movie review knowing

Knowing (2009)

• User Reviews

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

• User Ratings
• External Reviews
• Metacritic Reviews
• Full Cast and Crew
• Release Dates
• Official Sites
• Company Credits
• Filming & Production
• Technical Specs
• Plot Summary
• Plot Keywords
• Parents Guide

Did You Know?

• Crazy Credits
• Alternate Versions
• Connections
• Soundtracks

Photo & Video

• Photo Gallery
• Trailers and Videos

Related Items

• External Sites

Related lists from IMDb users

Recently Viewed

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

• For Parents
• For Educators
• Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

• Get the app
• Movie Reviews
• Best Movie Lists
• Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

• Best TV Lists
• Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
• Common Sense Selections for TV
• Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

• Book Reviews
• Best Book Lists
• Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

• Game Reviews
• Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

• Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

• Podcast Reviews
• Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

• App Reviews
• Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

• YouTube Channel Reviews
• YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

YouTube Kids Channels for Gamers

• Preschoolers (2-4)
• Little Kids (5-7)
• Big Kids (8-9)
• Pre-Teens (10-12)
• Teens (13+)
• Screen Time
• Social Media
• Online Safety
• Identity and Community

How to Prepare Your Kids for School After a Summer of Screen Time

• Family Tech Planners
• Digital Skills
• All Articles
• Latino Culture
• Black Voices
• Asian Stories
• Native Narratives
• LGBTQ+ Pride
• Best of Diverse Representation List

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

Common sense media reviewers.

Grim sci-fi thriller is too intense for young kids.

A Lot or a Little?

What you will—and won't—find in this movie.

Single parents are shown as loving, concerned, and

Wracked by grief after the recent death of a loved

Harrowing accidents are shown in great detail. A p

Cursing includes "dammit," "hell," "s--t ," and "o

A scene set in a convenience store shows Pepsi and

An otherwise principled character frequently drink

Parents need to know that this grim sci-fi thriller is about global catastrophe and disaster, which could be very upsetting for kids. There are scary presences, spooky music, dead parents, and children in danger throughout the movie, and it really stretches the PG-13 rating in terms of depicting horrifying disasters …

Positive Messages

Single parents are shown as loving, concerned, and trustworthy.

Positive Role Models

Wracked by grief after the recent death of a loved one, a leading character abuses alcohol on a nightly basis.

Violence & Scariness

Harrowing accidents are shown in great detail. A plane crashes into a crowded freeway, with bodies, fires, and injuries everywhere; a train speeds out-of-control through New York's Subway system, inflicting destruction, death, and injury. Children are often in grave danger -- from accidents, scary strangers lurking, fire, abduction, and many major events over which they have no control. One little girl is shown bloodied and on the brink of madness in an early scene. Burning animals flee from a fire (one is shown in a disturbing close up).

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Cursing includes "dammit," "hell," "s--t ," and "oh my God."

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

A scene set in a convenience store shows Pepsi and other products. One Sabrett's hot dog stand is prominently seen on an NYC sidewalk.

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

An otherwise principled character frequently drinks to excess when depressed.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Parents Need to Know

Parents need to know that this grim sci-fi thriller is about global catastrophe and disaster, which could be very upsetting for kids. There are scary presences, spooky music, dead parents, and children in danger throughout the movie, and it really stretches the PG-13 rating in terms of depicting horrifying disasters (a monumental plane crash injures and kills scores of people, an out-of-control subway train smashes into a crowded station, etc.). Animals are seen burning as they flee from a massive fire. A main character also drinks to excess on a number of occasions, and there's some language ("s--t," "damn," etc.). To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Community Reviews

• Parents say (46)
• Kids say (104)

Based on 46 parent reviews

What's the Story?

When a time capsule buried by an elementary school class in 1959 is dug up in 2009, one little girl's strange, unsettling entry -- a paper filled with hundreds of random numbers -- finds its way into the hands of single dad/astrophysicist John Koestler ( Nicolas Cage ) and his son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). John soon determines that the numbers aren't random at all: They actually reveal a prophetic listing of all the major catastrophies on earth since 1959 -- and, even more frightening, disasters in the immediate future. Is it coincidence or part of a grand plan? Fear and panic escalate as John, working with the daughter ( Rose Byrne ) of the now-dead little girl who foresaw it all, tries to stop the inevitable.

Is It Any Good?

KNOWING wants to be a lot of things, but logical isn't one of them. From early in the movie when John lectures his M.I.T. students about randomism vs. determinism (unsubtly setting the stage for what's to come and also sounding like he's talking to a seventh grade class) to the final moments when Earth's very survival is at stake, style and action take precedence over coherence.

The characters never behave in a rational way, instead serving only to move the story from one harrowing event to another. In its desire to cover such major issues as humankind's frailty in the face of nature, religion, parenting, and even a glimmer of hope for the future, the film loses its way amid showy special effects, thinly drawn characters, and lack of plausibility. Dark City , an early Alex Proyas movie, was far more successful at giving life to the science-fiction genre.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about how the movie creates suspense. Would it be as spooky or scary without the music, close-up shots, or shadows?

Parents, if the movie's end-of-the-world subject matter upsets your kids, be sure to address their fears.

And on a lighter note, you can also discuss what you'd put in a time capsule to represent your life.

Movie Details

• In theaters : March 20, 2009
• On DVD or streaming : July 7, 2009
• Cast : Chandler Canterbury , Nicolas Cage , Rose Byrne
• Director : Alex Proyas
• Inclusion Information : Female actors
• Studio : Summit Entertainment
• Genre : Science Fiction
• Run time : 122 minutes
• MPAA rating : PG-13
• MPAA explanation : disaster sequences, disturbing images, and brief strong language
• Last updated : May 9, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

Our editors recommend.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

City of Ember

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

• Upcoming Movies and TV shows
• Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
• Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

• What's the Tomatometer®?
• Login/signup

Movies in theaters

• Opening this week
• Top box office
• Coming soon to theaters
• Certified fresh movies

Movies at home

• Fandango at Home
• Prime Video
• Most popular streaming movies
• What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

• 78% Cuckoo Link to Cuckoo
• 97% Dìdi Link to Dìdi
• 96% Good One Link to Good One

New TV Tonight

• 100% Industry: Season 3
• -- Emily in Paris: Season 4
• -- Bad Monkey: Season 1
• -- Bel-Air: Season 3
• -- Solar Opposites: Season 5
• -- SEAL Team: Season 7
• -- RuPaul's Drag Race Global All Stars: Season 1
• -- Star Wars: Young Jedi Adventures: Season 2

Most Popular TV on RT

• 61% The Umbrella Academy: Season 4
• 81% A Good Girl's Guide to Murder: Season 1
• 95% Batman: Caped Crusader: Season 1
• 78% Star Wars: The Acolyte: Season 1
• 84% House of the Dragon: Season 2
• 100% Supacell: Season 1
• 100% Women in Blue: Season 1
• 78% Presumed Innocent: Season 1
• 77% Lady in the Lake: Season 1
• 88% Mr. Throwback: Season 1
• Best TV Shows
• Most Popular TV
• TV & Streaming News

Certified fresh pick

• 95% Batman: Caped Crusader: Season 1 Link to Batman: Caped Crusader: Season 1
• All-Time Lists
• Binge Guide
• Comics on TV
• Five Favorite Films
• Video Interviews
• Weekend Box Office
• Weekly Ketchup
• What to Watch

50 Best 1980s Cult Movies & Classics

Best Horror Movies of 2024 Ranked – New Scary Movies to Watch

What to Watch: In Theaters and On Streaming

Awards Tour

Everything We Saw at Disney’s 2024 D23 Entertainment Showcase

The Most Anticipated Movies of 2024

• Trending on RT
• Most Anticipated Movies
• Star Wars Movies & TV
• Upcoming Marvel
• Movies on Disney+

Knowing Reviews

The result should not be dismissed as an average thriller, and yet, seen in those terms, it still succeeds because Proyas is a superior director, and after several missteps, he has finally redeemed himself with another fine piece of science fiction.

