24 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:22:57 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: yenho@cof.org (Homer Yen) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 14 Jul 1997 22:58:39 GMT Organization: None Lines: 84 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5qeauv$c3f@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer36.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08208 Keywords: author=yen X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer36.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7640 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1435 CONTACT: Some Signs of Intelligent Life By Homer Yen (c) 1997 Jodie Foster plays Ellie Arroway, a prominent scientist and radio astronomer for the SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence) program. Like many scientists, she is an analytical person whose beliefs are entrenched in empirical evidence and testing. For her, science shows us what is and what is not. For example, she doesn't believe in God, because he can not be proven to exist. Dr. Arroway is particularly isolated from the world around her. She is consumed with one interest, which is the possibility of finding intelligent life on another planet. Her academic mentors and colleagues belittle her. Grant money to continue her research is increasingly hard to come by. Yet she persists in her obsession, listening and monitoring and hoping until one day the payoff comes. Working first at Puerto Rico's Arecibo observatory, budget cuts force her to relocate to the Very Large Array (VLA) of radio telescopes in the remote desert of New Mexico. It is there, along with an ad-hoc team of devoted colleagues, that she detects a signal from the Vega system, some 26 light years away, that was clearly transmitted by an alien intelligence. With the backing of the enigmatic industrialist, S.R. Hadden (John Hurt), she will begin a quest that culminates in the construction of a mysterious machine based on alien blueprints, and embark on a one-woman journey that will have the most profound scientific and spiritual implications for all humankind and especially for her. Adapted from Carl Sagan's 1985 novel, this piece of science-pseudo fiction concerns itself with the discovery of extraterrestrial intelligence, but its focus subsequently becomes a debate between sanctity and science and Ellie's pursuit of her own brand of truth and her trip down the path of enlightenment. Her quest is hampered by two major obstacles, though. She is faced with a lack of scientific thinking from politicians, who are wary of national security issues. Confronted by a paranoid National Security Advisor (James Woods), Arroway's glory-hogging scientific rival (Tom Skerritt), and a cynical Presidential Advisor (Angela Bassett), Dr. Arroway fights hard to maintain her presence on this ˜ the most important project of her career. The story also sets Dr. Arroway in philosophical opposition to famous spiritual leader and advisor (and pseudo-romantic interest), Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey). He tries to be her spiritual guide and warns her of the implications of making possible contact with a new race when she does not embody the precepts of God and His scriptures. If there's life out there, way out there, does it come thanks to Science or Him? It's an interesting question, but if philosophers, scientists and theologians have been debating this question over the past 1000 years and are still unclear, a movie that attempts to look at the same question will suffer from ambiguity. Despite a generally poignant look at Foster's journey into space and herself, I can't say that I liked this movie, but I didn't dislike it either. Contact, results in a sobering look at a debate as partisan as abortion or the death penalty. The space ride is just to appease the summer audience who demand to see special effects. The entire movie seems like it could have been 20 minutes shorter if not for all of the flashbacks and the multitude of shots where Dr. Arroway is pondering and staring and pondering and then staring some more. But, I did admire the genuine acting ability of Foster, who shows amazing depth and intelligence. Contact taps into her capacity to show both strength and vulnerability, pensive maturity and doe-eyed girlishness. Time and again, the camera captures Foster face striking subtle emotions as she ponders all of the ramifications of her discovery and her subsequent actions. There is probably no one better for this kind of high-minded, emotional drama than Foster. I also admired the director's attempt (Robert Zemeckis) to blend purposeful storytelling with the movie's lofty goals (but his attempt to digitally meld Clinton into scenes a la Forrest Gump seemed patchwork). Are science and religion equally purposeful methods of seeking reason and truth in a chaotic world? This is a tough question to answer, but is bravely explored in this tale. And, her path towards her particular enlightenment came to a satisfying conclusion. Contact really puts the 'science' in science-fiction. It is a big, ambitious movie that spans the heavens and debates God and hard science in the same breath. Certainly, this movie will not appeal to everyone but to those who enjoy their movies with a pinch of philosophy, you'll find lots to think about. It didn't necessarily appeal to me , but it did make me go , "Hmmmm…" Grade: B- From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:28 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:22:58 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!sn.no!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!europa.clark.net!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!uunet!in3.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Phil Brady Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 15 Jul 1997 16:06:54 GMT Organization: Concentric Internet Services Lines: 59 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5qg76u$qfd@nntp5.u.washington.edu> ~Reply-To: PHILBRADY@BIGFOOT.COM NNTP-Posting-Host: homer30.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08223 Keywords: author=brady X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Errors-To: Originator: grahams@homer30.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7655 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1440 Summer science fiction movies are a fairly well defined commodity. We expect a special effects offering of space ships, lasers, aliens, explosions, and what the hell, maybe even a script. The spectacle is the star, so there’s little sense spending big money on actors who will only be upstaged. Most films like Independence Day have such a pedigree, and it works just fine. ID4’s boggling ticket sales testify that people are willing to suspend disbelief and enjoy the ride, maybe a few times. Carl Sagan wanted to spin a different type of yarn. Instead of the tail wagging the dog, how about starting with a real situation and examining how fantastic events could come about? With the same elegance of his Cosmos series, Carl has brought the realism of astronomy to the classic First Contact theme. Jody Foster plays Ellie Arroway, a driven astronomer in the SETI project. (That’s “Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence” for the rest of us. ) Scraping for grants and fighting discouragement from other scientists, Ellie finally hits it big - a strong signal from space. This is the jumping-off point for many films, such as ID4 and The Arrival, but this movie sticks with her chimera. The signal is rich with complexity, and it includes what appear to be blueprints for a transport device. An invitation? Do we dare build it? Who gets to go? Who funds it? As in the real world, these questions draw flies from the scientific establishment, the White House, religious factions, and most certainly the media. Ellie becomes helpless as these groups wrest away her prize for their own football game. Contact has a great cast, and no one is wasted. Perennial good guy Tom Skerrit plays a rat - a politically powerful scientist whos does everything to discourage Ellie’s snipe hunt. Once the signal comes in, he tries to shoulder her out, positioning himself as the spokesman and scientific coordinator with the White House. James Woods plays a vulpine national security adviser wanting to comandeer the project, fearing an “invasion.” Angela Basset plays a harried presidential aide, capably herding all the factions (not a “black” role..congrats, Angela). I almost didn’t recognize John Hurt as a bald-headed Howard Hughes-type magnate who becomes Ellie’s fairy godmother. Matthew McConoughy plays a love interest, who is also part of the religious faction and the astronaut selection comittee. Ellie’s views are agnostic at best, and this brings about a conflict not only with him, but with the committee as well. As a good scientist, Ellie knows that “no data” forces only one conclusion. She feels that people have a need to believe, hence they do. But the movie (gently) makes it clear that her need to believe in ET intelligence and its benevolence is just another flavor of the same thing. People nervous about examining the theological implications should be comfortable with the resolution. Well, as the coming attractions show you, Ellie does get to go, but there’s no point in divulging any more. The real trip is her struggle with people clambering all over her project. A certain sweetness is added by memories of her departed father (good job by David Morse), who was so supportive of her early curiosity. I found that these scenes stayed with me as much as the special effects. And high marks to director Bob Zemeckis for using the effects to aid in telling the story, instead of competing with it. And special praise to Jody Foster for yet another brilliant performance. All through the film, I was watching Ellie Arroway, feeling what she felt - I didn’t catch myself seeing Jody Foster acting. Try that in a Tom Cruise movie. When she won her two Oscars, I agreed with the choice, but I think it took this film to make me realize that maybe it isn’t just the great roles she’s had..she really is one of the best. From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:31 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:00 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news.algonet.se!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!uunet!in1.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Justin K. Siegel" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 17 Jul 1997 03:57:50 GMT Organization: SaskNet News Distribution Lines: 43 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5qk57u$2sb@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer36.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08250 Keywords: author=siegel X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer36.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7689 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1448 LITTLE GREEN MEN 'Contact' is an incredibly good time, and there won't be a better movie all year. --A review by Justin Siegel ====================================================================== CONTACT Starring: Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey Director: Robert Zemeckis Star Rating: **** (out of ****) Rating out of Ten: 9.8 Grade: A+ ===================================================================== As a devout Atheist and an avowed believer in aliens, I have some idea of how Ellie Aroway (Jodie Foster) feels. But because my reasons for not partaking in religion are different than hers, I can't say that I do exactly. Her reason is that she needs solid proof: there is no proof that God existed, so therefor she does not believe. Ellie also believes in aliens, and has spent most of her life trying to prove they exist. How can she say she doesn't believe in God because of the lack of proof, and then say she believes in aliens, which are gereally less believed in than God without sounding like a hypocrite? That's the Catch-22. When aliens from the star Vega fax her some plans for a device to transport someone to them (Okay, well, they didn't really *fax* them...) Ellie wants to be the one to go, but because of her Atheism she is denied the position. How dumb is that? She discovers the transmitions, then she isn't allowed to go. Well, because of a bomb and a psychopath (Jake Busey), she *does* end up going, but not in the way that we would've thought. CONTACT is based on a novel by Carl Sagan, who died during the filmmaking. It is the best alien movie since CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE 3RD KIND, and will end up being the best film of the year. Its views of science and religion will no doubt aggrivate some, but will stimulate more. I'm glad at least one movie of the '90s can portray aliens in a psitive light, rather than a bunch of slimey beasts who will eat your insides and then put on your body. From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:37 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:01 1997 From: "Stuart Cracraft" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 19 Jul 1997 15:19:53 GMT Organization: The MSM Company Lines: 89 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5qqlup$obk@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer13.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08273 Keywords: author=cracraft X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer13.u.washington.edu Path: news.ifm.liu.se!genius!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news.kth.se!nntp.uio.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!europa.clark.net!mis2!