Knowing
Overall Points:
I saw this movie a few weeks ago, so it's not as fresh in my mind as I might like it to be, so forgive me if any of my thoughts seem incomplete, but that could also be blamed on the fact that I just got up. Also, this is my first review for this site so criticism is always appreciated.
Knowing is a movie about the end of the world. I expected as much so that was no real surprise. What surprised me was that they handled that (rather cliche) subject in a relatively complex and interesting way. The movie follows the activities of John Koestler (Nicholas Cage), an MIT professor who has lost his wife and now lives with his son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) alone in Boston Massachusetts.
Caleb receives a message out of a time capsule dug up as part of his school?s 50th anniversary. Where most of the children receive cute pictures of what students fifty years prior thought the future would be like Caleb gets a piece of paper covered in numbers. The story takes off when John discovers that these numbers correspond to disasters experienced by the human race.
I won't tell you any more for risk of spoiling the movie; suffice to say that this story isn?t terribly original in and of itself. What does surprise me is that the movie branches off in a completely different direction in terms of story and theme about halfway through the movie. Far from being unwelcome this change spices things up and can provide the moviegoer with a good deal of thought and discussion, as it did with my friends and me. The movie trailers really do not give you a good indication of what the movie is really about.
The acting was nothing spectacular. Nicholas Cage plays the lead and acts in his normal, semi-wooden manner as John Koestler. Granted this isn?t an inappropriate way to act, the character is one struggling to find reason and meaning after losing his wife, while balancing having to raise his son and dealing with co-workers on the other hand. So Cage's performance wasn't extraordinary it was in no way out of place. Rose Byrne plays Diana Wayland, the main romantic interest (though not at first) to Nicholas Cage. She is also good at her role, portraying a character that is also a concerned parent and trying to remain incredulous and later simply concerned.
The rest of the cast isn't bad either. Chandler Canterbury and Lara Robinson play the children of John and Diana respectively and they are at least better then Jake Lloyd as Anakin from Star Wars: Episode I. The "Whispering Guys" who become very important in the movie are also fairly standard, as their part in the movie didn?t require any serious acting.
Another thing the movie did well was that it was very complete. This might seem like an odd thing to say, but it's true. Everything you see in the movie, every image and every line has a point, or is somehow tied back in by the end of the film. I mention this because I feel like we rarely get movies that do this nowadays. If you see a box, or a bottle, or a character mentions something then it?s a good indication that it is important in some way to the story. I think this aspect of the film goes some way to making the moviegoer feel satisfied at the end of the film. Even if you don't like the film's story, acting or subject at least you?ll walk away having seen a complete story.
I feel like the films strongest point is its imagery. As a disaster movie it has a lot of chances to present provocative and strange images already and it certainly does not disappoint. The scene where Cage witnesses an airplane crash and attempts to rescue the passengers is one long cut, several minutes long and is impressive (or comical, depending on your level of sadism.). Of course, with the films shift in theme later on the images change as well but are always well portrayed.
In conclusion it's not a bad movie. It certainly isn't as bad as many reviewers claim, who probably got more then they wanted/expected in the film, and it certainly has more to offer then the standard faire disaster film. If you're looking for a good diversion, and a slightly different take on religious and sci-fi themes then check it out.
Things to Watch for:
- A different movie then what you might expect if you just watched the trailers. The film takes on more religious and science fiction overtones then you might expect. This isn?t a bad thing, quite the contrary; it can set the movie apart from other disaster films.
- Completeness. The film fires all the guns onstage, so to speak. To my mind it is a relatively rare example of a director who knew exactly what each shot contained and made sure it all came together in the end.
- The imagery. The movie is very visually appealing, making sure to present provocative and interesting scenes to the viewers, which are altogether well done and very well placed.
Things to Avoid:
- The acting can seem somewhat wooden, and if you?re not a fan of Nicholas Cage?s acting style, you?ll get more of the same in this film. Nothing really stands out on this front in the film.
- It's a different movie then what you might expect from watching the trailers! I know I listed this as a plus, but it can easily turn someone off to the movie if all they wanted was another disaster film.
