Not as Good as Ebert Says, But Good Nonetheless

Rating: 7/10 (8 July 2009)

A professor of astrophysics (Nicolas Cage) stumbles upon a complex series of numbers that predicts natural disasters and even more amazingly how many people will die in them. Now he sees it as his job to save those who would perish, but is his role already factored into the equation? Can he change the future or only be a part of it?
Let us start off by addressing Nic Cage's bad acting. There are exceptions, such as "Adaptation", but generally if you want a quality acting performance you don't call upon Nicolas Cage. He somehow sells movies, often even action flicks ("National Treasure", "Con Air", "Face/Off"), but can be unreliable. He's like a slightly less goony Jeff Goldblum in many respects. That being said, Cage does a fine job in "Knowing"... so maybe he's finally got a handle on his skills.
Roger Ebert loved this film and gave it four stars, if the cover of the box is to be believed. I generally have a high respect for Ebert, and can usually see his points. On this occasion, I'm not completely sure I do. I haven't read the full review, which would probably explain more, but this was not a four star film. Two and a half, maybe. Despite many great things -- the acting, the general plot, the decent effects -- it is a flawed film and sort of needs patching. To put it in the "four star" category is insulting to other films there.
I loved the cinematography and think they took lessons from "Children of Men". One scene featuring a plane crash was very well done with the "camera-in-tow" method and lack of cuts. I wouldn't mind seeing more of this in films, though I'm still torn on the shakiness that tends to accompany it.
As I say, the film is not flawless. I don't know much about science or astrophysics, so I can't comment on the accuracy of those parts. However, I do object to the idea that determinism says everything happens for a reason. Determinism may say everything has a cause, but to say it has a "reason" implies a meaning behind it, which is simply not true. Things may or may not have a meaning, but determinists are not all in agreement on that point. So, if that was what the film was suggesting, I disagree.
I also object to the use of putting the opening credits over a still background rather than during the opening scene. To keep the pace moving and the film a shorter length, this could have been changed. Lastly, the movie crumbles in the third act -- at least for me. I can't really say why without spoiling the film, but there's a twist and turn in there that was completely unnecessary and which doesn't explain some of the plot holes as much as I would like. A second viewing may help me (it was pointed out to me after the fact how much foreshadowing there is in the first ten or fifteen minutes), but some aspects just don't add up for me.
"Knowing" is an enjoyable watch, but may leave you stale. I would recommend watching it alongside "The Screwfly Solution", as they would create an interesting contrast. Beyond that, I don't know... a good film but not the science fiction masterpiece you've been waiting for.