Harry Potter and His Half-Arsed Attempt at a Good Film

Welcome to the Agglomeration

Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince Review

Harry Potter. Say the two words and half the world falls into a spell of Hogwarts infatuation Syndrome. Perhaps the most hyped up movie to be released this year, there certainly was a lot of expectation for Harry Potter 6 to excel and deliver when I went to see it. A packed cinema full of chatty girls bitching about popcorn, anxious kids anticipating the Potter phenomenon and a random family behind me who between the four of them, received and actually answered 4 different phone calls throughout the entire movie, after having spent 10 dollars on a Ice Age 3 Plushie Claw Machine. Not exactly the best setting but nevertheless, I suppose, a fitting atmosphere, seeing as Harry Potter 6, I daresay, was a failure.

The problem with Harry Potter 6 was that it was a movie of two halves, with the first half being twice as long as the second, as well as being almost completely unnecessary. Now let me preface this by saying I wasn't sure if I was going to see this film, and in fact I asked one of my friends who had seen it on its debut night whether or not it was worth going to. She said, Yes, as long as you don't think of the book as you're seeing it, because it cut a lot out. I thought, Well, fair enough, it's a bloody long book, and parts of it were probably not that important anyway and as long as the editing was alright, there certainly was no reason to hold a grudge against the movie just because of that.

As it turns out, the editing was crap. Now, I don't remember the book's events because it's been years since I last read it, but I remember thinking to myself that the book's effort surpassed greatly the enormous, literally, letdown that Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix was. In this case, if you want to have a 158 minute movie, you better make it worthwhile. Instead, the pacing and the editing was abysmal. Storylines were slow and dull, dragging out stuff for the sake of dragging it out, and providing lots of unnecessary exposition to scenes that could've been massacred in half.

The result of this was that not only did we lose a lot of potential to make scenes more powerful and to have a stronger relevance to the main storyline, we also lost a sense of the magic, pardon the pun, that is Harry Potter, and because of that, the characterisation was extremely weak. In fact the only real characterisation was relationshipy angst. I could care less about a Hinny relationship or Hermionder love triangle, but the first 'half' of the film acted just like foreplay to the hookups that didn't really establish themselves strongly at the conclusion of the film.

Many storylines that I was actually interested in therefore suffered, as a lot seemed to only be hinting at the reality of things and by giving us the bare minimum, the Harry-Draco conflict, the Snape-Draco relationship, and the mystery surrounding the Half-Blood Prince were suspenseless. Having said that, there were a few redeeming qualities of the film. The movie was mostly well done from the moment of Aragog's humourous yet touching farewell, that led to Slughorn's disclosure of his memory and thereby establishing the Horcruxes as the main storyline finally. The resultant cave expedition, Dumbledore/Snape confrontation and the former's death scene were fantastic. The music in the death scene was especially moving, and the united raising of wands to dispel the Dark Mark with light was certainly the best scene of the film.

For me, Harry Potter 6 was a classic example of too little, too late in a film that was overall not a worthy tribute to the book. Yes, films are mostly always worse than the books (I daresay Goblet of Fire came very close though), the but the discrepancy and the nature of the film simply left me feeling unsatisfied. It lacked the charm and the fantasic realism that accompanied previous films. I didn't feel like I was immersed in the world of Hogwarts, I was merely a spectator to events that for most of the film, didn't invoke any feeling of spectacularity.

If you are a diehard Harry Potter fan, nothing I'll say will change your mind of seeing the film. All I can say is that, if you are unsure and you're tussling between this and say, The Hangover, I would strongly not recommend you see this film. Many people will be content with the fact that since it's Harry Potter, it will undoubtly be good. Those people are idiots.

The silver lining to this abominable cloud is that, hopefully with all this relationship crap out of the way, the film(s) made to the plot of 'Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows' may be plot-centric, instead of being a sandwich containing 8 slices of bread, and one slice of ham.

4/10

P.S - It was probably about as bad as Knowing. I forget what I gave it, but if it was higher, I apologise.

Till next time, may you agglomerate all your unpremeditated contemplations

It's Funny Because He's Fat

Welcome to the Agglomeration

Before I get into what will be a brilliantly planned out segue, I would like to point out I don't personally have anything against fat people. In fact, I would advise that people don't try to use the title of this post out of context just because I forgot to implement the highly revered punctuating tool, the quotation mark(s), and am too lazy to go back and put them in to indicate that it is indeed a quote from 'The Hangover', a movie which I saw yesterday with two of my friends and am planning to review now, just because that it is more important that the segue I planned out works perfectly.

What segue, you ask?

Exactly.

Onto the review.

