March 19, 2009

I Love Knowing the Great Betrayal, Man

Actually I just like mashing movie titles together. I've seen three of the five major movies opening in the Twin Cities tomorrow, though I missed chances at Duplicity and Sunshine Cleaning (just as well since that would have made for an impossibly long title). Since this near clean sweep of new releases doesn't happen very often, here are capsule reviews of each. And I'm including The Great Buck Howard even though it was pushed back locally - yet again - for another week.

I Love You, Man (B+)

Hey PR firms, how 'bout a little creativity?

I'm not going to use the pop culture "B-word" surrounding this movie because I just don't like it (and I'm a stubborn contrarian with things like that). Besides, there's little romance going on here anyway, just your typical manchild hijinx. Which is not to say I Love You, Man doesn't have its funny moments. Paul Rudd continues to show the same leading man potential he had in Role Models, the supporting characters (especially Andy Samberg, Jon Favreau and Lou Ferrigno - who for some reason isn't a credited cast member) are hilarious, and there are two or three belly laugh-inducing scenes - and maybe a few more if you don't mind hearing the same joke five times.

But if you're looking for maturity or wit or originality, well then you should know better than to even be reading this. Just because Judd Apatow isn't involved here doesn't mean his influence isn't all over it: honest, innocent loser (The 40 Year-Old Virgin) has to get himself in order before major life event (Knocked Up), all while being held back by childish schlub friends (Superbad, Forgetting Sarah Marshall, and so on). Apatow's is a brand that all comedies are copying these days, which means you've seen I Love You, Man before and you'll see it again soon. It's really almost like a sequel to Role Models: "See what happens to Danny Donahue five years later when he's about to get married and his only friends are still the nerdy role-playing kids!".

If stale humor is OK with you, or if you love the band Rush - you'll probably love I Love You, Man.

The Betrayal (Nerakhoon) (A)

Find my original capsule review here.

As I mentioned in my pre-preview of the 2009 P.O.V. season yesterday, I've given The Betrayal a lot of attention here since seeing it at MSPIFF last year. Now that it's opening here and an official poster has been made, I'm offering what will likely be my final recommendation. It requires some patience to watch but it will likely teach you quite a bit about immigration and cultural assimilation, and also make you consider the collateral costs of war.

The Great Buck Howard (B-)

Colin Hanks at his most expressive still looks like Tom Hanks in Forrest Gump.

By the last minute of The Great Buck Howard I had one question in my mind: why in the world was this movie made? It hadn't been terrible to that point by any means, but then it hadn't really been anything - it just existed on screen like a vapor, as if somebody made a movie about a guy who woke up this morning and had a cup of coffee. Then the epilogue text came up, reminding me that The Great Buck Howard was inspired by a true story: the career of the famous mentalist "The Amazing Kreskin", for whom writer/director Sean McGinly once worked as an assistant. Alright - so it's a biopic/tribute movie of sorts, and McGinly reminds us on screen that "no one has ever proven that his [Kreskin's] magic is anything less than 100% amazing". Whatever - McGinly also hasn't proven to me that this movie is anything less than 100% forgettable.

I'm being overly harsh. It was entertaining enough and I laughed quite a bit at John Malkovich taking this part and running with it, much like Jim Carrey used to do with these unique roles. But this movie is just missing something to make it really terrific, like a magic show where all of the tricks are decent but none of them are astounding. Worse, you often find yourself waiting for a punchline that never comes, so the comedy blows out of some scenes like hissing balloon. Too bland to see in the theater, but charming enough for a DVD rental.

Knowing (F)

You might find yourself doing this during the movie in order to keep yourself entertained.

And Hollywood's crowning achievement (and my guess as the box-office winner) for the week of March 20, 2009, is the disaster movie Knowing. It's about knowing when the world will end, and if that happens in real life before you're done watching this movie, consider yourself a blessed soul. Without question the worst movie I've seen since The Happening (though not nearly as pretentious), this Nicolas Cage vehicle shocked me only because it was worse than I thought it could be under the direction of Alex Proyas (The Crow, Dark City, I, Robot).