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7651 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1439 'Contact' shows why Jodie Foster is one of our best actresses. See Contact with your family. It is a movie for all ages. --A review by Stuart Cracraft ====================================================================== CONTACT Starring: Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, John Hurt Director: Robert Zemeckis Star Rating: **** (out of ****) Rating out of Ten: 9.0 Grade: A ===================================================================== After a predictable MIT Phillip Morrison powers-of-10 zoom-out start (which can be surprising to those not familiar with Prof. Morrison's work), Contact picks up steam, gradually, building, by-the-end, an irresistable juggernaut and a very good movie that does not as is so often the case fall out-of-balance in terms of too much pandering to the technological "geek" side. By the end, the audience is left with what good science fiction is supposed to do: evoke a sense of wonder about the universe and evoke questions in your mind about what's out there. This movie does not let technology overshadow characterization and in this sense it is unusual amongst high-tech movies. However, except for Jodie Foster (Elie Arroway) and John Hurt (S.R. Hadden), who are both actors of exceptional caliber, the supporting cast are not especially impressive. Hurt certainly has had better roles (Stephen Ward in Scandal). This one, as the multi-billionare Hadden, does not do his acting skills justice. This is clearly a Foster movie by one of the great Hollywood lights of our generation. Foster's radiance has never been more strong than in the scene where she finally meets the Vegans on their terms. Early scenes take a long, long time to build up to this. The movie's pacing is very good and subtle. The panoramas of the radio dishes at Arecibo and CETI in New Mexico and Puerto Rico are beautiful. The politics of Foster's character attempting to obtain funding for research at these places are trite and predictable however. One of the most entertaining, but very short scenes, is when Foster is confronted by Rob Lowe, during a cabinet-level presidential meeting to discuss the alien invitation. There were real sparks in this scene between Foster and Lowe and it would behoove them to consider other vehicles in which this dynamism could be explored. It is the only scene in the movie in which there were tremendous dynamics between two characters. Everything else was very one-sided (e.g. Foster). Lowe can stand up to Foster and it showed in that scene at the cabinet table. The core scene of the movie is set on a surrealistic beach on a far-away world in the starsystem of Vega. It feels a lot like science fiction writer John Varley's scenes in his book STEEL BEACH, where the female protagonists encounters an immensely superior intelligence, in one case a computer manufactured by mankind itself, and in Foster's case, an illusion drawn from her memory. In another sense, this immensely moving scene evokes Gene Roddenberry's STAR TREK pilot The Cage, later The Menagerie, when Jeffrey Hunter and Susan Oliver have their memories manipulated to create new worlds in which they live and encounter aliens. The concept is not new, by any sense, in the world of science fiction. But the beach scene, which is the centerpiece of the film, as is the whole film, is driven by Foster. Freed from her needs to direct by director Zemecki, Foster is able to let it all hang out in the characterization and the lead she provides to her supporting cast. As the movie gains speed, Foster's acting intensifies and the audience really does experience it with her. It is certainly Oscar-caliber acting, unquestionably. The supporting cast does well and Zemeckis throws in some humor with some President Clinton cameos, cleverly manipulated, George Stephanopolus-style, to seem very Forrest Gump. In fact, Zemeckis et. al. got in trouble for the usage of some of the footage seen in the movie, vis a vis Clinton. But the audience I attended this movie with just had some good chuckles at Clinton's walk-ons. The much-discussed tension between science and religion in this movie is not particularly insightful to those who have already gone through this course though it is helpful to those in the audience who have not. Also, the near-final scene, in a Senate Judiciary Hearing room is disappointing. Contact is a fitting memorial to the memory of Carl Sagan, science popularizer, and sometime pedantic gadfly of the halls of academe. Perhaps now, Sagan can be said to be with his Dragons of Eden. From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:39 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:02 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!pumpkin.pangea.ca!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!europa.clark.net!mis2!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Joseph Toscano" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 20 Jul 1997 15:43:47 GMT Organization: Prodigy Services Corp Lines: 84 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5qtbnj$c4g@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer27.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08274 Keywords: author=toscano X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer27.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7706 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1450 Movie Review: Contact By Joseph Toscano -- July 1997 [PG] 150 Minutes, 2.5 hours Directed by Robert Zemeckis Starring Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, John Hurt, Tom Skerrit, James Woods Score: ***** / ***** or 9 / 10 SPOILER WARNING - some of the review may contain information regarding the plot of the movie. If you haven't seen it already, take caution. -- Finally. After being tortured endlessly with the "explosive summer films" which contain special effects and nothing more, and some other cheesy wannabe dramas, along comes a truly satisfying and thoroughly enjoyable experience. An experience called "CONTACT." You've read other reviews probably. And most state what a good movie CONTACT was. But it was more than good. It was actually a relaxing, cleansing, refreshing type of "good" because it really showed that the movies still can be movies, not just a show of special effects wizardry or a tiring piece of unimaginative drivel, even despite some raging stinkers that have come along, such as "MR. NANNY" and "8 HEADS IN A DUFFEL BAG." Now the film, many say, was too long. I don't view it as being too long. I view it as being masterfully stretched out. I loved watching it and taking in every little tiny detail -- not to confuse and boggle the mind (much like MISSION:IMPOSSIBLE did... aye...) but to just make the experience much more enjoyable. But when it actually comes to scenes in the film, they couldn't have been done better. The very first scene is a majestic trip through our galaxy and beyond -- just to show how small we are in comparison to this great vastness that has been created. The word creation has meaning in the story, too. When people think of what kind of movie CONTACT was, they usually say it was Sci-fi. And yes it definitely is dealing with science, but it is also a drama of science and religion actually conflicting. This isn't just a movie made for special effects, like I said before, much like Independence Day, it's a move meant to either make you think, or make you more secure in what you believe in. But just because the movie wasn't made specifically to show off special effects, that doesn't mean that the few special effects contained in the movie weren't spectacular. Though only boasted for a short while, the special effects are perhaps the most amazing effects I have ever seen. They don't simply please the eye, they stir the mind in a fascinating, dark way. When Ellie's face is "blurred" out, during her descent in the worm hole, speaks, and then later you hear her speak the same exact thing, chills run up your spine. Yes the effects are amazing, but what makes them even more amazing is the fact that they are enclosed in an excellent film. But, of course, no film is entirely "perfect." There are definitely some things that could have been improved upon. One thing that I personally felt could really use some work is the whole ordeal involving S.R. Hadden. It just didn't make sense when you first saw the man. I mean, I thought he was going to be some evil sadistic character when I first saw him on the screen. But of course the outcome was different. The Palmer Joss character played by McConaughey really needed a little more effort. The characters in some cases were flat and 2-dimensional. But I think the wonder and excellence of the movie cancels out the imperfections. When it comes to the ending of the movie, I really was satisfied. I've heard that many people were disappointed because of what occurred in the hearing. Yes it was disappointing. But once I heard the comment made by Angela Bassett's character, Rachel, "It recorded 18 hours of static..." I knew that seeing this movie was not a disappointment after all. I was truly satisfied. Yes, CONTACT is satisfying. It's wonderful. It leaves you with things to think about, and a sense of closure... many other things that just make a movie great. Really, I've never heard such a quiet theater, such thunderous applause, or so many gasps when the "For Carl" screen was shown. So go see CONTACT, and treat yourself to a good time. ;) -- Joseph Toscano (July 18, 1997) ShumJT@aol.com From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:43 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:03 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!news-lond.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!baron.netcom.net.uk!netcom.net.uk!ix.netcom.com!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!newsfeed.direct.ca!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Ivana Redwine" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 21 Jul 1997 02:21:04 GMT Organization: Netcom Lines: 191 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5quh2g$jij@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer30.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08281 Keywords: author=redwine X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer30.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7709 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1451 CONTACT (1997) A film review by Ivana Redwine Copyright 1997 by Ivana Redwine Produced by: Warner Bros. Directed by Robert Zemeckis, Effects by: Sony Pictures Imageworks, Cinematography by Don Burgess. Starring: Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, James Woods, Angela Bassett, John Hurt, Rob Lowe, Tom Skerritt, William Fichtner, David Morse, Jena Malone. In director Robert Zemeckis' screen version of the late Carl Sagan's bestselling 1985 novel CONTACT, there is a moment of pure movie magic: After the public learns that a broadcast has been received from intelligent extraterrestrial life, we see a car moving slowly through the circus-like atmosphere of a huge crowd that has camped out around a scientific facility in the New Mexico desert. The crowd, which contains everything from an evangelist to an Elvis impersonator, is a motley crew of various and sundry people, most of whom are in the throes of something between a party mood and a blissed-out state. Inside the car, Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster), the brilliant radio astronomer responsible for detecting the broadcast and recognizing its meaning, stares through the window in disbelief, dismay, and horror. Her idealism, honesty, and determination have served her well in the arena of science, but she is ill-prepared to deal with society's reaction to her discovery. Foster's performance is what takes CONTACT far beyond the pale of the kind of vacuous entertainment that most moviegoers have to settle for during the summer, and the actress is again a strong candidate for an Academy Award nomination. (Foster has previously won Oscars for her acting in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and THE ACCUSED.) In addition to featuring a great star turn, CONTACT is a film with intelligence, heart, and some of the most aesthetically beautiful, dazzling, and well-integrated special effects sequences I have seen since Kubrick's 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY. The film's visually breathtaking opening sequence revolves around radio and television signals as they speed away from earth into the depths of space, and through the wizardry of special effects, we follow them on the way out. Eventually all this manages to dovetail back into the eye of a young girl, and we are introduced to the film's heroine as a child. Young Ellie (well played by actress Jena Malone) is a short-wave radio and astronomy buff whose hobby is trying to contact faraway places via short- wave radio, marking each success with a thumbtack on a map. Soon her child's imagination becomes fascinated with the possibility of life on other planets. Her father, who helps to nurture her interest in astronomy, makes the point that if intelligent life didn't exist somewhere other than on earth, it would be "an awful waste of space." There is a telling scene early in the film that reveals young Ellie's character and foreshadows the kind of woman she will become. The girl's beloved father, who suffers from a heart condition, has an attack one day, and while Ellie runs upstairs to get his medicine, he dies. A priest attempts to comfort the grief-stricken girl, but Ellie can find no consolation in the priest's appeal to spirituality and mysticism. Instead, she channels her energy into a cool, rational analysis of what happened and reaches the conclusion that she should have kept some of her father's medicine downstairs so she could have reached it more quickly in an emergency. Years later, Ellie Arroway is an adult with an earned Ph.D. who is conducting research at an observatory in Puerto Rico. There she meets Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), a writer/theologian who is studying the effect of technology on the local population. Joss's faith in God is as strong as Arroway's scientific skepticism, and the contrast between their belief systems is one of the film's main themes. It is fitting that Joss turns out to be a former priest who loved the theological aspects of the priesthood, but whose raging hormones had made him realize he would not be able to fully honor his vows. One of the functions of the Joss character is to provide a love interest for Arroway, and the film makes it clear that, in spite of their dedication to their respective careers, they do not observe celibacy. Later, he goes on to write a bestselling book that is a mix of religion and philosophy; due to the book's success, he becomes a sort of new-age spiritual guru. Although the character as written is little more than a cardboard cutout, McConaughey is convincing as Palmer Joss: his kind face and obvious sex appeal give the role more dimension and credibility than actually seems to be in the script itself. Ellie is able to enjoy her research at the Puerto Rico observatory for only a little while before the funding for the project is suddenly cut by her superior, David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt). Drumlin is a scientist-administrator with an icily pragmatic approach, which serves as a counterpoint to Ellie's passion and idealism. To Drumlin, science seems to be more of a vehicle for self-aggrandizement than anything else. I liked what Skerritt did with Drumlin's character--adding just the right touches of slippery suaveness, ruthless ambition, and shameless opportunism to his portrayal. When Drumlin pulls the government appropriations from the Puerto Rico project, Ellie seeks private funding for her research. After many setbacks, she finds a strange ally in S.R. Hadden (in a strong performance by John Hurt, who imparts an eerie spectralness to the character). Hadden is a brilliant engineer turned entrepreneur, and his wealth allows him to indulge in an eccentric lifestyle. His idiosyncrasies include the avoidance of being earthbound: he lives on a plane that rarely lands, and later in the film takes up residence on a space station. He offers to fund her project, and she moves her research to New Mexico, where she can use the Very Large Array of radio telescopes to listen to the skies. Ellie's intensity and dogged devotion to her work finally pay off, and she intercepts a broadcast from an extraterrestrial intelligence, but her narrow focus makes her a little naive about how the media, public, and political interests are going to react to the news. When a press conference is held to announce her discovery, Dr. Arroway is busy going over flash cards in preparation for speaking to the journalists. But before she can say anything, her old boss David Drumlin takes over the podium and tries to take credit for her discovery. It is outrageous behavior, especially since he was the man who cut the funds for her Puerto Rico project, telling her she was throwing away her career if she stayed in such an unpromising line of research. Naturally, the media goes into a feeding frenzy once the news of the alien broadcast is out. As was done in Zemeckis' FORREST GUMP, CONTACT employs digitally manipulated images from old newscasts, including footage that features Bill Clinton in the cameo role of--you guessed it--the President of the United States. Zemeckis had originally intended that the role of the President be played by Sidney Poitier, but eventually decided against it. The inclusion of the modified news footage was done without Clinton's permission, and according to reports in the press, the President was not pleased. An exciting thread in the film concerns plans transmitted by the aliens for a device that could possibly transport humans deep enough into space to enable contact with the extraterrestrial