The Hangover

The Hangover wasn't a film that I decided one rainy Thursday morning to go and watch because all my Geography homework was done because frankly I don't do Geography anymore or because I thought that it looked like a terrific movie. The Hangover wasn't a film that I had anticipated for several preceding months, watching diligently all the trailers and reviews in frenzied, impatient expectancy. The Hangover wasn't even a film that a certain friend among a group with whom I had organised a movie outing recommended to me, stating that it harnassed enough positive reviews from enough reputable sources to warrant my going to see this film. Oh wait, that's exactly what happened.

True to form, I checked this out with my good old friend Metacritic, who seemed to agree with my enigmatic but generally very tasteful friend. Satisfied that a mystery box movie was better than no movie at all, I went to watch The Hangover. And before I even give my opinion, my score, or any content to substantiate the above claims, let me quickly relay to you, the readers, the results of The Hangover when subjected to a newly introduced and before now, unique, but obviously not anymore, technique for film comparision and evaluation. Although it is really for the benefit of the only other reviewer to use this highly esteemed and invaluable technique, I will tell you all anyway that Yes, The Hangover did pass the 'Let's compare every single bloody movie we see to some arbitrary movie that is, in my opinion, crap and a waste of time, and therefore something that is guaranteed to see most movies pass, even randomly stupid ones about utterly inane cavemen on a quest to invent the wheel, but excluding ones about gay foreign models who are depicted by utterly inappropriate and icky actors who also favour portraying stupid and non-funny Kazakstanis...oh and let's call this arbitrary movie Knowing' test.

Moving right along.

As a comedy, The Hangover succeeds in its genre with aplomb. The jokes are consistently funny, and although there are no outstandingly fantastically amazingly magnificently ingeniously funny funny moments, there are enough memorable scenes that leave a good impression. For a comedy, the storyline is also very well written. It made more sense than most other comedies, and overall the plot didn't suffer because of a desire for cheap laughs. I had two small problems with it, however. Firstly, I hate the use of the flashback device. It kills suspense and almost always fails if not used correctly and extremely originally well, which is rare and which it wasn't here. However, what was surprising, was that this didn't actually make the movie that much worse for me, and neither did my second problem that I had with it. The ending. It had to be done, I realise, as nothing else would really fit, but it just seemed implausible in what was otherwise a mostly plausible film, despite obvious allowances made to vamp up the comedy aspect, of course.

The actors all did good jobs, portraying their characters convincingly and remarkably embellished where required. Special mention goes to Mr. Chow, portrayed by Ken Jeong, as probably the most memorable character. Despite a limited amount of scenes, he was given enough crude and over-the-top gestural leeway to make sure we don't forget him for a long time.

In conclusion, The Hangover was well written, well structured and overall as a package, a good movie for laughs. One of the best comedies I've seen for a long time, primarily because I generally hate comedies that are done poorly and avoid them like the Porcupine Man. 5 Points for the person who gets that reference. Luckily, The Hangover is no such fail comedy.

7.5/10

P.S First time in a while I saw trailers for 3 upcoming movies that look worth checking out. Drag me to Hell, Ingloureous Basterds and Sherlock Holmes.

Till next time, may you agglomerate all your unpremeditated contemplations

Playtime - Solid, Liquid or Gas?

Welcome to the Agglomeration

State of Play

As stated in the previous blog, I went to see this movie on the Queen's Birthday Long Weekend with my friends Ngiammy and Kemal, and the general consensus was that it was a good movie.

Now let me preface this review by stating that going to see this movie was my idea, it was my choice over Star Trek, Terminator: Salvation, or anything else that might've been on at that particular time. So I hoped that it would be more successful than the last time I decided to pick the movie we would go watch, which was on my birthday and we saw Knowing. Enough said.

Russell Crowe, Ben Affleck, Rachel McAdams were the main stars in this political conspiracy-ey type film, and to begin with the plot, it was generally very well written, with a tight if slightly restrained storyline that kept tension very well and did not have too many plotholes. There was a clear sense of direction and they did not stray too far from the overarching plan, which was a great strength as it ensured that the viewers were interested in what happened, and it gave time for the main characters to explored in depth, as well as the relationships between these said protagonists and not-so-pro tagonists.

Cal and Della's relationship was probably the highlight for me, as the evolution of what was originally a relationship filled with ignorance and apathy turned into one of close respect and trust, as they both grew to know the values of each other and what they both stood for as journalists. And that was something else that I found interesting. The juxtaposition between the sort of old-school journalist that Crowe portrayed was highlighted because of the fact that Della was a new-agey type internet blogger. In a world where everything, including the media seems to be getting nicreasingly revolutionised through globalisation, where does this leave journalism?

Furthermore, the area of private military contractors and corruption in the highest echelons of the armed forces but also the representative congressmen who are either for or against increased military involvement proved to be a fascinating backdrop in this story. Pointcorp is the line of defense, Yes, but who will protect us from them? What is the price of defense? How much do the public really know about the true state of affairs?

