movie review knowing

Knowing (2009)

User Reviews

Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews

User Ratings
External Reviews
Metacritic Reviews
Full Cast and Crew
Release Dates
Official Sites
Company Credits
Filming & Production
Technical Specs
Plot Summary
Plot Keywords
Parents Guide

Did You Know?

Crazy Credits
Alternate Versions
Connections
Soundtracks

Photo & Video

Photo Gallery
Trailers and Videos

Log in or sign up for Rotten Tomatoes

Trouble logging in?

By continuing, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes and to receive email from the Fandango Media Brands .

By creating an account, you agree to the Privacy Policy and the Terms and Policies , and to receive email from Rotten Tomatoes.

Email not verified

Let's keep in touch.

Sign up for the Rotten Tomatoes newsletter to get weekly updates on:

Upcoming Movies and TV shows
Rotten Tomatoes Podcast
Media News + More

By clicking "Sign Me Up," you are agreeing to receive occasional emails and communications from Fandango Media (Fandango, Vudu, and Rotten Tomatoes) and consenting to Fandango's Privacy Policy and Terms and Policies . Please allow 10 business days for your account to reflect your preferences.

OK, got it!

About Rotten Tomatoes®
Login/signup

Movies in theaters

Opening This Week
Top Box Office
Coming Soon to Theaters
Certified Fresh Movies

Movies at Home

Fandango at Home
Prime Video
Most Popular Streaming Movies
What to Watch New

Certified fresh picks

78% Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Link to Beetlejuice Beetlejuice
95% Rebel Ridge Link to Rebel Ridge
96% Red Rooms Link to Red Rooms

New TV Tonight

83% How to Die Alone: Season 1
59% Emily in Paris: Season 4
20% Three Women: Season 1
-- Universal Basic Guys: Season 1
-- My Brilliant Friend: Story of the Lost Child: Season 4
-- The Old Man: Season 2
-- Lego Star Wars: Rebuild the Galaxy: Season 1
-- The Circle: Season 7
-- Jack Whitehall: Fatherhood with My Father: Season 1
-- In Vogue: The 90s: Season 1

Knowing Reviews

The result should not be dismissed as an average thriller, and yet, seen in those terms, it still succeeds because Proyas is a superior director, and after several missteps, he has finally redeemed himself with another fine piece of science fiction.

Full Review | Original Score: 3.5/4 | Dec 2, 2023

Here, normality is affected by tragedy and reality acquires a mystical sheen where the inexplicable takes over what's rational. [Full review in Spanish]

Full Review | Original Score: 6/10 | May 9, 2023

The plot is hinged around a predicament so overwhelming that its conclusion can't possibly resolve satisfactorily.

Full Review | Original Score: 6/10 | Nov 29, 2020

Nicolas Cage being Nicolas Cage in a film that requires Cage to be Cage.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4.0 | Sep 13, 2020

Part science fiction cliché, part religious crackpotism, [the ending's] genuinely bad enough to cast a shadow over the entire film.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Oct 30, 2019

Unbreakable quickly descends into bad CGI set-ups and portentous, hysterical exchanges.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/5 | Mar 20, 2019

... I was dozing off...

Full Review | Original Score: F | Sep 12, 2017

The impressively grim finale ensures that Knowing ultimately ends on a decidedly memorable note...

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/4 | Mar 12, 2016

A damned entertaining movie despite the fact that it stars Nicholas Cage.

Full Review | Nov 24, 2011

A shotgun spray of metaphysics, cosmology, the Old Testament, flying saucers, angels, spooky blonde-haired men in black trench coats, mysterious little black rocks, two cute kids and a moose on fire.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Sep 29, 2011

Suffice it to say that the last third is a mélange of Close Encounters and Christian eschatology, and you'll wish the film had stopped about 15 minutes sooner.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/5 | Sep 23, 2011

If those space-dudes are so friendly, why drive children insane with a bunch of weird code? Why not just show up on The Tonight Show and tell everybody the exact date and time? Lame! Also: Why fake Massachusetts? Why not just say: 'This is Australia.'

Full Review | Jul 25, 2011

Knowing is about faith; the belief that one day the mysteries of the universe will be explained to us, and the knowledge that anything is possible.

Full Review | Original Score: 4.5/5 | Oct 27, 2010

It's a folly and a failure, but an intriguing one - an ambitious vision from a tremendous filmmaker that, sadly, had too much going on with not enough to say.

Full Review | Aug 9, 2010

Alex Proyas has gone all out on a film which, unfortunately, will be seen by many as an interesting experiment gone awry, rather than the sci-fi masterpiece it aspires to be.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.5/5 | Jul 6, 2010

A slog through lazy writing, indifferent acting and blase direction with no hope of anything but chaotic violence as reward.

Full Review | Jul 6, 2010

A broad, leisurely jumble of Alfred Hitchcock-style suspense architecture and a dreary, paint-by-numbers Sci-Fi Channel Original, Knowing only seems to extract two reactions: nail-biting and eye-rolling.

Full Review | Original Score: C- | Jun 2, 2010

... starts off as director Alex Proyas's take on "Final Destination" before going all "Close Encounters" on us. If only we hadn't seen it all before.

Full Review | Original Score: 2.0/4.0 | Oct 31, 2009

Basically two movies wrestling around in a burlap bag full of rocks: one an ambitious, big-idea sci-fi yarn, the other a horror movie as dumb as ... well, that's where those rocks come in.

Full Review | Original Score: 2/4 | Sep 10, 2009

Pay attention to Mr. Proyas' lighting and set design as well as the intense disaster sequences that dot Knowing: As with the rest of his oeuvre, the movie looks great.

Full Review | Original Score: 3/4 | Aug 30, 2009

an image, when javascript is unavailable

The Definitive Voice of Entertainment News

Subscribe for full access to The Hollywood Reporter

site categories

Knowing — film review.

If you're facing Armageddon in a movie, you want Bruce Willis or, even better, Will Smith as your hero. Yet Nicolas Cage, who seems better suited to treasure hunts, finds himself staring down the apocalypse in "Knowing."

By Kirk Honeycutt , The Associated Press March 19, 2009 2:33pm

Share on Facebook
Share to Flipboard
Send an Email
Show additional share options
Share on LinkedIn
Share on Pinterest
Share on Reddit
Share on Tumblr
Share on Whats App
Print the Article
Post a Comment

If you’re facing Armageddon in a movie, you want Bruce Willis or, even better, Will Smith as your hero. Yet Nicolas Cage, who seems better suited to treasure hunts, finds himself staring down the apocalypse in “Knowing.” The miscasting doesn’t end here: Director Alex Proyas resolutely thinks in B-movie terms. Even with an A-list budget, he oversells every plot point and gooses the thrills with hokey lighting, bombastic music and serious overacting.

“Knowing,” which mixes sci-fi, horror and religious elements into an unstable stew, looks like it’s headed for a flash opening this weekend for Summit Entertainment, then a steep decline into midnight cinema and home video. One thing’s for sure, it’s not forgettable. In fact, it may take a while for Cage to live down his line: “How am I supposed to stop the end of the world?” How indeed? Bummer.

THR Newsletters

More from The Hollywood Reporter

Hugh grant on why he has turned down starring in some big-budget studio films, ‘beetlejuice beetlejuice’ writers break down those two spectacular needle drops, toronto: daniel craig and nicole kidman take big swings in, are serious contenders for ‘queer’ and ‘babygirl’, tim blake nelson on playing an aging boxer in ‘bang bang,’ marvel and why he loves oldenburg, ‘speak no evil’ star mackenzie davis breaks down the film’s ‘halt and catch fire’ reunion, judd apatow to direct coke-pepsi rivalry movie ‘cola wars’ from steven spielberg and sony.

A not-bad sci-fier that has more on its mind than the run-of-the-mill effects-driven extravaganza.

