Posted: 4/28/2010 3:00:24 AM EDT
|
Two recent threads have reminded me of this breathtaking movie.
It didn't seem to draw much attention when it first came out. In part, I think that's because it's almost impossible to describe without spoiling it, much like Proyas' earlier one, Dark City. That makes the trailers suck. Then, even if you do give away some spoilers, people think that they're the biggest ones, when in fact the scene with the plane is almost incidental; a car chase and events following it, and events following those, fly so far beyond the average moviegoer's realm of expectations that they simply can't keep up. There's also a sense in the earliest scenes that this is one of those dime-a-dozen thrillers that ends in some fight in a dark barn or some shit. In fact, nothing could be further from the truth. So, there's a lot that worked against the movie's commercial appeal. But to sci-fi fans, wow. What an embarrassment of riches. Ebert wrote a splendid, four star review of it, linked below. But note how that's offset by a 2.5 star user rating. Rottentomatoes hits it even harder. But read those reviews. Some complain about petty shit, but most question the philosophical ideas of the movie, and complain that the conclusions clash with the reviewer's own beliefs. But most of those reviews disagree on what those conclusions actually are. It's like if ten people witnessed a car crash, and tried to testify as to what they saw. Except, they witnessed ideas, not events. This movie is awash with ideas. Ebert noted that it provoked an enormous message board discussion on his site. And it did so with solid acting, pitch perfect direction, and one of the boldest screenplays ever written. Adjectives I've seen in reviews of it include: daring, visionary, ambitious, pertinent, strident, important, etc. If you like intelligent movies, suspenseful movies, philosophy, and/or science fiction, by which I mean real science fiction rather than fluffy space opera, do not miss this. As always, watch it in HD if you can. http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20090318/REVIEWS/903189991/1001 
I don't remember what persuaded me to watch it the first time. I do remember that I was a little put off by it in the first few scenes. But something happens midway through that I've never, ever, seen happen in a movie, and that's when I realized that Proyas had once again thrown out the rulebook. Click To View Spoiler |
|
I thought it was an excellent movie. I could write, more - but watch this TO THE END - some of the better effects in a movie I've seen in a while.
Bah, can't get it to embed - here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDqfmEd4fQ8 |
|
I enjoyed it in a cerebral sense because a lot of the ideas presented are rarely seen on the big screen. Also some of the action scenes surprised me so I was entertained a few times. A complaint is that it seemed, at least to me, that some philosophical ideas were mixed together only for the sake of sparking debate. |
|
Quoted:
I enjoyed it in a cerebral sense because a lot of the ideas presented are rarely seen on the big screen. Also some of the action scenes surprised me so I was entertained a few times. A complaint is that it seemed, at least to me, that some philosophical ideas were mixed together only for the sake of sparking debate. I think that once you accept the basic premise of the movie, events actually follow one another perfectly logically. That's not the case with most movies, where they offer an idea as bait, but then fail to follow through with it. You know, take any movie, take the Final Destination series. In those movies, we're told that death is unavoidable, or something. And we occasionally get comments in the script as to why that is. But none of it ever pans out or makes sense, it's just an establishing premise for a series of dippy scenes designed to appeal to half-interested teenagers. The actual premise is never explored nor even considered by the movies themselves. In Knowing, nothing is offered that doesn't, at the end, make just as much sense as any other explanation. Consider the consistency of the scene in my spoiler comment way above. Most movies would cheat in that scene, and come up with some way out purely for the sake of entertaining the audience. But Proyas stays true to the events and the basic premise. Let me put it another way. Try to come up with an explanation for the basic premise of the movie, and why the characters might become aware of it, that makes any more sense than what's actually delivered. I can think of several explanations that would make as much sense, but I can't think of anything that makes more sense. Given that conclusion, it seems erroneous to argue that the explanations are only there to spark debate. Clearly, they accomplish that, but they also serve to more fully flesh out the basic premise, rather than to simply use it as an excuse for standard movie scenes. The key word, I think, is "contrived." Many people viewed elements of this movie as being contrived, when in fact those elements make perfect sense given the initial premise. Conversely, many people ignore the fact that most other movies truly are contrived, and will cheat at every single turn just for the sake of a fun scene. Think 2012, where the director doesn't even hide the fact that the whole movie is a series of contrived situations which serve only to show off special effects. There's no coherence or consistency in that movie, nothing is sacrificed to fit the reality of the movie, there is no reality of the movie. Forget suspension of disbelief, you're simply resigned to disbelief. Consider Children of Men, on the other hand. A bleak, vicious, yet thoroughly engrossing and fulfilling movie. Every scene, every second of every scene, every comment, every look, every object, and every action, all serve the reality of that movie. You think back on it and try to come up with elements that seemed out of place, or unexplained, or perhaps inconsistent. And the more you think about them, the more sense they make within the context of the movie. There are a couple scenes in that movie involving pet dogs, and absolutely no attention is paid to those dogs. Yet the characters seem to have a good relationship with the dogs, they pet them, talk to them, etc. It's so casual that you might not even have noticed it. But then you think back on the movie's reality, and it's a world where there are no children. So what other non-adult outlet is there for people's love and affection? Pets, of course. The dogs are placeholders for the absent children. There are numerous other such examples from that movie, but they all demonstrate the basic passion of the filmmaker to subordinate the movie to its premise. The movie serves the idea, rather than the ideas serving the movie. I think Knowing is in the former category, where every idea that's offered is consistent with what's come before, even if they're totally batshit off the wall compared to most movies. I don't think the idea is altered to justify those scenes, I think those scenes were left in the screenplay because they serve the idea. What that idea is, is an interesting question, but the movie's answer makes as much sense as any other one I've come up with. |
|
Nicholas Cage hasnt made a bearable movie since Leaving Las Vegas, but damn, he was good in Knowing. He actually had emotions. Towards the end, when he falls to his knees and cries, it actually seemed real. While I didn't personally like the ending for the children, I thought the rest of the movie was good, and the doing away with the happy ending where everything is alright was a refreshing break from Hollywood cliche. |
|
I agree with this thread. I saw "Knowing" in the cinema and really liked it! It is rare to see themes on film that are generally only explored in books.
For similar reasons, I also liked "Children of Men" (which was also mentioned in this thread). I had read the P.D. James book in a college religion course, so I knew the movie adaptation would be very different. But taking the movie for what it is (not expecting it to be consistent with the book), it's a very well done treatment of those themes. |
|
Quoted: I loved the ending. In honesty, I was a bit torn. Without giving anything away, it is refreshing to see something that breaks free from a tired formula, and I could relate to, or perhaps admire the writer's choice for the lead character's ultimate 'decision'/ choice / and saying anymore would betray keeping things on the down-low. It may have just been my mood at the time I saw the film, yet on the DVD I would have liked the option of an alternate ending none the less. |
|
I honestly don't understand the love for Knowing.
Frankly, the whole movie left me feeling  and I did not enjoy it at all. I don't see what was so amazing and cerebral about it either. It had its moments, and it was at least way better than that absolutely god-awful 2012, but that says less in favor of Knowing and more about just how bad 2012 blew.
Yes, I got that the end lifted very heavily from Revelation, but I still don't see how that does anything for it. |