These questions supplement the well-written script, which had moments of humour that weren't too forced and were genuinely funny. The only problem I had with it plot-wise was the fact that they threw in one last twist for the sake of a twist. It was surprising that went that route because I would've been much more satisfied if it was the wife of Congressman Collins that was in on the whole conspiracy as opposed to another 'henchman-gone-amok' epiphany. It didn't really leave me too satisfied and perhaps another minor criticism was more of a missed opportunity. They were going so well into making a thematic film without chucking in a reference or references to a non-platonic relationship. I'm glad it didn't develop explicitly between Cal and Della, but I really wish the past affair with Collin's wife was not included at all, since there was no sort of resolution in the matter, it really wasn't all too important, and quite frankly it probably made it less likely that a guy like Cal would be friends with Congressman Collins.

Otherwise the plot was well-written and admirable. The acting was generally very well done, with Crowe pulling off a solid performance, and most of the main and supporting cast also pulling off convincing roles in their characters. The music was all right, I loved it especially near the end, although I guess it made me feel like something more dramatic was going to happen than what actually did. Oh well, not the music's fault I guess.

Overall, I thought 'State of Play' was enjoyable and a strong movie.

7.5/10

Also, I'll publish Episode 2 of 'Origin' once the Second Puzzle has been solved.

Till next time, may you agglomerate all your unpremeditated contemplations.

A Shorter Review Because I'm Tired

Welcome to the Agglomeration

Rendition

A film that I watched because of Eugene's excellent novelty choice in birthday present choice, as well as the fact that I had a trial debate on this very topic and I'm glad I did. Rendition has a few main things going for it, as well as a few drawbacks that occur not because of perhaps missed opportunities or lazy editing, but because of the stylistic and creative choices that the director chose to employ. Essentially, the film is about the practice of extraordinary rendition. What makes it extraordinary is perhaps because it's illegal. America, being the schoolyard bully that it is, decides it's above the law and decides to continue this practice of torture, but decides that any cowardous schoolyard bully that they would prefer to get their cronies and henchmen to do the actual bashing. Since they're too clean and too suave to get their hands dirty, the Americans sent through the FBI suspected terrorists to African countries such as Morocco, where torture is no such issue. In the relative isolation of a desert where nobody can hear you scream, the torture is conducted and continued, completely unbeknownst to all the unsuspecting people in the States.

Well, two problems here. Firstly, the people who know this 'suspected terrorist' obviously know he's missing. This forms a subplot of the story. Secondly, extraordinary rendition is quite a well known term. Hell, it even has its own Wikipedia entry page. It is obviously something that people know about. They are aware that it's happening, it's just that for most people they're not too sure when, where and to who exactly. The film's aim seems to be to make people aware of extraordinary rendition, and Yes maybe this might be a valid message, but it seems a bit outdated and unnecessary in these modern times. Having said that, the message is portrayed relatively quite well and effectively, with an interesting temporal twist to the plot which I must say, even if it seems like I'm boasting, I did see coming.

Again, I won't spoil it, but it was gutsy, it was clever but perhaps it was maybe a bit too clever. What this did was it ruined the linear flow of the movie, making us unsure which timeframe the two distinct storylines were happening, especially since a main character was somewhat a presence in both of them. This confusion didn't detract much from the plot because I honestly didn't find the second storyline that interesting, despite it being a precursor to the events that occurred at the beginning of the film. Ok, I spoiled it, but seriously how many of you were really going to watch this film anyway?

One drawback about the plot is it probably had a few too many characters for me to actually care about them all. The main characters, if not annoying were underused or underexplored, meaning that at the end of the film their motives remained unclear, as well as their limited analysis on each person's transformation and the effect that rendition or the death of a loved one has had on each of the people involved. However, the ending sequence is especially powerful, and I thought that the film overall was pretty solid plot-wise.

Acting-wise not so much. Maybe it was because of the plot, but I didn't emphasise with many of the characters too much due to the portrayal of their characters. The emotional weighting of such a controversial topic wasn't deeply explored, and when it was, like with Reese Witherspoon's character, they overdramaticised it to the point where her screaming and yelling and screeching just became annoying and painful to watch. Out of the entire cast, only Omar Metwally as Anwar El-Ibrahimi was truly convincing, while I thought Peter Sarsgaard and Alan Arkin gave pretty good performances too. Yigal Naor was alright and I didn't really care for the rest. I don't even know why Jake Gyllenhaal and Reese Witherspoon were billed as leading actor/actress. Or maybe they weren't. Not too sure on that one. Suffice it to say, I wasn't impressed by them.

The dark scenes were shot extremely well and the cinematography was on the whole top-notch. It captured the solemn and serious nature of extraordinary rendition, and the whole emotional turmoil matched the sheer brutality and cruelty expressed in some of the torture scenes. The explosion wasn't too bad either, so on the whole, pretty good stuff in that department.

