Contact is a science fiction film about an encounter with alien intelligence. Based on the novel by Carl Sagan the film starred Jodie Foster as the one chosen scientist who must make some difficult decisions between her beliefs, the truth, and reality.
- Category:Action, Drama, Mystery, Sci-Fi, Thriller
- Stars:Jena Malone, Matthew McConaughey, William Fichtner, Rob Lowe, , ,
- Director:Robert Zemeckis,
Dr. Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) races to interpret a possible message originating from the Vega star system while others, including politicians, the military, religious leaders and other scientists such as Drumlin, try to take over her work. . You can read more in Google, Youtube, Wiki
Contact torrent reviews
(de) wrote: Interesting mix of heart, humor and love.
(gb) wrote: I found this movie to be rather bland. If you're reading this review right now you'll be thinking about how I didn't read the book and that it goes into further detail there, but I did read the book and I enjoyed it. I found the movie very unfaithful to the book's storyline, the acting was definitely overdone and when I watched it, it really wasn't engaging at all. I do not recommended to watch, a waste of time. The monsters are poorly animated and overall not a good movie.
(it) wrote: Just because I am not a Christian doesn't mean that I can't recognize the good moral lessons that religions, like Christianity, teach. In fact, I have been a huge fan of the Veggie Tales cartoons since their inception. My kids are too! So when the long, long, long-awaited Jonah: A Veggie Tales Movie was finally released, needless to say, we were first in line. The humor, music and downright magical way Big Idea Productions pulls off such fables while remaining entertaining to both adults (even non-religious ones, like me) and children, asstounds me. It always has. Veggie Tales has become a marketing phenomenon with a myriad of toys, games, videos, CDs, etc. Can Big Idea succeed in the movie industry as well with a Christian-based cartoon? As much as I love these guys, I'm afraid not.I was really excited about seeing this movie, believe it or not. I looked forward to reviewing it as well. I seriously point to the Veggie Tales series as an example that I, a non-religious person, can appreciate a well-told story and entertaining cast, even if they are religion-based. To top it off, my kids have always loved them and learned a lot through them. It was only fitting that we patronize the theater in support of this feature film. With popcorn and soda in-hand, we sat down for the relatively short 1:23 production. Animation-wise, it's just as clever as ever. the 3-D computer animated food characters are superb. The comedy is rich, the characters are cute and the meaning is memorable. However, stretching out the story of Jonah and the whale into a feature-length film was entirely too much for this Veggie Tales fan to handle.I knew something was wrong when my 2 year-old, notorious for staring at the television and reciting the dialogue in several cartoons word-for-word (you think we let him watch too much TV?), started getting bored. Yes sir, Big Idea's big idea to move to the big screen was a mistake. Nothing about Jonah was spectacular enough to warrant big screen treatment. In fact, I wonder if Jonah's constant release postponement was due to the fact that executives struggled with whether or not to release it in the theaters, an untested market, versus home video, an already proven market for Big Idea, for such a mild, lackluster feature.If you know the story of Jonah and the whale and are Veggie Tales fans, I still urge you to wait until home video. Save your popcorn and soda budget for something less expensive, like college tuition. I predict Jonah will make its paltry $14 budget back, and then some, considering how full the theater was this weekend. But I predict massive drop-off next week, resulting in most of its money coming from the home video market, where it should have been in the first place. Nice try Big Idea, but Jonah wasn't much of a GOOD idea.
