|
Knowing
Apr 12, 2009 13:48:10 GMT -8
Post by Jockolantern on Apr 12, 2009 13:48:10 GMT -8
I refuse to believe the man who made Dark City has done wrong. Then don't watch I, Robot.
|
|
|
Knowing
Jul 2, 2009 10:02:14 GMT -8
Post by chollman on Jul 2, 2009 10:02:14 GMT -8
I was thinking about this movie again and about how much I enjoyed it. Re-reading this thread, I now have to say something else regarding some issues. Like how the ending and how the fact that the world was going to burn.
Again, I have to say I thought it was more than adequately foretold, what with the dream and the news reports, and also when they find the biblical picture from Peter (I believe) which represents the world burning in a cleansing and judgment.
Plus, the end wasn't about 'aliens' taking kids and repopulating the earth. The 'aliens' were angels (notice their wings?) taking the innocent away in order to purify the earth. I thought it was an amazing religious allegory in a sci-fi story.
|
|
|
Knowing
Jul 12, 2009 3:22:21 GMT -8
Post by indy2003 on Jul 12, 2009 3:22:21 GMT -8
Just got around to watching this one. I really enjoyed it, to be honest. I can understand why some chose to beat up on the movie (a combination of rather bold plot developments and a general hatred for Nicolas Cage by many critics out there), but I felt it was a pretty crackerjack thriller with some interesting ideas about the nature of the universe. And the ending... hey, love it or hate it, you have to admire Proyas for actually following through on what he set up. Talk about introducing a gun in the first act and having it go off in the third...
|
|
Mark
Intern
Posts: 93
|
Knowing
Jul 12, 2009 20:00:56 GMT -8
Post by Mark on Jul 12, 2009 20:00:56 GMT -8
Giant popped sun-zit screen-capture = scorched earth. I laughed.
I liked the movie okay.
[spoiler(s)]:
The disaster scenes are terrific and punctuate the story really well, especially the three-minute-plus continuous tracking shot of the plane (what a horror!) and the... well, you'll know when you see the film. [End Spoiler(s)]
It's awfully difficult to take Nicholas Cage's "mouth-agape, wrinkled brow" look seriously anymore because he has used it in practically every movie he has done - ever.
Objectively speaking, he did a fine job but... I kept thinking about bees, bear suits, his eternal puppy-dog look of incredulousness and the ebb and flow of his forehead hairline. I wish he would settle on having hair or not.
Gosh. Don't you wish that Knowing was his debut starring role? I do.
Anyway, a genuine Sci-Fi "the-world-is-going-to-blow-up-and-it's-going-to-get-nasty" film in every respect (and we don't get many of those anymore). The sound and Beltrami's score were great, also.
|
|
|
Knowing
Jul 16, 2009 20:58:53 GMT -8
Post by Brendan Anderson on Jul 16, 2009 20:58:53 GMT -8
I just watched this film - usually I skip all Nicholas Cage movies no matter how good they may be reviewed as I really really can't stand him...but this discussion piqued my interest enough to bite the bullet and endure him (but man, what a reminder of why I don't watch his movies! Least. Favorite. Actor. Ever.) ***Spoilers*** I'm kind of in agreement with Joe, at least on the numbers aspect of the film. The boy claims the aliens/angels sent the numbers ahead as a message....but what message? Why drop solar flare hints throughout history? There's never an explanation of why the message is sent. And what is the Bible then? Is it just an interpretation of the numbers? Or is the Bible a different message with the same ending? If so, why did the Bible authors get the message in readable prose while some other people just got dates and GPS coordinates? Also, there is no rationale for why those particular kids are chosen and taken/rescued... The very last scene left me perplexed as well - obviously the two kids running represent an Adam and Eve start to the new planet, but all the other spaceships must have dropped off other kids too, right? So it's not like these two are the actual ONLY two humans as Adam and Eve were. And then there's the golden Tree of Life they are running toward - are we to believe this new planet is a world without original sin? If so, how could that be seeing as how the kids were certainly old enough to have all their "worldly" sensibilities left over from their time on Earth? It's as if the director thought, "well, we need some big hopeful wrap-up scene to finish this off...grab me a couple other Bible references off the shelf there, Bob. Golden tree? Sure! I like it!" And finally, why do angels have to dress like they are from the Matrix? Seriously... -Brendan
|
|
|
Knowing
Jul 16, 2009 21:00:31 GMT -8
Post by Jens Dietrich on Jul 16, 2009 21:00:31 GMT -8
What a retarded plot. Brendan, you just successfully destroyed any interest I might have had in seeing this film.