I loved the chilling choral soprano soloes throughout the film, especially in the ending sequence. I'm a big fan of these although many people I know despise these sort of musical backgrounds. I loved how music was employed during the film, as it certainly emphasised the harsh reality of this unjust and inhumane practice while also being struck by the loss and joyful reunion experienced by some of the characters. Some storylines are left unresolved, some end happy. That's probably the best way to end one of these films. Open-endedly, because this practice still exists, and while there was a happy ending for some in this film, how many people today don't get to see their families ever again because they died as a result of extraordinary rendition?

Overall, a strong outing by Gavin Hood that took a controversial current issue and retold in an emotionally compelling manner, despite some shortcomings.

7/10

Till next time, may you agglomerate all your unpremeditated contemplations

I Can See Clearly Now My Brain Is Dead

Welcome to the Agglomeration

A Scanner Darkly

Fred: "What does a scanner see? Into the head? Down into the heart? Does it see into me, into us? Clearly or darkly? I hope it sees clearly, because I can't any longer see into myself. I see only murk. I hope for everyone's sake the scanners do better. Because if the scanner sees only darkly, the way I do, then I'm cursed and cursed again. I'll only wind up dead this way, knowing very little, and getting that little fragment wrong too."

Where do I even begin with this review? I guess it would be remiss of me not to mention the person who was responsible in exposing me to this masterpiece. Thank you Eugene for giving me this DVD as a birthday present even though it had no immediate novelty value of being featured in a trial debating topic. I watched it at 11pm last night and honestly, I don't think I've watched such a great film for a very very long time.

I don't have much to critique about this adaptation of one of Philip K. Dick's most personal and truthful novels. I hear it's very truthful to the original novel, which I have unfortunately not read prior to this viewing experience. I guess I'll just go where my mindset leads me with this one, because honestly, there is not much I can say to discourage readers in viewing this film.

Firstly and perhaps most notably, the style is very much different to anything I've ever watched. The scenes were shot with real actors and then animated afterward to create the impact of a graphic novel which enriches the surrealist and futuristic aura of paranoia and fear, and I found that the humour but also tension was more intensified, because in a way, as the film began with lots of humour then gradually went down a slope of increasingly dark and depressing themes, the stylistic choice of director Richard Linklater almost made the film a metaphor of the exact message it was trying to send. And while we're on style, let me just tell you I thought the 'scramble suits' were a cool effect. Really cool. Anyway, onward. The roto-scoping effects was one of the most memorable aspects of the film and it certainly left a lasting impression that will stay with me for a long time because of this method of portraying the story that deviates from the mainstream option picked by less gutsy directors. It's certainly not going to appeal to everyone, but I honestly believed that it supported and enhanced the plot a great deal in this film.

Onto the plot itself, and I found that this was perhaps one of the most saddening but strong explorations into the human soul I've seen for quite some time in a movie. The characters are established very strongly, and there are only 5 main ones so there is ample time for their motives and personalities to be analysed effectively, which it is. Not only do we see the effects of Substance D on all the different characters, we also see how their interactions and comments exacerbate the atmosphere of paranoia in everyone, including the main character Arctor, who leads a double life, but is unaware of it due to the mental effects that the drug is having on him.

Honestly, I don't want to disclose anything about the plot, because I truly think that it is a film you have to watch either without knowing the twists and the direction of the plot at all, or after reading the actual novel by Philip K. Dick. Any effort I make to represent the plot would be of a great insult to this movie and to the personal hatred that PKD has of drugs and their impacts on society. The vehemence in which he deals with these substances is reflected in the great detrimental impact they have had to people close to him, and him himself, and as a viewer who is in most cases known as a cynical and sarcastic entity with no heart or soul whatsoever, I respect the story in this film enough to not rip through it to find minor flaws that don't hinder the overall experience one gets from this film in any way.

There is one caveat that should be mentioned, and that is the fact that this film is as much an exploration of the social construct and the impacts in a futuristic dystopia as much as it is a narrative that is entertaining and thought-provoking. For fans of high speed car chases, big explosions and sexy porn-esque scenes, there simply are none of these in this film. (Well there is one sorta sex scene but Shut up, you're missing the point.) To be honest, the story doesn't go a long way because there isn't a lot of story to cover. The simple storyline is one of the reasons why I thought it was such a compelling watch. There was no need for complicated subplots or meaningless wild goose featherbeak chases. Everything is focused on this group of five people and the organisation that monitors them, and I promise to all those who make it through to the ending, it is well worth the time to experience the final revelation that honestly, I didn't see coming. Ok maybe that was because I wasn't as sharp as I normally am because it was 12:30am in the morning, but more to the point I just didn't imagine that the film would be tied up as neatly and as succinctly as it was.

