Knowing is one of Nicholas Cage's lesser films, that's true, but it's nearly as bad as the majority of the critics reviews. Knowing is a science fiction film starring Nicolas Cage and Rose Byrne. The plot surrounds children who are able to tell when the worlds most horrific disasters and atrocities happened. Figuring out how these kids know these things and what the numbers mean is really what the entire movie is about. The performances are pretty good from the two leads. Byrne and Cage both turn in believable performances. I think that the script was average, the writers did their job, it's nothing spectacular but it suffices. The idea of the movie was very interesting and it's executed well for the most part. There are some parts of the movie that do feel kind of lackluster but they pale in comparison to the ending and how interesting it turns out to be. Some people said they thought the ending was too weird and random but I think it was unexpected and cool. And I think the way in which it ended gave the film a meaning. Overall yes I would recommend Knowing, it's not one I'd go to automatically when recommending films to people but I would say it's a fairly interesting watch. 7/10.
1,024 Reviews
Alex Proyas's doomsday piece boasts a chock full of interesting concepts and sleek special effects to make up its fundamentally flawed climax
Screen_Blitz27 July 2017
This science-fiction thrill piece starring Nicolas Cage in the protagonist role is a film blooming with brainy concepts on science and religion, while hanging over apocalyptic themes that pay reminiscence of other end-of-the-world flicks like 'Left Behind'. After all, the key figure in the story is revolves around what appears be a biblical prophecy, although the spiritial theme only serves as a small undertone here rather than driving the storyline. Director Alex Proyas, the father of projects such as 'Dark City' and 'I, Robot', exhibits his grandeur of visual stimulating style that manages to triumph over its compelling, if somewhat flawed plot. Proyas is successful at making the thought-provoking ideas work, even if they are occasionally little rocky. The only major flaw is lies in the final act that borders on the line of preposterous. It is not a groundbreaking piece of work for the genre, but it is just enough to warrant for a sweet recommendation. This film opens up in 1959, at an elementary school where children are given the assignment to draw pictures of what society will like fifty years from that time. One girl, Lucinda Embrey (played by Lara Robinson), draws a long series of seemingly random numbers and places the paper in the school's time capsule. Flash forward to fifty years later, a nine-year old Caleb Koestler (played by Chandler Canterbury) and his class open up the time capsule, and Lucinda's paper is found in his hands. When he shows the paper to his widowed father John (played by Nicolas Cage), an astrophysics professor at Massachutes Institute of Technology, John believes the numbers are enigmatic codes to disasters occurring around the globe. Enlisting the help of Lucinda's daughter Diana (played by Rose Byrne) and granddaughter Abby (also played by Lara Robinson), John must encrypt the message of what seems to be a sign of a global catastrophic event.
Some may question whether Alex Proyas is trying to deliver a cautionary tale about an apocalyptic prophecy or is pinning viewers with complex ideas of science and religious theology. Both are more than likely doubtful, especially when the plot shows little respect for the laws of science to begin with. Nonetheless, it keeps things deeply eerie and grim in terms of storytelling and tone, almost bordering the line of a psychological horror thriller. Caleb and Abby are children who are haunted by mysterious entities, resembling the alien creatures from 'Dark City', who introduce them to terrifying visions of the world facing mass destruction, an eerie, yet shocking concept that is placed with sweet visual spark in one scene where the former looks out his window and sees the forest engulfed in flames. The main protagonist in the story however, is John Koestler who is infused with a performance by Nicolas Cage that can only be described as acceptable, but not bad. When Koestler learns of the terrifying secrets behind Lucinda's prophetic message, that is when the story kicks into gear, allowing Proyas to experiment with his engaging concepts. His attempts at breathing life into his ideas are mostly successful and set room for some visually electrifying sequences such as devastating plane crash that leaves several victims flailing in flames and a subway crash that racks up an enormous death toll. However, the third act, which is predictable and sets up with heavy emotional sigma, is a little absurd; especially if how unrealistic the characters behave to such an unnerving situation that is on the horizon. Shouldn't they be more terrified? On the bright side, the audience is blessed with a riveting score by Marco Beltrami to settle the tone.
Knowing is a compelling doomsday-themed piece with a chock of interesting ideas of science and religion put into play, and a surprisingly enthralling execution by Alex Proyas who brings his powerful visual grandeur to the game. It is a flawed picture with an execution may have a few scars, but not enough to make it a sore to sit through. Don't expect it to be anything revolutionary.
Some may question whether Alex Proyas is trying to deliver a cautionary tale about an apocalyptic prophecy or is pinning viewers with complex ideas of science and religious theology. Both are more than likely doubtful, especially when the plot shows little respect for the laws of science to begin with. Nonetheless, it keeps things deeply eerie and grim in terms of storytelling and tone, almost bordering the line of a psychological horror thriller. Caleb and Abby are children who are haunted by mysterious entities, resembling the alien creatures from 'Dark City', who introduce them to terrifying visions of the world facing mass destruction, an eerie, yet shocking concept that is placed with sweet visual spark in one scene where the former looks out his window and sees the forest engulfed in flames. The main protagonist in the story however, is John Koestler who is infused with a performance by Nicolas Cage that can only be described as acceptable, but not bad. When Koestler learns of the terrifying secrets behind Lucinda's prophetic message, that is when the story kicks into gear, allowing Proyas to experiment with his engaging concepts. His attempts at breathing life into his ideas are mostly successful and set room for some visually electrifying sequences such as devastating plane crash that leaves several victims flailing in flames and a subway crash that racks up an enormous death toll. However, the third act, which is predictable and sets up with heavy emotional sigma, is a little absurd; especially if how unrealistic the characters behave to such an unnerving situation that is on the horizon. Shouldn't they be more terrified? On the bright side, the audience is blessed with a riveting score by Marco Beltrami to settle the tone.
Knowing is a compelling doomsday-themed piece with a chock of interesting ideas of science and religion put into play, and a surprisingly enthralling execution by Alex Proyas who brings his powerful visual grandeur to the game. It is a flawed picture with an execution may have a few scars, but not enough to make it a sore to sit through. Don't expect it to be anything revolutionary.
Did Writers Know When It Jumped The Shark?
hardykh21 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This film started out with a real grabber. The whole time capsule thing was working as was the predictions and it had me riveted waiting to find out what was going to happen next.
Then everything went left and the movie bounded over the shark as Cage begins a wild chase to tell everyone about the end of the world.
I absolutely believe this screenplay wasn't written with the ending that was in the movie. I figure around one third of the way through someone said, "hey this is way too M. Night Shymalan, better beef up the special effects!" That's when the explosions started.
Then another Hollywood big-wig said, "hey, we need to add some extraterrestrials or this will never hit" and so enter the blond guys in the woods. These scenes look like they were re-shot after the fact.
Finally as Cage is on his knees waving to his son on the space ship, I expected the credits to roll, but no. I feel pretty sure a focus group was show the first cut and they said it was a downer, so...after a rewrite and lots of money on special effects. Voila! End of the world.
Ten, after another focus group, comes the two kids in Eden ending that looked completely out of place and I feel pretty sure was tacked on after audience reactions ranged from"but what about the kids?" to "that's a downer".
All in all, the whole thing went way off the rails and squandered any viewer interest in favor of bad theology and worse writing.
If anyone can confirm my theories of rewrites and re-shoots, please let me know. Otherwise, I have to believe the producers just got lost somewhere along the way to what promised to be a good film.
Then everything went left and the movie bounded over the shark as Cage begins a wild chase to tell everyone about the end of the world.
I absolutely believe this screenplay wasn't written with the ending that was in the movie. I figure around one third of the way through someone said, "hey this is way too M. Night Shymalan, better beef up the special effects!" That's when the explosions started.
Then another Hollywood big-wig said, "hey, we need to add some extraterrestrials or this will never hit" and so enter the blond guys in the woods. These scenes look like they were re-shot after the fact.
Finally as Cage is on his knees waving to his son on the space ship, I expected the credits to roll, but no. I feel pretty sure a focus group was show the first cut and they said it was a downer, so...after a rewrite and lots of money on special effects. Voila! End of the world.
