mj.Jernigan This is the movie where scientists are smarter than God during most of the film but all of them turn into total idiots during the final scenes. I still like the movie a lot but the plot holes keep it from getting more stars -- and it probably doesn't deserve as many as I just now gave it. No proof? Particularly, considering the type of scientist Dr. Arroway is, I give her a 0% chance that she would not have insisted on picking through all the static that her camera picked up during her journey. After all, isn't that what they did with the original signal? Pick through static trying to find meaning? Thus, it would have taken her more no more than a few moments to discover that she had 18 hours of static and that was proof enough of the alternate timeline. Broken chair. The engineers would have tested that chair design over and over to see why it failed. They would have examined the broken materials for flaws and who knows what else. They would have examined the video for evidence of unusual stresses. They would have likely found no explanation for why it broke under the known forces... or how she got out of it and her armor so fast. Occam's razor. The idea that Hadden was somehow brilliant and rich enough to pull this off as a hoax is ludicrous. He would have to be either a god himself to have done it single-handedly, or it would have taken thousands of people many years to pull it off. Conspiracies with too many people never stay secret. I don't know which is least plausible: designing a flawless giant machine (either untested or somehow hiding all the testing) loaded with new technology (such as a magically sealing door) that generates an amazing light and EM show; or somehow outmaneuvering all the radio telescopes on the planet with satellites (that no one bothered to look for) as the Earth rotates on its axis as well as orbiting the Sun (those would be some highly-maneuverable satellites) while broadcasting a fake signal in sync to anything looking at Vega. Occam's razor looks to be pointing away from Hadden to me.

classicsoncall I don't doubt that someday, probably not during my lifetime, but someday, we will eventually make contact with beings from a planet or universe beyond our own. I do subscribe to the belief that out of all the infinite and limitless yada, yada, yada, that there's some kind of intelligence out there. However I don't think it will occur via a captured video transmission of Hitler opening the 1936 Olympics. Just a little of my own input on that.I didn't expect this movie to take the tack that it did with such a strong religion versus science undercurrent. It was prevalent throughout and was the basis on which Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) was disqualified from taking part in the original 'Machine' mission; she didn't believe in God. A couple decades down the road from when this picture was made, her position probably would have made her a most likely candidate. I don't know if there's a place for faith to work hand in hand with science, but if one believes in a God as a Supreme Being, there's probably some leeway to acknowledge both disciplines.The film had sort of a Twilight Zone type ending when one of the NASA administrators stated that Ellie's video recording on her ride through the wormholes had eighteen hours of static. Though the point is made with the viewer for a bit of an ironic twist, apparently Dr. Arroway wasn't told about it, at least not the way the film implied. That seemed to be a gross deception, but oddly supports the fact that she received even more additional funding to carry on her SETI research, even while most of her scientific testimony seemed to be disregarded. The dichotomy there bothered me.I was curious about the use of Bill Clinton's image in the story, commenting on the Vega discovery. Shortly after the movie's release, the Clinton White House complained about the use of a taped news conference from 1996 where he was talking about a rock that was believed to have come from Mars. Though the footage was obviously used apart from it's original context, the matter went no further and the film was not re-edited to remove the questionable scene. Knowing now what we do about the Clinton's obsessive regard for money, it's possible that the reason the President was so upset was because he wasn't paid to appear in the movie.

ModishPictures After reading Roger Ebert's "Great Movie" review of this and hearing from others that it was the new 2001: A Space Odyssey, I had very high expectations for this film. While Roger Ebert's review was very well-written and many of his points were accurate, the film was a let-down and does not at all achieve the greatness that many have claimed it has.It has an interesting concept to begin with. A young girl fascinated by communication gets to use her passion to pursue something beyond Earth. The first part of the film and the set up is interesting and adequate, but the film crumbles in on itself when Matthew McConaughey's character is introduced and the film becomes sloppy, boring, and dumb. His character is supposed to contrast ideologically with Jodie Foster's Ellie Arroway. Since this is a PG-rated film and can't not be cliche, they naturally have to fall in love for a short time despite an astounding lack of emotional connection and interest in their "relationship." His character comes back later on in a dumb, un-creative, and annoying way just to add conflict and "depth" to the story/characters -- even though it doesn't. The story has its high points and it has its low points. It does manage -- at times -- to match 2001: A Space Odyssey's visual effects and intriguing concepts, but then returns to the human world and reverses any smart themes or messages back into the dumb "faith vs. proof" argument. The way that this message is executed is poor and takes away from the greater story of space exploration and contact with other-worldly beings. Instead of extending the story and creating a new aspect of debate and discussion, the film is distinctly divided between its religious/scientific message and its 2001-like grandness of space. Perhaps if this film went for a less realistic approach and focused more on the smart themes of space exploration while also exploring the psyche of its main character, it could have been considered a classic more on par with 2001: A Space Odyssey. In the end, I can't recommend this film because it ends up pandering to younger audiences by dumbing-down its themes and topics that alienates (pun intended) audiences in search of a smarter, more mature film. 2/5 stars.

pbellko People that talk about "dumb religiosity" in this movie really miss the point. It is not religious in the slightest, rather it includes a sweeping panorama of the tension between science and religion, whilst skewing the horrendous evil of human greed and the truth of how we're all charged with coping with our seeming separateness. It's a beautiful work of art, one of my top three movies ever. Spine-tingling line of the movie - John Hurt to Jodie Foster; "wanna take a ride?"