By Todd McCarthy

Todd McCarthy

Remember Me 15 years ago
Shutter Island 15 years ago
Green Zone 15 years ago

Although made mostly of spare parts, “Knowing” is a not-bad supernatural-tinged sci-fier that has more on its mind than the run-of-the-mill effects-driven extravaganza. Absorbing and able to be taken seriously most of the way, Alex Proyas ‘ generally somber look at a small group of people tipped off about the imminence of doomsday doesn’t smoothly synthesize all its elements, and the effects could have used a budget stimulus. Genre fans always looking for something new and awesome may feel like they’ve seen most of this before, but the conceptual and emotional strength of Summit’s Nicolas Cage starrer largely carries the day, which should spell sturdy B.O. in all markets.

First Paramount, Now SiriusXM: Can Warren Buffett’s Media Investments Be Trusted?

BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA - FEBRUARY 13: Brendan Gleeson attends the 95th Annual Oscars Nominees Luncheon at The Beverly Hilton on February 13, 2023 in Beverly Hills, California. (Photo by JC Olivera/Getty Images)

Brendan Gleeson Officially Joins Spider-Man Noir Series at Amazon (EXCLUSIVE)

The 1959-set prologue of Ryne Douglas Pearson’s original story gets its hooks in by virtue of that reliable standby, a disturbingly creepy kid. Asked by their elementary school teacher to draw pictures of how they see the future to include in a time capsule, all the pupils in the Boston-area school oblige except for Lucinda (Lara Robinson), a haunted-looking child who instead covers her sheets of paper with thousands of numbers.

Popular on Variety

Come time to open the capsule 50 years later, Lucinda’s inscrutable jottings land in the hands of Caleb Koestler (Chandler Canterbury), a precocious boy depressed over the recent death of his mother. Dad John (Cage), an astrophysics professor at MIT, is in the dumps himself and struggling to forge a stronger bond with his son while living at a run-down old Victorian house out in the woods.

At night, a tired and somewhat drunk John puzzles over Lucinda’s numbers and shortly concludes that many of them, beginning with 9/11/01, refer to calamitous incidents that involved massive loss of life; he soon thereafter learns the remaining numbers provide even more specific information. But three sets of numbers at the end of the long list lie in the future — the very, very near future.

Naturally, John has as much trouble convincing anyone else about his deductions as Costello ever did insisting to Abbott that Dracula and Frankenstein were alive and well. But a plane crash virtually in his backyard confirms the first remaining prediction, and what he at length learns from Diana (Rose Byrne), the troubled daughter of Lucinda — who herself has a daughter (Robinson again) who’s Caleb’s age — deepens and makes even more apparent the ominous nature of the numeric scribblings.

That there is something truly unearthly at play is suggested by Caleb’s occasional sightings of the Stranger (D.G. Maloney), a silent and sinister albino-ish figure, sometimes seen in the company of others, who stalks the boy.

Such events naturally trigger questions of what to make of it all and, ever more urgently, what to do about it. When John figures out the exact time and place of the second forecasted catastrophe, he’s forced to a wrenching decision, but has sufficient knowledge — more than anyone else on Earth, in fact — to know what to do. Unfortunately, the climax consists of a special-effects fireworks display that, because similar images have been conjured before with greater resources, can’t help but look secondhand.

Although he may not fit the received image of an MIT prof, Cage, slimmed down to the edge of gauntness, generally suppresses his more wildly emotive tendencies to deliver an acceptably thoughtful performance. Byrne has the gravity to pull off Diana’s perpetual state of distress without annoyance, and Canterbury and Robinson are rock-solid as the two crucial kids. Rather than just sharing his suspicions with one of his colleagues, a worthwhile additional scene to the script (by Pearson, Juliet Snowden and Stiles White) might have had John calling a meeting with several MIT brainiacs, just to get multiple, and eccentric, reactions to his reading of the numbers.

Lensed almost entirely in Melbourne, Australia, with a bit of second-unit work on the East Coast to rep Boston and New York, the pic was shot by d.p. Simon Duggan with the Red One digital camera system, and has an agreeably soft, desaturated, autumnal look. The old-dark-house central setting and threatening surrounding forest come with certain B-feature connotations that are never entirely shaken, but Marco Beltrami’s vigorous score, buttressed at key moments by Beethoven’s Symphony No. 7, is strictly A-level.

Production: A Summit Entertainment release of an Escape Artists production, in association with Mystery Clock Cinema. Produced by Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal, Steve Tisch, Alex Proyas. Executive producers, Stephen Jones, Topher Dow, Norm Golightly, David Bloomfield. Co-producer, Ryne Douglas Pearson. Co-executive producers, Aaron Kaplan, Sean Perrone. Directed by Alex Proyas. Screenplay, Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White; story, Pearson; adaptation, Proyas.
Crew: Camera (Deluxe color, DV, widescreen), Simon Duggan; editor, Richard Learoyd; music, Marco Beltrami; production designer, Steven Jones-Evans; supervising art director, Michelle McGahey; art director, Andy Walpole; set designer, Jane Mancini; set decorator, Nicki Gardiner; costume designer, Terry Ryan; sound (Dolby/DTS), Peter Grace; supervising sound editor, Andrew Plain; sound designer, Michael McMenomy; re-recording mixers, Phil Heywood, Robert Sullivan, Pewter Purcell; special effects supervisor, Angelo Sahin; visual effects supervisors, Andrew Jackson, Eric Durst; visual effects, Animal Logic, BUF, Postmodern Sydney, Haiku Post; stunt coordinator, Chris Anderson; assistant director, Steve Andrews; second unit director, Kimble Rendall; second unit camera, Ross Emery; casting, Greg Apps. Reviewed at the Grove, Los Angeles, March 18, 2009. MPAA Rating: PG-13. Running time: 121 MIN.
With: John Koestler - Nicolas Cage Diana - Rose Byrne Caleb Koestler - Chandler Canterbury Phil Beckman - Ben Mendelsohn Abby/Lucinda - Lara Robinson Grace - Nadia Townsend Miss Taylor (1959) - Danielle Carter Miss Taylor (2009) - Alethea cq McGrath Reverend Koestler - Alan Hopgood The Stranger - D.G. Maloney

More from Variety

BTS’ Jung Kook to Premiere New ‘I Am Still’ Documentary in Theaters Worldwide

Photo illustration of a crystal ball with a film reel as the ball

Summer Box Office Success Stories Weren’t Just Tentpoles

BTS Fans Sign Global Petition in Support of Suga After DUI Incident

Fubo’s Battle With Venu Sports Is a Stopgap Measure

More from our brands, eminem kicks off 2024 vmas with early 2000s callbacks and ‘the death of slim shady’ medley.

Bethenny Frankel’s Longtime Home in the Hamptons Is Hitting the Market for $6 Million

Trump-Harris Debate Outdraws All NFL Games Besides Super Bowls

The Best Loofahs and Body Scrubbers, According to Dermatologists

TVLine Items: James Earl Jones Tribute, Citadel: Diana Trailer and More

Love and hate and “Knowing” — or, do wings have angels?

Ezekiel's Vision. Are those numbers on that paper? In the film, the four-headed spectre and the wheels within wheels are reversed, possibly by PhotoShop.

Either I’m wrong or most of the movie critics in America are mistaken. I persist in the conviction that Alex Proyas ‘s “ Knowing ” is a splendid thriller and surprisingly thought-provoking. I saw the movie at an 8 p.m. screening on Monday, March 16, returned home and wrote my review on deadline. No other reviews existed at that time. Later in the week, I was blind-sided by the negative reaction. And I mean really negative.

“ Knowing ” is opening well at the box office, leading the weekend with an estimated $25 million. With a budget at around $50 million, that means it will be a money-maker for Summit Entertainment. But the critical reaction has been savage.

I went looking at the various online roundups of critical opinion. Of course such averages mean little, but they give you a notion of how people are thinking. I usually don’t peruse them, but this time I was fascinated. What was it about “ Knowing ” that made it so hated?

• On Metacritic, gets a 39 average. The reader vote is 8.1.

• On Rotten Tomatoes, the Meter stands at 24, and only 15% of the “Top Critics” liked it.