intelligence, and an international consortium joins forces to build this machine. I was really impressed by the superb production design and deft special effects that went into the completed device. Its visual aspects have strong Jungian resonance, drawing on mental models of the untouchably small and the untouchably large. The machine reminded me of both electrons revolving around a nucleus and planets revolving around a star, while also resembling a sort of three-dimensional mandala. Luckily I saw CONTACT at a theater that has an excellent sound system, and the crystalline clarity of the vibration-like noise the device gives off while being powered up gave me goose bumps. It was a sound that was strangely primal, while at the same time eerily mechanical and otherworldly. Another memorable sequence in the film takes place when Ellie is transported into deep space through a series of wormholes, and the special effects made it so believable that I felt I was along for the ride. As a result of her journey through the wormhole, Ellie goes through an experience that changes her life and subtly alters her perspective on things. However, the way the film treated what happened at the end of her journey seemed to me to be a bit of a letdown. Then, however, the movie recovers much of its earlier momentum, and in an ironic twist, Dr. Arroway has to try to convince a government panel of something for which the only evidence appears to be her own incredible eyewitness account. The coolly rational scientist must ask others to do what she herself had been previously incapable of doing--take something on faith. Thanks to the cinematography of Don Burgess and special effects by Sony Pictures Imageworks, CONTACT is a richly cinematic film. The special effects are elegant and effective, and although they are often dazzling, they never overwhelm the story and often enhance the movie's emotional impact. I was particularly impressed by the cinematography depicting New Mexico and the area near the Very Large Array, especially the shots that emphasized the vastness of the surrounding landscape. To me this functioned as an earthbound frame of reference that echoed the expanses and aching loneliness of space. In a similar vein, the shots of handfuls of sand and dirt, twinkling away like stars, reinforces the same kind of feeling. While watching this, I could hear in my imagination Carl Sagan's voice saying "billions and billions…" Although it has many vibrant moments, CONTACT is a little uneven and at times it is heavy-handed, resembling a TV movie in its unwillingness to trust the audience to think for itself and to be able to follow the story without intrusive guideposts and heavy explication. However, viewers like me who admire the film will be disposed to overlook these flaws. In any case, I admire Zemeckis' willingness to take chances in films like FORREST GUMP and CONTACT. These are the kinds of movies that elicit strong reactions, ranging from ire to admiration. Because CONTACT contrasts the realms of spirituality and faith against the realms of reason and logic, some people will never get past their knee-jerk reactions and won't be able to enjoy the film for what it is--an entertaining mix of science fiction and a sprinkling of science fact. But the movie doesn't play it completely safe, and this gives the film quite a bit of power, even though it eventually loses its nerve and goes for a warm, fuzzy, all-encompassing, new-age kind of resolution. However, even though Zemeckis pulls his punches on loaded issues, at least he is willing to address them, which was something I didn't except to see in a big-budget summer Hollywood blockbuster. In my opinion CONTACT is a very good film that unfortunately sometimes misses its mark because of minor flaws. As good as the movie is, I couldn't help but think that it had the potential to be even better. During the first part of the movie, CONTACT dangles tantalizing glimmers of becoming truly provocative, but in the end it is geared more toward entertainment than deep critical thought. Nevertheless, it is an emotionally engaging film that features an outstanding performance by a great actress, Jodie Foster, and that is enough to give it passages of incandescent power. From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:46 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:04 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!sn.no!online.no!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!europa.clark.net!howland.erols.net!infeed2.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: mredman@bvoice.com (Michael Redman) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 21 Jul 1997 15:41:58 GMT Organization: ... Lines: 94 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5r0006$eg@nntp5.u.washington.edu> ~Reply-To: mredman@bvoice.com NNTP-Posting-Host: homer06.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08291 Keywords: author=redman X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer06.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7667 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1442 Contact A Film Review By Michael Redman Copyright 1997 Michael Redman **** (out of ****) Amazing, absolutely amazing. There are many times during this film that are remarkably stunning and completely captivating. For the first time in what seems to be eons, that statement applies to something other than the effects in a big budget science fiction movie. What a relief it is to be fascinated by a film of this genre with the plot and characters and where the aliens and explosions take a back seat to the right stuff. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) is nine years old when she is fascinated by the stars and by contacting people in far-away places with her ham radio. As she grows older, she devotes her life to looking for messages from even more distant locales and joins the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project. Convinced that there is someone out there, she spends her time listening to static, hoping for something more. While waiting for the signal in Puerto Rico, she has time to fall into bed for a brief affair with religious philosopher Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), a "man of the cloth without the cloth". The contrast between the woman of science and the man of god is the archetype for the film's theme. When the financial rug is pulled out from under SETI, Arroway searches for funding wherever she can find it. She strikes gold with eccentric zillionaire S. R. Hadden (played with gusto by John Hurt). With his money in her back pocket, she rents time on the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico and years later finally hears what she has been waiting for. Of course when she announces her discovery, there is a rush by the government to militarize the undertaking and take control. Suddenly the scientist finds herself playing second fiddle to the National Security Advisor (James Woods) and her former mentor David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt) who had pulled the plug on SETI in Puerto Rico. Deciphering the message from Vega reveals a video signal. (I kept waiting for them to find a new tofu recipe from the Vegans) Piggybacked on the television waves is a blueprint for a transport device for one person to take the trip to the source of the communication. The question becomes who will go. At a congressional hearing, Joss, who has become a White House spiritual leader, asks the litmus test "Do you believe in God?" Arroway's response is that she hasn't seen proof. The film is more about that question of faith than it is about aliens. The astronomer's obsessive conviction that life exists somewhere else is not much different from religious certitude. When she has a life-changing experience that she can't explain and has no substantiation for, it reminds us of Paul's conversion on the road to Damascus. Director Robert Zemeckis ("Forrest Gump") has taken Carl Sagan's novel and borrowed the motifs from "2001" and "Close Encounters" to create one of the finest films around. He often focuses on media. In one scene Arroway is sending email while talking on the phone and simultaneously receiving a fax: totally wired. Jay Leno, Larry King, Bryant Gumbel and half the CNN crew play themselves on television screens throughout the film. This technique creates the feel that you are watching events as they are actually happening. Unfortunately the couple of morphed-in Bill Clinton scenes pull you out of the story with an "Oh yeah, this is a trick". Jodie Foster has matured into an accomplished actress. Her superb performance captures the astronomer's emotions with subtle notes. The catch in her voice and breathing flutters when she is frightened are fine touches. The movie's ending is a bit frightening. There is a strong possibility that Zemeckis will blow it with a sugary sweet scene and it looks like he will. Then there is the relief that he hasn't and all is back on track. The film is long at two hours and 20 minutes, but surprisingly doesn't feel strained and could have even taken more time to explore all the implications. Leaving the theater, the audience was talking about the questions posed: a good sign. As Carl Sagan said about the possibility of life out there, "If it's just us, that seems like an awful waste of space." (Michael Redman has written this column for over 21 years and has spent about twice that long looking up and waiting.) [This appeared in the 7/10/97 "Bloomington Voice", Bloomington, Indiana. Michael Redman can be reached at mredman@bvoice.com ] -- mailto:mredman@bvoice.com -- mailto:mredman@bvoice.com From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:49 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:05 1997 From: Andrew Hicks Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 24 Jul 1997 23:43:24 GMT Organization: University of Missouri - Columbia Lines: 84 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5r8pas$hb4@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer26.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08325 Keywords: author=hicks X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer26.u.washington.edu Path: news.ifm.liu.se!genius!seunet!news2.swip.net!mn6.swip.net!nntp.uio.no!nntp.se.dataphone.net!zdc-e!super.zippo.com!feed1.news.erols.com!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7724 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1452 CONTACT A film review by Andrew Hicks Copyright 1997 Andrew Hicks / Fatboy Productions (1997) *** (out of four) There have been so many movies in recent years about aliens that if any extraterrestrials ever do show up it will certainly be an anti-climax. CONTACT seems the exception -- no alien intervention could possibly be as anti-climactic as the last half-hour of CONTACT, a slow-moving film that builds up to a promising close encounter of the third kind and gives us an incredibly hokey dream-like sequence instead. It's a shame, too, because I really admired CONTACT up to that point. It's one of the only intelligent dealings with the ramifications of searching for alien life and the inevitable conflicts that will arise between the elements of religion and science and the representatives thereof. This Carl Sagan adaptation takes the high road all through the lengthy setup, providing us with a protagonist in which we invest a lot of emotion. We meet Ellie Airway, played by Jodie Foster (in her best performance since SILENCE OF THE LAMBS), at the tender age of 8, already initiating contact via short-wave radio with people in far off places and looking through telescopes at the stars above. It's the nurturing of her loving father that makes it all possible and, like any other movie in which one parent figures large, we see the death of the father. The young Ellie doesn't buy the priest's explanation that it was part of God's undecipherable master plan, setting up a lifetime (and a movietime) of conflict between Ellie's rational agnostic mind and people of faith. The most interesting thing about CONTACT is this dichotomy and I'm sure it's by no personal bias of Sagan that the agnostic astronomer seems the most moral and emotional person in this diegetic universe. With a cast of one-notes like Tom Skeritt (the bastard-in-power who first cuts Ellie's funding then takes all the credit once contact with aliens is made), Angela Basset (skeptical White House female security agent) and James Woods (skeptical White House male security agent), that's hardly a surprise. Then there's Matthew McConaughey, the sympathetic religious figure who also serves as the movie's love interest. The word "religious" in CONTACT denotes a person who believes in faith over science -- as McConaughey's pontificating hippie points out, some people _need_ to believe in God rather than resign themselves to the loneliness felt when they realize they're so small and minute. Ellie's flip-side view is that science is the universal language and the existence of aliens would allow humans to be part of a much more unifying cosmic force. Lest the movie bog itself down too much beneath these sentiments, director Robert Zemeckis intersperses the same kind of media tricks that made FORREST GUMP seem in places like an important documentary. As Ellie receives a message from the great beyond, with visual instructions hidden behind images of Hitler (quite a unifying cosmic force his own self), the world takes notice. We see every CNN anchor ever hired pondering the ramifications of this contact, along with deftly-edited footage of President Clinton saying that this ground-breaking new discovery may alter the course of history. The real-life speech was about the advent of the Arch Deluxe burger, but a snip here and a morph there and suddenly he's talking about aliens. To which degree you will like CONTACT depends on your interest of the topic. We've seen alien intervention treated a hundred different ways in the movies, but rarely has it seemed so real and possible than in CONTACT. Rarely also has it been flushed down the cosmic crapper by such a New Age ending that looks like a Shirley MacLaine music video than a Hollywood finale. CONTACT is miles removed from MEN IN BLACK but with about 100 extra IQ points and a refusal to give the audience what they crave. -- Visit the Movie Critic at LARGE homepage at http://www.missouri.edu/~c667778/movies.html Serving America For Nearly 1/25th of a Century! From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:52 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:06 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-ge.switch.ch!news-zh.switch.ch!news.belnet.be!news.rediris.es!news.apfel.de!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: sethbook@panix.com (Seth Bookey) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 26 Jul 1997 14:56:51 GMT Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 69 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5rd37j$c4@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer09.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08344 Keywords: author=bookey X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer09.