Full Review | Original Score: 3.5/4 | Dec 2, 2023

Here, normality is affected by tragedy and reality acquires a mystical sheen where the inexplicable takes over what's rational. [Full review in Spanish]

Full Review | Original Score: 6/10 | May 9, 2023

The plot is hinged around a predicament so overwhelming that its conclusion can't possibly resolve satisfactorily.

Full Review | Original Score: 6/10 | Nov 29, 2020

Nicolas Cage being Nicolas Cage in a film that requires Cage to be Cage.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4.0 | Sep 13, 2020

Part science fiction cliché, part religious crackpotism, [the ending's] genuinely bad enough to cast a shadow over the entire film.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Oct 30, 2019

Unbreakable quickly descends into bad CGI set-ups and portentous, hysterical exchanges.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Mar 20, 2019

... I was dozing off...

Full Review | Original Score: F | Sep 12, 2017

The impressively grim finale ensures that Knowing ultimately ends on a decidedly memorable note...

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4 | Mar 12, 2016

A damned entertaining movie despite the fact that it stars Nicholas Cage.

Full Review | Nov 24, 2011

A shotgun spray of metaphysics, cosmology, the Old Testament, flying saucers, angels, spooky blonde-haired men in black trench coats, mysterious little black rocks, two cute kids and a moose on fire.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Sep 29, 2011

Suffice it to say that the last third is a mélange of Close Encounters and Christian eschatology, and you'll wish the film had stopped about 15 minutes sooner.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Sep 23, 2011

If those space-dudes are so friendly, why drive children insane with a bunch of weird code? Why not just show up on The Tonight Show and tell everybody the exact date and time? Lame! Also: Why fake Massachusetts? Why not just say: 'This is Australia.'

Full Review | Jul 25, 2011

Knowing is about faith; the belief that one day the mysteries of the universe will be explained to us, and the knowledge that anything is possible.

Full Review | Original Score: 4.5/5 | Oct 27, 2010

It's a folly and a failure, but an intriguing one - an ambitious vision from a tremendous filmmaker that, sadly, had too much going on with not enough to say.

Full Review | Aug 9, 2010

Alex Proyas has gone all out on a film which, unfortunately, will be seen by many as an interesting experiment gone awry, rather than the sci-fi masterpiece it aspires to be.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Jul 6, 2010

A slog through lazy writing, indifferent acting and blase direction with no hope of anything but chaotic violence as reward.

Full Review | Jul 6, 2010

A broad, leisurely jumble of Alfred Hitchcock-style suspense architecture and a dreary, paint-by-numbers Sci-Fi Channel Original, Knowing only seems to extract two reactions: nail-biting and eye-rolling.

Full Review | Original Score: C- | Jun 2, 2010

... starts off as director Alex Proyas's take on "Final Destination" before going all "Close Encounters" on us. If only we hadn't seen it all before.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.0/4.0 | Oct 31, 2009

Basically two movies wrestling around in a burlap bag full of rocks: one an ambitious, big-idea sci-fi yarn, the other a horror movie as dumb as ... well, that's where those rocks come in.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/4 | Sep 10, 2009

Pay attention to Mr. Proyas' lighting and set design as well as the intense disaster sequences that dot Knowing: As with the rest of his oeuvre, the movie looks great.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/4 | Aug 30, 2009

Advertisement

Supported by

Movie Review | 'Knowing'

Extinction Looms! Stop the Aliens!

• Share full article

By A.O. Scott

• March 19, 2009

Nobody requires plausibility from a movie like “Knowing,” which features slender blond aliens, intimations of apocalypse, clairvoyant children and Nicolas Cage as an astrophysicist. If the thing manages to avoid complete preposterousness, the audience can still have a good time.

Or maybe even if it doesn’t: the folks at a recent sneak preview of “Knowing,” directed by Alex Proyas (“Dark City,” “I, Robot”), seemed to be enjoying themselves, though it may have been at the movie’s expense. (Just as well, since they were seeing it free.) If your intention is to make a brooding, hauntingly allegorical terror-thriller, it’s probably not a good sign when spectacles of mass death and intimations of planetary destruction are met with hoots and giggles.

It’s safe to say that the crowd was laughing at Mr. Cage, rather than with him, since Mr. Cage rarely expresses mirth on screen. Instead, he favors a demented, compulsive intensity, which can sometimes be kind of fun, for example in the “National Treasure” movies. In “Knowing,” though, he seems to be exploring the rich vein of crazy he tapped in Neil LaBute’s train-wreck remake of “The Wicker Man.” Mr. Cage screams and yells and flails, smacks a tree with a baseball bat, waves a gun at a slender blond alien and barks “this is not a crank call” into a pay phone after calling in a breathless warning of a terrorist attack.

And why not? What would you do if you were an M.I.T. astrophysicist who discovered that the numbers written down 50 years earlier by a spooky schoolgirl and sealed in a time capsule were prophecies of subsequent catastrophes? You might also hit a tree with a Louisville Slugger and start ranting like a madman. But the odd thing about Mr. Cage in this movie is that even when he is responding to the threat of complete human extinction, you still can’t help feeling that he’s overreacting.

His character, John Koestler, is, like most movie dads these days, a widower, stricken with grief and trying to raise a cute, precocious young son (Chandler Canterbury). Once John starts running the numbers from the spooky girl’s spreadsheet, the tone of the movie switches from foreboding creepiness to apocalyptic hysteria, summed up less in the occasional explosion or transportation-related fireball than in Rose Byrne’s incessant shrieking. She plays Diana, daughter of the spooky schoolgirl (and mother of another one; both are played by Lara Robinson), and evolves from mysterious stranger to potential love interest to raving hysteric in record time.

Though not quickly enough. The draggy, lurching two hours of “Knowing” will make you long for the end of the world, even as you worry that there will not be time for all your questions to be answered. Who are those slender blond folk, called “the Whisper People” by John’s son and Diana’s daughter? Are they goth vampires who showed up early to audition for the “Twilight” sequel? Former members of Kraftwerk? Did they steal all those smooth black pebbles from a day spa after a hot stone massage? Is that why they seem so relaxed?

Actually, you will figure out who they are long before the astrophysicist does and stop caring long before that.

“Knowing” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Some mild swearing and lots of death.

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Alex Proyas; adapted by Mr. Proyas from a screenplay written by Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden and Stiles White, based on a story by Mr. Pearson; director of photography, Simon Duggan; edited by Richard Learoyd; music by Marco Beltrami; production designer, Steven Jones-Evans; produced by Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal, Steve Tisch and Mr. Proyas; released by Summit Entertainment. Running time: 2 hours 1 minute.

WITH: Nicolas Cage (John Koestler), Rose Byrne (Diana), Chandler Canterbury (Caleb Koestler), Lara Robinson (Abby/Lucinda), Ben Mendelsohn (Phil Beckman), Nadia Townsend (Grace), Alan Hopgood (Reverend Koestler) and Danielle Carter (Miss Taylor, 1959).

Nicolas Cage, Ben Mendelsohn, Rose Byrne, Lara Robinson Alex Proyas Ryne Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White, Stuart Hazeldine, Alex Proyas Rated PG-13 130 Mins. Summit Entertainment

• Summit Entertainment

Summary In 1958, as part of the dedication ceremony for a new elementary school, a group of students is asked to draw pictures to be stored in a time capsule. But one mysterious girl fills her sheet of paper with rows of apparently random numbers instead. Fifty years later, a new generation of students examines the capsule's contents and the gi ... Read More

Directed By : Alex Proyas

Written By : Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White

Where to Watch

Nicolas Cage

John koestler, chandler canterbury, caleb koestler, lara robinson, abby, lucinda, d.g. maloney, the stranger, nadia townsend, alan hopgood, reverend koestler, adrienne pickering, joshua long, younger caleb, danielle carter, miss taylor (1959), alethea mcgrath, miss taylor (2009), david lennie, principal clark (1959), tamara donnellan, lucinda's mother, travis waite, lucinda's father, ben mendelsohn, phil beckman, gareth yuen, lesley anne mitchell, liam hemsworth, raymond thomas, carolyn shakespeare-allen, principal (2009), critic reviews.