I'll look at it in two parts: first noting the obvious weaknesses of Knowing and then shredding it for a complete disregard for logic and reason. MAJOR SPOILERS WILL FOLLOW.

Since I already mentioned Shyamalan's disastrous last movie, why not start there? Like the now-infamous director's recent movies, Knowing tries to make big, bold statements about paranormal issues like the existence of life on other planets and the ability to see the future or otherwise operate outside of normal human dimensions. Instead of attempting anything fresh or thoughtful, however, Knowing goes about its business primarily by alternating between expensively produced special effects (you can almost see the money burning in the fire from the explosions), tons of cheap, door-slamming thrills, and way too many scenes with freaky kids who are truly awful actors. And like Shyamalan's movies, the conversations you have afterwards won't be about the themes of the movie, but about the mystery of how and why these movies continue to be made with such frequency.

Knowing does add one somewhat original contribution to the "end times" genre by making numerous references to religious prophecies, but theological discussions deserve better than Nicolas Cage and aliens.
This movie could have been, well, at least decent without these two liabilities and all the rest of the trappings of extravagant Hollywood fluff, including the most manipulative use of sound effects and a musical score that I've heard in years: something...Is... GoInG... TO... HAPPEN RIGHT NOW - DUN DUN DUN!!!!

And now for a few of the immediate questions that threw my mind into a frenetic tizzy while watching Knowing. Somebody help me out because I'm really too dense to understand the following:

Why didn't the school officials start looking for Lucinda inside the school before dark? And when searching for her inside the school, why didn't they just turn on the lights?

Why didn't Lucinda just get another piece of paper and pencil instead of carving bare wood with her fingers? The "whisper people" told her to write it in a closet where she might never be found?

Wasn't Miss Taylor's class the only one to write the letters for the time capsule? If so, how were there enough letters available to hand out to the entire school 50 years later, and how had the enrollment at the school not significantly increased?

Why would anyone ever marry Lucinda, and how was she never committed to a mental institution?

Why does an MIT astrophysicist not only own a Ford F-150, but drive it like he just stole it?

Why does an MIT astrophysicist live in a decrepit old house, where half the rooms are inexplicably and beautifully furnished while the other half resemble interrogation rooms?

What's the significance of showing us the tiger show on TV so many times?

Why didn't John tell anyone else about the numbers other than his dullard MIT colleague?

Why would John, an alcoholic, not know how to properly pour himself a drink without spilling it all over?

What was the point of Caleb's hearing aid? It literally served no purpose (especially since Abby and Lucinda could hear the aliens just fine without one) other than to amplify the creepy whisper noises for the audience, right?

Wasn't the first disaster (the plane crash) to happen on 10/26/08? Then how did the last one happen on 10/19/08? I swear those dates were messed up.

Why did John run into the burning wreckage of the plane crash while everything was clearly still exploding, and how did the paramedics know he wasn't a passenger when they arrived on the scene?

Why did the aliens give the kids the rocks from the clearing instead of just telling them the message?

Why are the aliens ultimately revealed to be simply skinless, translucent humans, with the same muscle and bone structure and central nervous system? This has to be the most pathetic attempt at alien life in years, doesn't it?

If it's so hot because of the solar flares, how can there be so much fog and so many puddles at night? Wouldn't the earth's atmosphere be scorched of all moisture at this point?

Why would the aliens forecast any of the other disasters in the 50 years of history when it's all irrelevant to the point at hand - and what's the significance of 50 years in the context of human life, anyway?

Why did the alien show Caleb the burning world outside his window and completely freak him out? Why not just tell Caleb what's going to happen - like they eventually did?

Why would Lucinda write "EE" backwards when she's written all of the number forwards? Just as a sneaky trick for whoever figures it out?

Why didn't Caleb have a cell phone? Wouldn't it be more likely that he would have a cell phone than that he would always have change handy for a pay phone? Why there are so many pay phones around in the first place?