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7783 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1459 Contact, 1997 Seen with Andrea at the Loews Astor on 18 July 1997 for $8.75. Have you ever been to a movie that evokes a wide spectrum of emotions all within the first twenty minutes or so? Laughter, tears, excitement, and yes, even a lurid thought or two. It is indeed rare that a movie does all this so quickly. Contact is one of those movies. It features Matthew McConaughey with his shirt off within a half hour. Mmmmm... Every time he entered the screen I felt like Marge Simpson fantasizing about Lee Majors. But seriously folks... Contact is all that and more, even if Mmmmmmatthew was not cast. It is one of those rare movies that evokes a wide array of feeling. It combines "what if"; with a lot of current issues and timeless questions. Two major elements hold this movie together: The prospect of very intelligent life beyond our atmosphere, and Jodie Foster's impassioned portrayal of Dr. Eleanor Arroway, a physicist who has been listening to extraterrestrial radio waves and charting the skies. As a child, her father (David Morse) taught her how to use a ham radio and they charted how far her voice carried. Her fascination with covering distances eventually leads to a major discovery--loud systematic thumping from the star known to us as Vega. Contact is full of some wonderful cinematography. The opening sequence is absolutely stunning, free of distracting music. The entire audience was awestruck and quiet throughout the opener. One incredible shot early on to watch for: Young Ellie running to the bathroom medicine cabinet. The special effects in Contact are really marvelous, so seamless that it is hard to believe that you are not actually watching events unfold. Contact benefits from a great cast. All the expected "types" are there: the project director who steals the spotlight and the credit (Tom Skerritt); the paranoid military man (James Woods), the officious Presidential aide (Angela Bassett), the weird billionaire industrialist (John Hurt). Even some of the minor roles are well cast--Jake Busey as the religious cult leader, and Rob Lowe as Richard Rank, the Ralph Reed-like head of the "Conservative Coalition." The only person who is not all that terrific is, well, Mmmatthew McConnaughy, as he mumbles a lot and is not always comprehensible. He plays the man of faith who questions Eleanor's completely scientific stance. He always carried a book around with him. It's hard to know whether or not it is a Bible, his own book, or a Franklin planner. Who cares? He's gorgeous and the romantic lead--that's what he's there for and he does it well. Much like a Hitchcock movie (there I go again), it is an enjoyable ride that dangles a major red herring. I am sure that most people will find it odd that I would compare what happens in Contact to Pauline at the Beach and Rashomon, but they are all of the same ilk. It's compelling and thoughtful film that stays with you long after the lights have come back on. I know I was not the only one who felt this way: More than few people lingered afterward, reluctant to leave the theater. Plus, it was a nice apology and antidote to Independence Day. Based on a story by Ann Druyen and Carl Sagan. The official homepage for Contact at http://www.contact-themovie.com is rather interesting, especially if your browser supports sound. Other movie reviews by Seth Bookey are available at http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2679/kino.html Copyright (c) 1997 Seth J. Bookey, New York, NY 10021 USA, sethbook@panix.com From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:42:56 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:08 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!sn.no!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!europa.clark.net!205.252.116.205!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: ChadPolenz@aol.com (Chad Polenz) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 27 Jul 1997 15:56:19 GMT Organization: None Lines: 92 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5rfr33$km3@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer35.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08348 Keywords: author=polenz X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer35.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7736 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1453 Contact Chad'z rating: *** (out of 4 = good) 1997, PG, 150 minutes [2 hours, 30 minutes] [science fiction/drama] starring: Jodie Foster (Dr. Ellie Arroway), Matthew McConaughey (Palmer Joss), Tom Skerrit (Dr. David Drumlin), James Woods (Michael Kitz), written by Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan, James V. Hart, Michael Goldenberg, produced by Steve Starkey, Robert Zemeckis, directed by Robert Zemeckis, based on the novel by Carl Sagan. There's so much going for, going against, and going on in "Contact" it's difficult to begin critiquing it, let alone describing it. It's a grand scale Hollywood film that tries to please everyone with its "neutral" stance on humanity, and theology versus science. In fact, it tries so hard to be a work of genius philosophy it nearly collapses under its own weight. What makes it good is the breezy, easy-to-swallow storytelling, outstanding effects and production, and a solid array of acting. Zemeckis's last feature, "Forrest Gump," took the world by storm with its story of a simple man in a complex world. Here, he uses almost the exact opposite formula for similar themes. Our main character is Dr. Ellie Arroway (Foster), a smart astronomer who is surrounded by high technology and the precision of science. Her parents died when she was a child, but told her science is the language and problem-solver of the universe and she applies this to her own life in many ways. Most thematically, she is an atheist because she doesn't see any scientific evidence for the existence of God. What you believe in personally is irrelevant because Ellie's character is developed so well you understand her rationale. Although the entire film is not a debate over theism, its significance is evident and often becomes so blatant you expect to see labels on every character and their specific dialogue. Not that this is automatically a flaw, but wrong because it tries to present itself in such a "neutral" manner. Representing the perspective of theism is part-time Christian preacher/part-time secular philosopher and author Palmer Joss (McConaughey). The two meet early on at a government SETI where Ellie is searching for extra-terrestrial life, but Palmer is there collecting data for a book about how technology exploits the helpless and has caused man to become so confused spiritually. Unlike Ellie's character, we don't get to know Palmer well enough to sympathize with his religious convictions as its obvious his dialogue and character are being written and directed by people who probably don't believe what he stands for. Thankfully, he is not portrayed as a right-wing nut. What brings these characters and their significance together is the main plot of the story involving an intelligent transmission from space. Basically, aliens thought we were hot and gave us their beeper number and directions to where the party's at - cool! But here's where the film also starts to slip in a few ways. 1) This information is made known to the public and the entire world freaks out and everyone suddenly belongs to a group of one extreme or another (I doubt this would happen in reality). 2) A mysterious character suddenly appears who answers all of the mysterious questions such as how to decode the message and the significance of every little detail. The film had not been so "sci-fi movie convenient" before, so why the [first of many] cop-out[s]? Not much happens throughout the film in terms of general plot, so what we get is a serious of several sub-plots overlapping each other. Many supporting characters are introduced and the script works well enough to give them all significance within the story, even though some are clearly plugged-in for theme. The film also uses modern technology to create for an almost frighteningly realistic mood. Much like "Independence Day," "Mission: Impossible," and "Ransom," there is a sense of technological trendiness here. Use of the Internet and laptop computers are exaggerated to create this mood, but sometimes the movie machine takes over and we get technological conspiracies that really aren't plausible, let alone necessary. The entire point of the film is the end because we know Ellie will somehow make the trip to "the other side," but is the final payoff worth it? I didn't find it to be as powerful as it intends to be because there isn't enough mystery to it. Everything comes together in the ultimate ending and I guess you might say the characters, and especially their symbolism are dealt with poetic justice. Maybe you could see it as following the film's logical conclusion. Or maybe it's really about free will. "Contact" is probably one of the most enigmatic films I've ever seen. Even if the thematic elements don't do much for you, it's still interesting to watch because the story is told through a fluid script and an atmosphere of total modernism. Please visit Chad'z Movie Page @ http://members.aol.com/ChadPolenz - over 140 new and old films reviewed in depth, not just blind ratings and quick capsules. Also, check out The FIRST Shay Astar Web Page @ http://members.aol.com/ChadPolenz/ShayAstar.html e-mail: ChadPolenz (C) 1997 Chad Polenz From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:43:00 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:09 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news-stkh.gsl.net!news.gsl.net!sn.no!online.no!uninett.no!news-feed.inet.tele.dk!news.maxwell.syr.edu!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Marty Mapes Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 27 Jul 1997 15:56:53 GMT Organization: Indra's Net, Inc. -- Public Access Internet. Lines: 77 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5rfr45$km6@nntp5.u.washington.edu> ~Reply-To: mmapes@indra.com NNTP-Posting-Host: homer35.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08351 Keywords: author=mapes X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer35.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7743 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1454 Contact A film review by Marty Mapes Copyright 1997 Marty Mapes ***1/2 (out of 4) Jodie Foster is great, and Zemeckis knows how to use film technology without compromising a story's humanity, but the real star of CONTACT is its author, Carl Sagan. CONTACT is a smart movie. It is a science fiction movie without being an action movie. Instead of laser blasts, chases and grunting, it offers questions, dilemmas, and discussion. It is science fiction from the perspective of a scientist, not from that of a studio with too much money and gunpowder. Foster plays Ellie Arroway, a Sagan-like scientist working for SETI (the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence). Faced with a government bureaucracy unwilling to pay for pure research, it is Ellie's determination alone that keeps her in her job. Her determination pays off when she hears a repeating signal coming from a nearby star. As Ellie starts decoding the cryptic message, the world watches, frets, and prays. As the message becomes clearer and clearer to Ellie, the world's reaction becomes more and more muddled. Ellie learns that the message is a blueprint for a kind of spaceship, while humanity argues over the aliens' intentions, legitimacy, and divinity. The blueprints are ultimately realized through the funding of a worldwide coalition of nations, and a representative is chosen to be the first ambassador to our new neighbors. Contact is a great tribute to Sagan. Ellie has all of Sagan's curiosity, morality, and rationality. She repeats a probabilistic argument for the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence that Sagan used in his COSMOS. Ellie is a rational athiest who's interested in religious discussion, like Sagan. And when she says "billion" you can almost hear his voice. Beyond the character of Ellie, the movie itself honors Sagan. It asks relevant questions about religion and science without taking sides, it recognizes the humanity of even the bad guys (though James Woods' portrayal was a little prickly). Most of all, it values human curiosity — that inexplicable force that makes scientists like Ellie and Sagan so determined. Zemeckis proves his ability right from the start. The opening shot of the movie is absolutely beautiful, and the richly layered soundtrack gives meaning to that beauty (kudos to supervising sound editor Phil Benson). The second sequence of shots foreshadows Ellie's future: young Ellie makes radio contact with distant life forms from a thousand miles away. Zemeckis doesn't condescend to his audience; he gives us credit for being able to understand science and to appreciate the discussion of religion. Even in such mundane tasks as introducing characters, Zemeckis does not insult our intelligence. A blind man is introduced without anyone saying "Meet Fisher, he's blind;" a reclusive benefactor is revealed with a glance, not a grand, James Bond-like introduction. Finally, Zemeckis and editor Arthur Schmidt really heap on the tension when, toward the end, our ambassador is ready to be sent. Lately, movie tension has been less than subtle: consider the bus-over-the-cliff scene in THE LOST WORLD or the paranoia of homocidal prisoners in CON AIR. In CONTACT, the tension is just as taut, but more complex. There is a chance for death, but other factors gnaw at the characters and at the audience: the anticipation of meeting an alien race, the uncertainty of using technology we don't understand, the fear of aborting a mission so close to comletion. Still, all of this talent could have been spent on a less deserving story. It is a tribute to the producers (other than Sagan and Ann Druyan, his wife) and Zemeckis that they took a chance on a smart, human science fiction movie, instead of buying explosions and space battles. (c) 1997 Marty Mapes Check out more current movie reviews at http://www.indra.com/~mmapes/ From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:43:02 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:10 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!news.algonet.se!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!EU.net!news-out.internetmci.com!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: chris@jtan.com (C.T.Nadovich) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 28 Jul 1997 15:50:11 GMT Organization: The KD3BJ Usenet BBS Lines: 87 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5rif3j$8pr@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer38.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08375 Keywords: author=nadovich X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer38.