• All Reviews
• Positive Reviews
• Mixed Reviews
• Negative Reviews

User Reviews

Related movies, seven samurai, the wild bunch, north by northwest, crouching tiger, hidden dragon, the lord of the rings: the return of the king, the french connection, the lord of the rings: the fellowship of the ring, mad max: fury road, the incredibles, star wars: episode iv - a new hope, house of flying daggers, assault on precinct 13, the hidden fortress, gangs of wasseypur, captain blood, related news.

Every Movie Based on a Videogame, Ranked

Jason dietz.

We rank every live-action film adapted from a video game—dating from 1993's Super Mario Bros. to this month's new Borderlands—from worst to best according to their Metascores.

DVD/Blu-ray Releases: New & Upcoming

Find a list of new movie and TV releases on DVD and Blu-ray (updated weekly) as well as a calendar of upcoming releases on home video.

2024 Movie Release Calendar

Find a schedule of release dates for every movie coming to theaters, VOD, and streaming throughout 2024 and beyond, updated daily.

August 2024 Movie Preview

Keith kimbell.

Get details on all of the notable films debuting in August, including the latest Alien sequel and a big-screen adaptation of the Borderlands video games.

The 15 Best Ryan Reynolds Movies

We reveal the 15 best-reviewed movie titles in the Ryan Reynolds filmography, ranked by Metascore.

• Become a Critical Movie Critic
• Movie Review Archives

Movie Review: Knowing (2009)

• General Disdain
• Movie Reviews
• 2 responses
• --> April 4, 2009

Let’s all admit it, taking shots at Nicolas Cage’s latest acting gigs has been about as much fun as catching fish in a barrel — it’s fun for a moment, but it’s too damn easy and one quickly gets bored with it. But hey, he deserved it — Bangkok Dangerous and Ghost Rider , to name a few, were some piss poor movies (I suspect they were done solely for the paycheck).

So when it is announced he would be starring in some sort of movie that had him doomed to see the future and not have anyone believe him (i.e., the Cassandra Complex ), I immediately got my pencil ready for a scathing review. And then I watched Knowing . The movie review I had expected to write was no longer applicable — I found I actually liked the film.

At the center of the movie is a paper on which seemingly random numbers were scribbled upon by a troubled little girl named Lucinda (Lara Robinson) in 1959. 50 years later, this same sheet of paper resurfaces and finds its way into the hands of Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) and his mathematician father John Koestler (Cage). After downing a bottle of scotch in an effort to drown his sorrows over the loss of his wife, John notices a pattern — the numbers exactly align with cataclysmic events. And so begins his attempt to warn and convince others of impending doom when he notices several of the dates have yet to transpire.

Sure, we’ve all seen or heard it before, but there were several things that set Knowing apart from the host of other similarly themed movies.

First, it was generally heartfelt. The film showcased strong familial relationships that are easily identifiable and well acted out. Father-son relationship between John and Caleb is rock solid, as they pretty much only have one another as a support mechanism. Most touching is the great lengths and sacrifices John goes through to ensure his son is safe. Then there is the broken father-son relationship between John and his father, Reverend Koestler (Alan Hopgood). Only in the face of their own mortality do they reconcile their differences in a touching scene. It makes one think that the time to bury the hatchet with loved ones should happen well before there is no time to do it in.

The biggest bang of Knowing , however, comes rather unexpectedly — the scenes of destruction are magnificently crafted and shot. I don’t think I’ve ever witnesses a plane crash on film quite so disturbingly or vividly real before. You think everyone dies on impact? Think again. Same goes for an incredibly sequenced roll of a subway train going off the tracks. “Wow”, is a word that sums it up rather nicely.

But, c’mon, we can’t forget it’s a Nicolas Cage film; there has got to be a downside hidden somewhere within. There is. I could have done without the ending. It’s cheesier than a bowl of macaroni & cheese and thoroughly out of place. There’s also more than a handful of moments where Mr. Cage hams it up for the camera; thankfully, they’re easy to look beyond.

So while I can’t look into the future, I’m 97.63% certain Knowing is not a turning point in Nic’s movie choices. Therefore, I strongly suggest seeing it before the upcoming movie Kick-Ass retarnishes his good name and we go back to taking shots at him again.

I'm an old, miserable fart set in his ways. Some of the things that bring a smile to my face are (in no particular order): Teenage back acne, the rain on my face, long walks on the beach and redneck women named Francis. Oh yeah, I like to watch and criticize movies.

Movie Review: Ghosted (2023) Movie Review: Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) Movie Review: Fantasy Island (2020) Movie Review: Snatched (2017) Movie Review: Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) Movie Review: ABCs of Death 2 (2014) Movie Review: Life After Beth (2014)

'Movie Review: Knowing (2009)' have 2 comments

April 13, 2009 @ 10:10 pm Zain

I thought this was a very powerful film that puts forth some tough questions-

Are our lives predetermined? Is there a god? Does humanity deserve a second chance if one was to be offered?

Log in to Reply

May 1, 2010 @ 8:41 pm Richmond

Cage has taken on too many poor films.

Privacy Policy | About Us

 |  Log in

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

'Knowing': Disasters Expected, And Come To Pass

No Way Out: Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler, a professor racing against a terrible prediction. Vince Valitutti/Summit Entertainment hide caption

No Way Out: Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler, a professor racing against a terrible prediction.

• Director: Alex Proyas
• Genre: Drama, Mystery
• Running Time: 122 minutes

Rated: PG-13 for disaster sequences, disturbing images and brief strong language

Watch Clips

'Get Off The Train'

Media no longer available

Source: Summit Entertainment

'I'm Taking The Children'

Highway Collision

Cold Comfort: Koestler's ally (Rose Byrne) and her daughter join in the quest to defuse what becomes a sinister string of prophecies. Vince Valitutti/Summit Entertainment hide caption

Cold Comfort: Koestler's ally (Rose Byrne) and her daughter join in the quest to defuse what becomes a sinister string of prophecies.

When his dad discovers that the code maps every disaster for the past 50 years — and many to come — he sets out to prevent catastrophe.

Is there nothing Nicolas Cage won't do? No check he won't cash?

There are respectable gigs among his many screen credits this decade, tolerable movies like Adaptation and World Trade Center. But for the most part his recent oeuvre is a flabbergasting checklist of the asinine (The Wicker Man) , the absurd (Ghost Rider) and the profoundly unnecessary (Bangkok Dangerous).

And now, in Knowing, Cage takes his taste for ludicrous material all the way — almost, but not quite, into the pantheon of films so utterly, preposterously awful they're destined for some kind of perverse cult appreciation.

No, that's being generous: Knowing isn't just bad; it's bad for you, a spectacularly stupid movie both aesthetically and morally repugnant.

Directed by Alex Proyas from a flamboyantly moronic screenplay by Ryne Pearson, Juliet Snowden and Stiles White, Knowing tells of MIT astrophysicist John Koestler (Cage), who stumbles across a prophecy that foretells major disasters and possibly the end of the world. The career meltdown of those who made the movie is not, alas, among its secrets.