|
|
|
Knowing
Jul 17, 2009 6:55:37 GMT -8
Post by indy2003 on Jul 17, 2009 6:55:37 GMT -8
I'm kind of in agreement with Joe, at least on the numbers aspect of the film. The boy claims the aliens/angels sent the numbers ahead as a message....but what message? Why drop solar flare hints throughout history? There's never an explanation of why the message is sent. It's just a set-up for the primary argument of the movie related to whether the universe is random or deterministic. Is it possible that whoever receives the message will be able to change things? Perhaps not. Maybe the angels just feel like f---ing with us, or maybe they wanted to give certain people time to prepare for the inevitable. It seems as reasonable as most "prophecy": maybe people don't really need to know, but somebody is there claiming to have received the info anyway. And what is the Bible then? Is it just an interpretation of the numbers? Or is the Bible a different message with the same ending? If so, why did the Bible authors get the message in readable prose while some other people just got dates and GPS coordinates? In the context of the film, the Bible is simply a historical document potentially portraying similar events that occured in the past (the story of Ezekiel and such). I don't think those who wrote it were ever supposed to be doing so for the purpose of providing clues to secret codes. I don't remember any such thing in the film. Also, there is no rationale for why those particular kids are chosen and taken/rescued... The very last scene left me perplexed as well - obviously the two kids running represent an Adam and Eve start to the new planet, but all the other spaceships must have dropped off other kids too, right? So it's not like these two are the actual ONLY two humans as Adam and Eve were. And then there's the golden Tree of Life they are running toward - are we to believe this new planet is a world without original sin? If so, how could that be seeing as how the kids were certainly old enough to have all their "worldly" sensibilities left over from their time on Earth? It's as if the director thought, "well, we need some big hopeful wrap-up scene to finish this off...grab me a couple other Bible references off the shelf there, Bob. Golden tree? Sure! I like it!" I don't think we're necessarily supposed to believe that it's a world without original sin. The Adam & Eve + tree symbolism is supposed to represent new beginnings rather than a literal "restart" version of Biblical history. You're working from the assumption that the film believes everything in the Bible is historically accurate. As for the kids, they were obviously just a couple of the numerous pairs chosen. As we're Americans and we like seeing ourselves as the center of attention, the film focused on a couple of American kids, but the idea as a whole isn't that small-minded. And finally, why do angels have to dress like they are from the Matrix? Seriously... -Brendan Who says they're angels? They could be any number of things... Back at ya later
|
|
|
Knowing
Jul 17, 2009 9:00:45 GMT -8
Post by Brendan Anderson on Jul 17, 2009 9:00:45 GMT -8
It's just a set-up for the primary argument of the movie related to whether the universe is random or deterministic. But the chasing around of the numbers takes up the MAJORITY of the film. If it's just a 'set up', then it was truly a poorly proportioned film... If the Bible is simply a historical document, why were there so many references to it? Why have it sitting on the bedside table? Why have the drawing of biblical revelation play so prominently into the last 1/3rd of the film? The film references biblical prophecy almost as much as the numerical one Cage is following. If there is no intention of using the tree as comparison or allegory, then why include it? It certainly wasn't needed to give a 'new beginning' feel - the dropping off of children on a brand new planet took care of that. Again, it's like they wanted to inject the film with some kind of 'deeper meaning' with these allusions, but they didn't know what that meaning was, so it's just kind of there. But they have wings...and they've been guarding the children...and the biblical drawing clearly shows angels drawing direct comparison. I really don't buy any of your attempts to give the director a pass for these things when they clearly make little to no sense in the film. -Brendan
|
|
|
Knowing
Oct 31, 2009 20:58:05 GMT -8
Post by Christian K on Oct 31, 2009 20:58:05 GMT -8
Watched this today for the first time. Not entirely spoiler-free, but for me, it's important how I arrive at the film's end.
I watched the film a second time as soon as it concluded. And here is my reaction: Uhm....