Ten, after another focus group, comes the two kids in Eden ending that looked completely out of place and I feel pretty sure was tacked on after audience reactions ranged from"but what about the kids?" to "that's a downer".
All in all, the whole thing went way off the rails and squandered any viewer interest in favor of bad theology and worse writing.
If anyone can confirm my theories of rewrites and re-shoots, please let me know. Otherwise, I have to believe the producers just got lost somewhere along the way to what promised to be a good film.
Anti-Armageddon, as far as Michael Bay goes
revival0516 October 2009
I feel a strange shift of priorities within moviegoers today, when a movie like District 9 can use very familiar content and simply shake it around a little, and then be hailed as a masterwork of originality and become immensely popular - while a movie like Knowing will be heavily questioned and criticized beyond it's proportions despite, or perhaps due to, the fact that it actually takes an actual leap of originality. I wonder when the latest time it was I saw a Hollywood-movie end up where this one ends up. While not being perfect, Knowing still is a proper science-fiction film in the vein of 2001 - A Space Odyssey and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Certainly not as good, for various reasons, but at least clearly part of the genre.
The storyline of Knowing is kind of a reversed bottle neck, by the end the multitude of the story is as big as it gets but to begin with, we are in a kind of X Files territory where we get a spooky prologue with a mystery note being dug under the ground (I won't go into the details, because it's really not important for me to go over them) and post credits we pick it up 50 years later when the note ends up in the hands of MIT professor John Koestler (Nicholas Cage) who is one of those I-lost-my-wife-so-I-lost-my-faith kind of guys, believing that the universe as we know it is all random and coincidental. Easily cracked, the numbers on the note, written by a little girl and buried for five decades, declare the dates and places of all future disasters to come, including death tolls. Cage sees 9/11 predicted from this little girls hands in 1959, as well as the Katrina and several disasters that haven't taken place yet. Without saying too much, he doesn't like what he sees at the end of the list of numbers.
I have heard the movie be called predictable. Looking back, I must admit there's a lot of places where I could have seen a lot of things coming. Many quite blatant clues are placed right in the very first couple of scenes and if you know your plot and character mechanics, you would spot some obligatory scenes to come. However, I didn't. It seems I was in on the ride. The plot of the movie, I think, expands in such a methodical way that as long as you get sucked in to begin with, you don't ask any more questions. The mystery is intriguing enough to have you focus on the next shot, not the overall story. I was fairly annoyed by the story device that was seemingly on the side of the plot, dealing with Cage's kid being stalked by a couple of evil, albino trench-coat-guys looking like a bunch German electro-goths. I found that they distracted the viewer from the more interesting, down-to-earth kind of story going on with Cage. But come the ending of the movie, nothing is really earthbound and they seem kind of forgivable in retrospect. Just like in Close Encounters, Knowing is a movie that starts out cryptic but ends out in big scale cathartic satisfaction and harmony, as if it all (*all*) makes sense in the end.
As for the flaws, I didn't mind the story or any of the plot holes (which mostly are arguable anyway). What did bother me probably more than anything else about the movie, though, was it's unfortunate big-time flirt with the melodrama. Take the score for instance, by Marco Beltrami, not really king of the subtle, and it's unfortunate for a movie which deals with this unusual hypothesis to have such operatic and stereotypical acting. And why, WHY, do Hollywood-movies nowadays feel the need to use those HORRIBLE matte paintings? They look like a 50's parody! As for plot, Knowing certainly bites off a lot more than it can chew. I quickly noted in the credits, with fear, that while the story credit went to one person there were like three or four guys behind the actual script. That usually means what we also get in Knowing. Messy conflicts within the narrative and sudden "moronic behavior as plot device" from characters. Also, not every mystery thread thrown up on the floor ends up with a sensible conclusion. But despite a lot ends up as fairly arbitrary anyway, I think a lot of the questions are meant to be left unanswered. Knowing picks up a lot of ancient SF-ideas, that probably would seem tired if this genre had been over-represented in any way, and at the end of the day, you didn't ask the monkey in 2001 how he figured out how to use that piece of bone, right? In all fairness, the movie is partly a thriller so it needs certain plot devices in order for the it to have a good spook value which, I might add, it surely delivers. This is the kind of movie that creeps you out just by having a character flip a bed on to it's side. I'm not sure if these abandoned mysteries is a giant flaw or just one of those things you can roll with, but I know that it makes sure it doesn't reach the top. Knowing is a movie made I'd say for 80% entertainment, and I could say I was 80% entertained. The remaining 20% is sci-fi fodder and that made me happy too. No masterpiece then, but a good ride that I certainly will recommend.
Also. I get the feeling that a lot of people who dismissed Knowing this summer were the same guys who were angry at the Bay bashers of Transformers 2. I wonder, why on Earth are the flaws of Transformers 2 forgivable, whereas the strengths of Knowing dismissible?
The storyline of Knowing is kind of a reversed bottle neck, by the end the multitude of the story is as big as it gets but to begin with, we are in a kind of X Files territory where we get a spooky prologue with a mystery note being dug under the ground (I won't go into the details, because it's really not important for me to go over them) and post credits we pick it up 50 years later when the note ends up in the hands of MIT professor John Koestler (Nicholas Cage) who is one of those I-lost-my-wife-so-I-lost-my-faith kind of guys, believing that the universe as we know it is all random and coincidental. Easily cracked, the numbers on the note, written by a little girl and buried for five decades, declare the dates and places of all future disasters to come, including death tolls. Cage sees 9/11 predicted from this little girls hands in 1959, as well as the Katrina and several disasters that haven't taken place yet. Without saying too much, he doesn't like what he sees at the end of the list of numbers.
I have heard the movie be called predictable. Looking back, I must admit there's a lot of places where I could have seen a lot of things coming. Many quite blatant clues are placed right in the very first couple of scenes and if you know your plot and character mechanics, you would spot some obligatory scenes to come. However, I didn't. It seems I was in on the ride. The plot of the movie, I think, expands in such a methodical way that as long as you get sucked in to begin with, you don't ask any more questions. The mystery is intriguing enough to have you focus on the next shot, not the overall story. I was fairly annoyed by the story device that was seemingly on the side of the plot, dealing with Cage's kid being stalked by a couple of evil, albino trench-coat-guys looking like a bunch German electro-goths. I found that they distracted the viewer from the more interesting, down-to-earth kind of story going on with Cage. But come the ending of the movie, nothing is really earthbound and they seem kind of forgivable in retrospect. Just like in Close Encounters, Knowing is a movie that starts out cryptic but ends out in big scale cathartic satisfaction and harmony, as if it all (*all*) makes sense in the end.
As for the flaws, I didn't mind the story or any of the plot holes (which mostly are arguable anyway). What did bother me probably more than anything else about the movie, though, was it's unfortunate big-time flirt with the melodrama. Take the score for instance, by Marco Beltrami, not really king of the subtle, and it's unfortunate for a movie which deals with this unusual hypothesis to have such operatic and stereotypical acting. And why, WHY, do Hollywood-movies nowadays feel the need to use those HORRIBLE matte paintings? They look like a 50's parody! As for plot, Knowing certainly bites off a lot more than it can chew. I quickly noted in the credits, with fear, that while the story credit went to one person there were like three or four guys behind the actual script. That usually means what we also get in Knowing. Messy conflicts within the narrative and sudden "moronic behavior as plot device" from characters. Also, not every mystery thread thrown up on the floor ends up with a sensible conclusion. But despite a lot ends up as fairly arbitrary anyway, I think a lot of the questions are meant to be left unanswered. Knowing picks up a lot of ancient SF-ideas, that probably would seem tired if this genre had been over-represented in any way, and at the end of the day, you didn't ask the monkey in 2001 how he figured out how to use that piece of bone, right? In all fairness, the movie is partly a thriller so it needs certain plot devices in order for the it to have a good spook value which, I might add, it surely delivers. This is the kind of movie that creeps you out just by having a character flip a bed on to it's side. I'm not sure if these abandoned mysteries is a giant flaw or just one of those things you can roll with, but I know that it makes sure it doesn't reach the top. Knowing is a movie made I'd say for 80% entertainment, and I could say I was 80% entertained. The remaining 20% is sci-fi fodder and that made me happy too. No masterpiece then, but a good ride that I certainly will recommend.
