"Knowing"? Forgiving and forgetting
While I should be posting about all things America right now, I first have to say my piece about "Knowing", the Nicholas Cage moofie.
There is a four and a half star, nine out of ten, ninety-something percent film in there somewhere.
Questioning fate, determinism, prophecy, science and faith, this film tried explore some profound ideas. The production standard was already high with an additional scene or two that has incredibly well executed sequences. This film could/should have been a great melding of
2001: A Space Odyssey with Last Night.
But woven through this excellent film were horrible strands of cliché pandering to nervous studio executives. This really felt like two different films awkwardly crammed together or the work of a hampered professional.
For example, the protagonist had a developed background. I don't just mean that his wife had died; that alone would have been insufficient. He was John, his son was Caleb and his sister was Grace; simple names easily identified with a typical Christian family. This worked well against his profession as a astro-physics lecturer at MIT. It also lay the foundation for his philosophical quandaries throughout the film. There is even a brief moment of revelation for the audience when you find he is estranged from his religious father. This level of characterisation is rare, I find, especially in a thriller/disaster piece.
The support cast, however, were clearly not so fortunate. Almost every line of dialogue not spoken by the protagonist felt designed only for the protagonist to reach his next line. "That sounds crazy, even for you," features in the dialogue; that's how poor it was getting.
But from the start of this, I've said there's a brilliant film in there, and I believe there is. There were some surprising, almost bold, decisions made about particular events in the film, especially towards the end of the film. Of these, some showed elements of brilliance in their defiance of expectation. So much so that if the film had not suffered in other areas, this could have been a classic.
Alas, there are also moments of sheer stupidity. Much like Spielberg's A.I., there is a distinct point were the film should finish but instead strains and breaks all credibility. In retrospect, the end sequence is unfortunately the natural conclusion given the handling of a specific subplot of the film.
I do admire the director; I think he can show great vision at times. But to defend that, I'd have to say he doesn't appear to have the confidence to demand freedom from the concerns of producers. The alternative would be that he is simply very capable of generating standard Hollywood pulp and I would prefer to err against this.
The end result is a mostly tolerable and, in parts, enjoyable film. Though you really do have to forgive some elements and forget the last three minutes.
There is a four and a half star, nine out of ten, ninety-something percent film in there somewhere.
Questioning fate, determinism, prophecy, science and faith, this film tried explore some profound ideas. The production standard was already high with an additional scene or two that has incredibly well executed sequences. This film could/should have been a great melding of
2001: A Space Odyssey with Last Night.
But woven through this excellent film were horrible strands of cliché pandering to nervous studio executives. This really felt like two different films awkwardly crammed together or the work of a hampered professional.
For example, the protagonist had a developed background. I don't just mean that his wife had died; that alone would have been insufficient. He was John, his son was Caleb and his sister was Grace; simple names easily identified with a typical Christian family. This worked well against his profession as a astro-physics lecturer at MIT. It also lay the foundation for his philosophical quandaries throughout the film. There is even a brief moment of revelation for the audience when you find he is estranged from his religious father. This level of characterisation is rare, I find, especially in a thriller/disaster piece.
The support cast, however, were clearly not so fortunate. Almost every line of dialogue not spoken by the protagonist felt designed only for the protagonist to reach his next line. "That sounds crazy, even for you," features in the dialogue; that's how poor it was getting.
But from the start of this, I've said there's a brilliant film in there, and I believe there is. There were some surprising, almost bold, decisions made about particular events in the film, especially towards the end of the film. Of these, some showed elements of brilliance in their defiance of expectation. So much so that if the film had not suffered in other areas, this could have been a classic.
Alas, there are also moments of sheer stupidity. Much like Spielberg's A.I., there is a distinct point were the film should finish but instead strains and breaks all credibility. In retrospect, the end sequence is unfortunately the natural conclusion given the handling of a specific subplot of the film.
I do admire the director; I think he can show great vision at times. But to defend that, I'd have to say he doesn't appear to have the confidence to demand freedom from the concerns of producers. The alternative would be that he is simply very capable of generating standard Hollywood pulp and I would prefer to err against this.
The end result is a mostly tolerable and, in parts, enjoyable film. Though you really do have to forgive some elements and forget the last three minutes.