--- title: "Contact" year: 1997 kind: "film" canonical: "https://film.one/film/contact" fi1m_id: "contact" imdb_id: "tt0118884" tmdb_id: 686 wikidata_id: "Q270215" fi1m_score: 76 critics_score: 63 critics_reviews: 7 published: "2026-09-13" updated: "2026-09-18T08:37:50.856730+00:00" region: "US" licence: "© Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL." --- # Contact (1997) Directed by Robert Zemeckis · 2h 30m · MPA PG · Drama, Science Fiction, Mystery ## Identity Contact - **Canonical:** https://film.one/film/contact - **Type:** Film - **Fi1m ID:** contact - **IMDb ID:** tt0118884 - **TMDB ID:** 686 - **Wikidata ID:** Q270215 - **Same entity:** https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0118884/, https://www.themoviedb.org/movie/686, https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q270215 **Fi1m score: 76** · Critics 63 from 7 reviews *In a sentence:* Jodie Foster hears something from space, and we wish everyone else would stop talking > Jodie Foster gives Robert Zemeckis’s thoughtful science fiction a persuasive urgency. The discovery is exciting enough to justify a long evening, though the repeated speeches about science and belief could have been shorter. ## Synopsis Ellie Arroway (Jodie Foster) becomes caught up in the possibility of contact with life beyond Earth. The detection of an alien signal raises questions about what people can know, what they believe and how they respond to something outside human experience. Around her are Palmer Joss (Matthew McConaughey), David Drumlin (Tom Skerritt) and Michael Kitz (James Woods). Scientific enquiry becomes entangled with religious belief as the search for answers continues, with Ellie at the centre of the debate. Robert Zemeckis directs this adaptation of Carl Sagan’s novel. ## Review Robert Zemeckis’s *Contact* is good, serious science fiction, made less satisfying by its determination to explain why it is serious. Adapting Carl Sagan’s novel, screenwriters James V. Hart and Michael Goldenberg treat the possibility of alien contact as something that might unsettle beliefs as well as enlarge scientific knowledge. That gives the film plenty to consider, and a good deal worth watching. The trouble is that it keeps turning those considerations into speeches long after we have understood the point. Jodie Foster, as Ellie Arroway, makes the enquiry matter before the screenplay has finished explaining its importance. Her concentration gives the search an urgency that does not depend on somebody reminding us how much is at stake. We were gripped by the detection of the alien signal, because Foster makes the act of listening feel physically demanding. There is excitement here in somebody paying close attention, and the film is at its most convincing when it lets that be enough. The opening earns its sense of wonder without immediately asking us to debate it. Don Burgess’s cinematography keeps images of enormous scale clear and readable, so we have time to look rather than merely register another effect. Ed Verreaux’s production design makes the scientific surroundings look practical and usable, helping us accept the more speculative material. Zemeckis allows these images time to hold our attention, and the effects remain convincing under that scrutiny. Hart and Goldenberg are less sure-footed when scientific enquiry and religious belief have to be discussed aloud. The questions are worth asking, but too many exchanges sound as though their conclusions were settled before the characters began speaking. Foster can make an idea feel like an urgent personal concern; elsewhere, the supporting characters too often seem to have been assigned a position and told to defend it. The earnestness is welcome, though it does not make every conversation interesting. Arthur Schmidt’s editing finds a persuasive rhythm for the signal’s discovery, but cannot disguise how much of the surrounding film repeats itself. At 150 minutes, *Contact* asks for more patience than its conversations consistently earn, and the stretches between the visual set pieces can drag. Alan Silvestri’s score adds to that insistence when it urges us towards awe that the images have already prompted. Some restraint in the music would have left more space for our own response. Still, we would not trade its curiosity for a brisker film that regarded alien contact as an excuse to start shooting. *Contact* is willing to spend time on the difficulty of accepting something unfamiliar, and it takes scientific enquiry seriously enough to make discovery exciting. Its willingness to entertain spiritual questions is not, in itself, a fault. We can consider those questions without being talked through every possible implication, which is where Zemeckis needs to trust his audience more. For those who like their science fiction curious and unhurried, the flaws are worth accepting. The running time is a real caveat, particularly for anyone hoping the discovery will bring an end to the discussions. Choose it for an evening when listening to a mysterious signal sounds like entertainment, and nobody needs an early night. *Fi1m score 76, published 13 September 2026.