Also. I get the feeling that a lot of people who dismissed Knowing this summer were the same guys who were angry at the Bay bashers of Transformers 2. I wonder, why on Earth are the flaws of Transformers 2 forgivable, whereas the strengths of Knowing dismissible?
Proyas delivers his best yet
Cujo1088 August 2010
Warning: Spoilers
In 1959, an elementary school buries a time capsule that holds drawings of what the kids think the world will be like in 50 years. When the capsule is dug up in present day, each child is given a drawing from the capsule. The drawing that Caleb Koestler gets isn't a drawing at all. Instead, it's a page full of random numbers. When Caleb takes the paper home, his astrophysicist father stumbles upon the discovery that the numbers seem to have predicted the dates of major disasters which occurred in the 50 years since. Not only the dates, but the number of victims from each incident as well. A fascinating discovery, but more important matters lie hidden in the numbers, as there are three dates and three major disasters to come... and they're coming soon.
"Knowing" is more ambitious than a typical disaster movie. Not really a surprise coming from director Alex Proyas. The closest he's come to generic is "I, Robot", by far his weakest work. While certain plot points may be hard to swallow for some, I had no qualms with any of it. Of course, I fully expected the film to be bashed unmercifully by many just because Nicolas Cage is in it. I know people like to criticize Cage every chance they get, but his acting is just fine here. Some of the tender moments between he and his son were actually quite effective from an emotional standpoint. Reading through several of the reviews I've seen, it's clear that some people just have a hate-on for the guy. My girl Rose Byrne shows up halfway through the picture, and while her character is that of a tortured woman relegated to looking distraught and flipping out, she does both well. Her panic at the gas station brought a smile to my face, as I just love watching her work.
Proyas handles the suspense exceptionally, particularly the buildup to the various disasters. The screws turn slowly, but ever so tightly. As for the disasters themselves, the scene with the crashing airliner is wicked in it's execution. Shot in the pouring down rain and all in one take, we witness the crash followed by Cage sulking amidst explosions, burning rubble and burning passengers. The subway sequence isn't as effective. Not even close, really, but the build makes up for it. The final disaster, which I won't spoil here, is positively fantastic both in buildup and execution. One scene in relation to the final disaster involves a discovery on the bottom of a bed. I felt that this scene made for a very strong gut punch, just well-done all around in leading up to it, music, everything. Chaos aside, I also liked some of the human touches that Proyas threw in. Caleb watching a video of his mother singing him a lullaby is a really strong little character moment in the midst of everything else going on. I also thought Cage's reaction was well-played.
Now for some faults. The score could be overpowering at times. I also feel that the final scene was not needed. The line about starting over was enough to get the point across, I didn't need to see it. More subtlety would have been most welcome, and ending the film with the earth in cinders would make for a more potent final image. Aside from that, the worst I can say is that some of the acting from bit players was rather on the weak side.
Overall, I was very satisfied with the final product. It could have used some tweaking here and there, but most films are flawed in some way or another. The twists in the storyline won't work for everyone. It seems a lot of the time when a new film tries to shoe in aliens or any sort of spirituality aspect, it gets branded as some sort of new age crap. I don't subscribe to that thought process. I think it's a strong piece of filmmaking from a filmmaker who doesn't work as often as he should. The masses can have their popcorn films, but I like my popcorn with a few extra layers of butter on top.
"Knowing" is more ambitious than a typical disaster movie. Not really a surprise coming from director Alex Proyas. The closest he's come to generic is "I, Robot", by far his weakest work. While certain plot points may be hard to swallow for some, I had no qualms with any of it. Of course, I fully expected the film to be bashed unmercifully by many just because Nicolas Cage is in it. I know people like to criticize Cage every chance they get, but his acting is just fine here. Some of the tender moments between he and his son were actually quite effective from an emotional standpoint. Reading through several of the reviews I've seen, it's clear that some people just have a hate-on for the guy. My girl Rose Byrne shows up halfway through the picture, and while her character is that of a tortured woman relegated to looking distraught and flipping out, she does both well. Her panic at the gas station brought a smile to my face, as I just love watching her work.
Proyas handles the suspense exceptionally, particularly the buildup to the various disasters. The screws turn slowly, but ever so tightly. As for the disasters themselves, the scene with the crashing airliner is wicked in it's execution. Shot in the pouring down rain and all in one take, we witness the crash followed by Cage sulking amidst explosions, burning rubble and burning passengers. The subway sequence isn't as effective. Not even close, really, but the build makes up for it. The final disaster, which I won't spoil here, is positively fantastic both in buildup and execution. One scene in relation to the final disaster involves a discovery on the bottom of a bed. I felt that this scene made for a very strong gut punch, just well-done all around in leading up to it, music, everything. Chaos aside, I also liked some of the human touches that Proyas threw in. Caleb watching a video of his mother singing him a lullaby is a really strong little character moment in the midst of everything else going on. I also thought Cage's reaction was well-played.
Now for some faults. The score could be overpowering at times. I also feel that the final scene was not needed. The line about starting over was enough to get the point across, I didn't need to see it. More subtlety would have been most welcome, and ending the film with the earth in cinders would make for a more potent final image. Aside from that, the worst I can say is that some of the acting from bit players was rather on the weak side.
Overall, I was very satisfied with the final product. It could have used some tweaking here and there, but most films are flawed in some way or another. The twists in the storyline won't work for everyone. It seems a lot of the time when a new film tries to shoe in aliens or any sort of spirituality aspect, it gets branded as some sort of new age crap. I don't subscribe to that thought process. I think it's a strong piece of filmmaking from a filmmaker who doesn't work as often as he should. The masses can have their popcorn films, but I like my popcorn with a few extra layers of butter on top.
The Good, The Bad and the Ugly
pugmahorn26 March 2009
The good: Strong start to the movie, the plot hooks you in, excellent sound, confronting disaster scenes, haunting images, Rose Byrne, at times quite freaky, The Bad: Special effects looked like they were from a video game, ripped off basically every science fiction movie ever made, poor acting from Nic Cage, very predictable.
The Ugly: Last third of movie was shamefully ridiculous.
Summary: If you are a science fiction fan, you will probably not be able to resist seeing this movie. Be warned, you will think you are seeing the sci-fi great that you have been waiting for but mid way the film gets lost. You may very well groan out loud at the ending. This had the makings of a great movie but unfortunately it couldn't come up with the goods.
The Ugly: Last third of movie was shamefully ridiculous.
Summary: If you are a science fiction fan, you will probably not be able to resist seeing this movie. Be warned, you will think you are seeing the sci-fi great that you have been waiting for but mid way the film gets lost. You may very well groan out loud at the ending. This had the makings of a great movie but unfortunately it couldn't come up with the goods.
Am I bonkers? I thought it was kind of stupid
Smells_Like_Cheese22 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Nicolas Cage, I feel like an addictive gambler when it comes to this man, because there are times where he has some really great movies(i.e. Face/Off) then he has moments where I wonder if he was drinking when he accepted other movies(i.e. Wicker Man). He has some really great acting moments, but it seems like his movies lately, he just looks tired and like he stayed up the whole night memorizing his lines not realizing he hasn't had any sleep for 6 weeks. I don't know, I'm not quite sure why this has a high rating right now, but we'll see in the next few weeks, because honestly I wasn't all that thrilled with Knowing. From the trailer this looked really exciting, but instead we got a movie that just took itself too seriously. I thought it was mainly just poor writing for the story and the characters.