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7756 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1456 Note, the following contains spoilers and strong opinion about the movie "Contact". You may want to see the film and form your own opinions first. = = = Well, I never liked Carl Sagan's stuff. I always thought he cream and sugared the science too much in an effort to make it go down layman's throats. To me, that ruins the flavor of the science itself and distorts its message. I've always preferred my science black --- expresso black --- but there are things you can add to science to make an interesting, more accessable combination without overloading it with sweetness and light. A shot of bourbon, for instance, as I've been known to enjoy in the works of Gould, Thomas, Dawkins, etc... "Contact" is a mocha latte with rum. Worse than that, it uses the best columbian coffee, finest Puerto Rican rum, fresh cream, and a whole can of Hersey's chocolate syrup. I say this so often about films: "It coulda' been so good!". "Contact" merits this same summary more so than any film in recent memory. All the best ingredients were there: profound scientific and philosophical questions, world class actors, breathtaking scientific venues for settings, big budget high tech special effects, a good variation on the first-contact plot... But NO! They had to go and screw it up. Oh, how I felt I had been cheated! Worse yet, they had Jodie Foster do the wimp out --- yes, the same Jodie Foster that had gone toe-to-toe with Hannibal Lechter without blinking. Why did they cast her? Why couldn't they cast Jane Fonda? That would have bothered me FAR less. Or maybe I missed the point. Maybe her failure to stick to her scientific and philosophic guns in the climactic scene of the film was intended to get the audience to rally to her aid, to shout: "Aristotle! Aristotle! Quick! Set 'em up with Aristotle. Then BANG! Hume! Hume! Give 'em a left with Hume! and then a right cross with Kant! Kick 'em in the groin with Goedel!". Or maybe we are assumed to already know the truth, survive the attack by science-as-religion mumbo jumbo, and maturely accept the fact that the good guy, vastly outnumbered, just didn't win in this story, being wiser for the experience. But no. By Occam's Razor it was more likely that the film wanted to show how Science and Religion can be a big happy mutually supporting mocha latte family. It was awful. The film made the point that Jodie Foster's character was somehow embarrased and weakened by her atheism and scientific rationalism. That she was an athesist because her parents died young and she was angry at God. It wasn't possible that (gasp) she didn't believe in God because there wasn't one! It reminded me of the stereotypical view of homosexuality as a bad moral choice. It gets worse. After the climactic scene, the emphasized idea is that science is sort of a revealed, mystical religion of its own. Only individual scientists understand scientific fact. Scientific proof is ultimately based on mystical revelation. Science is no different than revealed faith in God. In a brief, passing conversation after the climax thre was a ray of hope. We learn that there actually was a shred of objective empirical evedence for the mystical revelation that the atheist and rationalist scientist is forced to accept. It could have been a Cinderella ending. Alas, the film dropped this point there. No one went seeking the foot that matched this glass slipper, so this objective evedence is portrayed more like Santa's cane in "A Miracle on 34'th Street" --- we all believe that Santa is real, and that's all that really matters, but hey, isn't it neat that some bit of objective evedence fits in with our beliefs --- not that we need any facts to justify our beliefs. -- Chris Nadovich +1 215 257 8708 (voice) http://www.jtan.com/chris +1 215 257 8154 (fax) 73 de KD3BJ SK .. -- Chris Nadovich +1 215 257 8708 (voice) http://www.jtan.com/chris +1 215 257 8154 (fax) 73 de KD3BJ SK .. From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:43:07 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:11 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news99.sunet.se!news00.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!nntp.uio.no!sn.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in2.uu.net!140.142.64.3!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Kathy Glaser" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 31 Jul 1997 15:37:36 GMT Organization: Software 2010 Lines: 71 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5rqbg0$emr@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer31.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08405 Keywords: author=glaser X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer31.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7802 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1461 What do you picture in your mind when you hear the words "movie" and "aliens" together? With the 1996 blockbuster Independence Day you could be forgiven for associating a movie about aliens with squid-like creatures that terrorize our planet. But once in a while Hollywood manages to release a thought-provoking film like Contact, which is about alien life, but which doesn't have an "us-vs-ugly aliens" theme and isn't loaded with special effects wizardry (though Contact does have some stunning scenes). Jodie Foster stars as Ellie Arroway, an astronomer who searches for extra-terrestrial life by radio signal. She is a brilliant scientist who turned down a teaching post at Harvard to pursue her obsession, convinced that there is life out there. We are reminded three times in the film it would be an awful waste of space if it was just us in the world. After the funds for her project in Puerto Rico are cut off, she goes to do research in New Mexico where she is financed by a super-rich recluse. Ellie's search for other-world existence is not in vain (of course, since a movie about an astronomer just sitting in the desert with nothing happening would be pointless). She hears signals in a code of prime numbers; these aliens who have let their existence be known also send blue-prints for building a machine that will take one earthling to meet them. After an initial disappointment, Ellie becomes the chosen one. For anyone who has not yet seen the film, it would be a spoiler to reveal the actual contact scene. Suffice it to say that it's brief, somewhat unexpected (though reminiscent of the last scene in 2001: A Space Odyssey), and it put a twist on the debate between science and faith. The conflict between science and religion is at the core of Contact. Science and reason are personified by Ellie, who at an early age displayed her rational mind. Her father died when she was nine years old, and when a priest tried to comfort her by saying, in effect, that God's ways were mysterious but it was all meant to be, she replied that if only they had kept the medicine on the first floor she could have run to it faster and saved her father. Fate had nothing to do with his death. On the other side, advocating religion, is Palmer Joss (played by Matthew McConaughey), a theologian who never became a priest (he apparently had trouble with the celibacy thing). He and Ellie have a very brief affair in Puerto Rico, and meet again later after the alien signals have been received. As a member of the committee to decide the Earth emissary to the alien beings, he refuses to vote for her. One reason is purely selfish; she would be risking her life in the endeavor and he wanted her to be with him. The second reason is because of her disbelief in a Supreme Being. He can't in good conscience approve of an atheist being the first human to meet an alien species. Contact shows the fear that many among the religious community have regarding life on other planets. It's not the fear that aliens will attack Earth, but rather that the Holy Book is wrong. After thousands of years of believing that man is the center of the universe and created in God's image, man would turn out to be just another species. To many people of faith, the discovery of other beings would be psychologically devastating. In Contact, Jake Busey plays the crazed leader of a religious cult who sabotages the first transport machine. Though he is a cardboard character (as is Richard Rank, the slick, self-righteous leader of a Christian Coalition-type group, played by Rob Lowe) there is no doubt that if alien life were discovered, it would drive many people to acts of desperation. Overall, Contact is a good, intelligent piece of storytelling, though at 2 1/2 hours it's longer than an average movie. There's some technical jargon (which, Jodie Foster says, baffled even her), but it doesn't distract from the story. The question of life on other planets is a fascinating one, and beings from other planets actually making contact with us is a mind-boggling prospect. I couldn't help thinking, though, after I saw the movie, about the Calvin and Hobbes cartoon, in which Calvin tells Hobbes how he had read that countless species were being pushed toward extinction by man's destruction of forests. And he adds, "Sometimes I think the surest sign that that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." From /home/matoh/tmp/sf-rev Fri Aug 22 16:43:10 1997 From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Aug 18 15:23:12 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news99.sunet.se!news00.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!nntp.uio.no!sn.no!Norway.EU.net!EU.net!howland.erols.net!infeed1.internetmci.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!netnews.nwnet.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: syegul@ix.netcom.com (Serdar Yegulalp) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 2 Aug 1997 15:19:05 GMT Organization: Jackie Chan's Kung Fu Process Servers Lines: 70 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5rvj59$qq3@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer38.u.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08428 Keywords: author=yegulalp X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer38.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:7818 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1464 Contact (1997) A movie review by Serdar Yegulalp (C) 1997 by Serdar Yegulalp CAPSULE: Intelligent, passionate, and utterly gripping exploration of the idea of interstellar contact. Makes CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND look like a very bad episode of STAR TREK. The opening shots of CONTACT are so audacious that they stun an audience into complete submission. In a simple, elegant series of images and sounds, we are shown the vastness of the universe and the tininess of man's earth against it. By the time the story proper started, the audience was already reeling under the impact of being SHOWN where they stood, cosmically speaking. They were all ready. CONTACT is about that sense of astonishment and wonder -- about emotions as well as ideas, and about how those emotions are played out in the real world. It is, next to 2001, the single best movie I've seen that really conveys a sense of WONDER about the universe: What if there's life out there? How would we get in touch? What would we say after hello? Jodie Foster plays a radio astronomer who has always been fascinated by the lure of such questions. After a series of thankless jobs for SETI, which apparently is tantamount to professional suicide, she works with her companions to secure funding from a giant multinational corporation to hunt for signals from space.The realities of getting corporate funding for scientific research aren't pretty: you have to basically whore yourself, but Foster's character, named Arroway, winds up working for a man (played by John Hurt with a mixture of greasy charm and grandfatherly intelligence) who seems to be as much in love with the idea of contact as she is. Then one day everything comes together: they find a signal. A whopping huge signal. Someone out there has been listening, and sends us back a message with a format we understand perfectly -- TV transmissions. There is also something else encoded in the transmissions -- something which requires the scientists to think non-linearly. And when they do... I will not go any further into the plot. One of the beauties of the movie is in the way its surprises unfold, and since I'm hellbent on getting people to see this one, I won't ruin a thing. What I will say is that the implications of the signal alone are dealt with intelligence and verve -- much more so than in many, many other movies. In CE3K, for instance, there was the effect on one man, and not a very stable man at that; in CONTACT, the social and moral effects are examined. The film also touches on the issue of faith versus science, and has enough courage to suggest that the two are not dichotomous, that we need both to guide us forward into the universe. Arroway does not think religious people are deluded, and many of the people of faith in the movie do not think that science is a sterile inhuman business. But they are surrounded by people who are more fanatical, and some of their actions have tragic consequences. CONTACT is a daring movie in many ways. It tells a strong, human story without violence or easy answers, and tries to get us to see beyond the provincialism of our lives. To see the cosmic scale of things. The closing credits dedicate the movie "to Carl", and I think he would have been elated. For those who knew the man, this is very much an encapsulation of his aspirations and dreams. Four out of four shooting stars. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- syegul@ix.netcom.com EFNet IRC: GinRei http://www.io.com/~syegul another worldly device... you can crush me as I speak/write on rocks what you feel/now feel this truth UNMUTUAL: A Digital Art Collective - E-mail syegul@ix.netcom.com for details =smilin' in your face, all the time wanna take your place, the BACKSTABBERS= ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon Sep 15 13:48:07 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!eru.mt.luth.se!feed1.news.erols.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Kevin Patterson Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 14 Sep 1997 18:12:21 GMT Organization: Princeton University Lines: 71 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <5vh9e5$9bs@nntp5.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: kevinp@princeton.edu NNTP-Posting-Host: homer38.u.washington.edu Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #08969 Keywords: author=patterson X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer38.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:8344 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1532 Film review (C) 1997 by Kevin Patterson Contact (PG, 1997) Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Starring Jodie Foster, Matthew McConaughey, Tom Skerritt. Contact is a film that tries to do several different things. It is intended to present a realistic picture of what alien contact might be like, to restore a sense of wonder and mystery to the issue of extraterrestrial life, to raise questions about science and faith and how they would be relevant in such a situation, and to tell a personal story of a romance between the astronomer Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) and the religious spokesman Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey). The film succeeds wonderfully at its first two goals. The portrayal of the communication from an alien world is much more reasonable (albeit less immediately engaging) than, say, the cold-blooded destructiveness of the invaders in Independence Day or even the complex process of abductions and genetic hybridization that forms the ongoing plot line of TV's The X-Files. The aliens in Contact seem to be like us-they are more curious than anything else. They know we exist, they want us to know that they exist, and they would like to make the next step and communicate in person. The film wisely refrains from showing us the aliens directly, and between the characters' ongoing speculation about the extraterrestrials and the outstanding visuals in the climactic yet enigmatic scene when Arroway arrives on the alien world, that sense of wonder and mystery comes through with a force rarely seen since Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Most of the film, however, takes place on Earth, where there is an extended public debate on how to respond to these aliens. Scientists are enthusiastic, ultraconservative religious leaders are wary, and government officials are caught somewhere in between. The debate is fueled largely by Dr. Arroway's atheism; she seems the obvious choice to pilot the spacecraft for which the aliens have provided blueprints, but many are wary of sending an atheist as humankind's representative to another species. The film is partly successful in raising and exploring these questions, especially when it reaches a conclusion that suggests that the two approaches - science and faith - could be viewed as complementary rather than diametrically opposed. Still, the film falls a little short in its representation of this conflict as it exists in American society. The two "sides" are represented primarily by Arroway and by far-right fundamentalists, but in reality probably 80% of Americans are neither atheists nor far-right fundamentalists. Palmer Joss occupies something of a middle ground, but he ultimately becomes distracted by personal motives and comes across as a less-than-ideal spokesman for any ideology. Then again, the film does concentrate mostly on public debate, which does, after all, tend to be dominated by extremists, rather than on dinner-table or college-dormitory discussions. Contact is accurate in its portrayal of these issues, then, but only within the narrow scope to which it confines itself. The film's one clear failure is in the portrayal of the romance between Arroway and Joss. For one thing, it resorts to the tired movie clich* that two attractive people will immediately fall in love as soon as they appear on the screen together, as there does not seem to be any other reason for their instant mutual attraction. The romance rarely, if ever, sheds any light on the characters, although it occasionally tries and fails - Joss's explanation that he quit the priesthood because of the celibacy requirement ("I guess you could say I'm a man of the cloth, but without the cloth"), for example, is more like a punchline to a joke than character development. Instead, the romance mostly seems to exist for the sake of later plot developments. Granted, this is a plot- and idea-driven film and the characters are secondary, but this just seemed like laziness on the writers' part more than anything else. The successes of Contact, however, far outweigh its failures. Even if the social commentary had fizzled altogether (which it didn't), the simple yet mysterious story of alien communication still would have made it a memorable film. Contact doesn't quite cover all the bases, but it covers about as much as one could hope for in a two-hour film, and its rejection of big-budget theatrics for a more realistic story is certainly admirable. And I would not be surprised if, ten years from now, Contact is mentioned in the same breath as 2001 and Blade Runner as one of the finest examples of sophisticated and intellectually relevant science fiction. Grade: A From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Oct 30 14:06:23 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!c-1996!news-ge.switch.ch!news-fra1.dfn.de!news-was.dfn.de!