Why does the fate of the world always lie in the hands of white American kids? And why do all of the last major disasters only happen in the U.S.?

Why were there so many people waiting in the subway station? Don't those trains run every few minutes?

Why did Caleb honk the horn of the truck if the aliens aren't there to harm them or take them away? I mean, they're calmly communicating with each other, right? What was he so afraid of?

Why was the gas station manager the only person in Boston who had a Boston accent?

Why does Manhattan remain the only city whose destruction qualifies the apocalypse when it's not even the 10th largest city in the world?

Why wouldn't the GPS coordinates on the school closet door show through the paint if they were scratched so deeply into the wood?

How did the aliens expect the kids were going to make it to the UFO clearing without their help? Why wouldn't they just take the kids in their sleep or by force at any other point during the movie?

Why did the aliens drive an old-school Cadillac boat and not something more awesome?

Why did Caleb start writing the numbers at the end? Wouldn't John have assumed those were more clues, instead of stopping him from finishing?

Why would the news anchor say, "We're going to stay on the air as long as we possibly can. All we're going to do is repeat what we've been saying all along - get indoors and underground."? Why would he stay on the air and not just put up a blue screen with that message instead? Do they really care about maintaining their market share of the local news at this point?

How was John able to calmly drive through the city with the streets on fire and people in chaotic riots? What were people doing standing around in the streets anyway?

Who dressed the kids in tunics in the New World and why - shouldn't they be unclothed like Adam and Eve?

Why do the aliens give the kids albino bunnies? Because rabbits breed? Is it just going to be humans and rabbits in the New World?

Please help me with these and many other questions if you see Knowing, because otherwise I'll continue to feel like a complete idiot.


  1. Wow. I just watched the Knowing- I did not enjoy it at all. But I did like your review, and I agree with a lot of what you had to say.
    Actually, I was sitting there, watching the world explode and I started lamenting all the money that went into that movie. So yes, I could see the money burning.
    The answer to most of your questions about the knowing is because it made the movie more dramatic. Like the unnatural Fog and the unnecessary hearing aid.(they just wanted another opportunity to try to freak us out)
    I think that the rabbits were there to instantly calm the audience down, to make us confident that the "whisperers" really were safe to be around, so they could move on with the plot line.
    I have no idea about the tiger show- that was weird!
    There were a few things that made sense though. If I were in John's position, and my son started writing those numbers, I'd be way more concerned about getting him to stop than seeing what he was writing.
    The white clothing at the end gave a sense of a clean, fresh start. It means they could show full body shots without worrying about nudity, and naked children would just leave everyone wondering why they didn't have clothes.
    Sometimes the first conception is more important in communication than reality
    My question is, why did the aliens let the boy keep his necklace- wouldn't they want to remove all signs of technology?
    I ended up typing a lot. I'm sorry if it was too much.:)

  2. Hi drm - thanks much for stopping by and commenting. And my condolences for the loss of two hours of your life spent watching Knowing.

    While my questions hint at naivete I actually am wise to the Hollywood game. I know that Alex Proyas knows that these gaps in logic don't matter and that most people pay no attention to what they're being spoonfed. So the questions are essentially meaningless, but I just don't like when someone so blatantly abuses common sense.

    Fair point about the rabbits as calming agents, though it didn't really work for me since anytime I see an albino rabbit I think of Bunnicula. And the special effects shots, especially the money shot of the solar flare, well let's just say that my lack of criticizing it was deliberate, but it shouldn't be confused for praise.

    It would make sense for John to want to stop Caleb from writing and break him out of the trance, but with the significance of the numbers you'd at least think John would take a look at that piece of paper or ask Caleb what the "whisper people" were telling him now. Instead he stops him cold and they bolt as if it never happened.

    Haha, and I wasn't actually hoping the kids would have been naked at the end, but if you're going to take the Adam and Eve allegory that far than I think you should find a way to be more truthful to the source. How in this case? I don't know, maybe just end it after they're beamed up, and we don't see them again.