In 1959, a competition is held amongst the students of a new elementary school to celebrate its opening. The winning plan, from student Lucinda Embry, is to bury a time capsule containing the students' drawings of the future to be opened 50 years later in 2009. She is prevented from finishing her image, which is actually a series of seemingly random numbers, and goes missing during the ceremony. Her teacher later finds her in a gym closet frantically scratching the remaining numbers on the door. Fifty years later, the time capsule is opened and the pictures are handed down to the new generation of students. Caleb, the son of MIT professor and astrophysicist John Koestler, receives Lucinda's envelope. While initially dismissing them as random numbers, John accidentally discovers that the numbers have accurately predicted the dates, death tolls, and locations of every major disaster in the last 50 years; three of the events have not yet occurred. Decoding and discovering that one of the three may lead to the end of the world.
Is this a movie that you have to see in the theater? There is one scene that only the big screen can do justice and that was the airplane crash scene, even though it was unrealistic it was great to watch. I just love how Nicolas Cage reacts to it, he goes to "save" the people who are burning and one person passes him screaming in flames and Nic just says "hey!", what exactly was he planning on saying to him? Like "HEY! Just to let you know, you're on fire". I thought the ending was weak and there wasn't enough character development. The story was too serious, while intense, the characters were not real and I felt like the effects got too cheesy at the end. I would say if you're going to see this in the theater, see the matinée, otherwise, just stick with the rental.
6/10
In 1959, a competition is held amongst the students of a new elementary school to celebrate its opening. The winning plan, from student Lucinda Embry, is to bury a time capsule containing the students' drawings of the future to be opened 50 years later in 2009. She is prevented from finishing her image, which is actually a series of seemingly random numbers, and goes missing during the ceremony. Her teacher later finds her in a gym closet frantically scratching the remaining numbers on the door. Fifty years later, the time capsule is opened and the pictures are handed down to the new generation of students. Caleb, the son of MIT professor and astrophysicist John Koestler, receives Lucinda's envelope. While initially dismissing them as random numbers, John accidentally discovers that the numbers have accurately predicted the dates, death tolls, and locations of every major disaster in the last 50 years; three of the events have not yet occurred. Decoding and discovering that one of the three may lead to the end of the world.
Is this a movie that you have to see in the theater? There is one scene that only the big screen can do justice and that was the airplane crash scene, even though it was unrealistic it was great to watch. I just love how Nicolas Cage reacts to it, he goes to "save" the people who are burning and one person passes him screaming in flames and Nic just says "hey!", what exactly was he planning on saying to him? Like "HEY! Just to let you know, you're on fire". I thought the ending was weak and there wasn't enough character development. The story was too serious, while intense, the characters were not real and I felt like the effects got too cheesy at the end. I would say if you're going to see this in the theater, see the matinée, otherwise, just stick with the rental.
6/10
OMG, what in the world
EricBosarge29 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Okay, this is a movie that I would classify as "I lost two hours of my life for this?" It was almost as if one person wrote the beginning, one person wrote the middle, and one person wrote the ending, and none of it meshes together at all. This movie has horror, religious, and sci-fi aspects that are all over the place. The first thirty minutes are okay, but it just plummets from there. There was not really any back story and it was kind of all over the place. The best part was when the lead female role was killed. Her whiny butt was getting on my nerves. The whole aliens are angels things was not put together very well at all, and the special effects were not that great. This would have been so much better if they had just concentrated on the story line and not have made it so goofy.
Under-rated
battlecrusadersgames22 May 2018
Ok, so Nic Cage may not be the actor of the century but he does do poe faced well, lol.
However this movie is highly under-rated. Chandler Canterbury is fantastic and the special Fx are some of the best ive ever seen. The storyline is also thought provoking and new. My only gripe is the ending, which wouldnt have been my choice.
Worth Seeing Before the End!
treadwaywrites19 March 2009
From the trailers of Knowing you'd be convinced that you're going to watch a cheesy, try to save the world picture with a wound tight Nicolas Cage at the center gritting his teeth and ducking his way to the perfect ending. Well, you'd be partially correct. Cage is definitely giving his wound tight hero routine that he's worked so hard to develop over the last half dozen films. As for the cheese factor, that's where you'll be surprised. Director Alex Proyas manages to deliver a rather decent sci-fi flick that has plenty of suspense and intelligence.
The plot turns around John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), an MIT astrophysics nerd turned Indiana Jones when a time capsule is discovered at his young son Caleb's (Chandler Canterbury) school. Inside are drawings from students in 1959 predicting what things would be like in 2009 some 50 years later. The drawing that Caleb comes home with isn't a drawing at all but a series of seemingly random numbers. Koestler becomes obsessed with the numbers and their meaning or what they seem to mean. The whole thing shakes him to his scientific core and a quest has begun.
The film is very lucky to have director Alex Proyas from films such as Dark City which is his true geek film and critical acclaim as well as I, Robot and Garage Days. The visual and special effects are outstanding. It was surprising how much suspense was in the script (Ryan Douglas Pearson and Juliet Snowden) which gave the film a real thriller atmosphere which continues to build in tone as the mystery is unraveled.
I admit I went into this film expecting a rehash of National Treasure on a more global scale. The sci-fi aspect of the premise is very well thought out and told. The acting by co-stars (Chandler Canterbury, Rose Byrne and Lara Robinson) are solid performances and stand in complementary contrast to that of the tightly wound Nicolas Cage. The geek factor of Knowing is rather high with lots of number configurations and what-if scenarios which is great for the sci-fi fans. At times your brain may have to turn on in order to follow the film, but that is what made Knowing such a pleasant surprise to me.*
The plot turns around John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), an MIT astrophysics nerd turned Indiana Jones when a time capsule is discovered at his young son Caleb's (Chandler Canterbury) school. Inside are drawings from students in 1959 predicting what things would be like in 2009 some 50 years later. The drawing that Caleb comes home with isn't a drawing at all but a series of seemingly random numbers. Koestler becomes obsessed with the numbers and their meaning or what they seem to mean. The whole thing shakes him to his scientific core and a quest has begun.
The film is very lucky to have director Alex Proyas from films such as Dark City which is his true geek film and critical acclaim as well as I, Robot and Garage Days. The visual and special effects are outstanding. It was surprising how much suspense was in the script (Ryan Douglas Pearson and Juliet Snowden) which gave the film a real thriller atmosphere which continues to build in tone as the mystery is unraveled.
I admit I went into this film expecting a rehash of National Treasure on a more global scale. The sci-fi aspect of the premise is very well thought out and told. The acting by co-stars (Chandler Canterbury, Rose Byrne and Lara Robinson) are solid performances and stand in complementary contrast to that of the tightly wound Nicolas Cage. The geek factor of Knowing is rather high with lots of number configurations and what-if scenarios which is great for the sci-fi fans. At times your brain may have to turn on in order to follow the film, but that is what made Knowing such a pleasant surprise to me.*
Knowing how easy it is to sum up
ttandb22 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
'Knowing' can be summed up in four short words. Great film - rubbish ending.
SPOILER!! SPOILER!! SPOILER!! SPOILER!! READ FROM HERE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!
----------------------------------------------------
The ending lets the whole movie down - yeah it's not the happy 'save the world' ending we were (in a way) dreading. But that just certain kids were the only ones being saved and no adults at all was just ridiculous.
Have the producers, etc never read 'The Lord of the Flies'? Kids do not do well on their own. They also do not just happily accept being taken by aliens to a strange new world; they do not happily accept not only the deaths of their families and friends (assuming friends are not of the 'chosen') but also the death - apparently - of even their planet.
Why couldn't they have had the aliens stay with them as the 'adult' influence at the very least? Why were only certain children rescued, why no adults? Why were the children behaving like mini 'stepford wives' at the end, in spite of the trauma they had gone through? The film is fantastic up to the last fifteen minutes and then it all goes to hell in a handcart.
It was like the writer, and later the director, thought this was a good way to just end it as they were bored. Come up with some ridiculous reason to end the world - have the men in black (yes we all got that little 'wheeze') actually be the aliens, save the kiddies (punters like to see 'little timmy' survive) and there you have it; the perfect ending if you've got bored with your project.
Well, I can vouch for the fact it's NOT. Next time, if you're going to make a movie this good - make the ENDING as good too, or else we (the viewers) just feel cheated. If you get bored - walk away and let someone else finish it.