Another caveat however. I know a lot of people who aren't fans of being depressed. I'm not one of them, because there are many people who always talk to me and exclaim their distaste for my cynicism or pessimistic outlooks on life. I won't lie to you unsuspecting and unrealistic fools, nor will I force you to open your eyes to the truth, but it has to be said that even I found the transition from humour, satire and wit to deep philosophical and yes, depressing message a bit startling. Not because I didn't love it, because I did. I respected the film and I thought it was much more powerful because of it, but I warn you, you know who you are, if you're one of those people I described above, you might hate me for recommending this film and pushing you out of your false utopia and perfect world where everything is perfect and life has no troubles for you as an individual, and you can just live a perfect life and then die peacefully when your time is up. This film will challenge that outlook, so be warned for that if you do decide to watch this film. You will have to think.

However, the transition from humour to deep thought is perhaps as I alluded to earlier a strong representation of the character's deterioration in their personality after becoming addicted to Substance D and the mental effects start manifesting themselves. But the message isn't the only strong part of the script in this film. 'A Scanner Darkly' is also funny. Outrageously funny. Make me laugh for 10 seconds making me not hear the rest of the scene so I have to rewind it again to hear the rest of the scene even with subtitles funny.

Honestly, the lines in this film are again, some of the funniest and wittiest things I've heard in a film. It's not your 'Wth this is so stupid it's funny' funny, and it's not your standard chick flick or comedy 'Let's hurt someone' funny or even their 'Let's make crude jokes about sex or race or other types of stereotypical generalisation-type insults just to prove a point that since we're movie makers we get to be as rude and abysmally idiotic as we like since it's all only 'fiction' and we can't be sued for that, only the characters can' non-funny, this is actual 'That is really really clever' funny. I'm going to combine the script with the cast here, because honestly it's the cast that really pulled this part of the film off.

I loved all the actors: Keanu Reeves (so glad he got to do something good after the fail that was the Matrix), Robert Downey Jr. (favourite character in the film), Rory Cochrane (loved his death scene) and others which I won't mention now to prevent listing. If you want, check out the cast list of the film after you're done. It's a pretty solid cast, and even better. They can act. Not like Nicolas Cage. They actually have emotions. They actually convincingly bring off the trials and turmoils that their individual characters go through and I actually believe they're getting more paranoid by the second. I think this review wouldn't be complete if I didn't give you a few examples of great writing in the script: so here are a few excerpts.

*

Luckman: You're the only person in the known universe who's never heard of the Heimlich maneuver?

Barris: Alright, I'm gonna give you a little feedback since you seem to be proceeding through life like a cat without whiskers perpetually caught behind the refrigerator. Your life and watching you live it is like a gag-reel of ineffective bodily functions. I swear to god that a toddler has a better understanding of the intricacies of chew-swallow-digest-don't kill yourself on your TV dinner! And yet you've managed to turn this near death fuckup of yours into a moral referendum on me!

Luckman: You are a monster!

Barris: You are a billy goat!

*

Barris: Gentlemen, you are about to witness for approximately 61 cents of ordinary household materials, the perfect home-made silencer.

Freck: Barris, the neighbors are gonna hear.

Luckman: Nah. They only call in murders in this neighborhood.

Barris: Plus, freckle-deck, it's a SILENCER. They're not gonna hear anything.

Freck: Well, I'm pretty fucking sure they're illegal.

Barris: In this day and age, the type of society we find ourselves living in, every person of worth needs to have a gun at all times to protect themselves. And we're off, un

[points gun at Freck]

Barris: , deux

[points gun at Luckman]

Barris: , trois?

[points gun to his own head]

Barris: [Then points gun in the air and shoots. It goes off loudly]

Freck: That sure is some silencer.

Barris: Yes, uh, what it did was augment the sound rather than dampen it. But I almost have it. I believe I have it in principle anyway.

Luckman: Oh well, the good news is that regardless of what you do next time, it'll be a silencer to us because we're now DEAF!

*

Medical Deputy #1: You know, Fred, if you keep your sense of humor like you do, you just might make it.

Fred: Make it? Make what? The team? The chick? Make good? Make do? Make out? Make sense? Make money? Make time? Define your terms. The Latin for 'make' is facere, which always reminds me of fuckere, which is Latin for 'to fuck', and I have been getting jack shit in that department as of late.

*

Ok, so there was a sex reference in there. Sue me. Those excerpts are just 3 of what I thought to be the funniest scenes in the film, but honestly it's so much better when you're watching it. Robert Downey Jr. and Woody Harrelson portray Barris and Luckman respectively, and their characters undergo verbal (and physical) sparring that constitute most of the humour in this film. Their acting is practically perfect, and I loved every second of Robert Downey Jr. because he made the character of Barris totally believable as well as giving him the 'extremely clever but sorta creepy intelligent professor' sort of spin, which I again, loved.

There is so much more to say about this film, but I'm sure all of you are by now sick of me being so nice to a film. So I'll just make one last good comment: The music is superb and fits the mood extremely well. However, I truly and honestly believe that nothing I can write or say will do this film justice, so I thoroughly recommend you all check this film out. For the humour. For the message. For the experience of it all.