At least watching the film makes me appreciate Beltrami's score a lot more now, if nothing else...
|
|
|
Knowing
Nov 2, 2009 20:39:09 GMT -8
Post by Jangles on Nov 2, 2009 20:39:09 GMT -8
I personally loved this movie. I at first thought it would be a completely green flecked shit movie because it had Nick Cage in it, but I really ended up liking it. And Rose Byrne is beautiful!
|
|
|
Knowing
Nov 4, 2009 16:41:19 GMT -8
Post by General Silliness on Nov 4, 2009 16:41:19 GMT -8
i wonder what all the other kids parents must ´ve been through to deliver them to the final destination point. i mean the whole numbers affair is just for nic cages character, right? what an awefully complicated method to deliver the message. ok, its clear you can´t just tell it to the kids and then :"daddy daddy the voices in my head say something terrible will happen and we need to go to whereever" alright be a nice boy and take your pills. and brandon, i think the group of kids the chose is the one that should be able to overcome their parents sins and mistakes. makes no sense to restart the same shit.....also....how the fuck will the kids survive on the new planet??? will the angels help them? and... did they forget to mention the planets horrible wildlife??? or are those kids the only ones and all the other ships where just on a escort mission?? so many questions.
|
|
|
Knowing
Oct 13, 2010 1:41:29 GMT -8
Post by Hook on Oct 13, 2010 1:41:29 GMT -8
Finally got around to watching Knowing. While I should be discussing the fucking awesome Inception or how you guys (myself included in "you guys") are wrong about me cuz I was floored by Watchmen and loved it, I'm gonna go with this one because I'm weird.
First, the whole point of the movie and how it should be judged and its themes measured against is stated in the opening scene with John and his class talking about Determenism vs Randomness. I could go with this and discuss my impressions and reply to some of you guys, but I won't. Why? Because I'm a nerd. The bad kind.
Now, I won't go into the whole "how did he know which numbers corresponded to dates, which to number of deaths, and which to ignore (the locations)?" because I'd have to get into math I don't understand. Point is, I think his chance of being able to deduce that is rather slim, statistically (though a possible explanation corresponds to one of the themes of the film and I said I wouldn't go there).
But it's the doomsday event that gets me. Solar flare activity of 100 microTesla? First of, Tesla is a unit of magnetic flux, not radiation, and solar flare activity usually fucks up Earth's magnetic "homeostasis", though it can damage biological tissue. We're ok, funnily enough, because we have an atmosphere, but astronauts need to be careful. So far, how much magnetic activity is required to affect the atmosphere, let alone wipe it clean, is not known (or how and it what manner it would do so).
Ok, so let's say it happens. Solar activity, including solar flares and coronal mass ejections, take days to reach Earth (when they are headed our way). The fastest take hours, and one recorded CME took minutes only because another CME "cleared the way". How exactly John (Cage) reached the conclusion that the Sun would poop one out and how much µT it would emit is not clear. Again, if he's concerned about the radiation destroying the entire atmosphere, T is not your unit to go about doing that.
Ok, the extinction event happens. No way Jose hiding in caves or anywhere deep underground will save you. You are dead. Specially if the atmosphere goes out instantly (it won't, more on that later). How exactly will they survive when the surface is being constantly bombarded with ultraviolet radiation, killing all life on Earth (maybe bacteria dependent on fermentation could find a way to live in certain places), but not only that, the processes that control our current weather (think specially the water cycle) will be gone along with the air we breathe and Earth's magnetic fields. And/but, if you remember from science class or any dumbass journalist who writes about global warming, the ozone layer and the overall composition of the atmosphere (and our surface) keeps some of the Sun's radiation/sunlight trapped on Earth (quite a bit). Greenhouse effect ring any bells? Anyway, without an atmosphere, contrary to the movie's "scorched beyond belief" posture, Earth will be subject to the same conditions, say, asteroids are. It will cool down very much as well as receiving all the deadly doses of solar radiation it must sans atmosphere.
Oh, and that radiation will be like most other types of what we call deadly radiation: boring. It will take days, months, years of exposure to recognize its effects. Of course, nobody will because nobody will be able to breathe! So, no, the Earth's surface won't, as cool as it may look, explode like in ID4. And why bit by bit? I don't get it? Is it because it's receiving the effects of the "super flare" as it rotates? That is moronic and dangerously close to The Mummy Returns' "running away from daylight" or Shyamalan's "running away from the wind". If you don't believe me, just look at how aurora borealis/australis work, caused by flares. When caused by very intense solar flares, their "magic fireworks" can be seen on both poles simultaneously.