Out of 10 - I give it 4; and that's just because of the rubbish ending.
SPOILER!! SPOILER!! SPOILER!! SPOILER!! READ FROM HERE AT YOUR OWN RISK!!
----------------------------------------------------
The ending lets the whole movie down - yeah it's not the happy 'save the world' ending we were (in a way) dreading. But that just certain kids were the only ones being saved and no adults at all was just ridiculous.
Have the producers, etc never read 'The Lord of the Flies'? Kids do not do well on their own. They also do not just happily accept being taken by aliens to a strange new world; they do not happily accept not only the deaths of their families and friends (assuming friends are not of the 'chosen') but also the death - apparently - of even their planet.
Why couldn't they have had the aliens stay with them as the 'adult' influence at the very least? Why were only certain children rescued, why no adults? Why were the children behaving like mini 'stepford wives' at the end, in spite of the trauma they had gone through? The film is fantastic up to the last fifteen minutes and then it all goes to hell in a handcart.
It was like the writer, and later the director, thought this was a good way to just end it as they were bored. Come up with some ridiculous reason to end the world - have the men in black (yes we all got that little 'wheeze') actually be the aliens, save the kiddies (punters like to see 'little timmy' survive) and there you have it; the perfect ending if you've got bored with your project.
Well, I can vouch for the fact it's NOT. Next time, if you're going to make a movie this good - make the ENDING as good too, or else we (the viewers) just feel cheated. If you get bored - walk away and let someone else finish it.
Out of 10 - I give it 4; and that's just because of the rubbish ending.
Why all the hate?
vserrol29 November 2018
I know it's a bit late for a review but I feel compelled to reply to some of the criticism leveled at this movie. The reviews tend to be based on a few mistaken assumptions.
1) The movie is pro scientology propaganda
If there is any truth to this then the propaganda is very obscure, as a quick reference to scientology symbols does not include the 7 pointed star as per one detractor. To state that the movie uses a numerical based prophesy and that this is indicative of scientology is conspiratorial and nonsensical. Both the bible and koran are full of them. Maybe I am too ingenuous but at no time did I feel I was being led along a path of conscription to scientology.
2) plot holes due to slim chances of a text fortuitously falling into the hands of a person intelligent enough to decipher the meaning and be the father of one of the chosen survivors and have the descendants of the original prophecy play a part in the fruition of the plan.
fair enough, but nobody seems to question as to why the prophesy itself is possible. Surely if the universe was deterministic, as suggested by the very presence of a prophecy, then a sufficiently advanced civilization able to foresee the prophecy would also be able to foresee the path they have subscribed to the resolution they have decided on.
3) The movie doesn't make sense or jumps around too much.
Fortunately there are many straight forward shows and cartoons to watch instead .
1) The movie is pro scientology propaganda
If there is any truth to this then the propaganda is very obscure, as a quick reference to scientology symbols does not include the 7 pointed star as per one detractor. To state that the movie uses a numerical based prophesy and that this is indicative of scientology is conspiratorial and nonsensical. Both the bible and koran are full of them. Maybe I am too ingenuous but at no time did I feel I was being led along a path of conscription to scientology.
2) plot holes due to slim chances of a text fortuitously falling into the hands of a person intelligent enough to decipher the meaning and be the father of one of the chosen survivors and have the descendants of the original prophecy play a part in the fruition of the plan.
fair enough, but nobody seems to question as to why the prophesy itself is possible. Surely if the universe was deterministic, as suggested by the very presence of a prophecy, then a sufficiently advanced civilization able to foresee the prophecy would also be able to foresee the path they have subscribed to the resolution they have decided on.
3) The movie doesn't make sense or jumps around too much.
Fortunately there are many straight forward shows and cartoons to watch instead .
Judge this movie yourself, but I felt swindled.
xaltered_rissax21 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Now, I have nothing against religious films, but this movie came out a bit too loaded for my comfort. I felt like the commercials made you think that it was going to be a run of the mill disaster movie when in actuality it had a heavy religious undertone. The storyline doesn't live up to the amazing graphics (granted, I was horrified during the airplane scene) and the larger-than-life suggestions that the commercials entail. It's definitely worth seeing for the imagery; and, hell, the storyline is pretty interesting, but the last half is like a scurrying attempt to shove all the loose ends into one ridiculous ending: alien/angels and the saving of innocent Adam and Eve children because they "believed." No thanks, Hollywood.
Wow ... what a pile of garbage
andy_pf29 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
I don't expect a film about the apocalypse or premonitions to be the smartest movie ever ... hell, those 'disaster' movies where the hero charges around saving people are pretty much standard Hollywood fluff, and aren't too intelligent - but they are rarely this stupid. Its like they took all the annoying elements out of these movies and put them all in one (think Independence Day but without the bad jokes to forgive it for the stupidity) In parts I felt like I was watching a kids flick with gory disasters and spooky pedophile stalkers added in for effect. The kids were (as is often the case in these type of movies) annoying. But this time around the adults were so much worse. And the acting was just plain awful all round.
The most annoying thing though was the plot - it didn't make any sense. These advanced aliens can predict the future and feel the need to impart this to some kids to write it all down as a set of numbers in the hope some college professor figures out what they mean. But in the end, it doesn't matter what they mean, they're all going to die anyway. Lucky the aliens feel like saving the kiddies. Now I get the whole religion-aliens/angels take on the movie, but it doesn't feel any less dumb.
To sum it all up: Nicholas Cage's acting was awful, his 'son' was annoying, Rose Byrne's character was plain stupid, Cage's character was a total idiot, the aliens ending was ridiculous, and really, the only good thing was that they got what they deserved - toasted to death in a fiery inferno (too bad they kids escaped with their bloody rabbits).
The most annoying thing though was the plot - it didn't make any sense. These advanced aliens can predict the future and feel the need to impart this to some kids to write it all down as a set of numbers in the hope some college professor figures out what they mean. But in the end, it doesn't matter what they mean, they're all going to die anyway. Lucky the aliens feel like saving the kiddies. Now I get the whole religion-aliens/angels take on the movie, but it doesn't feel any less dumb.
To sum it all up: Nicholas Cage's acting was awful, his 'son' was annoying, Rose Byrne's character was plain stupid, Cage's character was a total idiot, the aliens ending was ridiculous, and really, the only good thing was that they got what they deserved - toasted to death in a fiery inferno (too bad they kids escaped with their bloody rabbits).
The Cleansing
tedg15 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
Timing is everything.
I saw this in a stressed state, looking for escape. I saw it in a grand old theater with large, excellently tuned equipment. I saw it not knowing anything at all about it.
And I loved it.
Yes, I know people do not like Nic Cage. And I know many were put off by the genre- synthesizing approach. But I found it engaging, narratively and visually. Spooky as getout in places. When punctuation was least expected (in three places) and from three unexpected sources, the crashes were extraordinary.
The first one -- a plane crash -- was more terrifying to me than the recurring nightmare from "Fearless." It isn't as cinematically impressive as the best complex long shots, but it was as amazing as it gets in a big budget production. The fact that there are no cuts makes the thing absolutely real.
There is a spaceship. Yes, it is an ET/Third Kind Encounter sort of ending, framed enough differently to matter and goof on Spielberg. But the stunning thing was the design of the thing. Its marvelous, absolutely new and deserving of wonder.
The end is a combination of "The Fountain," "The Fall," "The Holy Mountain" and a Chinese film about a princess whose name I forget. I am sure a reader will supply it. I thought it risky in the context but successful. The game here is one of moving not from one plot point to another, but one established location in genres to another. It takes us out of the movie world to skip among such well rooted movie types so seamlessly. They have to be familiar to work.
Its not hackneyed at all, using and escaping the ordinary.
I recommend this, but only if you can see it loud and big, and only if you have a couple decades of being profoundly influenced by the films this references.
The title is apt.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
I saw this in a stressed state, looking for escape. I saw it in a grand old theater with large, excellently tuned equipment. I saw it not knowing anything at all about it.
And I loved it.