I can't promise you you'll get the ending. I can't promise that you'll even like the ending. What I can promise you is that if you don't think watching 'A Scanner Darkly' was worth it, I will come after you. And kill you. With a homemade silencer I borrowed off Barris.

A great film.

9/10

Till next time, may you agglomerate all your unpremeditated contemplations

You Know You Want to Read This. All of it.

Welcome to the Agglomeration

Knowing

On my birthday a couple of good friends joined me on an exodus to Hurstville Greater Union to watch the 4:30pm session of an Alex Proyas film - Knowing. We were fortunate enough to practically have the entire cinema to ourselves, resulting in the exchanging of snarky remarks, cynical observations and critical judgments being plausible without facing an imminent threat of other people in the immediate vicinity chiming in and telling us all to 'Shut up'.

So let us begin the review. I am going to analyse the film in 5 different areas, because Ben Coles thinks anything more than that is excessively excessive and worthy of being placed in front of a firing squad and subsequently cold-cocked by six different gun-wielding army sadists simultaneously. These five areas fall under the general and conveniently labelled headings of:

Plot
Acting
Cinematography
Music
Overall Effect

For no particular reason we shall look at Plot first. Since I cannot actually be bothered to portray the plot in its entirety in a sarcastic and humourous manner, here is the summary of the film courtesy of Wikipedia:

"In 1959, at William Dawes Elementary School in Lexington, Massachusetts, a time capsule containing the students' drawings of their ideas of the future is buried and set to be ceremoniously opened 50 years later. A girl named Lucinda Embry contributes a page full of seemingly random digits. That night, Lucinda is found in a school closet, where her fingers are bloodied and she complains about hearing voices.

In 2009, the time capsule is opened and the drawings are given to the current students. A boy named Caleb receives Lucinda's envelope. His father John Koestler, a widower and professor of astrophysics at MIT takes notice in the paper, and he soon realizes that part of these digits form dates and death tolls of every major disaster over the past fifty years, and suggests three disasters yet to come. Meanwhile, Caleb begins receiving visits from mysterious figures in overcoats (listed in the credits as "The Strangers"), and during his encounters he hears their overlapping telepathic whispers.

John witnesses a commercial plane crash on the date the paper next predicted a disaster would occur, and he discovers that the unexplained digits on the paper are in fact the geographic coordinates of the events. Speaking with Lucinda's former teacher, John learns of Lucinda's closet episode, and also that she had since died after an overdose. He then meets Lucinda's daughter, Diana Wayland, but is rebuffed once he mentions Lucinda's paper. However, after John uses the numbers to correctly predict another disaster — a Manhattan subway train derailment which John tries and fails to prevent — Diana seeks out John, and together they go to investigate Lucinda's old remote mobile home. Having noticed that the last date on the paper is not accompanied by coordiantes, further clues in Lucinda's home lead John and Diana to realize that the '33' listed as the death toll for the final disaster is actually 'EE' reversed, which Lucinda meant to represent 'Everyone Else'. In the woods outside the home, John confronts one of The Strangers, who disappears in a flash of light. It is revealed that Diana's daughter Abby can hear The Strangers' eerie whispers as well.

John and a fellow professor forecast that a massive solar flare will soon reach Earth, and the final disaster on Lucinda's paper will indeed be global in scale. John then examines the door of the closet in which Lucinda was found, and discovers it is where she had scratched another set of coordinates. They represent the location of Lucinda's old mobile home, and John figures that it is somehow a refuge from the impending disaster. Diana insists they seek shelter in underground caves instead, and she takes Abby and Caleb, without John's knowledge, to go there. As panic erupts after news of the flare is made public, The Strangers drive off in Diana's car with Caleb and Abby still inside. Diana gives chase in another vehicle, and is killed when she is broadsided by a truck.

At Lucinda's mobile home, John finds the children with the four Strangers as a glowing vessel descends from the sky. The Strangers dispossess themselves of their human appearance, revealing themselves to be glowing, translucent figures surrounded by wisps of light. The Strangers invite only those who can hear their whispers to leave Earth with them. John convinces an initially reluctant Caleb to go with The Strangers, and the vessel departs with the two children. From the vantage point of space, other ships are seen taking off from all around Earth. John travels to Boston to be with his sister and parents. While he had distanced himself from religion following his wife's death, John reconciles with his previously estranged father, a Christian minister. John and his family embrace as the solar flare strikes Earth and incinerates all life on the planet. Elsewhere, Caleb and Abby are dropped off in an otherworldly field, and the film ends as the two make their way towards a prominent solitary tree in the distance. Other ships are also visible along the horizon, dropping off others."