• On IMDb’s user votes, the “median” was 9/10, but the “arithmetic mean” was 7.7/10. Of 397 votes, 191 were “10.” IMDb goes with the mean.

• On MRQE, only one of 43 agrees with me.

Spoilers follow

This is astonishing. Let’s suppose I was completely wrong. Even if I was how bad could the possibly movie be? Half as good as the slasher film “ Shuttle ?” A third as good as “ The Last House on the Left ?” (2009) If nothing else, it was a great popcorn movie: A time capsule contains perfect predictions of the following 50 years, a hero scientist races to avert disaster, two kids hear whispers in their ears, there are sensational special effects, mysterious figures loom in the woods, and at the end the kids are taken to another planet as Earth is incinerated. Plus a cerebral debate at MIT about whether the universe is deterministic or random.

Believe me, I know the plot is preposterous. That’s part of the charm. You go to an end-of-the-world thriller starring Nicolas Cage looking scared to death, and you’re in for a dime, in for a dollar. I love to dissect improbabilities in movies, but with “ Knowing ” I simply didn’t care. I was carried by the energy. The premise, about that little girl in 1959 sealing up her letter, is preposterous. Every ad starts with that. What were you expecting, the Scientific American?

I wrote a blog discussing the movie [link below]. Right now it has nearly 250 comments. Most of my readers agreed with me. Some thought it stank. What interested me was how they discussed the movie. There seemed to be two big problems in some minds: Nicolas Cage, and the movie’s Biblical parallels.

Let’s start with Cage. Some readers said they avoid his movies on principle. Many found him guilty of over-acting. A critic was quoted who referred to his “fright wig,” which is just mean-spirited snark. I found this reaction puzzling. Cage has two speeds, intense and intenser. I like both speeds. I find him an intriguing actor because he takes chances. He’s an actor without speed limits. You want an Elvis who parachutes into Vegas? A weatherman whose viewers throw fast food at him? An explorer of the national treasures buried far beneath Washington? He’s your go-to guy.

He is also a superb actor. I cite “ Leaving Las Vegas ,” “ Moonstruck ,” “ Adaptation ,” “ Bringing Out the Dead .” I have great affection for Harrison Ford , George Clooney and Brad Pitt . But can they go rockabilly like Nic did in “Wild at Heart?” Not that I liked the movie, but it’s a good question. With him it’s a lion-tamer on a high-wire. Anybody can play the ringmaster.

Now to the Biblical overtones. The movie has generated enormous interest because it seems, some say, to be based on the Book of Ezekiel, and the plot fulfills prophecies about the end of the world, visitation by aliens, wheels with wheels, and so on. I’m not as expert on Ezekiel as I should be, but I can see the parallels — especially since it has been pointed out to me that the figures at the end might be angels, might be aliens, or might be one resembling the other.

Alex Proyas says he has no opinion on the question. Juliet Snowden , an author of the screenplay, tells me, “I will never tell.” When I saw those glowing figures, I fully expected them to spread their wings, but they walked with the children into their spacecraft, which resembled a geodesic structure within rotating wheels. Several readers assured me that the figures indeed had wings — but you might miss them, as they were wisps of light.

One famous interpretation of Ezekiel is that he describes an Earth visitation by aliens arriving in a spacecraft made of wheels within wheels. The film’s appearance of these figures (four, just as he reports) and their vehicle seems to correspond with much of the first book of Ezekiel.

This is not the place for theology. Nor for settling the debate between determinism and free will, although there are many expert comments on the blog. (“About the best comments you will find on the Web” — Computer World magazine) Nor, indeed, for deciding if the figures are supernatural or natural. It doesn’t matter. The movie is entertaining and involving. It’s great afterwards to debate the Meaning of It All.

What matters, in my opinion, is that the film’s ending is just about equal to the set-up. There are two possibilities: (1) Nicolas Cage heroically saves the world, or (2) No more water but the fire next time. The ending is spectacular enough that it brings closure, if not explanation. I don’t have to know if the beings are aliens or angels. Nobody in the movie does.

Why some people dislike Nicolas Cage is a mystery to me. I find him a daring actor who is often successful. Why many critics dislike the ending is, I suspect, because it is “religious” or “upholds Intelligent Design,” or is literally a deus ex machina. It may be a deus, all right, but that machina is a lollapalooza.

My review of “ Knowing “.

Roger Ebert

Roger Ebert was the film critic of the Chicago Sun-Times from 1967 until his death in 2013. In 1975, he won the Pulitzer Prize for distinguished criticism.

R.I.P. Film and Opera Renaissance Director William Friedkin (1935-2023)

Roger Ebert on the Films of Christopher Nolan

Empathy Machine: Diary of a Country Priest

Ten Years of Presence: In Honor of Roger Ebert and the Empathy Machine

Popular reviews.

The Way We Speak

The Mother of All Lies

The best movie reviews, in your inbox.

Skip to main content
Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

'Knowing': Disasters Expected, And Come To Pass

No Way Out: Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler, a professor racing against a terrible prediction. Vince Valitutti/Summit Entertainment hide caption

No Way Out: Nicolas Cage plays John Koestler, a professor racing against a terrible prediction.

Director: Alex Proyas
Genre: Drama, Mystery
Running Time: 122 minutes

Rated: PG-13 for disaster sequences, disturbing images and brief strong language

Watch Clips

'Get Off The Train'

Media no longer available

Source: Summit Entertainment

'I'm Taking The Children'

Highway Collision

Cold Comfort: Koestler's ally (Rose Byrne) and her daughter join in the quest to defuse what becomes a sinister string of prophecies. Vince Valitutti/Summit Entertainment hide caption

Cold Comfort: Koestler's ally (Rose Byrne) and her daughter join in the quest to defuse what becomes a sinister string of prophecies.

When his dad discovers that the code maps every disaster for the past 50 years — and many to come — he sets out to prevent catastrophe.

Is there nothing Nicolas Cage won't do? No check he won't cash?

There are respectable gigs among his many screen credits this decade, tolerable movies like Adaptation and World Trade Center. But for the most part his recent oeuvre is a flabbergasting checklist of the asinine (The Wicker Man) , the absurd (Ghost Rider) and the profoundly unnecessary (Bangkok Dangerous).

And now, in Knowing, Cage takes his taste for ludicrous material all the way — almost, but not quite, into the pantheon of films so utterly, preposterously awful they're destined for some kind of perverse cult appreciation.

No, that's being generous: Knowing isn't just bad; it's bad for you, a spectacularly stupid movie both aesthetically and morally repugnant.

Directed by Alex Proyas from a flamboyantly moronic screenplay by Ryne Pearson, Juliet Snowden and Stiles White, Knowing tells of MIT astrophysicist John Koestler (Cage), who stumbles across a prophecy that foretells major disasters and possibly the end of the world. The career meltdown of those who made the movie is not, alas, among its secrets.

We begin 50 years in the past, with a class of schoolchildren drawing imagined visions of the future for inclusion in a time capsule to be buried on campus. One freaked-out little girl, hearing voices in her head, scrawls a long list of numbers on her paper. Unearthed half a century hence and obsessed over by John's son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury), those numbers can be decoded to indicate the dates, death counts and GPS coordinates of traumatic events.

Details of 9/11 are what first catch John's eye — and what first tip the viewer that Knowing intends to exploit contemporary fears of a world gone topsy-turvy, an unpredictably violent place pitched at the edge of inexplicable terror. Sure enough, as John grows increasingly concerned over the implications of the numbers, the movie gets more and more repellent in its exploitation of contemporary anxieties.

From its tone to its style, from production design to cinematography, Knowing feels halfheartedly cribbed from any number of recent supernatural thrillers. Bad enough — but its reductive pop psychology is especially tiresome.

John, of course, has lost his wife in an accident, so his mania for unlocking the prophecy is motored by a need for redemption and catharsis. His cutesy-wounded affection for his son, who suffers a hearing impairment, doubles the maudlin factor and gives us the groan-inducing running motif of father and son gesturing the sign language for "I love you forever."

