Knowing [Blu-ray]

Like Cages movies

The problem in reviewing any movie is that in all likelihood one will inadvertently reveal too much and spoil it for others. And I'm afraid I will as well. Personally, I think this movie works best if people forgo looking at any of the reviews and see this film fresh and without prejudice (so rent it first). That being said, here is my review.KNOWING is an eye-popping movie with excellent visuals and special effects ... the airliner disaster had my jaw dropping. It is also very effective as a countdown thrill ride. I loved its ambiguities, but because of this, many people have different interpretations and either loved or hated this movie with equal ferocity, depending upon which interpretation they perceived. Two such movies with similar conflicts are Stanley Kubrick's, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and Steven Spielberg's (in honor of Kubrick who was to direct this movie) AI: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE.In 2001, ambiguities run rampant. What did any of it mean? What's the monolith all about? What exactly turned HAL into a killer? What in the heck happened in the entire last act? In AI, one will ask many questions as well, especially, who were those creatures at the end? Aliens (as so many believed) or highly advanced robots who were seeking knowledge of their creator (humans)? People either hated these movies or loved them depending upon their personal interpretations. Hint ... they were NOT aliens in AI.In many ways we see the same ambiguities concerning KNOWING; are the creatures aliens or are they angels (or even a combination of both if one thinks our belief system was alien influenced)? If one really watches and pays the least bit of attention, one "should" clearly see the director's intent. Hint ... they were ... ________ (meaning: find out for yourselves).I thought KNOWING was an entertaining ride that kept me interested throughout, but as we begin to understand that we may be looking at a disaster of mega proportions, other questions of why and for what purpose does this list of numbers serve, begins to settle in. Is our universe random and chaotic? Or is there an order and design that is impossible for us to grasp? In truth, neither interpretation matters much because there is nothing the human race can do about cosmological events.I felt that this movie was quite thought provoking (plenty of discussions around the water cooler). Personally, I loved the numerology concept of this movie -- a random set of numbers that perhaps aren't as random as we thought on first look, which in itself raises more questions ... as does the Bible Code -- a meaningless set of letters and numbers that form words and meanings that can be found on any written page and book, while people see precisely what they want to see? Or something else that is far more compelling and meaningful?). There are many subtleties in this movie, far more than first meets the eye, and several that I didn't pick up on until the second viewing, including the significance of the boy's hearing problem (obviously, I'm not the only one to miss this).I also liked the movie's pace, allowing the tension to escalate as each piece of the puzzle was laid out before us. All in all, I'm happy to have this film in my fledgling blu-ray library. To me it is an impressive film that allows the viewer to search his or her own mind on the questions it tries to raise. I find this a strength, while for others it's a weakness -- there is a wide difference of opinion in the merits of this film, which I think was the director's intent all along.For what it is worth, I viewed this movie on an LN40B630 Samsung HDTV, using an Oppo BDP-83 blu-ray player and a Zvox 2.1 sound system. So what's my rating? Times have changed, and I don't think I should just rate the movie, but also the blu-ray qualities as well. That being said, here are my ratings:Video = a solid 9 out of 10 (some absolutely gorgeous and pristine scenes as well as some really stunning "wow" moments).Audio = 8 out of 10 (even without a 5.1 or 7.1 system, I was impressed with the audio track -- it enhanced the entire movie experience).Movie = a very solid 8 out of 10 (a very good movie, but a bit problematic in areas because of the purposely conceived ambiguities, which created its own plot hole). And while the child actors were no Haley Joel Osment or Dakota Fanning, I felt they did a credible job. All-in-all, a much maligned movie (as was 2001 and AI) that I felt wasn't given nearly the credit it deserves. BTW, and just to let people know where I'm coming from, I thought 2001 was a 5-star classic, while AI was a near-classic and a wonderful tribute to Kubrick.

A healthy dose of corn-cheese slopped over some ripped out biblical excerpts..but I rather enjoyed it. The movie is pretty gripping all the way through and there are some great moments that make the run time worth experiencing. You have to suspend disbelief a bit when watching this movie because some of the plot points unfurl a bit silly in their convenience. It's insinuated that Cage's character must have some form of extreme OCD but it's never really elaborated on, and that's a shame. You may also wonder why this movie is part disaster porn..truly, I couldn't' understand why Nicholas Cage could predict and witness catastrophes that he finds himself at the epicenter of. This is the driving force of the movie but it's rendered pointless towards the end when one of the final revelations is uncovered where the story begins, without the use of extreme violence and special effects. It's a movie about saviors and sacrifice that sort of gels together at the end, but it may leave you questioning what it was all for.