(br) wrote: THE ISLAND AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD is all too reflective of the Disney Studios' situation in the 70s; there is a general sense of missed opportunity, and wasted potential--and an attempt to recapture past glories. It wants to be another 20,000 LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA, but unequivocally isn't. Despite the intriguing premise and occasional flashes of quality, it never truly thrills, and while it is never less than watchable, and generally enjoyable, it is a let-down. What went wrong here? It may have at least started with budget limitations. The special effects are wildly uneven, and while the airship "Hyperion", central to the adventure, is reasonably well-realized, a volcanic eruption late in the film is laughably unconvincing, and too many sights that should have been awe-inspiring are simply matte paintings, and obvious ones at that. But that doesn't explain an even greater failing of the film: its failure to really make use of its premise. The film centers around a lost Viking colony in the Arctic which has endured, unknown to the world, for a millennium, yet the possibilities of this (unique technology, unique social qualities) are ignored, and the characters may as well have gone through a time-warp. But far more frustrating is the lack of attention given to the Vikings themselves. We never really get a sense of who they are, or what they're like, and the film rushes through the basic plot points without developing any of the Vikings (save one young woman who knows English and is an interpreter/love interest) as real characters. The lack of depth would have been forgivable if the film was really thrilling, but the obviously fake effects, and a lack of any real sense of urgency weaken it further. That the lost Vikings speak in un-subtitled Icelandic (and one in Swedish), which other characters must translate, doesn't really help matters, and the Vikings feel like props.Strangely, for all the apparent budget-cutting, the film also feels wasteful at times. The Viking's village, which appears to be a full set (or at least part of one), appears for only a couple of shots; sets of Edwardian England are seen (they may be leftover from previous films), and are almost immediately left behind. The film earned an Oscar nomination for its sets, yet many of the sets are seen only briefly; it should be noted that the film has far too many shots of characters' faces reacting to events that we should be seeing for ourselves. At the very least, a moment like the discovery of the Whales' Graveyard should be haunting and awe-inspiring. But it, too, is only fleeting, and the possibilities of this vast field of carcasses and bones are never realized.Yet for all this, the film still maintains the interest, for the most part. The core idea is a good one, and there are moments that do suggest what the film could have been: the mystical final shot, with the characters disappearing into the fog; the fleeting glimpses of the Whales' Graveyard, which ARE memorable, brief though they are; the bombastic Gunnar Ohlund as the Godi, the Vikings' high priest (and ultimately the antagonist); and Maurice Jarre's effective score.The performances are solid, and if Donald Hartman, as an archaeologist enlisted to help with the expedition, seems way too much like a tour guide (and doesn't feel like a man of the turn of the century), he is at least likable; Donald Sinden fares better as the British aristocrat whose desire to find his son is palpably moving, and who even pulls off the "upper-crust fish out of water" routine well. Jacques Marin, as the airship pilot Brieux, is a bit too much the classic French stereotype, but he's passable; Mako, unfortunately, as an Eskimo whose connection to Sinden's son induces the expedition to kidnap him, has little to actually do, and his role is rather embarrassing at times--his comic moments of fear are especially awkward, and the patronizing tone the other characters take to him leaves a bad taste in the mouth.David Gwillim is decent as Sinden's son, and Agneta Eckemyr, as the young Viking woman he loves, is fairly appealing; Ohlund has some good moments of raging villainy, but as his character has no shading or depth, he merely reminds us of what might have been.Robert Stevenson's direction is uninspired, suggesting a lack of enthusiasm for the material; John Whedon's screenplay (from a novel by Ian Cameron) is well-enough written, but feels as though much of its heart was cut out--possibly a result of budget cuts, which may also explain Stevenson's lackluster direction. Peter Ellenshaw's production design and matte paintings are sporadically effective, but aren't really seen to their best advantage; Frank V. Phillips' cinematography is functional at best.At just 94 minutes, THE ISLAND AT THE TOP OF THE WORLD often feels rushed; another 20 minutes would have kept the film at a reasonable length (20,000 LEAGUES was a full half-hour longer), and could have given the story room to breathe properly. But it generally feels like the rough sketch for what could have been a really fine adventure story.
(us) wrote: Episodic film chronicling the various ways in which women use sex to their advantage. The film is helmed by Italian Neorealist maestro Vittorio de Sica, but this film is certainly a far cry from the Neorealist movement. The beautiful Sophia Loren plays three different women in three separate stories. The male who is tormented by her in each is the great Marcello Mastroianni. The first segment about a woman avoiding prison because she is pregnant is the least interesting and slowest (also the longest) but the following parts are outstanding - particularly the second installment where Loren plays a cheating rich wife who just seems to hit every car she comes across while driving. The striptease in the final section is justly famous. Of course, the film would have been far more daring in its day, it is still wonderfully crafted with Italy's greatest moviestars. Academy Award winner for Best Foreign Language Film in 1964.
(ca) wrote: A Mexican classic that is splendidly campy! I adore the artifice and exaggerated drag make up and costume.
(ru) wrote: "Radio Days" is another masterpiece for Woody Allen. This film, about the a family's life living in the 40's as it touches on the Golden Age of radio, is a movie about nostalgia. It's about the past and what makes the past memorable. Through wonderful performances by an ensemble cast of Mia Farrow, Seth Green, Diane Wiest, Josh Mostel, Michael Tucker, and Julie Kavner, the characters are each unique and identifiable. The contrast created by the characters and their personalities, mixed with the normally witty dialogue of Woody Allen add in additional laughs to the already entertaining picture. I personally loved the beautiful cinematography, and exceptional costume design. The mood Woody Allen and Carlo Di Palma create is memorizing, utterly brilliant. The whole film is a wonderful experience, witnessing a man's past through his sentimental recollection.
(de) wrote: Brilliant. Remember it like yesterday (God I'm old!!)