We begin 50 years in the past, with a class of schoolchildren drawing imagined visions of the future for inclusion in a time capsule to be buried on campus. One freaked-out little girl, hearing voices in her head, scrawls a long list of numbers on her paper. Unearthed half a century hence and obsessed over by John's son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), those numbers can be decoded to indicate the dates, death counts and GPS coordinates of traumatic events.

Details of 9/11 are what first catch John's eye — and what first tip the viewer that Knowing intends to exploit contemporary fears of a world gone topsy-turvy, an unpredictably violent place pitched at the edge of inexplicable terror. Sure enough, as John grows increasingly concerned over the implications of the numbers, the movie gets more and more repellent in its exploitation of contemporary anxieties.

From its tone to its style, from production design to cinematography, Knowing feels halfheartedly cribbed from any number of recent supernatural thrillers. Bad enough — but its reductive pop psychology is especially tiresome.

John, of course, has lost his wife in an accident, so his mania for unlocking the prophecy is motored by a need for redemption and catharsis. His cutesy-wounded affection for his son, who suffers a hearing impairment, doubles the maudlin factor and gives us the groan-inducing running motif of father and son gesturing the sign language for "I love you forever."

Amid all this appalling cliche, Knowing summons its entire reserve of filmmaking energy for gleeful scenes of mass death: an extremely violent plane crash that sends passengers fleeing the wreckage covered in flames; an outlandish subway accident that wipes out several platforms of commuters with a CGI splat. Predicated on and playing to our now-ingrained fears of terrorism, these set pieces feel like the entire raison d'etre of the film — or at least the only thing it truly cares about.

And by tipping us with the prophecy that there will be three such disasters, Proyas & Co. turn the experience of Knowing into an ugly sort of death watch, a slog through lazy writing, indifferent acting and blase direction with no hope of anything but chaotic violence as reward.

As for that third and final prophecy: It's so cynical and loony as to beggar description. But it does confirm the ultimate message of Knowing: that life is an unknowable, fearful, entropic disaster in the making, and there's nothing you can do about it except run amok in clueless anxiety.

Unless, of course, some heavenly miracle intervenes — and for those who endure the torture of Knowing, the arrival of the end credits will seem precisely that.

Movie Reviews

Tv/streaming, collections, chaz's journal, great movies, contributors, love and hate and "knowing" -- or, do wings have angels.

Either I'm wrong or most of the movie critics in America are mistaken. I persist in the conviction that Alex Proyas 's " Knowing " is a splendid thriller and surprisingly thought-provoking. I saw the movie at an 8 p.m. screening on Monday, March 16, returned home and wrote my review on deadline. No other reviews existed at that time. Later in the week, I was blind-sided by the negative reaction. And I mean really negative.

" Knowing " is opening well at the box office, leading the weekend with an estimated $25 million. With a budget at around $50 million, that means it will be a money-maker for Summit Entertainment. But the critical reaction has been savage.

I went looking at the various online roundups of critical opinion. Of course such averages mean little, but they give you a notion of how people are thinking. I usually don't peruse them, but this time I was fascinated. What was it about " Knowing " that made it so hated?

• On Metacritic, gets a 39 average. The reader vote is 8.1.

• On Rotten Tomatoes, the Meter stands at 24, and only 15% of the "Top Critics" liked it.

• On IMDb's user votes, the "median" was 9/10, but the "arithmetic mean" was 7.7/10. Of 397 votes, 191 were "10." IMDb goes with the mean.

• On MRQE, only one of 43 agrees with me.

Spoilers follow

This is astonishing. Let's suppose I was completely wrong. Even if I was how bad could the possibly movie be? Half as good as the slasher film " Shuttle ?" A third as good as " The Last House on the Left ?" (2009) If nothing else, it was a great popcorn movie: A time capsule contains perfect predictions of the following 50 years, a hero scientist races to avert disaster, two kids hear whispers in their ears, there are sensational special effects, mysterious figures loom in the woods, and at the end the kids are taken to another planet as Earth is incinerated. Plus a cerebral debate at MIT about whether the universe is deterministic or random.

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?

I wrote a blog discussing the movie [link below]. Right now it has nearly 250 comments. Most of my readers agreed with me. Some thought it stank. What interested me was how they discussed the movie. There seemed to be two big problems in some minds: Nicolas Cage, and the movie's Biblical parallels.

Let's start with Cage. Some readers said they avoid his movies on principle. Many found him guilty of over-acting. A critic was quoted who referred to his "fright wig," which is just mean-spirited snark. I found this reaction puzzling. Cage has two speeds, intense and intenser. I like both speeds. I find him an intriguing actor because he takes chances. He's an actor without speed limits. You want an Elvis who parachutes into Vegas? A weatherman whose viewers throw fast food at him? An explorer of the national treasures buried far beneath Washington? He's your go-to guy.

He is also a superb actor. I cite " Leaving Las Vegas ," " Moonstruck ," " Adaptation ," " Bringing Out the Dead ." I have great affection for Harrison Ford , George Clooney and Brad Pitt . But can they go rockabilly like Nic did in "Wild at Heart?" Not that I liked the movie, but it's a good question. With him it's a lion-tamer on a high-wire. Anybody can play the ringmaster.

Now to the Biblical overtones. The movie has generated enormous interest because it seems, some say, to be based on the Book of Ezekiel, and the plot fulfills prophecies about the end of the world, visitation by aliens, wheels with wheels, and so on. I'm not as expert on Ezekiel as I should be, but I can see the parallels -- especially since it has been pointed out to me that the figures at the end might be angels, might be aliens, or might be one resembling the other.

Alex Proyas says he has no opinion on the question. Juliet Snowden , an author of the screenplay, tells me, "I will never tell." When I saw those glowing figures, I fully expected them to spread their wings, but they walked with the children into their spacecraft, which resembled a geodesic structure within rotating wheels. Several readers assured me that the figures indeed had wings -- but you might miss them, as they were wisps of light.

One famous interpretation of Ezekiel is that he describes an Earth visitation by aliens arriving in a spacecraft made of wheels within wheels. The film's appearance of these figures (four, just as he reports) and their vehicle seems to correspond with much of the first book of Ezekiel.

This is not the place for theology. Nor for settling the debate between determinism and free will, although there are many expert comments on the blog. ("About the best comments you will find on the Web" -- Computer World magazine) Nor, indeed, for deciding if the figures are supernatural or natural. It doesn't matter. The movie is entertaining and involving. It's great afterwards to debate the Meaning of It All.

What matters, in my opinion, is that the film's ending is just about equal to the set-up. There are two possibilities: (1) Nicolas Cage heroically saves the world, or (2) No more water but the fire next time. The ending is spectacular enough that it brings closure, if not explanation. I don't have to know if the beings are aliens or angels. Nobody in the movie does.

Why some people dislike Nicolas Cage is a mystery to me. I find him a daring actor who is often successful. Why many critics dislike the ending is, I suspect, because it is "religious" or "upholds Intelligent Design," or is literally a deus ex machina. It may be a deus, all right, but that machina is a lollapalooza.

My review of " Knowing ".

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Latest blog posts

The Fairy Tale Shoes: Interview With the Cast and Crew of Cuckoo

On the Trail: India Donaldson on Good One

The Texture of Night: How Collateral Revolutionized Movies

SDCC 2024: Activations, Apes and Other Animals

Latest reviews.

The Last Front

Matt zoller seitz.

Christy Lemire

Peyton Robinson

Twilight of the Warriors: Walled In

Simon abrams.

Hollywood Black

Robert daniels.

A not-bad sci-fier that has more on its mind than the run-of-the-mill effects-driven extravaganza.