Cage turns in a Cage performance, which you either like or don't. I like it. I liked him in National Treasure because he's smart, understated, and inherently a good guy trying to do good things. His character is a bit more tortured here, but it's the same essential style. The other characters mostly worked as well. (The children's acting, in my opinion, wasn't quite believable, but then considering their age, you can't complain.)The special effects are great. When bad things happen, they happen in grand style. Between the special effects and the acting, the story moves along well, and does a good job of asking you to contemplate how knowing certain events would change either the events, or who and what you are. On that level, it's a great movie.The ending, sadly, is seriously over the top. But for a $3 rental I'm not complaining.(Spoilers are happening here, because I want to rebut a few reviewer's comments.)If you've read Arthur C Clarke's "Childhood's End", you have this movie in a nutshell. The plot isn't identical, but the central idea is: mankind gets toasted, but aliens save some children and bring them to a better world. The end. The only real difference is that in Clarke's version, the aliens are largely responsible for the earth's end; in this movie, it's presumably not their fault. Even the mental telepathy element is an echo from Clarke's story, as is the idea of prophecy. The only amusing twist is that Clarke has the aliens resemble devils in appearance, and here, of course, they look like angels. If Clarke was around, I think he'd have grounds to sue over this movie. Given that he only died a year before this film came out, it has the slightly creepy feel of someone just waiting for him to kick off so they could steal his basic idea without interference. Add a pinch of Zelazny's "Flare" and you have the whole plot.I find it amusing that someone here ranted about how this was an "Intelligent Design propaganda film." If this was, so was "2001 - A Space Odessey" - and if anything, 2001 is even more so, because that book and movie spell out clearly that aliens directly meddled with human evolution. Later in Clarke's writing, he ties the aliens to religious belief. It was one of Clarke's themes. I can only assume that whoever made that comment doesn't know much about science fiction, and the rich tradition it has of aliens interfering with humanity's upbringing.Besides, most intelligent design proponents are Christians. How many Christians are going to happily put up with the idea that angels are really aliens in spaceships? The claim of propaganda absolutely doesn't wash.As for this being a spiritual film, as some others have said, I suppose it depends on how you define it. For me, that aspect of the movie failed badly. Here you have compelling evidence that these aliens (angels presumably don't need spacecraft to get around, so calling them outright angels just doesn't work for me) are behind the Ezekiel vision (that's not a new idea either), and at least some amount of prophecy. The only conclusion you can get to, watching this film, is that religion (at least Judiasm and Christianity) has it wrong, and is really only a confused misunderstanding of what these aliens are about. That's not a very spiritual conclusion. Admittedly, a bunch of aliens who can absolutely foretell the future across 3,000+ years, as these guys clearly can, are more or less God-surrogates for any story's purposes. But that doesn't make this story religious; nearly the opposite.As for the story itself... Childhood's End hung together pretty well. This movie doesn't. The aliens could have dispensed with the 50 years of prophecy thing entirely, and scooped up the children they wanted at any time. A little telepathy, a spaceship, and explanation that the world is about to burn... that would probably be more than convincing enough. The whole psychic/foretelling angle made a great story hook, but it should have been the hook for a different story.Also, Cage's character finds his faith in the end... after a dramatic demonstration that faith is a story about aliens. Huh? That made no sense to me whatsoever. It's nice to see a film that treats religion with a tiny bit of dignity, but the only religions that really work with this film are scientology, and even that's a stretch.Finally, the epic scene near the end, of a wall of flame wiping out cities... it was very dramatic, but it was poor science. The film managed to offend against science and religion, at points, while trying (I think?) to nod and be friendly to both.Fun story, though, and that's all I personally was after when I rented it. Take it for a fun detective story with an over the top ending; a sort of B movie with A+ effects.

It would be unjust to reduce this film's rating to two star simply because Nicholas Cage was the star. I have yet to see a film with him as lead which hadn't in some way been diminished by his wooden acting skills. The plot itself is reasonably good until at the end when it attempts to introduce a religious justification for all that went before. As a committed atheist I found this late aspect to be less than welcome.However, these complaints aside, I enjoyed the film, even though some of the plot was nonsense. The EFX was very well done with a particular focus on the plane crash that happens during the phase in which Cage's character was becoming more convinced of his dreadful predictions gained from a sheet of numbers written by a strange child 50 years earlier and then held in a "Time Tunnel".Sadly, I have removed 2 stars that the film, without Cage, might have been awarded but for his typically wooden performance. If you have no problems with Cage then I would imagine it would have been scored at a maximum of 4 stars.

Knowing is directed by Alex Proyas and collectively written by Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden and Stiles White. It stars Nicolas Cage, Rose Byrne, Chandler Canterbury, Lara Robinson, Ben Mendelsohn and Nadia Townsend. Music is by Marco Beltrami and cinematography by Simon Duggan.1959, and young schoolgirl Lucinda Embry (Robinson) keeps hearing voices. When asked to submit a drawing for the school time capsule- that's to be opened in 50 years time,- she writes a series of random numbers that don't appear to make sense. Forward to 50 years and the grand opening of the capsule, where Professor Jonathan Koestler (Cage) and his young son come by way of Lucinda's numbers. Just what do they mean? If anything?...Ah yes, the good old disaster movie, a genre of film that continues unabated through the decades, this in spite of critical indifference. But the paying public still keep turning up in droves, even in this new technological age. Where once was models being destroyed, and paintings forming elegant backdrops, now is whizz bangery that costs a fortune. Still great fun, though, which is why something like Knowing exists and has many fans.It's a splendid piece of sci-fi hokum pulsing with supernatural overtones, a gentle creeper unravelling the mystery in layers until the final countdown begins. The science is obviously dubious (it's a movie folks) and the air of pessimism that hovers consistently over proceedings (not only is the world in trouble, but all the protags have miserable issues as well), may be too much for some. However, Cage is as committed as ever, Proyas yet again proves himself a beautiful visualist, while the scenes of carnage are truly harrowing and unforgettable.A popcorner with moments of wonder and awe, and yes of course, some cheese as well. Ignore the Cage haters, if you like sci-fi infused disaster movies and haven't had fun with this one yet, then do so, it's a blast. And did I say it's gorgeous to look at as well? It is!... 7/10