* ## What the critics say The reviews lean towards qualified approval of Contact, with praise clustering around Jodie Foster’s central performance and the visual effects. Critics repeatedly credit the film with taking alien contact seriously, even when they question how it handles the larger questions. Foster gives the discussion a human centre, while the ambitious visual sequences earn approval across otherwise divided notices. The film’s intelligence and earnestness are strengths for its supporters, rather than reasons to dismiss it as solemn science fiction. The main disagreements concern its spirituality and whether its ideas sustain the running time. Empire welcomes a serious spiritual thinkpiece, despite some sentimentality; The New Yorker finds the spiritual yearning patience-stretching. Complaints about length recur even in favourable reviews, alongside reservations about sermonising, thin characterisation and talk-heavy plotting. The spread is substantial, but admiration for Foster and the effects survives much of the criticism. ## Straight answers **Is Contact worth watching?** *Contact* is worth watching for anyone who likes science fiction that is curious and unhurried, and we scored it 76. Jodie Foster makes the search for an alien signal urgent, and the discovery is exciting enough to carry a long evening. The repeated speeches about science and belief, across 150 minutes, are the caveat. **How long is Contact, and what is it rated?** *Contact* runs 2h 30m and is rated PG by the MPA in the US. It is a drama and science fiction film. **Where can I watch Contact in the US?** *Contact* is available to rent from Amazon Prime Video and Apple TV from $5.99. Availability is checked daily; the links above go straight to each service. **How does Contact compare to Arrival?** *Contact* and [*Arrival*](https://film.one/film/arrival) are both patient first-contact films that take the unknown seriously, but *Arrival* is the more disciplined of the two. Denis Villeneuve tells his story with less repetition, while Zemeckis keeps stopping for speeches. Choose *Contact* for its wider debate about belief and its wonder at scale; choose *Arrival* for tighter storytelling and feeling that arrives without being announced. **Is Contact based on a true story or a book?** *Contact* is based on Carl Sagan's novel of the same name, not on a true story. Screenwriters James V. Hart and Michael Goldenberg keep Sagan's interest in what alien contact might do to scientific knowledge and religious belief, and the film spends a good deal of its running time discussing exactly that. You do not need to have read the book to follow it. **What should I watch after Contact?** After *Contact*, try [*Arrival*](https://film.one/film/arrival) (2016, Fi1m 86): Another patient encounter with the unknown, with more disciplined storytelling and comparable feeling. Then [*Solaris*](https://film.one/film/solaris-1972) (1972, Fi1m 87): For the uneasy meeting of scientific enquiry, private longing and things beyond explanation; and [*The Vast of Night*](https://film.one/film/the-vast-of-night) (2019, Fi1m 78): A smaller story of alien signals, sustained by listening, talk and mounting unease. ### Reviews we read (8) - **Empire**, Neil Jeffries (80/100, inferred): The critic views Contact as a serious spiritual thinkpiece rather than a typical sci-fi blockbuster, praising its earnest exploration of alien contact and Jodie Foster's brilliant central performance. They highlight the film's striking visuals and memorable opening sequence while noting it can feel lengthy and overly sentimental in places. [Read](https://www.empireonline.com/movies/reviews/contact-review/) - **Variety**, Todd McCarthy (75/100, inferred): The film is praised as a serious and engrossing piece of speculative fiction that is beautifully crafted and intelligently involving for much of its length. It singles out Foster's performance and the technical and visual achievements for particular commendation while noting some long-windedness and preachy elements. [Read](https://variety.com/1997/film/reviews/contact-2-1117341257/) - **Radio Times**, John Ferguson (3/5): The critic finds the film's over-zealous new age spirituality a flaw in an otherwise impressive