    And the necklace, I have no idea, but now you've pained me with the memory of the sign language love. For a kid who's not actually deaf I have no idea why he needed to be fluent in sign language. I'm not trying to put down a sweet father-son moment, but, well yeah I am.

  3. LOL on all those questions Dan!!!

    Well, the only one of the ones who superbly present here that I've seen so far is THE BETRAYAL, and I fully concur with teh stellar assessment.

    Ironically, I may be seeing a double-feature later today in my multiplex of the trashed KNOWING and the desired DUPLICITY. If this dubious adventure reaches fruition, I will again access these questions. I LOVE YOU MAN did better with you than I would have predicted, but the proof will be in the pudding. The B minus for THE GREAT BUCK HOWARD seems about right.

    Your piece is beautifully woven together, and like or no like it brims with excitement.

  4. I'm brimming with excitement, alright - and disdain, anger, and sadness that Ebert excused the logic in favor of the themes on the way to a 4-star rave for Knowing. I'd actually love to hear your reaction to it, Sam, if only because you'll hopefully use words like "abomination" (one of my favorites) to describe it.

    There's another major question of logic that I forgot to include. To be fair, I stole it from the review of local critic Colin Covert (we saw it together), but I gave him the line about the F-150 so we're even. Here's the question, and it's a doozy:

    How could John, a sleep-deprived alcoholic in mourning, have the mental wherewithal during a drunken stupor to look at a grid of thousands of digits, zero in on 091120012993, and decide it MUST mean something? In a sequence like the one below (but on a FAR bigger scale), do you think those numbers would jump out at you if you're sleep-deprived and intoxicated?


    And I Love You, Man really was a bit of a surprise since I thought the trailer was horrendous. Everytime I think back on the awful parts, though (a screaming lesson under a pier is one of the worst movie scenes in at least the last year), there's a line or a joke that comes back to me and saves it. And at the end of the day there were more laughs than grimaces. Same goes for The Great Buck Howard, but that really lacked a spark, and it was almost unwatchable when Malkovich wasn't on screen.

  5. title mashups are
    fun, and I am a Rush fan;
    won't watch that film though

    a friend from my youth
    thank you for mentioning
    Bunnicula here

    haha and Sam Ju
    -liano is right your piece
    is a work of art!

  6. Daniel -

    Despite the film's many lapses in logic, I enjoyed Knowing and I had a lot of fun with it. I loved the gloomy Wednesday Addams-eyed little girl freakishly scrawling numbers in a goody-goody 1950s classroom. I loved the film's lighting and its images. I felt it was genuinely spooky.

    As for the drunk John zeroing in on the 9/11 numbers, doesn't he ring them with the moisture on the bottom of his glass?

    There were elements that bothered me along the way, but I went with this film and really liked the experience.

  7. Well Daniel, KNOWING was an abomination for sure, but rather an 'entertaining abomination' to a degree. (still, not more than a 2/5, if that) and I know now, or I think I have an idea what those numbers are aiming for!!! LOL!!!

    As dire as it was, at least it wasn't a BORE, like Tony Gilroy's cartoonish DUPLICITY was. Then again, I'll admit my track record for movies where Julia Roberts is a main star hasn't been all that good. Of course, I don't judge films by the actor or actress that is in them, but there seems to be a corellation here.

    What saved my weekend was TWO LOVERS, a jazzy independent with two fine leads (and a lot of opera context) and a film called SIN NOMBRE, which surprisingly pushed most of the right buttons.

  8. Daniel -

    As I said, I let myself go with this film, and I really enjoyed it while at the same time I acknowledged many of its lapses in logic.

    The most illogical element - which just seems very poor planning and writing - is that only the 3rd grade class gets to put stuff in what looks like a very expensive time capsule with a bronze plate on top - and then in 2009 it seems that only the kids from the 3rd grade get to open the envelopes (which would be appropriate, I suppose). I never believed that the group Caleb was in constituted the whole student body of an elementary school.