Yes, I know people do not like Nic Cage. And I know many were put off by the genre- synthesizing approach. But I found it engaging, narratively and visually. Spooky as getout in places. When punctuation was least expected (in three places) and from three unexpected sources, the crashes were extraordinary.
The first one -- a plane crash -- was more terrifying to me than the recurring nightmare from "Fearless." It isn't as cinematically impressive as the best complex long shots, but it was as amazing as it gets in a big budget production. The fact that there are no cuts makes the thing absolutely real.
There is a spaceship. Yes, it is an ET/Third Kind Encounter sort of ending, framed enough differently to matter and goof on Spielberg. But the stunning thing was the design of the thing. Its marvelous, absolutely new and deserving of wonder.
The end is a combination of "The Fountain," "The Fall," "The Holy Mountain" and a Chinese film about a princess whose name I forget. I am sure a reader will supply it. I thought it risky in the context but successful. The game here is one of moving not from one plot point to another, but one established location in genres to another. It takes us out of the movie world to skip among such well rooted movie types so seamlessly. They have to be familiar to work.
Its not hackneyed at all, using and escaping the ordinary.
I recommend this, but only if you can see it loud and big, and only if you have a couple decades of being profoundly influenced by the films this references.
The title is apt.
Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.
Meaty, 7/10
worldsworstwryter18 April 2022
I can't decide between a 7 or an 8 for this. As soon as it ended I was kinda angry at it, but the more I think about it, the more I've made peace with the movie.
As usual, Nicolas Cage is great, and everyone else is good. The story is interesting, with a great premise that made me really interested to see what would happen.
The film gets all its 'non stop deadly action' scenes over with pretty quickly, so I was unsure how they were going to spend the rest of the running time. I needn't have worried though, because there are a couple of bonkers twists that kept my attention.
Speaking of twists, I really was not impressed with part of the ending at first. I was confused about it, but after a bit of thinking I am more OK with it. However I will say, that the use of Beethoven's 7th symphony at the end is absolutely brilliant.
Ultimately, I can't take too many points off for the ending, because this film has convinced me of something that I've suspected for a while.
Some films are impossible to end in a satisfactory way.
I think disaster movies in particular are susceptible to this, but there are some stories that are built up in such a way that no ending would properly conclude it. The ending to this film left me a bit unsatisfied, but if it had ended any other way, it would've been just as disappointing. There's no twist that could live up to the direction the story was going in.
Overall, this was a pretty enjoyable movie with an interesting story, and a shocking ending that I think people will be conflicted on, although I'm pretty sure that was inevitable.
As usual, Nicolas Cage is great, and everyone else is good. The story is interesting, with a great premise that made me really interested to see what would happen.
The film gets all its 'non stop deadly action' scenes over with pretty quickly, so I was unsure how they were going to spend the rest of the running time. I needn't have worried though, because there are a couple of bonkers twists that kept my attention.
Speaking of twists, I really was not impressed with part of the ending at first. I was confused about it, but after a bit of thinking I am more OK with it. However I will say, that the use of Beethoven's 7th symphony at the end is absolutely brilliant.
Ultimately, I can't take too many points off for the ending, because this film has convinced me of something that I've suspected for a while.
Some films are impossible to end in a satisfactory way.
I think disaster movies in particular are susceptible to this, but there are some stories that are built up in such a way that no ending would properly conclude it. The ending to this film left me a bit unsatisfied, but if it had ended any other way, it would've been just as disappointing. There's no twist that could live up to the direction the story was going in.
Overall, this was a pretty enjoyable movie with an interesting story, and a shocking ending that I think people will be conflicted on, although I'm pretty sure that was inevitable.
What if everything's not just meaningless chance?
Wuchakk26 April 2019
A disillusioned professor in the Boston area (Nicolas Cage) acquires a document that has successfully predicted tragedies for the last fifty years, but new ones as well (!). Rose Byrne plays the daughter of the seer.
"Knowing" (2009) is a quality drama/mystery with elements of disaster/sci-fi and even a little horror. It's along the lines of wonder-inducing flicks like "The Mothman Prophecies" (2002), "Contact" (1997), "The Forgotten" (2004), "The X-Files: Fight the Future" (1998), "Signs" (2002), "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008) and "War of the Worlds" (2005). If you favor the style and themes of those movies you'll probably like this one.
The film runs 2 hours, 1 minute and was shot in Victoria, Australia, with establishing shots of the Boston/Cambridge area.
GRADE: B
"Knowing" (2009) is a quality drama/mystery with elements of disaster/sci-fi and even a little horror. It's along the lines of wonder-inducing flicks like "The Mothman Prophecies" (2002), "Contact" (1997), "The Forgotten" (2004), "The X-Files: Fight the Future" (1998), "Signs" (2002), "The Day the Earth Stood Still" (2008) and "War of the Worlds" (2005). If you favor the style and themes of those movies you'll probably like this one.
The film runs 2 hours, 1 minute and was shot in Victoria, Australia, with establishing shots of the Boston/Cambridge area.
GRADE: B
Pretty good if you stop watching at 01:40:00
DrLex27 June 2009
Warning: Spoilers
There's little new I can tell you in this review, as my criticism is exactly the same as what has been repeated countless times. What I can tell you is how to watch this movie in a way that won't let itself ruin your experience.
It starts out really well, with a good build-up of suspense and some impressive disaster scenes. But at a certain point it suddenly gets completely ridiculous, as if the director got an aneurysm and his kids had to finish it. Because this movie is all about numbers, here are some of my own. That disastrous point is at 01:40:00 on the DVD if you're watching the NTSC version (at PAL frame-rate it should be about 01:35:54). Just hit the stop button and assume Cage crashes his car into a tree at lethal speed and the credits start rolling. That's a silly ending but believe me, perfectly acceptable compared to the real thing. The actual ending reeks of propaganda for a certain 'religion', although the director nor any of the main actors seem to have any connections to it, so it probably wasn't intentional. It may just have been a case of "hey, we've created an awesome build-up but we forgot to come up with a good finale, so let's summon a Deus Ex Machina and lots of CGI."
Well, now you're probably too curious to skip the ending anyway, so go ahead and let yourself be disappointed. Don't tell me I didn't warn you.
It starts out really well, with a good build-up of suspense and some impressive disaster scenes. But at a certain point it suddenly gets completely ridiculous, as if the director got an aneurysm and his kids had to finish it. Because this movie is all about numbers, here are some of my own. That disastrous point is at 01:40:00 on the DVD if you're watching the NTSC version (at PAL frame-rate it should be about 01:35:54). Just hit the stop button and assume Cage crashes his car into a tree at lethal speed and the credits start rolling. That's a silly ending but believe me, perfectly acceptable compared to the real thing. The actual ending reeks of propaganda for a certain 'religion', although the director nor any of the main actors seem to have any connections to it, so it probably wasn't intentional. It may just have been a case of "hey, we've created an awesome build-up but we forgot to come up with a good finale, so let's summon a Deus Ex Machina and lots of CGI."
Well, now you're probably too curious to skip the ending anyway, so go ahead and let yourself be disappointed. Don't tell me I didn't warn you.
Interesting Idea
jace_the_film_guy9 July 2021
Kind of similar to 'The Box' (if that's any help)
bowmanblue26 January 2021
I know that nowadays the name 'Nicolas Cage' is met with either a smirk or a sigh, depending on how you view him. His recent movies have hardly set the Box Office on fire (most being released straight to DVD or streaming service) and it's hard to remember a time when he was A-list material and capable of selling a movie on his name alone. However, there was a brief period in between his blockbusters and his, er, 'lesser' films where he made some which were actually pretty good - and yet still seems to have been forgotten. 'Knowing' is definitely one of them.
Cage is also well known for his own brand of 'over-acting' which can be anything from comical to cringe-worthy. Here, director Alex Proyas seems to be able to reel him in enough to capitalise on his talent, while at the same time keep him grounded. Cage plays a school teacher who, along with his young son, stumbles on a code back from the fifties which accurately depicts all the major disasters of the last few decades. If this wasn't creepy enough, some are set to occur in the next few days and there are some odd-looking men lurking around his family.