Amid all this appalling cliche, Knowing summons its entire reserve of filmmaking energy for gleeful scenes of mass death: an extremely violent plane crash that sends passengers fleeing the wreckage covered in flames; an outlandish subway accident that wipes out several platforms of commuters with a CGI splat. Predicated on and playing to our now-ingrained fears of terrorism, these set pieces feel like the entire raison d'etre of the film — or at least the only thing it truly cares about.

And by tipping us with the prophecy that there will be three such disasters, Proyas & Co. turn the experience of Knowing into an ugly sort of death watch, a slog through lazy writing, indifferent acting and blase direction with no hope of anything but chaotic violence as reward.

As for that third and final prophecy: It's so cynical and loony as to beggar description. But it does confirm the ultimate message of Knowing: that life is an unknowable, fearful, entropic disaster in the making, and there's nothing you can do about it except run amok in clueless anxiety.

Unless, of course, some heavenly miracle intervenes — and for those who endure the torture of Knowing, the arrival of the end credits will seem precisely that.

Supported by

Movie Review | 'Knowing'

Extinction Looms! Stop the Aliens!

Share full article

By A.O. Scott

March 19, 2009

Nobody requires plausibility from a movie like “Knowing,” which features slender blond aliens, intimations of apocalypse, clairvoyant children and Nicolas Cage as an astrophysicist. If the thing manages to avoid complete preposterousness, the audience can still have a good time.

Or maybe even if it doesn’t: the folks at a recent sneak preview of “Knowing,” directed by Alex Proyas (“Dark City,” “I, Robot”), seemed to be enjoying themselves, though it may have been at the movie’s expense. (Just as well, since they were seeing it free.) If your intention is to make a brooding, hauntingly allegorical terror-thriller, it’s probably not a good sign when spectacles of mass death and intimations of planetary destruction are met with hoots and giggles.

It’s safe to say that the crowd was laughing at Mr. Cage, rather than with him, since Mr. Cage rarely expresses mirth on screen. Instead, he favors a demented, compulsive intensity, which can sometimes be kind of fun, for example in the “National Treasure” movies. In “Knowing,” though, he seems to be exploring the rich vein of crazy he tapped in Neil LaBute’s train-wreck remake of “The Wicker Man.” Mr. Cage screams and yells and flails, smacks a tree with a baseball bat, waves a gun at a slender blond alien and barks “this is not a crank call” into a pay phone after calling in a breathless warning of a terrorist attack.

And why not? What would you do if you were an M.I.T. astrophysicist who discovered that the numbers written down 50 years earlier by a spooky schoolgirl and sealed in a time capsule were prophecies of subsequent catastrophes? You might also hit a tree with a Louisville Slugger and start ranting like a madman. But the odd thing about Mr. Cage in this movie is that even when he is responding to the threat of complete human extinction, you still can’t help feeling that he’s overreacting.

His character, John Koestler, is, like most movie dads these days, a widower, stricken with grief and trying to raise a cute, precocious young son (Chandler Canterbury). Once John starts running the numbers from the spooky girl’s spreadsheet, the tone of the movie switches from foreboding creepiness to apocalyptic hysteria, summed up less in the occasional explosion or transportation-related fireball than in Rose Byrne’s incessant shrieking. She plays Diana, daughter of the spooky schoolgirl (and mother of another one; both are played by Lara Robinson), and evolves from mysterious stranger to potential love interest to raving hysteric in record time.

Though not quickly enough. The draggy, lurching two hours of “Knowing” will make you long for the end of the world, even as you worry that there will not be time for all your questions to be answered. Who are those slender blond folk, called “the Whisper People” by John’s son and Diana’s daughter? Are they goth vampires who showed up early to audition for the “Twilight” sequel? Former members of Kraftwerk? Did they steal all those smooth black pebbles from a day spa after a hot stone massage? Is that why they seem so relaxed?

Actually, you will figure out who they are long before the astrophysicist does and stop caring long before that.

“Knowing” is rated PG-13 (Parents strongly cautioned). Some mild swearing and lots of death.

Opens on Friday nationwide.

Directed by Alex Proyas; adapted by Mr. Proyas from a screenplay written by Ryne Douglas Pearson, Juliet Snowden and Stiles White, based on a story by Mr. Pearson; director of photography, Simon Duggan; edited by Richard Learoyd; music by Marco Beltrami; production designer, Steven Jones-Evans; produced by Todd Black, Jason Blumenthal, Steve Tisch and Mr. Proyas; released by Summit Entertainment. Running time: 2 hours 1 minute.

WITH: Nicolas Cage (John Koestler), Rose Byrne (Diana), Chandler Canterbury (Caleb Koestler), Lara Robinson (Abby/Lucinda), Ben Mendelsohn (Phil Beckman), Nadia Townsend (Grace), Alan Hopgood (Reverend Koestler) and Danielle Carter (Miss Taylor, 1959).

Knowing Review

24 Mar 2009

121 minutes

Given that M. Night Shyamalan hasn’t been able to get away with making M. Night Shyamalan films without receiving a thorough kicking lately, it’s a mystery why Alex Proyas would want to make one. Knowing is a collage of themes from the MNS oeuvre: a bereaved family man grappling with loss of faith after personal tragedy who comes across a miraculous, but also terrifying phenomenon... a quietly-spoken, damaged little boy who can see and hear more than grown-ups and is the focus of supernatural activity… set-piece disasters which wipe out hordes of extras just to give the main character something to be more angsty about… and that low-key, gloomy, whispery urgency that covers for rising hysteria.

Knowing also has the misfortune to follow The Number 23 in the numerology horror stakes, though searching for meaning in random or designed codes also has a Dan Brownish tinge. Given that it’s a) familiar, and b) silly, the film almost sells its first act as a creepy little girl in 1959 scribbles her prophetic numbers when asked to draw a picture of the future while the rest of her class crayon spacemen and robots. Then, in ‘the present day’, Professor Koestler’s son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) brings the numbers home so Dad can idly make the connections with a handy internet search. It deploys a lot of generic baggage, but never really settles whether it’s an apocalyptic science-fiction film or a religious horror movie. The Men in Black who stalk Caleb to give him ominous pebbles and visions of burning wildlife could be demons, aliens, angels or thin Goth government dudes.

The set-piece disasters turn out to be beside the point, but allow for spectacle — though over-reliance on CG fire gives even things which are supposed to be happening (a plane crash, a subway disaster) an unreal sheen like Caleb’s bad dream visions. Cage’s character has so many props to indicate estrangement from the world — dilapidated house, major drink habit, overprotective parent neurosis, a minister father he won’t talk to — that his moping becomes comical, while the dashing-about to avert doom has unfortunate Wicker Man overtones. Rose Byrne, cast as the daughter of the original visionary, clearly has an urge to sign up for solar crisis or general end-of-the-world movies, but gets less to do here than in Sunshine or... 28 Weeks Later.

Movies | 04 12 2008

Movies | 22 08 2008

Movies | 04 07 2008

Movies | 10 06 2008

Movies | 04 03 2008

Roger Ebert Loved This Divisive Nicolas Cage Sci-Fi Thriller

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

The Big Picture

Ebert praised Knowing as among the best science fiction films due to its expert storytelling.
Knowing is an existentialist science fiction drama about mankind reckoning with extinction.
Ebert respected Cage's eccentric performances, praising him in Knowing and Bad Lieutenant: Port of Call - New Orleans .

Roger Ebert is easily the most famous, and likely one of the most important film critics that ever lived. While Pauline Kael is often cited as the first mainstream critic who truly understood film as an art form, Ebert and his At The Movies co-host Gene Siskel managed 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 to shed a spotlight on underseen films that they felt did not receive the attention and accolades that they deserved. While the critical reviews of Alex Proyas ’ 2009 disaster science fiction film were largely negative , Ebert cited Knowing as “among the best science-fiction films” he’d ever seen, calling it “frightening, suspenseful, intelligent and, when it needs to be, rather awesome.”