    To address some of your specific questions from your list:

    Looking for Lucinda: they actually turn on some lights. Why not all? You're right. Doesn't make sense. Makes it spooky.

    John's colleague certainly is a "dullard" - as you say. I'm glad he was only in the film briefly.

    The hearing aid. As we saw in Signs alien communications can be picked up by baby monitors and radios. So I guess it was just a way of designating that the Whisper People were whispering.

    The plane crash is not on 10/26. I believe it's 10/13.

    When John sees the plane crash, he runs to the crash because he thinks that the whole point of the numbers warnings is so that he can save people. He thinks he's supposed to do that. That's why he calls the FBI about the possible terrorist act. That's why he chases the shoplifter.

    That old house owned by a well-paid astrophysicist is in Lexington, Mass., where property values are very high. I had no problem with that house because I knew it was worth big bucks.

    The rooms: In the unfinished rooms there are ladders and scaffolding set up with paint buckets on them. It's like Miss Havisham in Great Expectations who lets everything go when she gets jilted. John and his wife must have been engaged in remodeling; it was their project; then she dies and he can't face doing it himself because it reminds him of her.

    EE. She does it that way because it's so cool when John flips the bed in the derelict trailer and we see all the scrawlings of "Everyone else" - it's a suspenseful moment right at the same time the aliens are approaching the kids in the car.

    Yes, the focus is on the Americans because it's a Hollywood movie for an American audience - but the fate of humanity is not just up to Caleb and Abby. When their alien ship takes off, you see many others taking off from other parts of the globe. That way, no offspring have to commit incest.

    The GPS coordinates scratched deep into the door: if the maintenance guys filled them with Spackle and sanded before painting over them - which most maintenance guys would do - they wouldn't be visible through the paint.

    You're right about the destruction of New York City. It's been done so many times and it's not as if we need an identifiable city to understand that the world is going down. They should have varied the shots at least: start with Boston, maybe a little NYC destruction, then a European city, then natural landmarks: forests, mountain ranges. You've got CGI; destroy the whole freaking planet!

    I know you'll be shocked, but I went to see this movie a second time, after reading your list of questions. Once again, I was taken in by the film and your questions either never occurred to me or didn't bother me as the story played out.

    I love the extent to which fiction takes this disaster film. Everybody dies except selected kids. Our planet's wiped clean. It can all start over. As hokey as the final image might be of the kids running through the alien grass to the big tree (I thought of The Fountain, I loved it. It was beautiful. A hopeful film about the end of the world.

  9. hehe, Josh, you know I thought of you with Rush playing nonstop. It was pretty bizarre though, seemed kind of like a forced reference. And Bunnicula always comes to mind when I see a white rabbit!

    What a weekend, Sam - love the diversity you always go for. You know that I'm with you on Two Lovers, and I've also been really eager to see Sin Nombre (for obvious social/cultural reasons that always appeal to me). Haven't seen Duplicity yet but still planning on it, despite being in lock step with you on this statement: "I'll admit my track record for movies where Julia Roberts is a main star hasn't been all that good." Too true. But I'll give it a shot.

    Hokahey, thanks for taking time to check in on all of those questions (and tolerating my somewhat childish disdain for the movie). You saw it twice and liked a lot about it, and for that I can't fault you, even if I can disagree with you. You've also brought up some good points that I have to concede:

    The ring around the numbers - this is true, that he happens to put the drink in the middle of the page. But then I have to consider this - if 2001 is in the middle of the entire sequence, aren't the disasters weighted pretty heavily over the last 8 out of 50 years? This would make some sense since they seemed to ratchet up in the last days, but still a little questionable.

    The class at the school - agreed.

    The hearing aid - you're probably right on, but I still think that's a weak plot device. And for that matter it doesn't explain why the "whisper people" are whispering anyway. If only the kids can hear them, why don't they just talk? The only reason to whisper would be if the adults could hear them as well - makes no sense.

    The plane crash date - you've seen it twice and I have to take your word for it. Plus I can't expect they would have allowed a mistake that obvious.