By Todd McCarthy

Todd McCarthy

• Remember Me 14 years ago
• Shutter Island 14 years ago
• Green Zone 14 years ago

Although made mostly of spare parts, “Knowing” is a not-bad supernatural-tinged sci-fier that has more on its mind than the run-of-the-mill effects-driven extravaganza. Absorbing and able to be taken seriously most of the way, Alex Proyas ‘ generally somber look at a small group of people tipped off about the imminence of doomsday doesn’t smoothly synthesize all its elements, and the effects could have used a budget stimulus. Genre fans always looking for something new and awesome may feel like they’ve seen most of this before, but the conceptual and emotional strength of Summit’s Nicolas Cage starrer largely carries the day, which should spell sturdy B.O. in all markets.

Related Stories

‘skibidi toilet’: flushing out audience data on an internet phenomenon, swifties and deadheads — separated at birth what the eras tour and dead & company’s sphere residency share, as the concert phenomena of the year.

The 1959-set prologue of Ryne Douglas Pearson’s original story gets its hooks in by virtue of that reliable standby, a disturbingly creepy kid. Asked by their elementary school teacher to draw pictures of how they see the future to include in a time capsule, all the pupils in the Boston-area school oblige except for Lucinda (Lara Robinson), a haunted-looking child who instead covers her sheets of paper with thousands of numbers.

Popular on Variety

Come time to open the capsule 50 years later, Lucinda’s inscrutable jottings land in the hands of Caleb Koestler (Chandler Canterbury), a precocious boy depressed over the recent death of his mother. Dad John (Cage), an astrophysics professor at MIT, is in the dumps himself and struggling to forge a stronger bond with his son while living at a run-down old Victorian house out in the woods.

At night, a tired and somewhat drunk John puzzles over Lucinda’s numbers and shortly concludes that many of them, beginning with 9/11/01, refer to calamitous incidents that involved massive loss of life; he soon thereafter learns the remaining numbers provide even more specific information. But three sets of numbers at the end of the long list lie in the future — the very, very near future.

Naturally, John has as much trouble convincing anyone else about his deductions as Costello ever did insisting to Abbott that Dracula and Frankenstein were alive and well. But a plane crash virtually in his backyard confirms the first remaining prediction, and what he at length learns from Diana (Rose Byrne), the troubled daughter of Lucinda — who herself has a daughter (Robinson again) who’s Caleb’s age — deepens and makes even more apparent the ominous nature of the numeric scribblings.

That there is something truly unearthly at play is suggested by Caleb’s occasional sightings of the Stranger (D.G. Maloney), a silent and sinister albino-ish figure, sometimes seen in the company of others, who stalks the boy.

Such events naturally trigger questions of what to make of it all and, ever more urgently, what to do about it. When John figures out the exact time and place of the second forecasted catastrophe, he’s forced to a wrenching decision, but has sufficient knowledge — more than anyone else on Earth, in fact — to know what to do. Unfortunately, the climax consists of a special-effects fireworks display that, because similar images have been conjured before with greater resources, can’t help but look secondhand.

Although he may not fit the received image of an MIT prof, Cage, slimmed down to the edge of gauntness, generally suppresses his more wildly emotive tendencies to deliver an acceptably thoughtful performance. Byrne has the gravity to pull off Diana’s perpetual state of distress without annoyance, and Canterbury and Robinson are rock-solid as the two crucial kids. Rather than just sharing his suspicions with one of his colleagues, a worthwhile additional scene to the script (by Pearson, Juliet Snowden and Stiles White) might have had John calling a meeting with several MIT brainiacs, just to get multiple, and eccentric, reactions to his reading of the numbers.

Lensed almost entirely in Melbourne, Australia, with a bit of second-unit work on the East Coast to rep Boston and New York, the pic was shot by d.p. Simon Duggan with the Red One digital camera system, and has an agreeably soft, desaturated, autumnal look. The old-dark-house central setting and threatening surrounding forest come with certain B-feature connotations that are never entirely shaken, but Marco Beltrami’s vigorous score, buttressed at key moments by Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7, is strictly A-level.

• Production: A Summit Entertainment release of an Escape Artists production, in association with Mystery Clock Cinema. Produced by Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal, Steve Tisch, Alex Proyas. Executive producers, Stephen Jones, Topher Dow, Norm Golightly, David Bloomfield. Co-producer, Ryne Douglas Pearson. Co-executive producers, Aaron Kaplan, Sean Perrone. Directed by Alex Proyas. Screenplay, Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White; story, Pearson; adaptation, Proyas.
• Crew: Camera (Deluxe color, DV, widescreen), Simon Duggan; editor, Richard Learoyd; music, Marco Beltrami; production designer, Steven Jones-Evans; supervising art director, Michelle McGahey; art director, Andy Walpole; set designer, Jane Mancini; set decorator, Nicki Gardiner; costume designer, Terry Ryan; sound (Dolby/DTS), Peter Grace; supervising sound editor, Andrew Plain; sound designer, Michael McMenomy; re-recording mixers, Phil Heywood, Robert Sullivan, Pewter Purcell; special effects supervisor, Angelo Sahin; visual effects supervisors, Andrew Jackson, Eric Durst; visual effects, Animal Logic, BUF, Postmodern Sydney, Haiku Post; stunt coordinator, Chris Anderson; assistant director, Steve Andrews; second unit director, Kimble Rendall; second unit camera, Ross Emery; casting, Greg Apps. Reviewed at the Grove, Los Angeles, March 18, 2009. MPAA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 121 MIN.
• With: John Koestler - Nicolas Cage Diana - Rose Byrne Caleb Koestler - Chandler Canterbury Phil Beckman - Ben Mendelsohn Abby/Lucinda - Lara Robinson Grace - Nadia Townsend Miss Taylor (1959) - Danielle Carter Miss Taylor (2009) - Alethea cq McGrath Reverend Koestler - Alan Hopgood The Stranger - D.G. Maloney

More from Variety

‘the walking dead: daryl dixon’ renewed for third season, starring norman reedus and melissa mcbride, ahead of season 2 premiere, why social video is a rival for linear tv ad dollars, ‘wow: women of wrestling’ star genesis on performing for little girls in the audience: ‘i’m a very tough wrestler, that warms my cold heart’, ‘the simpsons’ reveals upcoming ‘venom’ parody, shares video of kamala harris reciting a famous ‘treehouse of horror’ quote at comic-con panel, vfx working conditions need to change, but current unionization option may not be the answer, ‘futurama’ season 12 adds danny trejo, cara delevingne, levar burton as guest stars, more from our brands, this back to school sale gets you $100 off bose’s bestselling noise-canceling headphones, this new show at monterey celebrates cars and hip-hop, france aims for record medal haul thanks to de gaulle’s disgust, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, the drew carey show is streaming for the very first time — find out where.

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

• DVD & Streaming
• Action/Adventure , Drama , Mystery/Suspense , Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Content Caution

In Theaters

• Nicolas Cage as John Koestler; Chandler Canterbury as Caleb Koestler; Rose Byrne as Diana Wayland; Lara Robinson as Lucinda Embry and Abby Wayland

Home Release Date

• Alex Proyas

Distributor

• Summit Entertainment

Movie Review

If ever there was a time when most of us should feel like rending our garments and gnashing our teeth, now might be it.

The economy’s tanked. Coffee costs $4. We’re overworked and underemployed. Our 401(k) accounts are shot. Al Gore keeps talking about the polar ice caps. Our kids are sick. Our toasters are broken. Our spouses keep drinking milk straight from the carton, no matter how many times we’ve told them not to. Our favorite franchise quarterbacks are feuding with their teams.

Yes, we as a nation are in collective need of some comfort food—meatloaf and mashed potatoes, maybe. We need something to help us forget our trials and travails … a nice hunk of cinematic escapism, perhaps. We need something that will remind us that, in the words of Scarlett O’Hara, “Tomorrow is another day.”

And what do we get instead? Knowing —a movie that tells us “tomorrow” might be the end of the world.