Knowing is an inventive science fiction thriller that attempts to turn the disaster movie genre on its head. Nicolas Cage stars 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?

Knowing has a fairly unique premise that may have caught some viewers off guard. Although it was ostensibly marketed as a disaster film in the vein of The Day The Earth Stood Still or 2012 , Knowing is essentially an existentialist science fiction drama about 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 expecting Knowing to 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 spending too much time worrying about the plot holes.

Roger Ebert Respected the Ambition of 'Knowing'

Ebert’s review of Knowing became 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 listed Knowing as one of the best films of 2009.

Ebert’s passionate defense of Knowing speaks 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 when ignoring 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 for delivering 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 thriller Bad 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, but Cage 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 in The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent , Cage received praise for his powerful work in the coming-of-age drama Joe and the personal character drama Pig. The positive buzz for Cage’s upcoming performance in the serial killer film Longlegs suggests that he’s in a new era of acting innovation.

Knowing is available to rent on Amazon in the U.S.

Rent on Amazon

Movie Features
Roger Ebert
Nicolas Cage

Common Sense Media

Movie & TV reviews for parents

For Parents
For Educators
Our Work and Impact

Or browse by category:

Movie Reviews
Best Movie Lists
Best Movies on Netflix, Disney+, and More

Common Sense Selections for Movies

50 Modern Movies All Kids Should Watch Before They're 12

Best TV Lists
Best TV Shows on Netflix, Disney+, and More
Common Sense Selections for TV
Video Reviews of TV Shows

Best Kids' Shows on Disney+

Best Kids' TV Shows on Netflix

Book Reviews
Best Book Lists
Common Sense Selections for Books

8 Tips for Getting Kids Hooked on Books

50 Books All Kids Should Read Before They're 12

Game Reviews
Best Game Lists

Common Sense Selections for Games

Video Reviews of Games

Nintendo Switch Games for Family Fun

Podcast Reviews
Best Podcast Lists

Common Sense Selections for Podcasts

Parents' Guide to Podcasts

App Reviews
Best App Lists

Social Networking for Teens

Gun-Free Action Game Apps

Reviews for AI Apps and Tools

YouTube Channel Reviews
YouTube Kids Channels by Topic

Parents' Ultimate Guide to YouTube Kids

How to Help Kids Build Character Strengths with Quality Media

Family Tech Planners
Digital Skills
All Articles
Latino Culture
Black Voices
Asian Stories
Native Narratives
LGBTQ+ Pride
Best of Diverse Representation List

Multicultural Books

YouTube Channels with Diverse Representations

Podcasts with Diverse Characters and Stories

Common Sense Says
Parents Say 46 Reviews
Kids Say 104 Reviews

Common Sense Media Review

Grim sci-fi thriller is too intense for young kids.

Parents Need to Know

Why Age 15+?

An otherwise principled character frequently drinks to excess when depressed.

Harrowing accidents are shown in great detail. A plane crashes into a crowded fr

Cursing includes "dammit," "hell," "s--t ," and "oh my God."

A scene set in a convenience store shows Pepsi and other products. One Sabrett's

Any Positive Content?

Single parents are shown as loving, concerned, and trustworthy.

Wracked by grief after the recent death of a loved one, a leading character abus

Drinking, Drugs & Smoking

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Drinking, Drugs & Smoking in your kid's entertainment guide.

Violence & Scariness

Harrowing accidents are shown in great detail. A plane crashes into a crowded freeway, with bodies, fires, and injuries everywhere; a train speeds out-of-control through New York's Subway system, inflicting destruction, death, and injury. Children are often in grave danger -- from accidents, scary strangers lurking, fire, abduction, and many major events over which they have no control. One little girl is shown bloodied and on the brink of madness in an early scene. Burning animals flee from a fire (one is shown in a disturbing close up).

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Violence & Scariness in your kid's entertainment guide.

Did you know you can flag iffy content? Adjust limits for Language in your kid's entertainment guide.

Products & Purchases

A scene set in a convenience store shows Pepsi and other products. One Sabrett's hot dog stand is prominently seen on an NYC sidewalk.

Positive Messages

Positive role models.

Wracked by grief after the recent death of a loved one, a leading character abuses alcohol on a nightly basis.

Parents need to know that this grim sci-fi thriller is about global catastrophe and disaster, which could be very upsetting for kids. There are scary presences, spooky music, dead parents, and children in danger throughout the movie, and it really stretches the PG-13 rating in terms of depicting horrifying disasters (a monumental plane crash injures and kills scores of people, an out-of-control subway train smashes into a crowded station, etc.). Animals are seen burning as they flee from a massive fire. A main character also drinks to excess on a number of occasions, and there's some language ("s--t," "damn," etc.). To stay in the loop on more movies like this, you can sign up for weekly Family Movie Night emails .

Where to Watch

Videos and photos.

Parent and Kid Reviews

Parents say (46)
Kids say (104)

Based on 46 parent reviews

What's the Story?

When a time capsule buried by an elementary school class in 1959 is dug up in 2009, one little girl's strange, unsettling entry -- a paper filled with hundreds of random numbers -- finds its way into the hands of single dad/astrophysicist John Koestler ( Nicolas Cage ) and his son, Caleb (Chandler Canterbury). John soon determines that the numbers aren't random at all: They actually reveal a prophetic listing of all the major catastrophies on earth since 1959 -- and, even more frightening, disasters in the immediate future. Is it coincidence or part of a grand plan? Fear and panic escalate as John, working with the daughter ( Rose Byrne ) of the now-dead little girl who foresaw it all, tries to stop the inevitable.

Is It Any Good?

KNOWING wants to be a lot of things, but logical isn't one of them. From early in the movie when John lectures his M.I.T. students about randomism vs. determinism (unsubtly setting the stage for what's to come and also sounding like he's talking to a seventh grade class) to the final moments when Earth's very survival is at stake, style and action take precedence over coherence.

The characters never behave in a rational way, instead serving only to move the story from one harrowing event to another. In its desire to cover such major issues as humankind's frailty in the face of nature, religion, parenting, and even a glimmer of hope for the future, the film loses its way amid showy special effects, thinly drawn characters, and lack of plausibility. Dark City , an early Alex Proyas movie, was far more successful at giving life to the science-fiction genre.

Talk to Your Kids About ...

Families can talk about how the movie creates suspense. Would it be as spooky or scary without the music, close-up shots, or shadows?

Parents, if the movie's end-of-the-world subject matter upsets your kids, be sure to address their fears.

And on a lighter note, you can also discuss what you'd put in a time capsule to represent your life.

Movie Details

In theaters : March 20, 2009
On DVD or streaming : July 7, 2009
Cast : Chandler Canterbury , Nicolas Cage , Rose Byrne
Director : Alex Proyas
Inclusion Information : Female actors
Studio : Summit Entertainment
Genre : Science Fiction
Run time : 122 minutes
MPAA rating : PG-13
MPAA explanation : disaster sequences, disturbing images, and brief strong language
Last updated : May 9, 2024

Did we miss something on diversity?

Research shows a connection between kids' healthy self-esteem and positive portrayals in media. That's why we've added a new "Diverse Representations" section to our reviews that will be rolling out on an ongoing basis. You can help us help kids by suggesting a diversity update.

Suggest an Update

What to watch next.

Close Encounters of the Third Kind

Want personalized picks for your kids' age and interests?

Terminator 2: Judgment Day

City of Ember

Common Sense Media's unbiased ratings are created by expert reviewers and aren't influenced by the product's creators or by any of our funders, affiliates, or partners.

Nicolas Cage, Ben Mendelsohn, Rose Byrne, Lara Robinson

Alex Proyas

Ryne Pearson, Juliet Snowden, Stiles White, Stuart Hazeldine, Alex Proyas

Rated PG-13

130 Mins.

Summit Entertainment

Screen Rant

Knowing ending explained: the biggest questions answered.

Your changes have been saved

Email is sent

Email has already been sent

Please verify your email address.