    Running to the plane crash - OK, so he wanted to see if he could change the body count. This is true and a good point, but it still seemed like he had no fear about losing his own life in the process, and for where he was in the situation he should have taken greater care to make sure he stayed alive to predict the future disasters.

    The rooms in the house - I considered the idea that the house would be a fixer-upper of sorts, but in this case it seemed only to be dilapidated to add more creepiness to the story. Speaking only for myself, I'm a lot more freaked out when creepy things are happening in or around surroundings and settings that don't aren't creepy (i.e., Poltergeist). But not much happens in the house anyway so I should let it go.

    The global pods - I did see that there were others launching from other cities, but it wasn't apparent to me that those pods actually contained children, especially since Abby and Caleb were the only ones we saw in the New World (and I think that tree was reminiscent of The Fountain as well). But if there were other children - and there really should have been - why not tell their story. And if so, was John the only human on earth to figure out the sequence? Could be, but again, go global with it like Babel (even if it wouldn't appeal to American audiences).

    The GPS coordinates in the door - what you say makes sense, though it looked like he was able to just scrape/melt off the thin latex layer and he was right back to the scratches. But I suppose either way there would be a mark in the shape of the numbers.

    Again, I appreciate you responding to all of these - who knew this movie could actually create a thoughtful back-and-forth? But I'm afraid the way you (and Ebert) describe Knowing at the end here sounds like a movie that I'd like to see - it's just not the movie that I did see, unfortunately. But it was hopeful, and maybe that should count for something.

  10. Thanks for the response. And I will grant that even as I was watching it and enjoying it, I knew some people would hate this movie and think it was silly - starting with the fact that it stars Cage as an objection. But both times I saw the movies - the audiences seemed enthusiastic. I wouldn't want all major releases to be dumbed down to mindless escape - but escape was what I needed and it did the trick.

  11. Well I'm about to head over and check out your review, and I saw last night that, as I predicted, Knowing took the box-office crown this week with great ease. This is clearly what people are looking for at the moment, and if it's keeping theaters alive then so be it. Also, you may not know my history with Nicolas Cage. I don't think Knowing would have been a better movie for me without him, but his involvement certainly didn't help in my case!

    But the guy has a fascinating career arc, as evidenced here.

  12. "It's just honest-to-goodness silliness that you can watch with your kids on movie night."

    You see, you let yourself go and you liked National Treasure - and we need movies like that as much as we need the films like There Will Be Blood, Revolutionary Road, The New World and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button. (Sorry - just had to throw that last one in there; I know opinions were very divided on it, but I loved it.)

    As for Nic Cage - my feelings about his deplorable acting in recent films almost kept me away from Knowing - a sometimes silly film that provided genuine entertainment.

  13. Haha, touché - but I have to add in the lines I used immediately following that one: "There you go: Nicolas Cage, against all odds, as a provider of fun, wholesome cinematic entertainment.

    Now don't anyone dare use that sentence outside of the context of this movie."

    Unfair, I suppose, though I still feel National Treasure is a little more family-friendly and lot more aware of its own silliness.

    It's not even that I don't like silly movies (you know I enjoyed Bedtime Stories) - it's just that I prefer when they're overtly silly.

  14. On a connected but different note -

    Having seen the movie twice, I had to sit through the previews twice, even though I tried to walk in late enough the second time to miss the previews but they had just started!

    What previews did you see? Star Trek, Terminator Salvation, Next Day Air, The Taking of Pelham 123, and Drag Me to Hell.

    Here's a question for you - which movie are you most excited about seeing and why?

  15. Tried to walk in late? Are you a trailer-avoider like me?! We're one in a million...

    As it turns out I saw Knowing at a promo screening two days before it opened, so there actually weren't any trailers shown, fortunately.