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: sfrevu@aol.com (Tony Tellado) Newsgroups: rec.arts.sf.reviews,rec.arts.movies.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 30 Sep 1997 04:08:46 GMT Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com Lines: 29 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <60pu0e$122$1@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer01.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp5.u.washington.edu 875592526 1090 (None) 140.142.64.4 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #09175 Keywords: author=tellado X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer01.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.sf.reviews:1546 rec.arts.movies.reviews:8506 Contact (review by Tony Tellado - Sci-Fi Talk) CONTACT is by far the best movie of the summer. It's also probably the most engaging SF film of the decade. Jodie Foster just can't seem to give anything less than an Oscar worthy performance and her scientist Ellie Arroway is no exception. The movie deals with her relationship with her father who nurtured her interest in astronomy. David Morse plays a father that is nurturing and supportive in a wonderful father-daughter relationship. But the crux of the film deals with the long awaited answer from outer space that we are not alone. The film follows her trials and tribulations as she attempts to fund a project that listens for the signals via radio telescopes and fights to keep her share of the credit. Matthew McConaughey is impressive as the man in her life a religious man of faith who conflicts with scientist Arroway's just the facts attitude. This is one of the wonderful themes of CONTACT, the balance between science and faith. It seems that we all need a little of both to venture out in space. The cast includes James Woods as a wonderfully obnoxious Government official and the seldom used Angela Bassett who shines. Tom Skerritt and John Hurt of ALIEN fame add their talents to this ensemble, playing a cut throat scientist and eccentric billionaire, respectively. Director Robert Zemeckis of Forrest Gump fame has a reputation as a technical director, but handles his actors very well here blending special effects nicely. They enhance the story not dominate it. CONTACT is a story of exploration maybe not so much of outer space but humanity, and our reaction to this type of even. The film is dedicated to Carl Sagan who wrote the book along with his wife. This is a wonderful legacy to a man who tried to make science fun for us all, and shared his wonder of the universe Copyright Ernest Lilley 1997 SFRevu From rec.arts.sf.reviews Thu Oct 30 14:07:03 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news99.sunet.se!news00.sunet.se!sunic!mn6.swip.net!nntp.uio.no!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Tim Voon Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 18 Oct 1997 05:24:06 GMT Organization: None Lines: 75 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <629h5m$kq0$1@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer14.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp5.u.washington.edu 877152246 21312 (None) 140.142.64.2 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #09395 Keywords: author=voon X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer14.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:8712 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1559 CONTACT 1997 A film review by Timothy Voon Copyright 1997 Timothy Voon 4 :-) :-) :-) :-) for the most thought provoking movie I've seen this year Making contact with an alien race doesn't come as easily as "E.T. phone home" anymore. This reflective movie directed by Robert Zemeckis and starring Jodie Foster and Matthew McConaughey, prods the human skull with a radar dish full of science and religion. Ever looked up at the night sky and wondered to yourself, quote "What a great waste of space"? Well it is, and this movie attempts to give some meaning to those pondering whether man is truly alone in the universe. Behind every motive lies an underlying reason, which drives a heroine to become great. In the case of the Scientist (Foster), the search for the meaning of her existence is the same as her quest to find her dead parents. The orphan, whose fascination with the universe begins with a low frequency radio and telescope, sets out to reach the furthest stars, in the furthest galaxies, to confirm what man has always feared or fantasised. She listens and watches from dusk till dawn, for a sign, a message that carries with it the same vain hope of a child wishing her parents would return from the grave. Patience is a product of time, not relativity, and the patient Scientist is rewarded with a signal from Vega. To every action there must be an equal and opposite reaction - not so. For every agnostic scientist there lies in wait a thousand religious gnostics. Representing the unbalanced proportion of this equation of beliefs, is the Reverend (McConaughey). Can God and Science coexist? Does placing faith in one necessarily rule out the existence of the other? There are two sides to this search for the truth, but enough room for both sides to come out smiling. After all, the universe is a big, big place. E=MC2. Extra-terrestrial = making contact twice. If you receive a message from an alien, it is only polite to reply. Close to a trillion dollars is spent on an amusing looking gadget reminiscent of the nucleus of an atom. Drop a small pod in the centre of revolving twirling rings, and leave the rest to speculation and imagination. I had a good laugh when I first saw the contraption. "That thing is not taking anyone anywhere", I said aloud, but perhaps to a hospital bed with a fracture or two. The Quest to make first contact, gets as political as politicians on heat. The Scientist stands by her belief that there is no God, in front of an international selection committee. Her application to be earth's messenger to the stars is rejected. However, the right hand of religion which strikes her cheek, also carries a fanatical left, which ironically allows her to journey where no man has gone before. The Scientist returns without an incredulous story of space and time travel. She has only a sense of wonder, and feelings of a glorious encounter of the millennium kind to share with others. An international enquiry is assembled to judge her story, but brushes aside the truth as a mere figment of her imagination. At this moment, the Scientist realises that she is asking others to believe her words on faith alone, a concept which is as foreign as believing in God; and those who have no qualms about believing in a supreme being, are unable to believe the tale of her miraculous journey. So in this meeting place, Science asks Religion to Believe, but ironically Religion turns her face. So my longwinded after thought is that perhaps if the Science had more faith in God, and Religion had more faith in Science, there may be harmony on the third rock from the Sun. Exceptionally thought-provoking material, splendidly directed, and visually sensational. Well done. Timothy Voon e-mail: stirling@netlink.com.au From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Nov 4 17:46:31 1997 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!www.nntp.primenet.com!globalcenter1!news.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!su-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: "Choo Eng Aun, Jack" Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 24 Oct 1997 00:01:01 GMT Organization: None Lines: 82 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <62ooft$gcs$1@nntp5.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: NNTP-Posting-Host: homer07.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp5.u.washington.edu 877651261 16796 (None) 140.142.64.1 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #09457 Keywords: author=aun X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer07.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:8909 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1583 CONTACT (1997) Reviewed by Jack Choo Directed by Robert Zemeckis Starring - Jodie Foster Matthew McConaughey Tom Skerritt James Woods Running Time : 2hrs 30mins Ratinng : ***1/2 out of **** FAITH, LOVE, HOPE AND SCI-FI When I first heard of CONTACT, the hype was building it up as a sci-fi blockbuster. Now, with that in mind, coupled with the knowledge of Jodie Foster's involvement in the project, I thought "What in the world is Foster doing in a sci-fi blockbuster???". As it turned out, my expectations were completely nullified and turned topsy-turvy. Robert Zemeckis, back from the euphoria created by his last film, FORREST GUMP, once again proves his mastery in fusing tales of adventure with along the endearing lines of human spirit. Don't get me wrong, CONTACT is sci-fi…but with a definite difference. Based on the late Carl Sagan novel of the same name, the story delves itself in questions on science and god; fact and faith. Allie (Foster) is a radio astronomer. She spends her time listening to the stars, via ultra-huge communication dishes in search of intelligent life beyond the Solar System. Her passion for `long-distance communication' is the result of her younger days being spent avidly in front of a ham-radio system (a hobbyist radio communication device) which her late-father bought for her. A scene which particularly strengthens the audiences' view of the passion is when she asked her father whether she could contact her late-mother through the ham-radio system in which her father replied "Not even the most powerful radio in the world can do that, now". Allie's research is based on the SETI project (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence), in which she listens to radio emissions from other galaxies in the hope of finding one which would suggest intelligent manipulation. Her work has never been off the scrutiny of the US government, which considers it a waste of taxpayer's money and politically unviable, her supervisor (Tom Skerritt) pulls the plug on SETI. Undaunted, Allie managed to gather a loyal group of `believers' and eventually found funding from a large private corporation. The following months were treacherous to their hopes and research as they are contantly pressured by the government but all that changed when one day, she caught an emission of a seemingly intelligent repeating sound-wave. The news of her find attracted hordes of alien believers, cultist, the media and of course, the government. The situation became intense upon her discovery of pictorial plans on building a form of transport which were embedded within the repeating sound emission. As the world join forces to build this transport, Allie is desperate to be the one to go. She enrols herself among a few hopefuls, to represent the world when the transport is ready for operation. Her eligibility for the spot failed when she is questioned on her beliefs in the existence of god by the President's spiritual advisor (McConaughey); Allie, being an atheist, a result of her belief in fact and science, refuses to budge upon questioning. At this point the movie plot thickens considerably as she is romantically involved with the President's spiritual advisor. A strong point which propelled the movie is the depth of its main characters played by Foster and McConaughey. From the very first meeting scene, it is obvious that the two of them was sort of kindred spirits but they were worlds apart in almost all aspects, Foster being a person drawn to science and facts and McConaughey being one who believes in faith, hope and the power of the unseen. The meeting of their worlds, added with the situation which they are put into makes the entire storytelling process near flawless. Many people who read the synopsis of this film would find it a tad too ridiculous, but by actually immersing yourself in it, gives you an entirely different perspective; one which is free from bias and pre-conceptions. Zemeckis and his team of screen writers have done a remarkable job in telling this tale through film. CONTACT works by NOT delving in controversy but rather, touches the thinking audience, urging them to ponder upon the questions raised in the film concerning fact and faith; whether one can actually find compromise within. I consider CONTACT as one of the must-sees for this year. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Nov 4 17:47:09 1997 From: Alexadnre Tylski Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Review: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 31 Oct 1997 16:30:52 GMT Organization: NetSat Inc. Lines: 46 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <63d13s$9vv$1@nntp5.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer38.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp5.u.washington.edu 878315452 10239 (None) 140.142.64.6 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #09585 Keywords: author=tylski. X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer38.u.washington.edu Path: news.ifm.liu.se!genius.dat.hk-r.se!news.lth.se!feed1.news.luth.se!luth.se!news.algonet.se!4.1.16.34.MISMATCH!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!news-peer.