I won't go into the plot too much for fear of spoilers because, I really do think that if you're into science-fiction then you'll really enjoy this one. It's got some nice ideas and isn't afraid to go in directions that you might not see coming.
Cage is still great as a leading man and I've been a fan of director Alex Proyas' work ever since he did 'The Crow.' This may not have the visual flare of some of his early work, but he deserves props for getting a really good performance out of his leading man.
If the film has a weakness I'd say its special effects are a little uneven. I was actually really impressed with some of them and they left me pretty creeped out. However, it looks like the 'effects budget' was spent on the big set pieces and when it came to some of the 'lesser' effects (mainly involving fire) they look very 'computery' - if you know what I mean.
There's another 'forgotten' sci-fi film called 'The Box,' starring Cameron Diaz and directed by 'Donnie Darko's' Richard Kelly which feels like it could be set in 'the same universe' as 'Knowing.' So, if you have seen 'The Box' (and again - don't believe the negative reviews - it's actually pretty good for some dark sci-fi drama) and you liked it, definitely give 'Knowing' a try. It may not be a 'feel-good' movie, but if you're in the mood for some dark sci-fi, or just a Cage fan, give it a go.
Cage is also well known for his own brand of 'over-acting' which can be anything from comical to cringe-worthy. Here, director Alex Proyas seems to be able to reel him in enough to capitalise on his talent, while at the same time keep him grounded. Cage plays a school teacher who, along with his young son, stumbles on a code back from the fifties which accurately depicts all the major disasters of the last few decades. If this wasn't creepy enough, some are set to occur in the next few days and there are some odd-looking men lurking around his family.
I won't go into the plot too much for fear of spoilers because, I really do think that if you're into science-fiction then you'll really enjoy this one. It's got some nice ideas and isn't afraid to go in directions that you might not see coming.
Cage is still great as a leading man and I've been a fan of director Alex Proyas' work ever since he did 'The Crow.' This may not have the visual flare of some of his early work, but he deserves props for getting a really good performance out of his leading man.
If the film has a weakness I'd say its special effects are a little uneven. I was actually really impressed with some of them and they left me pretty creeped out. However, it looks like the 'effects budget' was spent on the big set pieces and when it came to some of the 'lesser' effects (mainly involving fire) they look very 'computery' - if you know what I mean.
There's another 'forgotten' sci-fi film called 'The Box,' starring Cameron Diaz and directed by 'Donnie Darko's' Richard Kelly which feels like it could be set in 'the same universe' as 'Knowing.' So, if you have seen 'The Box' (and again - don't believe the negative reviews - it's actually pretty good for some dark sci-fi drama) and you liked it, definitely give 'Knowing' a try. It may not be a 'feel-good' movie, but if you're in the mood for some dark sci-fi, or just a Cage fan, give it a go.
And in the end...
MaxBorg8911 July 2009
What has happened to Alex Proyas? Back in the '90s, he directed dark, edgy pieces of sci-fi/horror, like The Crow and Dark City, that didn't necessarily pander to studio or audience expectations. Nowadays, he's gone in exactly the opposite direction, first with the fun but uneven Will Smith vehicle I, Robot (which doesn't have much in common with Asimov, despite the title) and now with the Nicolas Cage-starring Knowing. Entirely bad it ain't, but boy, does it struggle from time to time.
Cage plays a physics professor at MIT, named John Koestler, who teaches students about the notion of determinism, i.e. the theory that everything is part of a precise, already established plan. The irony is that he doesn't believe any of that stuff since his wife died in a tragic accident, leaving him alone with his young son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). One day, something special occurs at Caleb's school: a time capsule, which was buried fifty years earlier, is unearthed so that the new generation can see what kids thought the future would look like back then. Instead of a drawing, Caleb ends up with a page containing a bizarre sequence of numbers. John takes a look at the sequence, and quickly (?) realizes that the numbers represent the dates and body count of every major disaster of the last five decades, including 9/11, Katrina and - big surprise - the death of the missus. Three of the predictions, however, have yet to come true, so John must find a way to prevent them from happening. Additionally, he has to deal with a group of weird-looking people who are interested in Caleb.
If it all sounds a bit familiar, that's because it is: while the story develops on its own terms, the premise alone, coupled with the creepy atmosphere, could come from an episode of The X-Files. In case the similarities weren't clear enough, the writers have even replicated the Mulder-Scully dynamic in the shape of John and his reluctant partner Diana (Rose Byrne) and added the inevitable religious subtext, which is hinted at from the very beginning (John's dad is a preacher). Also, the Strangers look kind of... In short, it's the sense of déjà vu that brings down most of Knowing: the third act is very easy to guess, the father/son relationship is sketchy, yada yada yada.
And yet Proyas manages to get some things admirably right: the tension is actually pretty consistent, with a few professionally delivered jump-scares along the way, and the visual effects are state-of-the-art, most notably in the impressive central set-piece which - a true stroke of genius, this one - is depicted in a single, continuous shot. Additionally, Cage's performance is one of his most convincing in quite some time. Okay, so it's not that difficult given his recent body of work includes the likes of The Wicker Man, Ghost Rider and Next, but his portrayal of a man who questions his beliefs (there we go again) adds some emotional weight to the picture. And that's without mentioning the refreshingly merciless conclusion...
Knowing is nothing new, meaning that the few unexpected elements it contains are rapidly sidelined by textbook scripting. Still, even on an off-day Proyas manages to pull off a collection of oddly compelling images (Cage's hair not included). Not quite enough, but we already sort of knew that, right?
Cage plays a physics professor at MIT, named John Koestler, who teaches students about the notion of determinism, i.e. the theory that everything is part of a precise, already established plan. The irony is that he doesn't believe any of that stuff since his wife died in a tragic accident, leaving him alone with his young son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). One day, something special occurs at Caleb's school: a time capsule, which was buried fifty years earlier, is unearthed so that the new generation can see what kids thought the future would look like back then. Instead of a drawing, Caleb ends up with a page containing a bizarre sequence of numbers. John takes a look at the sequence, and quickly (?) realizes that the numbers represent the dates and body count of every major disaster of the last five decades, including 9/11, Katrina and - big surprise - the death of the missus. Three of the predictions, however, have yet to come true, so John must find a way to prevent them from happening. Additionally, he has to deal with a group of weird-looking people who are interested in Caleb.
If it all sounds a bit familiar, that's because it is: while the story develops on its own terms, the premise alone, coupled with the creepy atmosphere, could come from an episode of The X-Files. In case the similarities weren't clear enough, the writers have even replicated the Mulder-Scully dynamic in the shape of John and his reluctant partner Diana (Rose Byrne) and added the inevitable religious subtext, which is hinted at from the very beginning (John's dad is a preacher). Also, the Strangers look kind of... In short, it's the sense of déjà vu that brings down most of Knowing: the third act is very easy to guess, the father/son relationship is sketchy, yada yada yada.
And yet Proyas manages to get some things admirably right: the tension is actually pretty consistent, with a few professionally delivered jump-scares along the way, and the visual effects are state-of-the-art, most notably in the impressive central set-piece which - a true stroke of genius, this one - is depicted in a single, continuous shot. Additionally, Cage's performance is one of his most convincing in quite some time. Okay, so it's not that difficult given his recent body of work includes the likes of The Wicker Man, Ghost Rider and Next, but his portrayal of a man who questions his beliefs (there we go again) adds some emotional weight to the picture. And that's without mentioning the refreshingly merciless conclusion...
Knowing is nothing new, meaning that the few unexpected elements it contains are rapidly sidelined by textbook scripting. Still, even on an off-day Proyas manages to pull off a collection of oddly compelling images (Cage's hair not included). Not quite enough, but we already sort of knew that, right?
What was that?
nkunze22 March 2009
Warning: Spoilers
SLIGHT SPOILERS NOTHING MAJOR I just saw Knowing and it was one of the worst movies i'd seen in a while. It started strong with a flashback to the page of numbers being made , then it went to Cage as a MIT professor and his son gets a mysterious page of numbers. He goes around trying to stop disasters, and never does anything. Then his kid is stalked by pale people that seem straight out of the Davinci code. They realize an impending doom.