    Which moviE am I excited about? Yikes, that is one scarily big question. I'll go short-term/long-term and reference my handy-dandy '09 Preview (I'm actually really glad I made that!). In the short term I'm interested to see Goodbye Solo, the next film by Ramin Bahrani. His last two (Man Push Cart and Chop Shop) were pretty fascinating portraits of present-day America, and this is supposed to be more of the same. I'm a little curious as to if he can do 3 good ones in a row, but early buzz is pretty positive.

    Long term I'm nervously looking forward to James Cameron's Avatar. I've liked pretty much everything the guy has done (yep, even Titanic), so it will be really interesting to see what he does (especially visually) after a break of nearly a decade. What about you?

  16. Don't worry - I love Titanic. I'm a big fan of epic sweeping cinema - hopefully examples of that kind of cinema that work - and Titanic definitely succeeded on many levels. It was a meticulously researched film.

    I'm looking forward to Avatar as well. He's had enough time to develop the thing, and I think Cameron delivers.

    As for the previews - I just love the title Drag Me to Hell. I may see that just for the title.

    Documentaries - a lot of great things happening in that genre - but I'm not a big documentary enthusiast - though I am open to them.

  17. I just hope Avatar changes the visual effects game in Hollywood, which Cameron has done at least three times (The Abyss, T2 and Titanic). Truth be told, the story actually doesn't sound as interesting to me. But it will be a spectacle, that's for sure.

    And Drag Me to Hell sounds interesting only because it's about a loan officer, and everybody's abuzz about how the horrors of the economy are meeting the horrors of film. Eh. We'll see.

  18. Yes, Avatar will be a "spectacle." And, you know, sometimes when I go to the movies, that's all I want. That's how I feel about Knowing. Even as MORE errors are pointed out, I still like it because it provided spectacle - and that's exactly what I was looking for last weekend.

  19. Wow. Knowing didn't just bug you, did it? It went beyond that. Somehow, it completely insulted you and I see you took great umbrage. Sadly, I haven't seen any of these films yet. Argh! Thank you for these, though, they make me all the more eager to see these (maybe even Knowing, in a perverse way).

  20. I admire your stalwart support of Knowing, hokahey. You saw it for what it was meant to be and I have to respect that.

    Hehe, Alexander, it wasn't so much that it insulted me personally. It was a major slap in the face to logic and reason, however. Hopefully they recover in time for Cage's next movie, whichever of the four currently in post-production is released first.

    Of these four I think I'd be most interested to hear your thoughts on The Betrayal, as it's the best of the bunch, in my opinion.

  21. Just for S & G's, does anyone remember any of the GPS numbers that John entered? If so, I wonder where they would point to???

  22. That would be kind of fun to know, wouldn't it? You'd think Proyas chose specific coordinates for a reason, but who knows? I'd have to watch the movie again to copy the numbers down, but, well that's not gonna happen anytime soon.

  23. @Why would John, an alcoholic, not know how to properly pour himself a drink without spilling it all over?
    He was drunk.

    @Wasn't the first disaster (the plane crash) to happen on 10/26/08? Then how did the last one happen on 10/19/08? I swear those dates were messed up.
    I guess not. Lol.

    @Why didn't Caleb have a cell phone? Wouldn't it be more likely that he would have a cell phone than that he would always have change handy for a pay phone? Why there are so many pay phones around in the first place?
    He's like... 10... I didnt have a cell phone when I was 10 and I'm currently 13.

    @Why were there so many people waiting in the subway station? Don't those trains run every few minutes?
    There are many people up in that part of Manhattan. I should know.

    @How was John able to calmly drive through the city with the streets on fire and people in chaotic riots? What were people doing standing around in the streets anyway?
    They were all going to die anyway. What's to panic about?

  24. Thanks for diving into this one, Anonymous. We could go back-and-forth about each of these with no real resolution (after all, how can either of us prove the subway platform would be less crowded or that people would or would not be panicking at the end of the world), which I guess is half the fun of arguing about movies like this anyway. As I said in naming Knowing the worst movie I saw this year, it's the most fun I've had discussing a bad movie in a long time.


Related Posts with Thumbnails