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!worldnet.att.net!news.u.washington.edu!grahams Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:8888 rec.arts.sf.reviews:1581 CONTACT. (1997) Directed by Robert Zemeckis. Performed by Jodie Foster. Music by Alan Silvestri. If we see Zemeckis' s career, we can say that this is a director quite interested in the themes of past and youth. In Forrest Gump or in the Back to the Future trilogy, those themes are explored in every way possible. With Contact, Zemeckis shows us again how essential is our knowledge of history and our ability to dream. Contact is a high budget movie and what is quite surprising, is that it is an interesting film! Indeed, its secret aims have nothing to do with business, but with ideas. To serve some interesting reflections on religion, death or life, Zemeckis has hired a spectacular cast: Jodie Foster, Mathew McConaughey, James Woods, Tom Skeritt or Angela Bassett. Thus, the film is entertaining and can be appreciated by any kind of persons - even those who do not like science-fiction movies since that Contact is not really a movie dealing with extra-terrestrials or the discovery of space, but rather a (re)discovery of human kind, its history (references to Hitler notably) and its emotions. This is not only a spectacular film, it is an intimate one, an inner journey. Besides, it can be said that all the films Jodie Foster is used to playing in are kind of inner journeys. In this film, she really shines, as usual, and she succeeds in exploring her own emotions very deeply and those of the audience at the same time. Will she receive another Academy Award? She deserves it again anyway. In Contact, the special effects are not there because it is up to date to make movies with special effects, but they really serve the aim of the film: searching for human basic feelings. It is even the paradox of the whole film: new technologies do not really transform us into machines, but make our reactions more human actually! When the E.T. signal is heard for the first time in the movie, the characters (and the audience) feel more human paradoxically, all excited like kids. The word "kid" is obviously a key-word for describing Contact. Just like Forrest, Foster's character is still a child, fragile but passionate. When we see Contact, we feel the same emotions we had when very young. That is all the magic and the interest of this movie. The film is a homage to the power of imagination. Besides, it has a magical and onirical atmosphere as if the whole movie was like a child dream. And as dreams always reveal who we are, Contact talks to all of us very deeply. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Mar 3 16:14:21 1999 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!news-peer-europe.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!Sprint!netnews.com!newsfeed.direct.ca!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: postmaster@cjc.org (Cheng-Jih Chen) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 28 Feb 1999 21:03:28 GMT Organization: Interport Communications Lines: 141 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <7bcav0$ea4$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> Reply-To: postmaster@cjc.org NNTP-Posting-Host: homer29.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 920235808 14660 (None) 140.142.17.40 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #16951 Keywords: author=chen X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer29.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:16147 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2268 I've gone and reacquainted myself with "Contact" on DVD. A wonderful film, but I don't think it's a great film. It has Spielbergian awe and wonder, and a strong performance by Jodie Foster: conflicted, but stoic and determined, with a touch of weepiness at all the right moments (though she sits at the edge of the bed looking pensive a few too many times). And, perhaps most importantly, "Contact" addresses a Big Issue -- Science versus Religion -- in a way that Americans can feel good about. Spirituality is affirmed, Scientists are redeemed, and we therefore have an Intelligent Movie (tm). I do recommend this movie (I do, I do), but I want to make it clear that it's a Hollywood film, and that the reviewer who called it the "Best Film of the Decade" has either only seen Van Damme movies for the past 7 years, or is the same one who called "Batman" the "Movie of the decade" back in 1991. The Big Issue is addressed in typical fashion: religion is presented in either its full Southern Baptist moral rigidity caricature, or it is somewhat soft peddled, used more to highlight the spiritual hole in Foster's heart than to express its own tenets. This soft-peddled, comforting spirituality is there to provide background and meaning to her affirmations, and to launch her on a climatic leap of faith. The Big Issue is not explored beyond this. In any case, the gist of the film is that, perhaps like Helen Hunt's tornado chaser in "Twister", Jodie Foster's character is determined to make contact with intelligent life in far away places. There are childhood scenes, where she plays with the short wave, and makes contact with Pensacola, FL. While her father wasn't sucked up by a F-5 twister (nor was her sister abducted by the Cancer Man), Foster's drive is similarly made flinty by the death of her father. In later life, declining tenure-track teaching posts, she goes down the path of "fringe science" and spends her time searching the skies using the big radio telescopes your tax dollars have made possible. This search is ridiculed, it's funding cut off; the National Science Foundation director thinks the whole thing is hokum. Eventually, after scrounging for funds, she's able to continue her research, and is on hand to find a radio signal from the star Vega. The signal is clearly artificial and of intelligent design: it beats out the prime numbers, speaking in the universal language of mathematics. When the signal is clearly established and monitored, it increases the quantity of information by mimicking our television broadcasts (no, ET doesn't send back the O.J. Trial, with the caption "He did it," stenciled in the image). We get a blueprint for making a vessel capable of sending one human on a journey (proving that ET has watched "This Old House"). We go out and build the thing (please note that $300 billion is a good 4% of American GDP, and apt to be missed somewhere). Jodie, of course, takes the trip, and echoing David Bowman in "2001", we experience awe and wonder, and she is marvelous expressing this awe and wonder. The meat of this film is the intertwining of Science and Spirituality. The Science of the film is presented as a cold atheism whose practitioners demand hard facts to justify belief. Belief without facts is discounted. But such Science is an spiritual desert: Foster is emotionally incomplete until she has a "religious" experience in traveling to the center of the galaxy. Science, in this film, is presented as out of touch with 95% of the people on earth, despite, say, the real life example of Einstein, who believed in both god and relativity, without the exclusion of the other, and in complement of each other. As said, there is a reconciliation of Science and Spirituality at the end, but this reconciliation feels a little like a capitulation of rationality and hard thinking. (Note: I'm under the impression that the book goes into more detail about god. Apparently, the book talks about "circles in pi" as evidence for the existence of god, the creator of the universe basically putting his signature into the fundamental fabric of the cosmos. Arguably, if there were images embedded into transcendental numbers or into Planck's Constant, it'd say, "Intel Inside" or "Win95 Compatible". Note that "circles in pi" would not constitute proof of god. It would be a non-sequitor, and not evidence of design.) I'm being nitpicky, but sending along the instructions for building a vehicle is not sufficient for us to construct such a thing. The technology may not exist to make, say, steel of sufficient strength and lightness. People of the 1850s may comprehend the architectural schema of the Empire State building, but they would not be able to execute it. Also, I'd argue that being able to build a vehicle of this scale would to a fair degree tell us how it works. This isn't quite assembly: we're required to manufacture the bits and pieces first. And, as said, $300 billion is a whopping big piece of change. The aliens are much like the Vulcans of the Star Trek Borg movie. They're benign, mainly interested in telling us that We Are Not Alone in person (though, arguably, sending the primes in a radio transmission would be sufficient to prove intelligence), and to help us in our next step in development. Perhaps, like in Star Trek, we're redeemed by the knowledge of a universe teeming with life, enlightened and willing to put aside our petty squabbles, though that is only a hint at the end. And it's a relief to see aliens who aren't not out to blow up New York, only to get creamed by a well-placed Macintosh virus and an American President ready and able to kick some ass. The popular butchering of Occam's Razor continues. The first mention of the Razor in this film was acceptable, if not quite correct; more than anything else, the Razor is just a statement favoring parsimony in explanations, an exhortion not to multiply entities. (Though I was surprised that a seminary student, interested in the interaction of science and religion, would not have heard of it. But then, he was trying to pick up Jodie at a party, so I guess he was thinking, "I'll just sit here and nod.") The second mention was just damn stupid: we are to accept that a conspiracy theory conforms better to the Razor because such a theory would preclude contact with extraterrestrial intelligence. But, as presented in the film, contact is a far more parsimonious explanation. I suppose that in the film maker's mind, the Razor always excludes ETs. True, it's used to demolish "UFOs did it" arguments in real life (as well as any number of conspiracy theories, for that matter), but that's because there are better explanations than ETs for pretty much all UFO sightings (e.g., "I was drunk"). (Crop circles are a wonderful example: which is a more parsimonious explanation, aliens came down and traipsed around in a wheat field, or a bunch of drunk frat boys decided to play a prank?) A string of prime numbers being transmitted on the frequency of pi times a fundamental property of hydrogen, and coming from 26 light years out (and this distance cannot be faked because of parallax) can only lead to one sensible conclusion. One last thing I found interesting: at one point in the film, Foster is required to have faith, to believe despite evidence to the contrary. We, as an audience, are in a small way also required to have a moment of faith, to believe or not. But, for us, this is a Hollywood test of faith: it is an easy test, and, to top it off, we are given proof. It would have been more interesting if we had to choose between equally sympathetic points of view, and if our choice had not been validated at the end. That proof and faith may be contradictory apparently escaped the film's notice. (This review isn't as good as I'd like it to be, but I'm not sure how to fix it. The interaction of science and religion is something I've given some brain power to, so this film _did_ wander into old dark corners of my intellectual attic. I lean towards the harder Martin Gardener style of skepticism, and believe that there are arguments that can be dismissed out of hand. But I do not preclude the existence of god or any such; that simply is a question that cannot be addressed by science. More, if there is a god, then either god is embodied in physical law, or that you must subscribe to the Church of Last Thursday (i.e., the universe was created last Thursday, with an appearance of looking 15 billion years old). I think in the end, I was hoping for a more rigorous argument in the film. Oh, whatever. You have the review.) From rec.arts.sf.reviews Tue Jul 6 13:01:40 1999 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Paul McElligott Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.movies.past-films,rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 3 Jul 1999 16:28:13 GMT Organization: EarthLink Network, Inc. Lines: 153 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <7lldmt$12u2$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer04.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 931019293 35778 (None) 140.142.17.39 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #19179 Keywords: author=mcelligott X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer04.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:18386 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2392 CONTACT a review by Paul McElligott Rating: 7 out of 10 prime numbers Contact is a nobly intentioned but ultimately unsatisfying adaptation of Carl Sagan's only novel. It details the circumstances surrounding the first clear sign of intelligent life in outer space and their effects on the life of a young and idealistic radio astronomer named Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster). We first meet Ellie at a giant radio telescope in Puerto Rico, where she is part of the SETI (Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) project. Her research is quickly killed, however, by her highly political David Drumlin (Tom Skerrit), who disdains "pure research" in favor of science with "commercial applications. She goes in search of private funding and is turned down at every step until she pitches her project to a corporation run by the mysterious S.R. Hadden (John Hurt). Then, with that money just about to finally dry up, Ellie is sitting out in the desert near the Very Large Array in New Mexico when she hears over her headphones a very powerful pulsing radio signal. In the movie's most exciting and believable sequence, Ellie and her coworkers determine that the signal has to be coming from the star Vega. At first the signal appears to be just sequences of prime numbers, then it turns out to be a TV signal of the Berlin Olympics bounced back to Earth from 50 years before. Further decoding, with Hadden's help, reveals another layer to message, containing detailed plans for a massive and complex machine. It appears that the machine is a transport that will allow one person to travel to the aliens' home world. Of course, the big question becomes "Who gets to ride it?" (right after "Who's gonna pay for this thing?"). To boil it down, Ellie gets denied the seat in the machine because she bluntly acknowledges her atheism, while Drumlin gets to go because he rather insincerely professes his deep religious faith. Drumlin is killed and the machine destroyed when religious fanatics bomb the launch platform (apparently to keep "godless science" from talking to god, or something like that). Then Hadden reappears with startling news. He has secretly constructed a second machine off the coast of Japan and has reserved the ride for Ellie, in whom he has taken a rather paternal interest. Ellie boards the machine and is transported through some kind of wormhole to a dream-like place that looks a lot like Waikiki Beach before they built the hotels, where she meets the aliens who take the form of her late father (David Morse). When she returns home, no one believes her. She was not even gone for one second, they say, even though she remembers being gone for 18 hours. Her story is officially discredited, although believed by a large segment of the public (who don't even have to know that her computer records of the trip contain nothing but static . . . eighteen hours worth of static). There is a lot to like about Contact so I will highlight those points first. Ellie Arroway is a well-rounded character portrayed by one of the best actresses currently working. Neither the character nor the performance has the same depth as Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs, but that's a tough standard to