Knowing can it happen

It also predicts the upcoming end of the world. Knowing's plot is part real astrophysics and part mysticism; PM's Digital Hollywood gets to the bottom of what is fact--and what's science fiction. Though Cage didn't research the science behind the film "I grew up with a professor, so that was all the research I ever needed," he told reporters at a press conference for the film , director Alex Proyas did.

So of course we researched as much as we could and tried to give it as much authenticity as we could. Proyas made his protagonist an astrophysicist because scientists, by nature of their training, don't just believe what they see. He's trained to be cynical and not see full structure where structure doesn't exist. Of course, in the end, Kessler bows to the predictive power of the numbers--which are, after all, the driving force of the movie, at which point he sets off on a desperate attempt to stop the end of the world.

The code in Knowing is based on numerology, the study of the influence of numbers on human affairs. According to MIT physicist Dr. Edward Farhi, there's no science to numerology. He believes these two children are somehow instrumental in the developing scenario, and he bonds with Diana to protect them from evil strangers in the woods -- who are mostly kept far enough away in long shots to prevent them from seeming more strange than they must.

The logic of the story leads us to expect something really spectacular at the end, and I was not disappointed visually, although I have logical questions that are sort of beside the point.

With expert and confident storytelling, Proyas strings together events that keep tension at a high pitch all through the film. Even a few quiet, human moments have something coiling beneath. Pluck this movie, and it vibrates. Even something we've seen countless times, like a car pursuit, works here because of the meaning of the pursuit, and the high stakes.

The film has sensational special effects, which again I won't describe. You'll know the ones I mean. The film is beautifully photographed by Simon Duggan, the Marco Beltrami score hammers or elevates when it needs to, and Richard Learoyd's editing is knife-edged; when he needs to hurtle us through sequences, he does it with an insistence that doesn't feel rushed.

You may have guessed from the TV ads that something very bad is unfolding for planet Earth, and you may ask, not unreasonably, how these two nice parents and their lovable kids can possibly have any effect on it. Ah, but that would be in a random universe, and "Knowing" argues that the universe is deterministic. Or does it? Your papers will be due before class on Monday. Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from until his death in In , he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

Rated PG for disaster sequences, disturbing images and brief language. Chandler Canterbury as Caleb. You are. To bad there isnt a way to push down results in Google search so no one else looking for science info on Knowing ends up on this website.

Imagine tens of millions of smartphones suddenly crying out then going dark. The horror. You ask buddy to browse elsewhere if your opinion upset you? That is also silly and contradictory since you are obviously bothered by his comment yourself, just as you are of mine and I am of yours.

Was that too freakin deep and not scientific enough for you Ian? Haha, nice try though you get a B- for effort. The movie was greatly entertaining even if very unrealistic. But since this is a scientific website you had to point all the errors out right?

Stickler for realism in movies sure my dear chap. Did you know The Core, Deep Impact, all those movies also have errors in them captain obvious? I bet you cursed at the screen while you watched it is disgust. Great movie! If you are so insistent on realism in movies, then according to you almost all of them other than documentaries are bad.

Unfortunately, you are wrong. Although I personally enjoyed the movie the acting, the effects, the suspense there was indisputably some world class lazy going on here when it came to the science. I say lazy because they could have easily made it plausible with little effort. That part was so lacking that you wondered if someone s in production had contempt for science itself. In this day in age, that character trait is hard to forgive. A solar flare of this size could take any where from years to clean up.

Making this implausible for a movie plot. Nothing wrong with teaching people good science fact. Maybe it prevents them from being ignorant idiots that leave dumb messages on some dudes blog. Life starts to look more like idiocracy.

Ignoring the fact this is a movie and never meant to be realistic in any way, there is this interesting article. You are commenting using your WordPress. You are commenting using your Google account. You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account. Notify me of new comments via email. Notify me of new posts via email. Solar flares or cosmic death rays?

But this would only be a precursor to something a lot worse… I can imagine the scene in the perfect movie: Our brave, and smart solar physicists are looking at live data streaming from the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory SOHO , a multi-instrument telescope sitting between the Earth and the Sun. Planetary mayhem But the fun would really begin when the CME slams into our magnetosphere. And it gets worse! Like this: Like Loading Older comments.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply Enter your comment here Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:.