Filed under: Editorials

So, I Finally Saw 'Knowing'

I can't quite figure out why anyone would not like it

Nicolas Cage in Knowing
Photo: Summit Entertainment

WARNING: This column contains details alluding to the ending of Knowing. Read at your own risk.

I went to the movies as a general audience member for the first time since I caught Vicky Cristina Barcelona last August. The movie that got my money was Summit's Knowing from director Alex Proyas. As someone that enjoys such Proyas films as The Crow and Dark City it was hard to skip the Knowing screening for Universal's Duplicity three weeks ago, but at the time I thought one review would be read by more people than the other — how wrong I was.

Ever since the announcement of Knowing there seemed to be little-to-no interest by the online movie community and perhaps there still isn't and this article won't be read either. But the film has gone on to make since its March 20 release, which tells me someone is paying to see it and word of mouth must be pretty good. Either that or a solid copy hasn't leaked online yet.

As for why I wanted to see it, it didn't necessarily have to do with positive word of mouth as much as it had to do with the disparity in reviews and opinions regarding its quality. For example, Roger Ebert gave it four stars saying Knowing "is among the best science-fiction films I've seen — frightening, suspenseful, intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome."

A.O. Scott of the "New York Times" disagrees saying, "The draggy, lurching two hours of Knowing will make you long for the end of the world…"

What could possibly be so polarizing about a film that looked like it was some sort of end-of-the-world feature in which the world doesn't actually end up destroyed as Nic Cage saves the day by solving a number riddle?

Back in December of 2008 I thought I had it all figured out when a teaser to my reporting of the latest trailer for Knowing read, "Once again we ask you just let humanity end…" I followed that up with a paragraph reading:

Either Proyas is going to deliver one of the first disaster flicks where the father makes a promise to his son that ultimately ends up being a lie or Caleb is sure to survive whatever atrocities the prophecies of Knowing have to offer. Now I will say one thing, should Proyas decide this little rugrat is going to die along with The Cage then we have a sure fire kick ass sci-fi thriller on our hands. Chances, however, are pretty dim.

Thankfully, Proyas lived up to his reputation and things weren't as they seemed. This isn't to say Knowing is in fact a "kick ass sci-fi thriller." On a grading scale I would probably give it a "B", but if I were to grade the concept alone it would definitely earn an "A".

nullOutside of the review snippets mentioned above, I actually hadn't read any reviews or commentary in their entirety before heading to the theater, the only plot details I knew where those revealed in the trailers and the faint whispers regarding the ending having something to do with aliens. Fortunately, knowing the alien aspect of it threw me off quite a bit and had me dismissing any idea other than alien invasion, abduction or something along those lines.

This meant once the parallels Knowing draws to religion and science by bringing Ezekiel's vision (pictured right) to the big screen is tremendous. You can dig even deeper into it looking at fate, randomness and determinism and whether one affects the other and if so how? It is excellent material and had it starred anyone other than Nicolas Cage I think it would have received far better marks from critics all while it continues to draw in audiences after bringing in an additional $8.3 million this past weekend.

Most impressive is how Knowing leaves things wide open for interpretation. Even if you come up with a theory explaining everything, you still can't be certain you are right. While using a story from the Bible as its source material, Knowing gives faint indications to the existence of angels all while touching upon the story of Adam and Eve yet never completely answering the big question. Just who/what were the Whisper people?

As for the Cage factor, I am constantly surprised any time a director gives him work. He has had his moments in the past, but those were moments calling for his style of overacting. I even hesitate to call it overacting as it may just be a case of not acting. There is a scene in this film where Cage takes a Louisville Slugger to a tree and yells into the woods. It is cringe worthy above laughable.

Roger Ebert recently questioned why the reviews for the film were so negative and went on to defend Cage as a good actor, to which I obviously disagree, but I am with him in wondering why critics didn't like the ending. I doubt there is a single critic out there that didn't "get" the ending, which makes me wonder just what the problem was. Ebert speculates the fact it was about religion was an instant turn-off, while films like that instantly get me interested.

Unlike Ebert I won't say Knowing was "among the best science-fiction films I've seen," but it is damn good and it raises questions you can walk out of the theater with and discuss. Outside of Cage's performance I thought the film was rather solid. Perhaps critics didn't like how straight-forward the plot was, but I think if they tried to look a bit deeper it does get quite intricate and raises questions people have been asking for years all while offering up an additional spin on it all.

Related post categories: Editorials :

Click Here to add an
Avatar to Your Account
Post #1
Gravatar

Well I've got to agree with you and Roger Ebert, being probably the only two reviews who've enjoyed this film. I loved it, especially where it went with the ending, and they kept the aliens really creepy throughout, although admittedly Nic Cage isn't exactly jumping off the screen. One small thing tho, the car crash near the end made me laugh. Does that make me a bad person?

- Chris Johnson
( April 6th, 2009 | 4:14 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #2
Gravatar

The movie was great up untill the end. It was a let down, and i felt they cheated us out of a better ending with more meaning to it.
Not bad for Nic Cage, even though he is a bit of a one way actor, he wasnt too bad in this film. Maybe not the best choice for the role, but he still played it well.

- justrobby
( April 6th, 2009 | 4:23 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #3
Gravatar

Brad, now that u have reviewd the movie how come it is not poted on the review section and is without a grade?

I havent seen it but am looking forward to it after reading this review.