But I get ahead of myself. The story opens in the sweet-and-innocent 1950s, when all we had to fret over were Russians and nuclear war and whether we really needed to see Elvis shake his pelvis on national TV. The children—at least the children at William Dawes Elementary School—are full of optimism and hope: When their teacher asks them to draw pictures of what they think the world will look like in 50 years—pictures to place in a time capsule—they draw rockets and flying cars and iPods.

Well, except for one little girl named Lucinda, who instead covers her paper with lines and lines of numbers. So absorbed is she that she doesn’t even get to finish writing before the teacher whisks her paper away.

Fast-forward 50 years, and a new generation of William Dawes students opens the capsule to marvel at these bright pictures of the future. Well, except for the kid who sees Lucinda’s numbers.

The kid—Caleb’s his name—brings home the paper and obliquely suggests that it might be a code of some sort. John, Caleb’s father and a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, decides (after a few whiskeys) that Caleb could be right. In fact, many of the numbers seem to correspond with the dates of every major tragedy in the last 50 years, along with the number of those killed. 9/11? It’s on there. Tsunamis in southeast Asia? Check. Oklahoma City bombing? Check.

John sees that there are just three dates left on the sheet—and all of them are set to take place over the next few days. Which leaves John to ask himself some pretty hard questions:

_Does this mean that our lives are guided?

That our fates are predetermined?

Can we change our future?

Am I going crazy?

Could this sheet of paper represent an even more ominous future than a few plane crashes?_

[ Note: The following sections include spoilers. ]

Positive Elements

Impending doom has a way of forcing us to re-evaluate our lives. Take John—an absentminded professor who loves his son dearly, but still has trouble remembering that he needs to pick him up from school. The crises he and Caleb face help them forge stronger bonds, culminating in a semi-sacrificial farewell. John also patches things up with his estranged father.

Along the way, John and Caleb meet up with Diana, a thirtysomething single mom, and her daughter, Abby. Diana, like John, would do anything for her child. “Abby’s all I got, John,” she says. “I can’t let anything happen to her.” Both parents try to shield their children from discomfort and hurt—efforts that feel a bit counterproductive in the film’s ethos, but their hearts are in the right place.

Spiritual Elements

Let’s get this out of the way right here: The movie does not end well—at least not in a conventional sense. Earth, and everything on it, gets zapped by a gigantic solar flare, leaving it a big, charred piece of space rubble.

I’m spoiling that ending to say that this weighty prospect prompts some profoundly spiritual musings—musings rooted more in a kind of Christian mysticism than anything truly biblical.

John is a widower, and he seems to have lost any semblance of faith after his wife died. She was reportedly killed in a hotel fire while John was grooming his front yard, and because he didn’t feel any psychic pangs at the moment of her death, he decided there was no force looking out for anyone—that he and everyone around him were merely the result of a grand accident. During one of his lectures he asks his students to grapple with the theories of determinism and randomness and, while he lays out a pretty good case that “everything has purpose,” he admits to his class that he’s not buying it. “But that’s just me,” he says.

When his son asks him about the potential for life on other planets, John says that, for now, we appear to be alone—then amends his statement later to reassure Caleb he wasn’t talking about heaven: “I just said we can’t know for sure, that’s all. If you want to believe, you go ahead and believe.” When his sister, Grace, asks him what’s wrong so she can pray for him, he answers her by saying, “Please. Don’t.”

The numbers on the paper shake John’s belief in “randomness,” of course. If a child could see the future with such uncanny accuracy, that must mean something knows what’s going on. A fellow professor at first shrugs off the predictions as coincidence—a numerology trap that esoteric religions have dabbled in for millennia. “People see what they want to see in them,” he says. But John becomes convinced there’s something more to it.

From that point forward, the film chugs into a plot loaded with Christian imagery and creative license. Much of what we see plays around with Ezekiel’s vision in the first chapter of his Old Testament book. The film’s mysterious and ominous “whisper people” seem to loosely correspond with the angels described by the prophet (though none of them have heads of oxen or lions), and their mysterious craft looks like a representation of Ezekiel’s wheel.

These angelic creatures haunt much of the film like shadows, whispering strange words into the children’s brains and unveiling horrific images of the future. Paralyzing light spews from one being’s mouth. But by the end, they’re revealed as pretty good guys. Caleb tells his father that they, the whisper people, were “protecting us all along.”

Are these creatures actually angels? Or are they extraterrestrial beings that Ezekiel long ago confused as angels? The film leaves it open to interpretation. Regardless, they do nothing to save the earth from impending doom, but rather sweep up chosen children and drop them off on a new, beautifully unspoiled planet with a gorgeous, silvery tree of life—a new crop of Adams and Eves destined to re-start humanity.

Interestingly—from a theological perspective—while these children are “chosen,” they also must “choose.” They are not taken by the whisper people. They decide for themselves whether to go or not.

Also worth noting is the fact that John’s dad is a pastor. John reminds him of one of his sermons about prophesy. And then he tells his dad that he can now foretell the end of the world as we know it.

Sexual Content

A mild, anatomical line involves a reference to “double-D’s.” A remark is made about somebody thinking somebody else was “gay.” We see John’s upper body in the shower.

Violent Content

John, while intrigued by the list, questions some aspects of it right up until a plane crashes in front of him—exactly when and where the list said a disaster would strike. He runs to the wreckage and finds lots of folks staggering around on fire. Not pretty. “I keep seeing their faces,” John says afterwards, “burning.”

The second disaster is even more jarring. A subway train rockets off the rails and smashes into another train and subway platform, mowing down scores of people as they try to flee. The final catastrophe involves a huge, rolling wave of fire that obliterates a whole city in spectacular CGI fashion.

A little girl claws numbers into a door with her bare, bloodied fingers. John brandishes a gun and points it at a mysterious stranger. Diana’s vehicle is smashed to bits by a semi. Caleb is shown a vision of a forest fire, complete with burning, anguished wildlife (particularly a large, flaming moose). We learn that Diana’s mom OD’d on drugs, killing herself. In anger—and as a threat—John smacks a tree with a bat. Citizens of Earth riot.

Crude or Profane Language

Four or five s-words. “A–,” “h—” and “d–n” are used a couple of times each. God’s name is misused several times.

Drug and Alcohol Content

John drinks quite a lot. We see him sip wine while cooking hot dogs, but a bigger issue is the whiskey he guzzles after his son goes to bed. The whole reason he starts playing around with the 50-year-old page of numbers is because 1) he’s tipsy, and 2) he spills some booze on the paper. At one point he falls asleep on the couch, an empty bottle beside him. He doesn’t wake up until Caleb calls him from school, reminding him that he has carpool duty. He visits an old lady who spikes her tea with liquor.

Other Negative Elements

John breaks into the school desperate to find more numbers. Diana swipes an SUV to chase down the whisper people, after they take both her car and the kids.

Knowing is undeniably bold, in that it takes a certain courage to callously obliterate Earth without giving anybody—not even Will Smith—the chance to save the day. And I, Robot director Alex Proyas is, perhaps, even more bold to suggest that such an ending is a happy one. “They haven’t chosen us , Caleb,” John tells his son at the end. “They’ve chosen you .” He tearfully bids farewell to his son, hoping— knowing —Caleb will be safe.

It’s this dichotomy, I think, that will split moviegoers, especially Christians. Some, I imagine, will appreciate the fact that Knowing deals with spiritual themes head-on. The film suggests that when science runs out of answers, faith still holds the trump card. It tells us that, even in the midst of the worst sorts of disasters, we’re still in Someone’s hands. And it reinforces the idea that families are really, really keen.

Others will be appalled by the fact that this transcription of doomsday events doesn’t even share page numbers with the Book of Revelation. The whole idea of plucking a chosen few children for a second reboot of humanity (thinking of Noah as the first) will strike many as anathema.