Thank you Wikipedia. Now this storyline, needless to say, requires the audience to undergo a process known as 'suspension of disbelief'. We can either watch this film and gladly point out all the improbabilities and impossbilities (which we did, mind you) or we can simply accept that this is the premise that is required to make a good film and we should merely enjoy it for what it is - a good science fiction film that entertains us for two hours. Now, I have no problem with suspending my disbelief for the purposes of entertainment. In fact I do so on a weekly basis for TV Shows such as 'Heroes' and 'Supernatural', which obviously require the viewer to accept the circumstances portrayed in each plot for the purposes of entertainment and enjoyment.

However, I do have a problem when in certain cases like Knowing, this suspension of disbelief is asked of us lazy and uncompromising viewers but it doesn't result in anything spectacular or even good. Taking the whole 'aliens are responsible for the destruction and revitalisation of the human race' component out of the picture, because this is the biggest and most notable incredulous decision they made, I find that there are many situations which are either just hard to believe or are simply just not explained, but are used merely as a mechanism to further the plot.

Let me give you an example. Actually I'm feeling generous, so let me give you three. Firstly, the method of actually getting Nicolas Cage's character into the mystery. He is unhappy with the relationship with his son, so he drinks some alcohol to take the edge off, carrying the bottle with him so he can drink and then refill in the space of seconds. As you do. Then he drifts off into thought while he pours more alcohol into his glass, to the extent where he pours too much and the liquid flows off the edges of the glass and ruins his carpet. As you do. Then he quickly walks to the kitchen and in his quick but desperate attempt to clean up he places his glass on the very sheet of paper which he scolded his son for taking home because it wasn't their property (without even making sure he puts it into his bag to take to school the next day) and insodoing, he stains the piece of paper, which miraculously encircles a group of numbers that he immediately associates with 9/11. Not only do I find that is an incredulous way of getting the character motivated enough to spend the entire night REWRITING THE ENTIRE STRING OF NUMBERS ONTO A WHITEBOARD (and not typing it up) but then researching every single disaster listed on that page and matching the casualty rate to what is predicted on the sheet of paper in the amount of hours he has during the night, but I just find something unnerving and perhaps even distasteful in using 9/11 to kickstart a magical mystery tour of the strange and unexplained which leads to an apocalyptic, cataclysmic demise of our planet. But that's just me.

Secondly, the incident with the aeroplane in the field. I accepted how the accident just happened in the exact location that was predicted to give Cage the insight that the remaining uncircled numbers were the GPS co-ordinates up and until the point where the explanation that 'it was all about him knowing so that he could stop these disasters' held. Then it turns out only the people that can hear the 'whisper people' would be taken away to the new home, which looks remarkably 'Garden of Eden' like (at which my friend Daniel cringed because this film left us with a religious aftertaste). Although this was not definitely the case (I mean, what the hell was with those rabbits? To me they symbolise discontinuity and lack of clarity about what message they're trying to send), no one can argue that this method of interpretation isn't there. Again, bad storytelling just to further the plot. And another thing that was completely unnecessary due to the lack of exploration in the plot was the whole issue with all the other ships. This does nothing to give us a sense of closure, and raises only more questions.

Who were the ships transporting?
If there were more gifted children who could hear the 'Whisper People' around the World, then why wasn't this more of a global phenomeon?
Shouldn't there have been more 'prophets' and therefore more 'warnings' prior to this happening?
Is the final picture meant to represent 'The Garden of Eden'? If so, why are there more kids?

Perhaps there might be a sequel where all the Adams and all the Eves have to battle it out in a fight to the death on this new planet. My friend Jonathan says that these other ships were for all the other animals. I hate this Noah's Arkesque explanation even more because it implies they can hear the whispers and therefore aren't simply there to keep the whisper-hearing kids company on what could possibly be a long trip and then a long life on the new planet. That said, an explanation is better than no explanation, which is what we got. Bad Knowing, bad. No biscuit.

Finally, the method of weaving in the discovery of the numbers etched in the door was nothing short of 'Please explain'. Ok, so Caleb is now a Lucinda-esque prophet? What is he predicting? I mean, there's nothing that those numbers could possibly refer to after the end of this world. Is he predicting what's going to happen in the new world? Perhaps, but firstly there's no GPS coordinates there and there might very well be a new system of time. So this was a massive plothole there only to make Cage realise that there might be more numbers. And why did we need those numbers in the first place? Couldn't he just have gone to the caves and died along with everyone else while the kids got rescued by the strangers and lived happily ever after? Oh wait, it's because we needed to fulfill 5 different sub-plots.

And this is another problem I had with the plot. There were a few underlying sub-plots such as Diana's motherly quest, Cage's daddy issues, the Father and Son 'Youmetogetherforever' dynamic, the 'Is there an afterlife' question as well as the 'Let's think of something to make Nicolas Cage kneel and look like a completely stupid retard who's starring in some overly melodramatic operatic music video' or put more simply the 'Will I ever get over the loss of my wife' dimension. The problem with these sub plots is that they ultimately serve no purpose to the plot and we don't care about them. The reason for this is that the characters were never properly explored beyond the aspect of depressing back-stories and melancholy musings about death and the futility of trying to stop it, and so we never actually care about most of the characters. Another reason for this is because there were too many minor characters who could've simply been erased from the film completely.