- adu
( April 6th, 2009 | 4:37 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #4
Gravatar

I'm going to try and defend Cage for a second. What you termed "not acting" I think really fit the character. Nic plays a man who is desperate on two entirely different fronts. On the one hand he believes that "shit just happens" but is looking down the barrel of the end of the world being determined with no hope of stopping it. On the other hand he's a father who made a promise he slowly realizes he could never keep, not just because the world is ending but because the nature of life, as a random series of events he believes it to be, is such that anyone could be taken away in the blink of an eye with no rhyme or reason.

The way Nic Cage plays out these two ideas as though he is a man who always knew where he was going and how to get there but in the end wound up in the wrong place is almost manic and entirely fitting because that’s exactly what happens. He spends the entire movie KNOWING that these numbers contradict everything he BELIEVES and are showing him a path to stop it… Then he just can’t, and never could.

That said I really enjoyed this movie, and owe thanks to Ropeofsilicon because if it weren’t for the piece about Ebert enjoying the movie and his reaction to others disliking the movie I probably never would have seen it.

- Ross
( April 6th, 2009 | 8:19 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #5
Gravatar

I was kinda hoping you'd say that Cage did a good job here. i'm a Proyas fans also, but IMO he is not surounding himself with quality people. Whoever he relies for casting, for instance, is letting him down. I've always felt that Dark City was miscast, and now this one too. (We all know the tragedy of incompetence that involved The Crow.) But I'm glad to hear it is an overall good film. I'll be watching it.

- Patricia
( April 6th, 2009 | 8:23 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #6
Gravatar

THANK YOU! i am sick of people downing this movie. true, the ending could have been better, but i loved this movie. nic cage had a great performance and that little girl was truly freaky in this movie

- bryce
( April 6th, 2009 | 12:16 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #7
Gravatar

I want to see this now. It all sounds really interesting.

- JM
( April 7th, 2009 | 2:27 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #8
Gravatar

It is L. Ron Hubbard Scientology story packaged with Hollywood special effects wrapped in “everything and the kitchen sink” script.

I have read enough Science Fiction in my time by Arthur C. Clark, Madeleine L'Engle and the afore mentioned L. Ron Hubbard to be impressed a story that ends like this made to the screen but that does not mean it is cutting edge.

Was it diverting for the $7.50 I paid, sure… Could I have spent the two hours reading any number of 1960’s drug induced Science/Religious Fiction, sure.

One thing I can say my wife was looking for “Gone in Sixty Seconds” or National Treasure” Nicolas Cage; She did not get what she paid for but I am impressed he would try something like this…

Now she is asking me about my old book collection when I said I have read a dozen stories like that in my youth.

- Dustin
( April 11th, 2009 | 12:58 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #9
Gravatar

The ending was fine but I thought that more should have been left to the imagination. The big ufo thing and seeing the angels/aliens (whatever they are) in their true form was a bit naff. Seeing the kids on there new planet was unnecessary as well I thought. Other than that, very good film.

- Dan
( April 13th, 2009 | 11:39 am )
Reply to this comment
Post #10
Gravatar

@Dan: I agree a little more could have been left to the imagination, but I think it was important to show the "angels/aliens" in their true form simply because of how you add "whatever they are" to your comment. By showing them and giving the momentary allusion to wings it opens the film up to additional interpretation I believe was necessary. I actually think it is the #1 spot in the film that does leave the decision making up to the audience.

- Brad Brevet (Post Author)
( April 13th, 2009 | 1:37 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #11
Gravatar

Great movie! I saw it last Friday and was expecting the standard plot of the genre: hero faces an end-of-world scenario, but at the last minute he pulls through and saves the day (and the planet). I did not see coming the final act of the movie. I give the director a thumbs-up for leaving many plot points open for interpretation. The movie's not perfect, but it delivers. I highly recommend it if you like science fiction with brains.

- Carlos
( May 11th, 2009 | 5:39 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #12
Gravatar

@Carlos: Don't you think you could have said that you liked the way they handled the conclusion WITHOUT GIVING IT AWAY? I would have liked the same privilege of seeing this fresh that you had.

- Patricia
( May 11th, 2009 | 6:24 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #13
Gravatar

Very watchable but there are so many red herrings that I lost interest in the storyline long before the end. For example, what were those black pebbles for? If they were supposed to some kind of "passover" sign — anybody owning one of them would survive the disaster — they didn't work, because Abby's mother was clutching one when she died.

Bradley, I'm glad you posted the engraving of Ezekiel's vision. Do you happen to know who the artrist was? If not, where could I find that that information online?

Thanks
Maximilian

- Maximilian
( May 15th, 2009 | 10:21 pm )
Reply to this comment
Post #14
Gravatar

Saw it last night and wasn't very impressed, the story wasn't very gripping it was all to unreal, fake unbeliveable, I really did not understand the whole religion thing and aliens, especially with the ezekiel chap. 1 -which does describe the picture somewhat, the wings and the tree at the end, sure it was great to see the last piecies of the puzzle like where the kids went and that the last event took place (trying not to spoil it for anyone) but what about, Why couldn't Nic Cage go with at the end, why only kids? Ok granted something like that last event could happen -since apperantly it takes the sun's light takes about 8 minutes to reach us…

We need a book on this!
O.

- O.G.
( July 29th, 2009 | 12:49 am )
Reply to this comment
~ PLEASE NOTE ~
If, in any way, your comment is an attack on the author of this post or a previous commenter, your comment will be deleted without question.
Leave Your Feedback
(required)
(will not be shown) (required)
DON'T WANT YOUR COMMENT DELETED?
Click to Read Our Commenting Rules & Guidelines
Follow Us On Twitter!
RSS Email
Latest Posts
Latest Video
Nine ~ TV Spot
New Pictures
Friend RopeofSilicon on Netflix!