You’ve reached your account maximum for followed topics.

Happy Gilmore 2 Confirms Return Of Romantic Lead Alongside Shooter McGavin For Adam Sandler Sequel

Jessica rabbit reimagined in 9 different anime styles in crossover who framed roger rabbit art, john boyega’s rebel ridge exit addressed by director: “i was willing to risk the movie”.

2009's Knowing movie had an unforgettable ending, and here are the answers to some of its biggest questions. After John Koestler (Nicolas Cage), an MIT professor and astrophysicist, finds himself in possession of a sheet of paper covered in numbers that predict various tragedies and natural disasters, he sets about trying to stop the remaining events on the list. As the mystery of the numbers unravels, John learns that not only can he not stop the final event, but that it will wipe out all human life. In the film's shocking ending, he entrusts the care of his son to strange alien figures, sending him out among the stars before Earth is consumed by a deadly solar flare.

The sinister men (or "Whisper People") that are seemingly stalking Caleb throughout the movie are revealed to be aliens. They are responsible for the prophetic string of numbers that lead Koestler to the location where the aliens take Caleb with them. The twist sees John is doomed to die on Earth, while Caleb is taken along with his friend, Abby (Lara Robinson), to survive among the stars with the apparently well-intentioned aliens. It is an abrupt twist, but there are a handful of hints peppered throughout the movie that add context to Knowing 's ending. Through careful rewatching and a little extrapolation, here are the answers to the biggest questions from the ending of the Knowing movie.

Why Did The Whisper People Save Caleb & Abby?

Two kids in the back seat in Knowing movie

John Koestler's kids are central to why some still want the Knowing ending explained. It seems odd that the alien race chose to save Caleb and Abby and raise two strange human children, but it was so the human race could start again. The aliens' " whispering " is a form of selection, and only the chosen get a ticket off-world (Caleb and Abby are two children among many). Though it is a Nicolas Cage movie, his character proves less important in the end. With the aliens refusing to take John, it seems as though they specifically want children to rebuild humanity.

The possible reason for the selection of children is likely a matter of age. Children of Caleb and Abby's age could survive being separated from their parents, and they're young enough to give them plenty of time to rebuild and adjust to the destruction of Earth (which is, understandably, often a major sticking point for humans in sci-fi), essentially allowing for a smoother transition into their roles as the first of a new society.

Why Did The Whisper People Give Caleb & Abby Rabbits?

Two child actors holding rabbits in Knowing

One of the most bewildering aspects of Knowing 's ending is the way that Caleb and Abby are both depicted holding rabbits shortly before leaving with the aliens. This isn't directly addressed by the film, but the rabbits are seen arriving safely on the alien planet with the children in Knowing 's final moments. While the rabbit's place in the new world could largely be symbolic - particularly due to the animal's reputation for fast breeding, or for their regular use in scientific experiments, both of which are possible plans for the children's future - it's likely there's a more logical explanation for the rabbits' inclusion.

It's possible that the rabbits are intended to help the children's new civilization by establishing a food chain. As the aliens took children from multiple locations across the planet, it's likely that they took various species of animals, too, most likely to make sure that the children are able to grow up with a reliable source of food. Or, it may have had a purpose similar to Noah's Ark, with the child refugees of Earth taking with them two animals from various species in order to save and repopulate not just humanity, but the Earth's animal species, as well.

Knowing's Religious Themes Explained

Knowing draws on a lot of biblical inspiration, most notably in its handling of the idea of prophecy and the apocalypse. While it's certainly not the first sci-fi film to tackle biblical symbolism – just look at Dune 's messiah/Chosen One prophecy – Knowing actually explores a wide array of religious themes. The most obvious is the film's use of prophecy, which is bolstered by the connection between John Koestler, who tries to warn the planet of the coming apocalypse, and John the Apostle, the author of the Book of Revelation, the final book of the Christian Bible that details the end of the world. In addition, John's son Caleb also shares his name with a biblical figure.

In the Bible, Caleb is one of only two Israelites who survive to reach the promised land, which draws an uncanny parallel with Knowing 's ending. The events of Knowing also renew John's faith and see him reconnect with his father before he dies. Father-son relationships are hugely important in sci-fi, with Star Wars' Darth Vader /Luke Skywalker relationship the most famous of all, but there's also something remarkably biblical in John embracing his father (who happens to be a reverend, no less). There's also imagery from Genesis used for the film's ending, with Caleb (Adam) and Abby (Eve) seen living on a paradise-like world (Eden), heading for a large tree (the Tree of Knowledge), as well as the spaceship acting as an Ark.

The Real Meaning Of Knowing's Ending

Rose Byrne and Nicolas Cage in a car in Knowing

Maybe to say that Knowing is a film of many layers is to give it too much credit, but there certainly are a lot of themes and inspirations at play, and that's ultimately what makes its ending a little confusing. By including so much religious allegory, Knowing actually sets up its own ending relatively early on by foreshadowing Nicolas Cage's character death and spiritual redemption. The religious symbolism also lends itself to one more interpretation of the ending, though: that the film's aliens are actually angels.

With Knowing 's apocalyptic climax mirroring the Book of Revelation, as well as the various other biblical similarities, it's hardly a stretch to think humanity's saviors could just as likely be angels. With the aliens seen taking the children to another planet to start a new civilization, Knowing 's ending actually subtly references the Ancient Alien theory, which hypothesizes that aliens made contact with early humans and influenced the development of culture and technology. In this regard, Knowing draws some similarities with another sci-fi film from a more popular franchise, as Prometheus ' Engineers influenced humanity's origins too, and this theory really only furthers the unexpected layers to Knowing 's story.

Why The Final Shot In Knowing Ruined An Intriguing Ending

From the 1936 earthquake musical San Francisco to 1998's Armageddon, 2004's Day After Tomorrow, and 2021's Don't Look Up, disaster and apocalypse movies both do well at the box office and deliver spectacles that last long in viewers' memories. Knowing could have been one of the most highly-regarded disaster movies so far, especially with the uniqueness of the premise, as most disaster movies don't bother with much beyond "there's a disaster happening." However, Knowing shot itself in the foot with its final scene, ensuring it would join Roland Emmerich's 2012 as another CGI-heavy but forgettable apocalypse flick. As a result, some see Knowing as an example of a twist ending that ruins the movie .

The movie had set itself up for an open-ended, intriguing, and possibly unsettling finish. If the aliens had brought the kids into an unspecified situation, with both Cage's John Koestler and audiences never knowing their fate, it would have kept the conversation going long after the credits rolled. Production studios Escape Artists and DMG Entertainment opted for a happy ending though, where the saved kids of Earth are taken to a paradise, bringing an adorable-yet-contextually-nonsensical bunny with them on an interstellar ark.

Knowing wasn't a film that required a happy ending, and it suffered from the studio's efforts to shoehorn one in. All praise for the undeniably awesome disaster scenes felt sidelined by criticism of the final shot. If Knowing had kept the fate of the kids unknown it would have left questions in the right way. Instead, by trying to provide answers, Knowing created an unsatisfactory kind of ambiguity, one that was a product of bad storytelling rather than deliberately creating mystique. Knowing grossed over $180 million on a budget less than a third of that ($50 million), so it was hardly a flop, but the obviously-tacked-on ending meant that this particular Nicolas Cage movie was cheated out of a lasting legacy

How Director Alex Proyas Explains Knowing And Its Ending

With a lot to unpack, the best person to offer a little insight on the Knowing ending is the movie's director Alex Proyas. Having directed Dark City and The Crow , Proyas is used to making genre movies with big ideas and concepts that fans can read a lot into. When it comes to the interpretations of Knowing as a biblical story, Proyas doesn't discourage such takes, but explains ( via Games Radar ) that it is up to the audience to read it that way. He says " you can interpret it on a purely scientific science fiction level, or, if you choose to, you can interpret it on a kind of quasi-religious Biblical level, but nothing is overtly stated either way ."

