Respond/React: Knowing
"Knowing" is a 70's pseudo-intellectual sci-fi B-movie made with the special effects of the Aughts. Well, except for one important scene which looked like it came from the early 90's. I wouldn't recommend the film to anyone but if you like dumb sci-fi or enjoyed Nic Cage's recent films then it might be up your alley. The audience I saw it with left the theater grumbling "terrible". A British guy said that "It started bad. And then it got worse." Personally, I didn't think it was terrible because I wasn't ever really bored. It was effective enough filmmaking with a silly screenplay. The best comparison would be that it's the spooky sci-fi equivalent to "Eagle Eye".
The more interesting discussion, however, is Roger Ebert's response to the film. Ebert's initial review was overwhelmingly positive. He then wrote a kind of rebuttal piece, a respose to both the people commenting on his own site and to the rest of the critical world (almost all of whom panned the film). It's a bit puzzling because in his follow-up, he acts stunned that people thought the movie would be anything but preposterous. He writes:
Believe me, I know the plot is preposterous. That's part of the charm. You go to an end-of-the-world thriller starring Nicolas Cage looking scared to death, and you're in for a dime, in for a dollar. I love to dissect improbabilities in movies, but with "Knowing" I simply didn't care. I was carried by the energy. The premise, about that little girl in 1959 sealing up her letter, is preposterous. Every ad starts with that. What were you expecting, the Scientific American?
Well, no. What I think people were expecting was one of the best sci-fi films possibly ever. Why would they think that? Well because that's how Ebert opened his review: "Knowing" is among the best science-fiction films I've seen -- frightening, suspenseful, intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome. In its very different way, it is comparable to the great "Dark City," by the same director, Alex Proyas.
Also, the premise isn't the problem. It's the fact that 90% of what happens afterward is preposterous. Our heroes actions, others people's reactions, little head-scratchers like why a cell phone with no signal would be able to get a call from a landline.
Ebert's review does mention that the story is somewhat preposterous but it's a quick line and and he even seems to makes excuses for why the preposterous stuff should be acceptable. He then goes on to say it is expert and confident storytelling, which it isn't. The only way that it is expert and confident is if you also think schlockmeisters like Russ Meyer are geniuses (which most people don't). Calling this movie one of the best sci-fi films ever is like calling "Live Free or Die Hard" one of the best action movies ever. I loved that film but I also realized that it was ridiculous and I warned everyone to whon I recommend it that they needed to go in expecting an over-the-top superhero movie.
Sadly, whenever Ebert defends the film, he usually defends it for being cheefully crappy which probably isn't what his readers expected when they saw "best sci-fi movie" in the opening paragraph.
For a further response (with spoilers), read on.
In his blog, Ebert goes on to address the two biggest complaints that people have with the film. The first is Nic Cage and the second is the role of religion. Now while I think people are hating a little too hard on Nic Cage (some people in the theater I saw it in seemed primed to hate the film from the first frame) but I also think he's overrated by his fans.
Ebert writes that Cage has two speeds: "intense and intenser". I agree with that and that isn't a good thing. What that means is that Nic Cage doesn't have a lot of range. Yes, he can play people from different walks of life but they all have the same characteristics. No matter who he plays, there's always a steely/manic focus, be it about saving the world, stealing cars, or drinking himself to death.
Ebert poses the question: I have great affection for Harrison Ford, George Clooney and Brad Pitt. But can they go rockabilly like Nic did in "Wild at Heart?"
I have my doubts about Ford and Clooney as actors but when it comes to Pitt, I think the answer is Yes. Ford, Cage, and Clooney are leading men. I think Pitt has actually become an actor. I just don't believe that Cage could play helpless like Pitt did in "Babel" or the weariness of "Assassination of Jesse James". The best way I could describe it is that Brad Pitt learned how to wear emotions while Cage constantly feels the need to exude whatever his character is supposed to be. "Knowing" called for a subtle performance and subtle just isn't a club that Cage has in his bag.
When the movie opened, Cage was supposed to be lost. He was supposed to be torn up about the death of his wife. Instead of a man who is torn and frayed, Cage comes off as a loon. Instead of heartbroken and adrift, he came off as borderline maniacal. He seemed like a guy who might just flip out and become a mass murderer. While you can excuse that in a b-movie, the honest appraisal of the performance has to be a negative one.
As for the Biblical elements, while I do think that some people just don't like God in their entertainment, the bigger issue is that the ending is, as Ebert points out, almost literally Deus Ex Machina. And for most people, Deus Ex Machina is a bad thing in a movie.
What's worse is that, in "Knowing", it becomes pretty obvious early on that only a Savior from above can save the day. The idea that there is any randomness doesn't really exist and the hope that Nic Cage's character can save the day dissipates pretty quickly as well. After that, there really isn't much of any conflict. It's just Nic Cage running around not being able to save the day.
Even worse, there's nobody trying to stop him from running around like a madman. While some people voice concern, nobody does anything. There's nobody trying to keep Cage from his quest. Imagine a version of Noah's Ark (or Evan Almighty) in which nobody really cares that Noah is building the Ark. Imagine Field of Dreams if building the field wasn't really an issue and nobody made any complaints about it and it didn't threaten their livelihood. That's a problem. That's "Knowing".
In the end, "Knowing" is very much like a movie that Ebert didn't like.
The word preposterous is too moderate to describe "Eagle Eye." This film contains not a single plausible moment after the opening sequence, and that's borderline. It's not an assault on intelligence. It's an assault on consciousness. I know, I know, I liked "Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor," but that film intended to be absurd. "Eagle Eye" has real cars and buildings and trains and CNN and stuff, and purports to take place in the real world.
You might like it, actually. Lots of people will. It involves relentless action: chases involving planes, trains, automobiles, buses. Hundreds of dead. Enough crashes to stock a junkyard. Lots of stuff being blowed up real good.
You could write almost the exact same thing about "Knowing" except this film adds in a phiosophical debate, replaces most of the action with tension, and holds its shots longer to give a sense of thoughtfulness instead of adrenaline. But in the end, they are both the same thing: silly films that pass the time and might even appeal to a certain audience but, when looked at objectively, simply aren't that good.