Case in Point: John's Professor Friend. What did he do in the film. Oh, invite him to meet this chick who's interested in him which never happens anyway. Oh and he's a sounding board for John who tells him he's an idiot. Then he gets annoyed because Cage's character doesn't talk to him anymore. Oh, and he says 'My God' when he finds out he's gonna die. Good character.

Honestly, they could've explored Cage's backstory and the family dynamic a lot more deeply and successfully, instead of just reverting to the 'Oh look the world is going to end so let's all die in a family hug' option. I mean, the movie moved at such a slow pace and dragged on for so long with meaningless plot exposition and non-centric character analysis or focus. Knowing's plot tries to explore too much in little detail, which ultimately leaves the audience detached from what the actual message of the movie is actually supposed to be. And when you don't find that you care when someone dies (like Diana's Noomaesque car crash for example) then it's the writer's fault for not making us care about them enough. The only character I found that I truly liked was probably Caleb, and most of that wasn't because of good writing, it was good acting.

And that's a nice segue to move on from Plot into Acting. As far as good acting went, there was practically none. Except for Caleb, the exception that proves the rule. Everyone else was mediocre at best, and I enjoyed Cage's portrayal in the National Treasure series much more than anything he did in this film. He managed to attack every single scene in this film with the same serious depressing facial expression and that made the film that much more depressing. Complimented with the same sort of performance from everyone else and a slow pace to let this sink in, and the viewers practically don't never know why there are sudden and unexpected jabs at humour.

I'm not even going to mention the other actors and actresses, because there's nothing to mention. The acting was generally subpar all over the board and so I will mention Chandler Canterbury once more for a well-portrayed depiction of Caleb Koestler. Ok I lied, I didn't mind the whole Koestler family at all. They were alright. But that's not the point! If the casting department decided to only get strong supporting actors/actresses that only appear in 3 scenes or less and settle with a mediocre leading cast, then they deserve this criticism. In fact, I think I'm being nice to them.

The cinematography was probably my favourite aspect of this film. All the special effects sequences were absolutely amazing - from the plane crash to the subway derailment and the firestorm of ultimate destruction as well as the alien spirits and their ship. The CGI in this film was breathtaking and definitely the strongest part of this picture. Despite the film being uncertain as to whether it wanted to be funny, serious, gloomy, depressing or philosophically insightful, the suspense was certainly maintained for most of the movie and the moments where the movie tried to act like a horror film and scare the viewers for the sake of being a horror film and scaring the viewers, it certainly did that quite well, the most notable example being the introduction of Grace Koestler who frightened both Cage and me, for one, in the first third of the film. The eventual set of Lucinda's decrepit, dilapidated shack and the clearing of the black pebbles where the iconic 'Nicolas Cage on knees' moment occurred were all brillantly shot.

Finally the music. Maybe it was the cinema. Maybe it was the movie. Whatever it was, there was a constant alternating cycle of almost silence in the suspenseful 'trying to figure out what's happening' scenes, while the disaster scenes and the dramatic scenarios were all accompanied with extremely loud and intrusive music. Generally, disregarding the extreme volume thresholds, the creepy, suspenseful music was a bit unfulfilling to my taste, and it wasn't until the atmospheric, emotional ending that it seemed fully appropriate and fitting, as well as actually adding to the visual medium of what was actually on screen. It wasn't as bad as the acting but it could've been helped with a bit more consistency and a more memorable score as opposed to just scene-by-scene music. But then again, maybe that's the effect they wanted. I can't be sure.

After taking into account the plot, the acting, the cinematography and the music of 'Knowing', what is my opinion and rating of this film? The fantastic cinematography and pretty good music was undermined by lacklustre acting and a generally inconsistent plot that seems to be unsure of what it is ultimately trying to achieve. The premise is definitely a very interesting one, but the shortcoming of this film came in the execution. I expected Proyas, the director of 'I Robot' - a movie which I loved - to have brought better skills to the table, but unfortunately that was not the case. The only thing that I haven't said that compliments this plot is that, although many people disliked the ending, it was probably the only way to go, if the inconsistencies were omitted, of course. However, it didn't leave me hating the film, or feeling cheated like the ending of 'Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull' did. At least this film warranted it, as anything short of it might've been dramatically unfulfilling or feel like a genuine cop-out. It was entertaining in bits, and was marred by inappropriate pacing. However, when the ending did come out, it was quite satisfying.

4/10

Cynic Flawfinder

Till next time, may you agglomerate all your unpremeditated contemplations