I left the theater with more questions than answers. What was Proyas trying to tell us about God’s nature? God’s power? God’s judgment? God’s compassion? Or was he just trying to say that Ezekiel and the Apostle John got it all wrong, and it’s really translucent aliens who hold our destiny in the palms of their cold hands?

Knowing tries to tell us we’re not alone—then locks us in a closet and lets us stew in the dark as we imagine all manner of horrible ends we might soon face. It’s like I said, So much for comfort food.

Paul Asay has been part of the Plugged In staff since 2007, watching and reviewing roughly 15 quintillion movies and television shows. He’s written for a number of other publications, too, including Time, The Washington Post and Christianity Today. The author of several books, Paul loves to find spirituality in unexpected places, including popular entertainment, and he loves all things superhero. His vices include James Bond films, Mountain Dew and terrible B-grade movies. He’s married, has two children and a neurotic dog, runs marathons on occasion and hopes to someday own his own tuxedo. Feel free to follow him on Twitter @AsayPaul.

Latest Reviews

Borderlands

One Fast Move

Time Bandits

Lawrence of Arabia

Weekly reviews straight to your inbox.

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

Knowing — film review.

If you're facing Armageddon in a movie, you want Bruce Willis or, even better, Will Smith as your hero. Yet Nicolas Cage, who seems better suited to treasure hunts, finds himself staring down the apocalypse in "Knowing."

By Kirk Honeycutt , The Associated Press March 19, 2009 2:33pm

• Share on Facebook
• Share to Flipboard
• Send an Email
• Show additional share options
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Pinterest
• Share on Reddit
• Share on Tumblr
• Share on Whats App
• Print the Article
• Post a Comment

If you’re facing Armageddon in a movie, you want Bruce Willis or, even better, Will Smith as your hero. Yet Nicolas Cage, who seems better suited to treasure hunts, finds himself staring down the apocalypse in “Knowing.” The miscasting doesn’t end here: Director Alex Proyas resolutely thinks in B-movie terms. Even with an A-list budget, he oversells every plot point and gooses the thrills with hokey lighting, bombastic music and serious overacting.

“Knowing,” which mixes sci-fi, horror and religious elements into an unstable stew, looks like it’s headed for a flash opening this weekend for Summit Entertainment, then a steep decline into midnight cinema and home video. One thing’s for sure, it’s not forgettable. In fact, it may take a while for Cage to live down his line: “How am I supposed to stop the end of the world?” How indeed? Bummer.

Related Stories

'mexico 86' review: bérénice béjo toplines a compelling political drama that never drums up enough emotion, jamie lee curtis receives honorary afi doctorate: "i am representation of the underachiever who has achieved".

The premise is undeniably intriguing, but you keep thinking: Where the hell is this heading? In 1959, in an overly prolonged sequence, a time capsule at a school dedication ceremony goes into the ground with a little girl’s vision of the future, which consists of a page full of seemingly random numbers.

In 2009, the capsule gets hauled out of the ground, and that particular “message” is handed to Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), son of astrophysics professor John Koestler (Cage). Good thing dad’s not a plumber, you’re thinking, but that’s the point to a screenplay that is credited to various hands including the director, who in press notes gets an unusual “adapted” writing credit but not in the on-screen credits.

It seems Proyas wants to come down heavily on the side of “everything happens for a reason.” John and Caleb are still in mourning over the death of their wife and mother in a hotel fire. As John slops down scotch late that night, he starts to parse the numbers and discovers they foretold every major human disaster over the past 50 years right down to the geographic coordinates.

Three more disasters remain, all within days of one another. The final one seems to prophesy a worldwide cataclysm. Caleb is somehow connected to the impending doom, as is the late messenger’s daughter (Rose Byrne) and granddaughter (Lara Robinson, who plays both little girls). They all get caught up in a race against time to prevent disaster. Only the story has left neither the characters nor the filmmakers any way to avoid catastrophe. Everything is going to happen on schedule no matter what Cage, dashing to the sites of two disasters, does.

Those disaster sequences catch Hollywood — in the broadest possible sense, since this film was largely shot in Australia — at its best and worst. The design and CG effects are terrific. Yet each is mind-numbingly stupid. In a plane crash, the jet plunges into the ground and goes up in a fireball. Moments later, Proyas has survivors wandering around, albeit many on fire. A subway disaster is so over the top that you can only shake your head.

Oddly, the movie has a few things going for it in the early stages. Filmed in and around the two-story Koestler family home, cinematographer Simon Duggan shoots in burnished tones that suggest a sad homeyness, a kind of refuge from the world. Both father and son are severely damaged individuals. No one is going to believe any fantastic story they tell.

One could almost imagine that dad, in a drunken stupor, came up with these Nostradamus-like prophecies like John Nash did his spy conspiracies in “A Beautiful Mind.” But, no, the film is too literal-minded for that. Those ominous figures that lurk outside the house and follow the family everywhere are real — you figure out whether they’re angels or devils. And you get a socko finish that has to be seen to be disbelieved.

Hokum is best served straight, not as a New Age cocktail with too many ingredients. Will Smith would never have tolerated this.

Opens: Friday, March 20 (Summit Entertainment)

THR Newsletters

Sign up for THR news straight to your inbox every day

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Gina gershon recalls nearly breaking “tom cruise’s nose” during ‘cocktail’ sex scene, the real-life event that inspired m. night shyamalan’s ‘trap’, “king khan”: bollywood icon shah rukh khan rules locarno as he receives lifetime award, ‘mexico 86’ review: bérénice béjo toplines a compelling political drama that never drums up enough emotion, lindsay lohan, jamie lee curtis reveal manny jacinto will play lohan’s onscreen husband in ‘freakier friday’, ryan reynolds-blake lively box office apocalypse: ‘it ends with us’ beats ‘deadpool & wolverine’ on friday.

WhichFilm | Film Reviews | Audience Film Reviews

Create your own review

It's a pain not knowing how poor this would be before watching it. Cage is his normal over dramatic self and destroys what might have been a decent idea.

This is one of the most difficult movies for me to review because of how I think about the different scenes in it. To me, the movie is a hit and miss that still manages to impress at the end of the day. This movie has just about enough creepiness to it especially the scene of the plane crash, which in truth is perhaps more believable than most of us would have thought it would be. The story a professor who is trying to stop catastrophe is, however, an absolute joke. I also believe this is probably the worst movie that Nicholas Cage has acted, in his prime, I don’t believe he would have accepted this sort of project.

Have you seen these?

Screen Rant

What nicolas cage's knowing movie was really about.

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Sam Raimi-Produced Alligator Horror Movie With 84% RT Score Getting Sequel Five Years Later

Fast & furious 11 will break 20-year-old franchise tradition that defined the fast saga, 2024 netflix survival thriller joins all-time most-watched list with top 3 viewership record.

Nicolas Cage's Knowing movie was panned by most critics and viewers, primarily because of its baffling themes and seemingly over-the-top ending, but a closer look at what it is truly about suggests that it is far better than it is given credit for. Opening with an intriguing hook, Knowing sets the stage for its overarching mysteries by introducing a young girl who scribbles random numbers when asked to draw pictures of the future to put into a time capsule. The girl almost seems possessed by the numbers she etches into her time capsule letter, which makes it hard not to wonder whether her message is a code for something meaningful.

With what follows, the Knowing movie leaps to fifty years in the future, where MIT professor John Koestler gets his hands on the coded letter. As he races against time to unravel the mysteries behind the letter, he learns that it holds the key to humanity's future and eventual doom. On paper, Knowing 's premise sounds no more generic than the regular fare of science fiction movies that come and go year after year. However, its execution of the subject makes all the difference and forces viewers to argue whether it has religious metaphors or ambiguous cosmic connotations.