Nerd this one out: solar flare intensity is measured by the maximum flux of X-rays it produces, measured in watts per meter square. Try as I might, I must confess, I can't get John's 100 µT figure into joules when the supposed (if the Wiki source is correct) energy output of a typical solar flare is 6·1026 J. That is equal (I think) to 6·1026 [(kg·m2)]/s2. And a tesla is 1 (kg)/A·s2. So, how do I go about it? In the end, I think (yeah, I'm not as clever as I'd like to be), I don't think the units for magnetic fields are supposed to be converted into joules, at least not in everyday, practical use. But that's beside the point. 100 µT means nothing. (Solar) atmospheric flares between 0.2-9T are not unheard of. But I guess I'm going in circles. Also, solar wind (of which flares and CMEs are part of) can emit a good 100 keV (kiloelectronvolts... aaaaaaaghh!!!). Whatever the hell that means (mostly, solar wind is a plasma and thus is electrically charged, thus producing magnetic fields), solar wind is responsible for Earth's magnetosphere (most solar wind, being, uh, "weak", is repulsed by Earth's magnetosphere, but when it's a heavy hitter, it creates auroras and the like, and disruption of electronics and so on).
A good candidate for Proyas' doomsday event would be a Gamma-Ray Burst event occurring in a supernova that is sufficiently close to Earth. It may have already happened in Earth's history. In any case, this baby can come "out of nowhere" without any warning whatsoever and really mess the ozone layer. Now, I know what you're thinking: "Get the hell out, I'm not reading your post -er- But, Hook, gamma-ray bursts are extremely rare in our side of the galaxy and, even then, it would have to be aimed precisely at us with great accuracy". Yeah, well, so is the deadliest solar flare of all time. But listen to this (read it and listen to yourself saying it), a gamma-ray burst can carry more energy than the Sun, our Sun, will ever produce. Deadly. Even then, not everyone's sure what exactly would happen if a badass enough burst reaches us.
Just a fun fact for no reason: the fusion reaction in the Sun can only happen in its core, and, according to wiki, "fusion power is estimated by model to be about 276.5 watts/m3, a power production density which more nearly approximates reptile metabolism than a thermonuclear bomb".
No, I did not miss the point of the film. It's just that this... this was driving me crazy! For all the effort put into the film (and isn't CGI used for virtually everything in this film? from far away background objects, to the leaves swaying from within a virtual fog outside John's home, the fire on the plane's victims, and I'm talking out of my ass here, but perhaps plenty of color correction of the original film composition), this bothered me to no end. The other stuff... eh, it's ok, I guess, but it could've been told in a less jumbled fashion.
|
|
Noctivagus
Intern
Twinkle twinkle little bat, you'll never get away with that.
Posts: 26
|
Knowing
Jul 29, 2013 11:50:06 GMT -8
Post by Noctivagus on Jul 29, 2013 11:50:06 GMT -8
Wow, what a great movie! REALLY enjoyed it.... ok, Nicolas Cage is a wooden as he has ever been, but I thought the concept behind the film was really interesting, with all the religious and philosophical overtones.... ....Highly recommended. I totally agree with Jon, and I do not mind what anybody says about things being left unexplained... I love things being left unexplained - lots of great tales don't have the need to explain every chord of the story... though there are folk in Hollywood who feel everything should be tied up (nothing wrong with that in its place). The strength of the story is in the telling, and this one is told very well and cinematically. Who cares if questions are left un-spelled-out - I don't mind having questions unanswered. Look at all the plot holes and flaws in 'Vertigo' and that has recently been voted the greatest film ever made (a very great film I would agree... but I don't believe in bests in such a wide field). I love films and so I am always prepared to love a film even if it has warts. You abide the flaws in the things you love... and there is no story whatsoever ever penned by a man or woman that does not have flaws. I thought 'Knowing' was an above average film in both cleverness of idea and cleverness of execution... I thought even Nic Cage was beautifully used (yes, I don't think too much of the actor's performances in general, as with Tom Cruise and Will Smith). It is easy to pick holes in a film you did not enjoy... it is just as easy to pick the same holes in films you enjoy and so don't do this to. So long as a film entertains me, what more is there to ask in order to enjoy it? Yes, above enjoyment there are other things to do with art, craft, wonderful music and the such like. But the first thing to ask of a film is 'Have I enjoyed this?' If the answer is yes, then the film has succeeded in its primary task. I enjoyed 'Knowing'... I have watched it many times and I still enjoy it ;D
|
|
|
Knowing
Aug 12, 2013 11:09:05 GMT -8
Post by boden on Aug 12, 2013 11:09:05 GMT -8
One of my favorite scores, and I love the film--one of the few modern Hollywood science fiction films that actually explores some intelligent SF concepts. In addition, the film review by Roger Ebert spawned an entertaining and thoughtful conversation that is among the best you will find on the internet. www.rogerebert.com/rogers-journal/a-roll-of-whose-dice
|
|