While the Biblical connections might not have been as intentional as some audiences took it, Proyas had a very clear reason for taking on the movie in the first place. He explains ( via First Showing ) that he was drawn to the journey of Nicolas Cage's character and the truth he uncovers. As John realizes what the numbers mean he is met with the question of whether someone would want to know when they die with Proyas saying " And it's a question that many people find hard to answer. You can see the merits of both sides of the argument ." Interestingly, he looks at the real meaning of Knowing as a story about confronting mortality. It also speaks to the ending as, how Proyas sees it, John's death was inescapable as soon as he learned the truth.

Seeing the movie from this new perspective makes it a much more intimate story about one man accepting his death. There is a mystery involved in John discovering the various disasters that are occurring, yet with each new one, he is unable to prevent them. It hints at where the story is going and perhaps the conflict within John's mind. He knows what the last numbers mean, and he still holds out some hope that he will be able to stop it. Yet in the end, he has to confront the reality of knowing that his death is inevitable and it just so happens that his fate is shared by the rest of the world. It is an interesting reading that gives new context to the Knowing ending.

SR Originals

Become a Critical Movie Critic
Movie Review Archives

Movie Review: Knowing (2009)

General Disdain
Movie Reviews
2 responses
--> April 4, 2009

Let’s all admit it, taking shots at Nicolas Cage’s latest acting gigs has been about as much fun as catching fish in a barrel — it’s fun for a moment, but it’s too damn easy and one quickly gets bored with it. But hey, he deserved it — Bangkok Dangerous and Ghost Rider , to name a few, were some piss poor movies (I suspect they were done solely for the paycheck).

So when it is announced he would be starring in some sort of movie that had him doomed to see the future and not have anyone believe him (i.e., the Cassandra Complex ), I immediately got my pencil ready for a scathing review. And then I watched Knowing . The movie review I had expected to write was no longer applicable — I found I actually liked the film.

At the center of the movie is a paper on which seemingly random numbers were scribbled upon by a troubled little girl named Lucinda (Lara Robinson) in 1959. 50 years later, this same sheet of paper resurfaces and finds its way into the hands of Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) and his mathematician father John Koestler (Cage). After downing a bottle of scotch in an effort to drown his sorrows over the loss of his wife, John notices a pattern — the numbers exactly align with cataclysmic events. And so begins his attempt to warn and convince others of impending doom when he notices several of the dates have yet to transpire.

Sure, we’ve all seen or heard it before, but there were several things that set Knowing apart from the host of other similarly themed movies.

First, it was generally heartfelt. The film showcased strong familial relationships that are easily identifiable and well acted out. Father-son relationship between John and Caleb is rock solid, as they pretty much only have one another as a support mechanism. Most touching is the great lengths and sacrifices John goes through to ensure his son is safe. Then there is the broken father-son relationship between John and his father, Reverend Koestler (Alan Hopgood). Only in the face of their own mortality do they reconcile their differences in a touching scene. It makes one think that the time to bury the hatchet with loved ones should happen well before there is no time to do it in.

The biggest bang of Knowing , however, comes rather unexpectedly — the scenes of destruction are magnificently crafted and shot. I don’t think I’ve ever witnesses a plane crash on film quite so disturbingly or vividly real before. You think everyone dies on impact? Think again. Same goes for an incredibly sequenced roll of a subway train going off the tracks. “Wow”, is a word that sums it up rather nicely.

But, c’mon, we can’t forget it’s a Nicolas Cage film; there has got to be a downside hidden somewhere within. There is. I could have done without the ending. It’s cheesier than a bowl of macaroni & cheese and thoroughly out of place. There’s also more than a handful of moments where Mr. Cage hams it up for the camera; thankfully, they’re easy to look beyond.

So while I can’t look into the future, I’m 97.63% certain Knowing is not a turning point in Nic’s movie choices. Therefore, I strongly suggest seeing it before the upcoming movie Kick-Ass retarnishes his good name and we go back to taking shots at him again.

I'm an old, miserable fart set in his ways. Some of the things that bring a smile to my face are (in no particular order): Teenage back acne, the rain on my face, long walks on the beach and redneck women named Francis. Oh yeah, I like to watch and criticize movies.

Movie Review: Ghosted (2023) Movie Review: Bill & Ted Face the Music (2020) Movie Review: Fantasy Island (2020) Movie Review: Snatched (2017) Movie Review: Horrible Bosses 2 (2014) Movie Review: ABCs of Death 2 (2014) Movie Review: Life After Beth (2014)

'Movie Review: Knowing (2009)' have 2 comments

April 13, 2009 @ 10:10 pm Zain

I thought this was a very powerful film that puts forth some tough questions-

Are our lives predetermined? Is there a god? Does humanity deserve a second chance if one was to be offered?

May 1, 2010 @ 8:41 pm Richmond

Cage has taken on too many poor films.

| Log in

Nicolas Cage has brought us plenty of crazy movies in the past few years, but Knowing is a doozy of an entirely different level. Dark City and I, Robot director Alex Proyas peppers his take on the disaster movie with a whole host of other genre elements, including ghost stories, conspiracy thrillers and a dash of whacked-out sci-fi. The five credited writers, Proyas included, may deserve the blame for this mishmash, but Proyas clearly thinks he's presenting us with some kind of directorial vision. Maybe you'll have better luck than I did with figuring out what that vision is.

The movie that's been advertised in the trailers, in which cynical astrophysicist John Koestler (Nicolas Cage) discovers a mysterious set of numbers that may predict the end of the world, is really only the half of it. Maybe only a quarter of it. The movie opens in the 1950s, with a The Omen type prologue about a troubled little girl named Lucinda (Lara Robinson) who scrawls down the numbers and puts them in her elementary school's time capsule. 50 years later John's son Caleb (Chandler Canterbury) is a student at the same school when they open the capsule, and he's already hearing some of the same voices that plagued Lucinda when he receives her message.

Caleb is convinced it might mean something, and soon John is too, staying up all night circling the numbers and detecting a telltale pattern-- they reveal the exact location, date and death toll of every major disaster of the last 50 years. In psychology this typically a symptom of schizophrenia, but in Knowing , John is soon proved right when he witnesses a plane crash, and realizes there are two disasters left on the list-- one of them possibly the big one. He eventually tracks down Lucinda's daughter Diana ( Rose Byrne ) and granddaughter Abby, and has them running around the Boston area trying to avoid the apocalypse while also trying to stop it.

The movie's two action set pieces, heavily promoted in the trailers, are about as different in skill as it gets. The plane crash is filmed in a single tracking shot that follows John as he walks through the wreckage, both harrowing and thrilling in its realism. On the other hand, a subway derailment in a poorly recreated Manhattan subway station is filmed so frenetically and without any sense of rhythm that it feels more like a visual assault than an experience. Both sequences, incidentally, suck every ounce of fun out witnessing the destruction, completely removing that visceral thrill in disaster movies of seeing a familiar part of the world destroyed.

Because, it seems, Knowing isn't really a disaster movie, or at least wants to pretend it isn't. The numbers conspiracy theory gives way to end-of-days prophecies and some creepy blonds that Caleb dubs "the Whisper People," and if I told you what ending that all led to, you wouldn't believe me anyway. As Knowing gets increasingly preposterous, and Cage's stony deadpan acting seems even sillier in context, a kind of slack-jawed joy may overtake you. How on earth did this movie get made? How did anyone involved think they had a story worth telling? And, as always, what is Nicolas Cage thinking?

Staff Writer at CinemaBlend

DreamWorks Animation's The Wild Robot Is Equal Parts Beautiful, Emotional, And Darkly Hilarious

Speak No Evil’s James McAvoy Explains Why He Didn't Watch Watch The Original Horror Movie

10 Shows Like Bad Monkey And How To Watch Them

Notice: All forms on this website are temporarily down for maintenance. You will not be able to complete a form to request information or a resource. We apologize for any inconvenience and will reactivate the forms as soon as possible.