It is incredibly violent at parts, but most of it is boring. He spends most of the movie looking at a sheet of paper and driving around looking worried. Some people say the ending is 'thought provoking', but i found it ridiculous. I would skip this one.
It is incredibly violent at parts, but most of it is boring. He spends most of the movie looking at a sheet of paper and driving around looking worried. Some people say the ending is 'thought provoking', but i found it ridiculous. I would skip this one.
Knowing
k_van-926227 October 2018
Warning: Spoilers
I love watching movies that leave you just thinking at the end. This movie really did that. Now I'm not really sure why it has such bad reviews but i really liked it and would definitely recommend watching it.
Its not another end of the world movie where your main characters saves their family and end up surviving at the end, which is something i liked because it shows how Nick cages's character has to cope with knowing that him and his family will die and theirs no stopping it.
I really enjoyed the ending and how everything comes together at the end to show that this is Gods doing. You would never expect that from the way its played out, other than the foreshadowing from his son talking about not believing god at the beginning
Its not another end of the world movie where your main characters saves their family and end up surviving at the end, which is something i liked because it shows how Nick cages's character has to cope with knowing that him and his family will die and theirs no stopping it.
I really enjoyed the ending and how everything comes together at the end to show that this is Gods doing. You would never expect that from the way its played out, other than the foreshadowing from his son talking about not believing god at the beginning
Real good entertainment
Superunknovvn13 April 2009
Warning: Spoilers
"Knowing" is what you wouldn't expect from a Nicolas Cage-flick anymore: real good entertainment. Maybe it has to do with the fact that this movie was made by Alex Proyas, the man responsible for such dark and intriguing stories as "The Crow" and "Dark City". "Knowing" also has this certain darkness that elevates it from similarly themed apocalyptic movies.
The story plays more like a mystery thriller than your typical end-of-the-world-blockbuster... until the last moments, that is. Then the movie starts to fall apart a bit. The final solution reveals that the whole mystery about the prophetic list was more or less superfluous, which is a bit frustrating, but, hey, up until then it's a fun ride. Even the special effects don't ruin the movie. There is a really awkward moment where burning CGI-deer leave the woods. What could have been distracting and annoying doesn't really matter, because at that point the movie's got you hooked so much, the CGI won't bother you. And, of course, there are other moments where the special effects are eerily effective (the plane crash is one of the most terrifying things I have seen at the movies this year).
"Knowing" is definitely not without its flaws: the not too logical story, some unintentionally funny moments of typical Cage-ness and the over-the-top-ending all prevent it from being anything else than popcorn-fodder for the masses. However, there is such a thing as a good blockbuster and "Knowing" is just that. In short: I really enjoyed watching this movie.
The story plays more like a mystery thriller than your typical end-of-the-world-blockbuster... until the last moments, that is. Then the movie starts to fall apart a bit. The final solution reveals that the whole mystery about the prophetic list was more or less superfluous, which is a bit frustrating, but, hey, up until then it's a fun ride. Even the special effects don't ruin the movie. There is a really awkward moment where burning CGI-deer leave the woods. What could have been distracting and annoying doesn't really matter, because at that point the movie's got you hooked so much, the CGI won't bother you. And, of course, there are other moments where the special effects are eerily effective (the plane crash is one of the most terrifying things I have seen at the movies this year).
"Knowing" is definitely not without its flaws: the not too logical story, some unintentionally funny moments of typical Cage-ness and the over-the-top-ending all prevent it from being anything else than popcorn-fodder for the masses. However, there is such a thing as a good blockbuster and "Knowing" is just that. In short: I really enjoyed watching this movie.
Did anyone read this script before shooting???
sdrogue2 May 2009
Warning: Spoilers
This movie was pointless....to the point of "wtf??" since the ending had absolutely nothing to do with the entire preceding film...I can suspend a lot of belief and yes, I am looking forward to May 10th, however, to have me believe that the end of the world is coming, and shape-shifting aliens/angels in mammoth spacecrafts are going to wait till literally the DAY of the end of the world (October 19th, not December 12th for those paying attention) and then only take "children" because....well, just because...seems like the thing to do...and how do they do this? By starting 50 years earlier appearing as a German rock band and whispering to children (scaring the pa-tooties out of them at the same time)....now the main plot was this girl has predicted every major disaster in the last 50 years...and Nick Cage's (who just happens to be a professor of....something to do with randomness) son just "happens" to get the letter the predictions are written on....(yes, how random is that)...and then Nick figures it out after he randomly sets his whisky glass on it just after he randomly fills it to the point of spilling it. The ring of liquid just happens to circle 9/11/01 2996...which gives the Eureka moment....he then proceeds to figure out the rest of the dates, minus the last three....cause they haven't happened.... queue an amazingly awesome plane crash....disaster #3..two to go queue an amazingly awesome worth the price of admission subway crash...disaster #2....one to go they get the idea this last one will happen to everyone, yes, it is an ELE (<--thank you Morgan Freeman) now, here comes the twist... the predictions were given to children to see which were able to "listen" to the angels (???)...not they could DO anything about the disasters...they were going to happen no matter what...and trying to stop them would only make them seem responsible for them, since they had prior knowledge....so that ENTIRE plot line was pointless...since they could just whisper once...the kid gets it....on to the spaceship.... okay, so end of the world, last day....aliens come down, they apparently need our cars to move around in (??? they have space craft, they are shape changers, and they need our cars???) and they get a lucky break when Diana (the mom) leaves her keys in the car to fill up her tank at a petrol station....(who the hell does that???)..she walks away...they jump in and steal the kids....in her car...with her keys...they are interstellar shape changing aliens now promoted to car-jackers.... okay, so they get to the spot where the alien space craft is going to land and tell the dad "you can't go..."...seems like a big enough space ship to me....I have a Kia Carnival and I can fit 2 extra kids and a dad in it....they have a SPACE SHIP and they are like "uh, no, not you...prepare to die" and they leave....with the kids.... queue awesome end of the earth sequence that makes everything before it look silly the end fade in kids are prancing about on an alien world underneath a big tree...preparing to start the human race over again....assuming these kids find food, and shelter...and live long enough to reproduce....
okay, yeah, ....
so why didn't the aliens just grab the kids anytime in the last 50 years and say "let's go!"
so why did they bother telling anyone about disasters they couldn't stop...leading them to think they were insane and committing suicide?
why did they need our cars again?
why did the parents leave the kids alone in the car TWICE after realizing that the kids, and not the parents, were the ones being stalked?
how the hell did Nick's phone work AFTER the entire mobile phone network went offline?
Why send the information at all?
If they could shape shift, could they pick anything nicer than angry looking blonde albinos in matrix like coats?
Where did Rose Byrne get the black nightie?
Why didn't Nick Cage just tell Rose Byrne what was going on the entire drive from the school to his place instead of letting her freak out? What did they talk about on the ten minute ride?
Why would Nick Cage go TO the exact spot he KNEW 182 people were going to die? (That's so Cloverfield)
Yeah, no, nice try but this was rushed and spotty and had no consistency....
okay, yeah, ....
so why didn't the aliens just grab the kids anytime in the last 50 years and say "let's go!"
so why did they bother telling anyone about disasters they couldn't stop...leading them to think they were insane and committing suicide?
why did they need our cars again?
why did the parents leave the kids alone in the car TWICE after realizing that the kids, and not the parents, were the ones being stalked?
how the hell did Nick's phone work AFTER the entire mobile phone network went offline?
Why send the information at all?
If they could shape shift, could they pick anything nicer than angry looking blonde albinos in matrix like coats?
Where did Rose Byrne get the black nightie?
Why didn't Nick Cage just tell Rose Byrne what was going on the entire drive from the school to his place instead of letting her freak out? What did they talk about on the ten minute ride?
Why would Nick Cage go TO the exact spot he KNEW 182 people were going to die? (That's so Cloverfield)
Yeah, no, nice try but this was rushed and spotty and had no consistency....
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
