Roger Ebertis easily the most famous, and likely one of the most important film critics that ever lived. WhilePauline Kaelis often cited as the first mainstream critic who truly understood film as an art form, Ebert and hisAt The Moviesco-hostGene Siskelmanaged to discuss cinema in a way that appealed to widespread audiences. Siskel and Ebert were able to turn the process of discussing films into an art form itself, and often helped toshed a spotlight on underseen filmsthat they felt did not receive the attention and accolades that they deserved. While the critical reviews ofAlex Proyas’ 2009 disaster science fiction filmwere largely negative,Ebert citedKnowingas “among the best science-fiction films” he’d ever seen, calling it “frightening, suspenseful, intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome.”
Knowingis an inventive science fiction thriller thatattempts to turn the disaster movie genreon its head.Nicolas Cagestars as John Koestler, a widowed MIT astrophysics professor who is raising his young son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). After discovering a time capsule that is opened up at Caleb’s school after five decades, John begins studying the document, and finds some surprising results; various charts cite several natural disasters that occurred since the capsule was first buried, including the Oklahoma City bombing, September 11 attacks, and Hurricane Katrina. While some critics saw an exploitative, silly premise for a disaster film,Ebert found a film “with expert and confident storytelling” that “works here because of the meaning of the pursuit, and the high stakes.”
Released in 2009, Knowing is a Science Fiction and Thriller starring Nicolas Cage. The story, from Ryne Douglas Pearson, sees humanity “knowing” when upcoming diasters and apocalyptic events will happen thanks to a strange piece of paper covered with numbers.
Why Was ‘Knowing’ So Divisive?
Knowinghas a fairly unique premise that may have caught some viewers off guard.Although it was ostensibly marketed as a disaster film in the vein ofThe Day The Earth Stood Stillor2012,Knowingis essentiallyan existentialist science fiction dramaabout mankind reckoning with its potential extinction. After discovering the link between the time capsule and the historical tragedies, John desperately tries to translate the information so that he can predict future catastrophes, and stop them from happening. The film’s greatest tragedy is that he always seems to come in too late; despite his knowledge, John’s fears are constantly dismissed by the scientific community.
While he had “logical questions that are sort of beside the point,”Ebert argued that the film “works as science fiction, which often changes one coordinate in an otherwise logical world just to see what might happen.”Given that the premise and the world of the film are entirely fictional, Ebert wasn’t expectingKnowingto be 100% accurate when it came to numerology and the origin of solar flares. However, he argued that the film succeeded on its own merits, and that a certain suspension of disbelief was required to enjoy it. He stated that there were more dynamic action scenes “that keep tension at a high pitch all through the film” which prevented him from spendingtoo much time worrying about the plot holes.
Roger Ebert Respected the Ambition of ‘Knowing’
Ebert’s review ofKnowingbecame an unexpected subject of controversy,as many of his readers were disappointed when they saw the film on his recommendation. Ebert confessed that he was “was blind-sided by the negative reaction,” as he had rarely been so out-of-step with the larger critical community. While he did not go out of his way to attack other critics, Ebert stated that he knew “the plot is preposterous” and simply “didn’t care.” To Ebert, a film that takes so many logical leaps should be met on its own terms, and could not be held to the same scientific standards of “Scientific American.” Doubling down on his praise, Ebert subsequently listedKnowingas one of the best films of 2009.
Ebert’s passionate defense ofKnowingspeaks to the importance of having a deep critical discussion about high-profile releases.It’s unfortunate that in today’s cinematic ecosystem, many potential moviegoers determine whether or not to see an upcoming release based purely on the score that it receives on an aggregator like Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, or IMDb. Even whenignoring the systematic issues that these aggregates have, judging a purely objective medium like film by a quantitative score isn’t a productive way to have an opinion on a work of art. It is more important than ever to find intelligent critics with knowledge of film history who may offer more insight on why a film succeeds than a simple score or artificial intelligence summation could provide.
Ebert Was a Fan of Nicolas Cage
Cage has often been a divisive actor, as his penchant fordelivering over-the-top performances has earned him both praise and criticism. However,Ebert was often more forgiving of Cage’s eccentrics than other pundits, as he respected the bravery that he put into the craft. Also included in Ebert’s “best of 2009” list was the controversial crime thrillerBad Lieutenant: Port of Call New Orleans, in which Cage gave a similarly divisive performance as a corrupt cop. Despite mixed reviews, the strange crime film has been accepted as a future cult classic. Ebert’s recommendation certainly turned many viewers on to a film that they may have otherwise skipped entirely.
Ebert sadly died in 2013, butCage has had a comeback in recent years, proving that he is still capable of giving dramatic performances. In addition to playing a fictionalized version of himself inThe Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent, Cage received praise for his powerful work in the coming-of-age dramaJoeandthe personal character dramaPig.The positive buzz for Cage’s upcoming performance in the serial killer filmLonglegssuggests that he’s in a new era of acting innovation.