Das Jahr 1959: In einer Grundschule in Massachusetts wird eine Zeitkapsel in den Boden eingelassen, die Zeichnungen der Schulkinder enthält. Die Idee dazu hatte die Schülerin Lucinda Embry (Lara Robinson), die auf ihr Blatt allerdings wie im Wahn nur eine sehr lange Zahlenfolge geschrieben hat. 50 Jahre später wird die Zeitkapsel wieder geöffnet, die neuen Schüler bekommen die Zeichnungen - Lucindas Zahlen fallen dabei Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), Sohn des alleinerziehenden Vaters und Astrophsyikers Jonathan Koestler (Nicolas Cage), in die Hände. Eines Nachts findet Jonathan heraus, dass die Zahlenfolge eine Art Code ist, der zahlreiche Katastrophen der letzten 50 Jahre enthält, bestehend aus der Kombination Datum, Anzahl der Todesopfer und, wie Jonathan aber erst später herausfindet, geografischen Koordinaten. Doch auch zukünftige Katastrophen stehen in dem Code - und besonders das Ende von diesem ist beunruhigend...Knowing ist ein Mystery-Thriller von Regisseur Alex Proyas aus dem Jahr 2009 - und ich finde den Film wirklich nicht gut, das kann ich schon mal vorwegnehmen. Er basiert auf einer an sich guten Idee, nur ist die Umsetzung größtenteils misslungen. Los geht das schon mit dem Griff in die Klischeekiste: Wenn sich Jonathan zum Beispiel einer erschreckenden Wahrheit bewusst wird, lässt er natürlich sein Whiskeyglas fallen, die Kamera filmt den Aufschlag auf dem Boden - ausgelutschter geht's nicht. Man kann übrigens nicht pauschal sagen, dass die Darsteller schlecht spielen, aber ihre Rollen sind einfach mies geschrieben. Die Figuren werden quasi dazu genötigt, völlig bescheuert zu agieren, aber das kann man den Schauspielern nicht vorwerfen. Und dass Jonathan ausgerechnet in dem Moment, in dem ihm die Sache mit den Koordinaten in dem Zahlencode klar wird, an dem Ort und Zeitpunkt ist, an dem die nächste Katastrophe passiert, ist schon mehr als nur ein riesengroßer Zufall - das ist völlig unglaubwürdig und nicht die einzige Logiklücke des Films.Hinzu kommen jede Menge Kitsch und Esoterik-Quatsch, bei dem völlig egal ist, ob die mysteriösen Wesen, die dann und wann auftauchen, Engel oder Aliens sind, denn blödsinnig ist es in jedem Fall. Da passt natürlich ins Gesamtbild, dass Jonathan Wissenschaftler und Atheist ist, der nicht ans Übernatürliche glaubt, aber dann seine Ansichten ändern muss. Das Ende will nicht wirklich zum Rest des Films passen - mit diesen Aufzählungen könnte ich noch ewig weitermachen, aber langsam will ich zum Ende kommen. Kurzum: Knowing ist ein riesiger Haufen Mumpitz, der eigentlich viel besser hätte sein können. Hätte, hätte - ist er aber nun mal nicht. Daher reicht's nur für knappe zwei Sterne.

First off, I'm not going to say that I think "Knowing" is one of the greatest films ever made, nor do I think it's a perfect film by any means as it does have a few problems, but overall, I've always really enjoyed this one. I love the cinematography, the atmosphere, the tone, the premise, the score and especially the tense moments scattered throughout this film. Sometimes, it pays not to listen to what others say and instead watch a film and come to your own conclusions. For me, I always got a fair amount out of this film compared to a lot of others. It's not a masterpiece by any means, but it's one that I always enjoy. I would give it an 8/10 overall.

Not one for Nicholas Cage methinks, but he's managed to pull it off in this film. The worlds' coming to an end, but why does his character act ever so slightly 'wooden'? Me, I'd be ticking off my check list of must-do's, then run around and max out my bank accounts.I won't spoil the storyline for you, but its actually a nice film that'll make you consider what your final options'd be 'at the end'. If there's a happy ending, and will aliens save us from ourselves? There aren't that many films that combine the two elements of thinking and enjoyment as nicely as this.