Overall Points:
I saw this movie a few weeks ago, so it's not as fresh in my mind as I might like it to be, so forgive me if any of my thoughts seem incomplete, but that could also be blamed on the fact that I just got up. Also, this is my first review for this site so criticism is always appreciated.
Knowing is a movie about the end of the world. I expected as much so that was no real surprise. What surprised me was that they handled that (rather cliche) subject in a relatively complex and interesting way. The movie follows the activities of John Koestler (Nicholas Cage), an MIT professor who has lost his wife and now lives with his son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) alone in Boston Massachusetts.
Caleb receives a message out of a time capsule dug up as part of his school?s 50th anniversary. Where most of the children receive cute pictures of what students fifty years prior thought the future would be like Caleb gets a piece of paper covered in numbers. The story takes off when John discovers that these numbers correspond to disasters experienced by the human race.
I won't tell you any more for risk of spoiling the movie; suffice to say that this story isn?t terribly original in and of itself. What does surprise me is that the movie branches off in a completely different direction in terms of story and theme about halfway through the movie. Far from being unwelcome this change spices things up and can provide the moviegoer with a good deal of thought and discussion, as it did with my friends and me. The movie trailers really do not give you a good indication of what the movie is really about.
The acting was nothing spectacular. Nicholas Cage plays the lead and acts in his normal, semi-wooden manner as John Koestler. Granted this isn?t an inappropriate way to act, the character is one struggling to find reason and meaning after losing his wife, while balancing having to raise his son and dealing with co-workers on the other hand. So Cage's performance wasn't extraordinary it was in no way out of place. Rose Byrne plays Diana Wayland, the main romantic interest (though not at first) to Nicholas Cage. She is also good at her role, portraying a character that is also a concerned parent and trying to remain incredulous and later simply concerned.
The rest of the cast isn't bad either. Chandler Canterbury and Lara Robinson play the children of John and Diana respectively and they are at least better then Jake Lloyd as Anakin from Star Wars: Episode I. The "Whispering Guys" who become very important in the movie are also fairly standard, as their part in the movie didn?t require any serious acting.
Another thing the movie did well was that it was very complete. This might seem like an odd thing to say, but it's true. Everything you see in the movie, every image and every line has a point, or is somehow tied back in by the end of the film. I mention this because I feel like we rarely get movies that do this nowadays. If you see a box, or a bottle, or a character mentions something then it?s a good indication that it is important in some way to the story. I think this aspect of the film goes some way to making the moviegoer feel satisfied at the end of the film. Even if you don't like the film's story, acting or subject at least you?ll walk away having seen a complete story.
I feel like the films strongest point is its imagery. As a disaster movie it has a lot of chances to present provocative and strange images already and it certainly does not disappoint. The scene where Cage witnesses an airplane crash and attempts to rescue the passengers is one long cut, several minutes long and is impressive (or comical, depending on your level of sadism.). Of course, with the films shift in theme later on the images change as well but are always well portrayed.
In conclusion it's not a bad movie. It certainly isn't as bad as many reviewers claim, who probably got more then they wanted/expected in the film, and it certainly has more to offer then the standard faire disaster film. If you're looking for a good diversion, and a slightly different take on religious and sci-fi themes then check it out.
Things to Watch for:
- A different movie then what you might expect if you just watched the trailers. The film takes on more religious and science fiction overtones then you might expect. This isn?t a bad thing, quite the contrary; it can set the movie apart from other disaster films.
- Completeness. The film fires all the guns onstage, so to speak. To my mind it is a relatively rare example of a director who knew exactly what each shot contained and made sure it all came together in the end.
- The imagery. The movie is very visually appealing, making sure to present provocative and interesting scenes to the viewers, which are altogether well done and very well placed.
Things to Avoid:
- The acting can seem somewhat wooden, and if you?re not a fan of Nicholas Cage?s acting style, you?ll get more of the same in this film. Nothing really stands out on this front in the film.
- It's a different movie then what you might expect from watching the trailers! I know I listed this as a plus, but it can easily turn someone off to the movie if all they wanted was another disaster film.
So I didn't feel so bad about putting that in my opening line, but I definitely see your point, thanks.