RELATED: The 1 Year That Changed Sci-Fi Movies Forever

Knowing Is About Predetermination & Fate

Whether Knowing 's depiction of an alien race has Christian symbolism will always remain debatable, since its answer is a matter of personal interpretation. However, one element about the sci-fi movie's storyline is certain: it centers on how Nicolas Cage's character feels divided between the conflicting philosophies of determinism and randomness. In Knowing 's first arc, Koestler discusses the probability of the existence of other worlds in outer space, which suggests that a part of him believes that there's more to the universe than his day-to-day experiences as a human.

Yet, moments later, he finds himself drinking away the sorrows of random events from his past. The determinism vs. randomness conflict haunts him again when he uses Earth's ideal distance from the Sun as a metaphor to explain how every event could either be a consequence of pre-determined fate or just pure randomness. When his student asks him what he believes in, he responds by saying that " sh** happens, " affirming that he is skeptical about the existence of fate and inclines more toward believing in randomness. This begins to change, however, when he learns that the numbers on the time capsule letter predict the future with mathematical exactitude.

Nicholas Cage's Knowing Suggests Things Happen For A Reason

The skeptic in Koestler still holds him back when a fellow professor convinces him that he is only deriving meaning out of random numbers and that most numbers on the note mean nothing. However, John's faith gets restored when even the meaningless numbers start making sense as the precise coordinates of future disasters. As a result, John stops doubting the numbers and begins believing that humanity's imminent doom may be set in stone.

To nail down its themes surrounding determinism, Knowing also seems to portray how an alien race had foreseen Earth's future and was trying to rescue a selected few moments before disaster struck the planet. As Nicolas Cage's character comes to terms with his pre-determined reality, he realizes that for his son to survive, he must let him leave with the aliens. With this, in the Knowing movie ending moments, John finally seems to shed his " sh** happens " ideology, but the solace from the wisdom of understanding that everything happens for a reason comes with the hefty cost of accepting that he must let go of his son.

• Knowing (2009)

Knowing Review

24 Mar 2009

121 minutes

Given that M. Night Shyamalan hasn’t been able to get away with making M. Night Shyamalan films without receiving a thorough kicking lately, it’s a mystery why Alex Proyas would want to make one. Knowing is a collage of themes from the MNS oeuvre: a bereaved family man grappling with loss of faith after personal tragedy who comes across a miraculous, but also terrifying phenomenon... a quietly-spoken, damaged little boy who can see and hear more than grown-ups and is the focus of supernatural activity… set-piece disasters which wipe out hordes of extras just to give the main character something to be more angsty about… and that low-key, gloomy, whispery urgency that covers for rising hysteria.

Knowing also has the misfortune to follow The Number 23 in the numerology horror stakes, though searching for meaning in random or designed codes also has a Dan Brownish tinge. Given that it’s a) familiar, and b) silly, the film almost sells its first act as a creepy little girl in 1959 scribbles her prophetic numbers when asked to draw a picture of the future while the rest of her class crayon spacemen and robots. Then, in ‘the present day’, Professor Koestler’s son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) brings the numbers home so Dad can idly make the connections with a handy internet search. It deploys a lot of generic baggage, but never really settles whether it’s an apocalyptic science-fiction film or a religious horror movie. The Men in Black who stalk Caleb to give him ominous pebbles and visions of burning wildlife could be demons, aliens, angels or thin Goth government dudes.

The set-piece disasters turn out to be beside the point, but allow for spectacle — though over-reliance on CG fire gives even things which are supposed to be happening (a plane crash, a subway disaster) an unreal sheen like Caleb’s bad dream visions. Cage’s character has so many props to indicate estrangement from the world — dilapidated house, major drink habit, overprotective parent neurosis, a minister father he won’t talk to — that his moping becomes comical, while the dashing-about to avert doom has unfortunate Wicker Man overtones. Rose Byrne, cast as the daughter of the original visionary, clearly has an urge to sign up for solar crisis or general end-of-the-world movies, but gets less to do here than in Sunshine or... 28 Weeks Later.

Related Articles

Movies | 04 12 2008

Movies | 22 08 2008

Movies | 04 07 2008

Movies | 10 06 2008

Movies | 04 03 2008

Nicolas Cage has brought us plenty of crazy movies in the past few years, but Knowing is a doozy of an entirely different level. Dark City and I, Robot director Alex Proyas peppers his take on the disaster movie with a whole host of other genre elements, including ghost stories, conspiracy thrillers and a dash of whacked-out sci-fi. The five credited writers, Proyas included, may deserve the blame for this mishmash, but Proyas clearly thinks he's presenting us with some kind of directorial vision. Maybe you'll have better luck than I did with figuring out what that vision is.

The movie that's been advertised in the trailers, in which cynical astrophysicist John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) discovers a mysterious set of numbers that may predict the end of the world, is really only the half of it. Maybe only a quarter of it. The movie opens in the 1950s, with a The Omen type prologue about a troubled little girl named Lucinda (Lara Robinson) who scrawls down the numbers and puts them in her elementary school's time capsule. 50 years later John's son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) is a student at the same school when they open the capsule, and he's already hearing some of the same voices that plagued Lucinda when he receives her message.

Caleb is convinced it might mean something, and soon John is too, staying up all night circling the numbers and detecting a telltale pattern-- they reveal the exact location, date and death toll of every major disaster of the last 50 years. In psychology this typically a symptom of schizophrenia, but in Knowing , John is soon proved right when he witnesses a plane crash, and realizes there are two disasters left on the list-- one of them possibly the big one. He eventually tracks down Lucinda's daughter Diana ( Rose Byrne ) and granddaughter Abby, and has them running around the Boston area trying to avoid the apocalypse while also trying to stop it.

The movie's two action set pieces, heavily promoted in the trailers, are about as different in skill as it gets. The plane crash is filmed in a single tracking shot that follows John as he walks through the wreckage, both harrowing and thrilling in its realism. On the other hand, a subway derailment in a poorly recreated Manhattan subway station is filmed so frenetically and without any sense of rhythm that it feels more like a visual assault than an experience. Both sequences, incidentally, suck every ounce of fun out witnessing the destruction, completely removing that visceral thrill in disaster movies of seeing a familiar part of the world destroyed.

Because, it seems, Knowing isn't really a disaster movie, or at least wants to pretend it isn't. The numbers conspiracy theory gives way to end-of-days prophecies and some creepy blonds that Caleb dubs "the Whisper People," and if I told you what ending that all led to, you wouldn't believe me anyway. As Knowing gets increasingly preposterous, and Cage's stony deadpan acting seems even sillier in context, a kind of slack-jawed joy may overtake you. How on earth did this movie get made? How did anyone involved think they had a story worth telling? And, as always, what is Nicolas Cage thinking?

Staff Writer at CinemaBlend

‘No, You Take It From The Top!’: Jack Black Recalls Storming Off Tropic Thunder Set After Being Thrown Off A Water Buffalo, But There’s A Heartwarming Conclusion To The Story

Charlie Hunnam and Legendary Have Been Bullish About Pacific Rim 3. How The Franchise May Come Back In An Unexpected Way

Whenever The SNL Cast Goes Skating At 30 Rock, Seth Meyers Is Always Amazed By Kenan Thompson's Skills. Clearly He Hasn't Watched A Classic Movie As Much As I Have

Most Popular

• 2 With The Rookie Losing A Series Regular Ahead Of Season 7, What Does That Mean For The Season 6 Finale Cliffhangers?
• 3 ‘Human Drama Is Important’: Shogun’s Hiroyuki Sanada Shares Update On The Hulu Show’s Next Two Seasons And Teases What Awaits Toranaga
• 4 ‘No, You Take It From The Top!’: Jack Black Recalls Storming Off Tropic Thunder Set After Being Thrown Off A Water Buffalo, But There’s A Heartwarming Conclusion To The Story
• 5 Charlie Hunnam and Legendary Have Been Bullish About Pacific Rim 3. How The Franchise May Come Back In An Unexpected Way