adaptation of Carl Sagan's novel. They praise Zemeckis's use of special effects and Jodie Foster's transcendent performance in the climactic sequence. [Read](https://www.radiotimes.com/movie-guide/b-oj7rbf/contact/) - **The New York Times**, Stephen Holden (60/100, inferred): The critic finds the film technologically dazzling but intellectually strained and emotionally chilly, ultimately embracing mysticism over rationality. He singles out the visually intoxicating space travel sequences as its strongest element. [Read](https://www.nytimes.com/1997/07/11/movies/which-route-upward-on-a-wing-or-a-prayer.html) - **Time Out**, TCh (50/100, inferred): The review praises the film's ambitious visual sequences and scope but criticizes the screenplay for mixing profound questions with hokey elements, shallow characters, and sermonising. It highlights the contrast between strong visual coups and weak narrative execution. [Read](https://www.timeout.com/movies/contact) - **The New Yorker**, Anthony Lane (40/100, inferred): The review mocks the film's later turn to spiritual yearning and finds the whole experience long and patience-stretching after an initial thrill. It singles out the moment of detecting the alien signal as the most exciting sequence. [Read](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1997/07/21/spaced-out) - **The Hollywood Reporter**, Duane Byrge: The film is a disappointingly earthbound and bloated sci-fi adaptation weighed down by talky dramaturgy and schematic plotting. Foster's commanding lead performance and some impressive visual effects sequences stand out as highlights. [Read](https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/contact-review-1997-movie-1019683/) - **Den of Geek**, Simon Brew (4/5): The critic finds an excellent 100-minute film inside the overlong 150-minute release, praising its intelligence, Jodie Foster's committed lead performance, strong supporting cast, and visual effects, while complaining that the ending spells everything out too explicitly and that some early scenes drag. [Read](https://www.denofgeek.com/movies/contact-blu-ray-review/) ## Details - **Director:** Robert Zemeckis - **Director:** Robert Zemeckis - **Screenplay:** Michael Goldenberg, James V. Hart - **Novel:** Carl Sagan - **Cinematography:** Don Burgess - **Editor:** Arthur Schmidt - **Music:** Alan Silvestri - **Production design:** Ed Verreaux - **Costume design:** Joanna Johnston - **Producer:** Robert Zemeckis, Steve Starkey - **Cast:** Jodie Foster as Ellie Arroway; Matthew McConaughey as Palmer Joss; James Woods as Michael Kitz; John Hurt as S. R. Hadden; Tom Skerritt as David Drumlin; William Fichtner as Kent; David Morse as Ted Arroway; Angela Bassett as Rachel Constantine - **Runtime:** 2h 30m - **Certificate (MPA):** PG - **Release (the US):** 11 July 1997 - **Genres:** Drama, Science Fiction, Mystery - **Budget:** $90 million - **Box office:** $171 million - **Trailer:** https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3hcz8OCd-Q ## Where to watch in the US - Amazon Prime Video: rent $5.99, hd - Apple TV: rent $5.99, hd - Amazon Prime Video: buy $14.99, hd - Apple TV: buy $14.99, hd *Checked 2026-09-13.* Also available in: AE, AR, AT, AU, BE, BG, BR, CA, CH, CL, CO, CZ, DE, DK, EE, ES, FI, FR, GB, GR, HU, IE, IL, IN, IT, JP, KR, LT, MX, MY, NL, NO, NZ, PA, PL, PT, RO, SE, SG, TH, US. Add `?region=XX` to this URL for another country. ## Awards - Academy Awards 1998: Best Sound (nominated) - Hugo Awards 1998: Best Dramatic Presentation (won) ## If you liked this - *Arrival* (2016), Fi1m 86: Another patient encounter with the unknown, with more disciplined storytelling and comparable feeling. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/arrival.md) - *Solaris* (1972), Fi1m 87: For the uneasy meeting of scientific enquiry, private longing and things beyond explanation. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/solaris-1972.md) - *The Vast of Night* (2019), Fi1m 78: A smaller story of alien signals, sustained by listening, talk and mounting unease. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-vast-of-night.md) - *The Quiet Earth* (1985), Fi1m 78: Science fiction that makes isolation tangible without needing a crowd of officials. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/the-quiet-earth.md) - *Wings of Desire* (1987), Fi1m 88: For a similarly patient curiosity about existence, pursued through close attention to ordinary lives. — [Fi1m page](https://film.one/film/wings-of-desire.md) --- © Fi1m Ltd. Written by AI under a human editor; checked against sources before publication. Quote with attribution and a link to the canonical URL. Canonical: https://film.one/film/contact