meet. Ellie is interesting in that she is woman defined by a strange array of father figures. Her real father is an idealized movie Dad who does nothing in the film but love his daughter unconditionally. Drumlin comes across as a distant stepfather to whom Ellie is like an irritating teenager who wants to use his toys to get into trouble. Hadden obviously has affection for Ellie, but in the end he seems to see her as his creation, nothing more than his favorite piece on the chess board. Even Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), Ellie's love interest, takes a paternalistic interest in Ellie, seeing her as a misguided person who needs protection from her own impulses. The film is technically impressive, especially in the scenes where the message is first received and during the destruction of the first machine. The part of the film dealing with the message has the best presentation of real science in a film since The Andromeda Strain. The film falls apart when dealing with its central theme, the dichotomy between science and religion. This is a very real debate but Contact boils it down to a simplistic level that never really touches on the actual issues involved. The film presents science pretty well (until the end) so the real problem stems from it presentation of religious faith. Religious people are presented as shallow caricatures. Rob Lowe plays a Ralph Reed clone named Richard Rank (very subtle, guys), the voice of the religious right. Another religious figure is the fanatic who blows up the first machine (Jake Busey). The only really fleshed-out religious person, Palmer Joss, is supposed to be a minister of some sort, but his actual faith is left pretty vague. I can't even say for certain that he was supposed to be a Christian. All we know is that he dropped out of the seminary and obviously has no qualms about pre-marital sex. The film drops the science ball at the very end, when Ellie appears to assert that there are some things even scientists must take on faith. In a day and age when the theory of evolution is denounced by the religion right as an atheist "religious" doctrine, this is exactly the wrong message to send. In a movie dealing with issues of science and faith, the last thing you want your scientist character to do is abandon the principle of scientific skepticism. What Ellie should have said was, "You shouldn't believe me. Not without evidence, and I don't have the evidence. I know what happened but you shouldn't take my word alone." That is the voice of science speaking. The character of David Drumlin is another problem with this film. His attitudes toward pure research project seem out of place for a person in his position. Also, his profession of "faith" before the selection committee is so nakedly and transparently insincere that only a pack of idiots should have fallen for it. The last big problem is with the use of real personalities in various roles. The media figures, such as Bernard Shaw and Jay Leno aren't so bad, in as much as their participation was voluntary. The use of Bill Clinton, however, should give anyone pause. First of all, lifting the image of a sitting head of state and inserting him into a fictional story line, thus using his words outside of the context in which they were spoken, is just plain creepy. Also, using the real president places this film between 1993 and 2001, forever dating it. People watching this film in the future will say, "Hey, this never took place during Clinton's term." This bit of unreality will jar people out of their suspension of disbelief. Also, the level of technology portrayed in the film is too advanced to take place before the first decade of the next century. Better to have had a fictitious president played by an actor or no president at all. The film does raise an interesting question, although it never develops it in a satisfying way. If we were picking an emissary to send to an alien culture, would an atheist be automatically disqualified just because ninety percent of the population of the world professes a belief in God, or at least some form of supernatural creator? Personally, I would hope not, since religion is basically an opinion, a form of ideology. I would not want any form of ideological test for such an import task. -- Paul McElligott http://home.earthlink.net/~plmcelligott "Subvert the dominant paradigm" From rec.arts.sf.reviews Wed Nov 17 12:46:41 1999 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!nntp.primenet.com!nntp.gctr.net!logbridge.uoregon.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: Eugene Xia Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 17 Nov 1999 07:34:50 GMT Organization: None Lines: 60 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <80tlqq$sle$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer29.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 942824090 29358 (None) 140.142.17.39 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #21498 Keywords: author=xia X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer29.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:20707 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2503 Retrospective: Contact (1997) By Eugene Z. Xia This is a 3 star film. I am beginning to feel the power of Hollywood and understand why its films are so successful around the world. Much of it is formula writing, yet it all works so well. When Arroway first heard the pining (very loud in the background) of the signal from Vega, the film's tempo went into high gears and I really felt the excitement. While my heart was pounding rapidly and cheering her on, a very distant and annoying part of my brain kept telling me: Here comes Hollywood "adrenaline formula 22". Then there is also the Spielberg "magic wonder ET formula" complete with sappy tear jerking yet completely harmless music. Foster did a very good job and so did the girl who played the young Arroway, but the rest are stereotypical--the paranoid government fonctionaires, your typical run of the mill villains who get their just dessert and the Raph Reed character carefully balanced by the spiritual boyfriend (but would you want to buy a used car from this guy?). Sometimes this sort of formula writing can be quite vicious. I remember the first time I watched Kieslowski's Blue. When Julie locked herself out at night, my automatic reaction was, "Oh oh, she is going to get attacked by the hoodlums". When that didn't happen, I realized that in the real world, most people don't get attacked when they are locked out of their apartments. That was when I realized that I had watched too many Hollywood films. At the same time, in my opinion, the most effective sequence is the one when Arroway stood in the control room watching the on going test process completely helpless and useless being reduced to a mere decoration. Much of the dialogue about science and religion offers no more insight than the endless and tiresome debates that have been going on among college freshmen and the film would have been better off without it. When one strips away all this juvenile nonsense, one is left with a story of a woman obsessed with her childhood grief and refuses to grow up. Sort of like an adult version of Ponette. The ending is definitely a religious one (Hollywood can't really afford to alienate 90% of the population). After delivering a speech of faith, Arroway walks out of the Capital and found herself the next messiah or at least the next great prophet. Despite my somewhat harsh critique above, I highly recommend the film. Contrary to what you have heard, it is not a thinking person's movie although I will stop short of telling you to check your brain at the door. It offers you great entertainment while you are in the theater, but isn't terribly deep upon reflexion. From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon May 15 12:49:16 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.ida.liu.se!newsfeed.sunet.se!news01.sunet.se!newsfeed1.telenordia.se!news.algonet.se!algonet!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: James Sanford Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 12 May 2000 22:14:28 GMT Organization: EarthLink Inc. -- http://www.EarthLink.net Lines: 57 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8fhvo4$7oo$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer23.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 958169668 7960 (None) 140.142.17.37 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #24463 Keywords: author=sanford X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer23.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:23521 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2700 ``Contact'' is certain to inspire dozens of questions, but one immediately springs to mind: Why can't director Robert Zemeckis release a film every July? His mid-summer movies have long been a welcome vacation from what's traditionally the season of brainlessness. Five years ago this month his deliciously bitter ``Death Becomes Her'' debuted, and in 1994 his ``Forrest Gump'' turned a worthless book into a Best Picture winner. Both of those films relied heavily on gimmicks: In ``Death,'' Oscar-winning special-effects put a gaping hole through Goldie Hawn, while ``Gump'' employed computer imagery to put Tom Hanks at the scene of practically every major event in recent American history except the Moon landing. Despite its otherworldly set-up, ``Contact'' looks unflashy by comparison. Somewhat freely adapted from astronomer Carl Sagan's best seller, the film uses the search for intelligent extraterrestial life as the springboard for a thought-provoking exploration of the age-old conflict of religion versus science, and faith vs. physical evidence. On one side is radio astronomer Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster), who's spent years listening to space static, waiting for some sort of signal to emerge. Her obsessiveness has made her something of a laughingstock: Even her boss asks her if she's ``still waiting for E.T to call.'' Representing the other side of the argument is Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), referred to in some circles as ``God's diplomat'' and a high-level spiritual leader who advises even the president. In a move unusual for Hollywood, Joss is not written as a holier-than-thou hypocrite or a God-fearing bumpkin, but as a science-savvy intellectual who knows how to argue. A creepy zealot, who's a dead ringer for '70s rocker Edgar Winter, represents the more extreme end of the spectrum. The build-up of the film is exceptionally well written, as ``Contact'' gives us two attractive adults who actually discuss issues and concepts instead of trading coy double entendres. Even potential cliches such as the paranoid national security adviser (a taut James Woods) and a billionaire recluse (played as a sly enigma by John Hurt) take on some resonance, thanks to the stylishness of the script. Though she initially seems a none-too-balanced flake, Ellie evolves into a brave woman, desperate to bridge the galactic gap, and Foster is just about without peer when it comes to portraying earthy idealists. McConaughey, in a part that's smaller than his billing would indicate, invests Palmer with charm and a certain degree of credibility. There's an intriguing friction between Palmer and Ellie that both McConaughey and Foster are obviously in tune with, and they make philosophical debate seem mighty sexy. Despite the best cinematic lightshow since ``2001: A Space Odyssey,'' the crucial encounter proves to be dramatically unfulfilling, the only part of the picture that doesn't deliver. But screenwriters James V. Hart and Michael Goldenberg rebound with a crowd-pleasing final twist perfectly suited to the movie's generally understated tone. James Sanford From rec.arts.sf.reviews Mon May 15 12:49:25 2000 Path: news.ifm.liu.se!news.lth.se!feed2.news.luth.se!luth.se!fu-berlin.de!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!news.u.washington.edu!grahams From: skad13@my-deja.com (Steven Bailey) Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.reviews,rec.arts.sf.reviews Subject: Retrospective: Contact (1997) Followup-To: rec.arts.sf.movies Date: 13 May 2000 00:18:34 GMT Organization: Deja.com - Before you buy. Lines: 62 Approved: graham@ee.washington.edu Message-ID: <8fi70q$9cg$1@nntp3.u.washington.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: homer27.u.washington.edu X-Trace: nntp3.u.washington.edu 958177114 9616 (None) 140.142.17.35 X-Complaints-To: help@cac.washington.edu NNTP-Posting-User: grahams Summary: r.a.m.r. #24519 Keywords: author=bailey X-Questions-to: movie-rev-mod@www.ee.washington.edu X-Submissions-to: movie-reviews@www.ee.washington.edu Originator: grahams@homer27.u.washington.edu Xref: news.ifm.liu.se rec.arts.movies.reviews:23586 rec.arts.sf.reviews:2703 After seeing Jodie Foster wasted in piffle such as Sommersby and Maverick, I worred that the gloriously intelligent actress from The Accused and Little Man Tate might be gone for good. But she's back, in a vehicle worthy of her extraordinary gifts: Robert Zemeckis's Contact, a movie that also marks the return of ideas to a junk-food summer of cinema. Based on Carl Sagan's novel, Contact sports the latest special effects (including a visit from President Clinton a la Zemeckis's Forrest Gump.) But it hardly matters, because as Ellie Arroway, Foster is the movie's best special effect. Whether she's in a love scene or on a trip to outer space, there's not a moment where you don't believe Foster is really living it. Ellie has been sending radio signals into space since she was a kid--first on ham radios, then later on satellite dishes. She's not sure where or why she's sending them--she's just driven to do it. But as an adult astronomer, she's thwarted at every turn by David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt), her former mentor. When Ellie's work yields nothing, Drumlin shuts off her funding; when Ellie's signals start getting replies, he hogs all of the credit. We've read for years about smart females who know the answers in math class but, when they raise their hands, are overlooked in favor of the male students. Those males grow up to be David Drumlin. Drumlin is dashing, knows just enough to get by, and has all of the smart answers (just not the right ones). And for a while, the story appears to be a contest between the outspoken woman and Mr. All-American. But Contact never gets that cliched--its twists are fresh and entirely plausible. It even takes on some philosophical issues, and happily, it does not cop out on any of them. Suffice to say, the outcome is a refreshing antidote to no-brainers such as Men in Black, where anything alien exists only to be zapped. And for once, Zemeckis's ensemble work overshadows his effects stunts. Foster, Skerritt, Matthew McConaughey (who, if there was any doubt left about his star power, erases it here), James Woods, and Angela Bassett all shine. The best surprise is an unheralded actress named Jena Malone. As the young Ellie, she makes you see how the ache is this inquisitive child's heart turns her into the ultimate stargazer. Contact makes you believe in its miracles--or at least, in the miracle of Jodie Foster's intuitive acting. Pragmatic Ellie comes to experience a revelation, and thanks to Foster, so do we. Contact is rated PG for a few unfortunate swear words. I say unfortunate because other than that, there's no reason any thoughtful youngster of school age shouldn't be encouraged to see this wonderful movie. Submitted by: Steven Bailey http://pages.hotbot.com/movies/skad13 Steven Bailey, a movie reviewer for The Beaches Leader newspaper in Jacksonville Beach, Florida, has movie reviews posted in The Internet Movie Database at: http://www.imdb.com/M/reviews_by?Steven+Bailey Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.