DVD & Streaming
Action/Adventure , Drama , Mystery/Suspense , Sci-Fi/Fantasy

Content Caution

In Theaters

Nicolas Cage as John Koestler; Chandler Canterbury as Caleb Koestler; Rose Byrne as Diana Wayland; Lara Robinson as Lucinda Embry and Abby Wayland

Home Release Date

Alex Proyas

Distributor

Summit Entertainment

Movie Review

If ever there was a time when most of us should feel like rending our garments and gnashing our teeth, now might be it.

The economy’s tanked. Coffee costs $4. We’re overworked and underemployed. Our 401(k) accounts are shot. Al Gore keeps talking about the polar ice caps. Our kids are sick. Our toasters are broken. Our spouses keep drinking milk straight from the carton, no matter how many times we’ve told them not to. Our favorite franchise quarterbacks are feuding with their teams.

Yes, we as a nation are in collective need of some comfort food—meatloaf and mashed potatoes, maybe. We need something to help us forget our trials and travails … a nice hunk of cinematic escapism, perhaps. We need something that will remind us that, in the words of Scarlett O’Hara, “Tomorrow is another day.”

And what do we get instead? Knowing —a movie that tells us “tomorrow” might be the end of the world.

But I get ahead of myself. The story opens in the sweet-and-innocent 1950s, when all we had to fret over were Russians and nuclear war and whether we really needed to see Elvis shake his pelvis on national TV. The children—at least the children at William Dawes Elementary School—are full of optimism and hope: When their teacher asks them to draw pictures of what they think the world will look like in 50 years—pictures to place in a time capsule—they draw rockets and flying cars and iPods.

Well, except for one little girl named Lucinda, who instead covers her paper with lines and lines of numbers. So absorbed is she that she doesn’t even get to finish writing before the teacher whisks her paper away.

Fast-forward 50 years, and a new generation of William Dawes students opens the capsule to marvel at these bright pictures of the future. Well, except for the kid who sees Lucinda’s numbers.

The kid—Caleb’s his name—brings home the paper and obliquely suggests that it might be a code of some sort. John, Caleb’s father and a professor at Massachusetts Institute of Technology, decides (after a few whiskeys) that Caleb could be right. In fact, many of the numbers seem to correspond with the dates of every major tragedy in the last 50 years, along with the number of those killed. 9/11? It’s on there. Tsunamis in southeast Asia? Check. Oklahoma City bombing? Check.

John sees that there are just three dates left on the sheet—and all of them are set to take place over the next few days. Which leaves John to ask himself some pretty hard questions:

_Does this mean that our lives are guided?

That our fates are predetermined?

Can we change our future?

Am I going crazy?

Could this sheet of paper represent an even more ominous future than a few plane crashes?_

[ Note: The following sections include spoilers. ]

Positive Elements

Impending doom has a way of forcing us to re-evaluate our lives. Take John—an absentminded professor who loves his son dearly, but still has trouble remembering that he needs to pick him up from school. The crises he and Caleb face help them forge stronger bonds, culminating in a semi-sacrificial farewell. John also patches things up with his estranged father.

Along the way, John and Caleb meet up with Diana, a thirtysomething single mom, and her daughter, Abby. Diana, like John, would do anything for her child. “Abby’s all I got, John,” she says. “I can’t let anything happen to her.” Both parents try to shield their children from discomfort and hurt—efforts that feel a bit counterproductive in the film’s ethos, but their hearts are in the right place.

Spiritual Elements

Let’s get this out of the way right here: The movie does not end well—at least not in a conventional sense. Earth, and everything on it, gets zapped by a gigantic solar flare, leaving it a big, charred piece of space rubble.

I’m spoiling that ending to say that this weighty prospect prompts some profoundly spiritual musings—musings rooted more in a kind of Christian mysticism than anything truly biblical.

John is a widower, and he seems to have lost any semblance of faith after his wife died. She was reportedly killed in a hotel fire while John was grooming his front yard, and because he didn’t feel any psychic pangs at the moment of her death, he decided there was no force looking out for anyone—that he and everyone around him were merely the result of a grand accident. During one of his lectures he asks his students to grapple with the theories of determinism and randomness and, while he lays out a pretty good case that “everything has purpose,” he admits to his class that he’s not buying it. “But that’s just me,” he says.

When his son asks him about the potential for life on other planets, John says that, for now, we appear to be alone—then amends his statement later to reassure Caleb he wasn’t talking about heaven: “I just said we can’t know for sure, that’s all. If you want to believe, you go ahead and believe.” When his sister, Grace, asks him what’s wrong so she can pray for him, he answers her by saying, “Please. Don’t.”

The numbers on the paper shake John’s belief in “randomness,” of course. If a child could see the future with such uncanny accuracy, that must mean something knows what’s going on. A fellow professor at first shrugs off the predictions as coincidence—a numerology trap that esoteric religions have dabbled in for millennia. “People see what they want to see in them,” he says. But John becomes convinced there’s something more to it.

From that point forward, the film chugs into a plot loaded with Christian imagery and creative license. Much of what we see plays around with Ezekiel’s vision in the first chapter of his Old Testament book. The film’s mysterious and ominous “whisper people” seem to loosely correspond with the angels described by the prophet (though none of them have heads of oxen or lions), and their mysterious craft looks like a representation of Ezekiel’s wheel.

These angelic creatures haunt much of the film like shadows, whispering strange words into the children’s brains and unveiling horrific images of the future. Paralyzing light spews from one being’s mouth. But by the end, they’re revealed as pretty good guys. Caleb tells his father that they, the whisper people, were “protecting us all along.”

Are these creatures actually angels? Or are they extraterrestrial beings that Ezekiel long ago confused as angels? The film leaves it open to interpretation. Regardless, they do nothing to save the earth from impending doom, but rather sweep up chosen children and drop them off on a new, beautifully unspoiled planet with a gorgeous, silvery tree of life—a new crop of Adams and Eves destined to re-start humanity.

Interestingly—from a theological perspective—while these children are “chosen,” they also must “choose.” They are not taken by the whisper people. They decide for themselves whether to go or not.

Also worth noting is the fact that John’s dad is a pastor. John reminds him of one of his sermons about prophesy. And then he tells his dad that he can now foretell the end of the world as we know it.

Sexual & Romantic Content

A mild, anatomical line involves a reference to “double-D’s.” A remark is made about somebody thinking somebody else was “gay.” We see John’s upper body in the shower.

Violent Content

John, while intrigued by the list, questions some aspects of it right up until a plane crashes in front of him—exactly when and where the list said a disaster would strike. He runs to the wreckage and finds lots of folks staggering around on fire. Not pretty. “I keep seeing their faces,” John says afterwards, “burning.”

The second disaster is even more jarring. A subway train rockets off the rails and smashes into another train and subway platform, mowing down scores of people as they try to flee. The final catastrophe involves a huge, rolling wave of fire that obliterates a whole city in spectacular CGI fashion.

A little girl claws numbers into a door with her bare, bloodied fingers. John brandishes a gun and points it at a mysterious stranger. Diana’s vehicle is smashed to bits by a semi. Caleb is shown a vision of a forest fire, complete with burning, anguished wildlife (particularly a large, flaming moose). We learn that Diana’s mom OD’d on drugs, killing herself. In anger—and as a threat—John smacks a tree with a bat. Citizens of Earth riot.

Crude or Profane Language

Four or five s-words. “A–,” “h—” and “d–n” are used a couple of times each. God’s name is misused several times.

Drug & Alcohol Content

John drinks quite a lot. We see him sip wine while cooking hot dogs, but a bigger issue is the whiskey he guzzles after his son goes to bed. The whole reason he starts playing around with the 50-year-old page of numbers is because 1) he’s tipsy, and 2) he spills some booze on the paper. At one point he falls asleep on the couch, an empty bottle beside him. He doesn’t wake up until Caleb calls him from school, reminding him that he has carpool duty. He visits an old lady who spikes her tea with liquor.

Other Noteworthy Elements

John breaks into the school desperate to find more numbers. Diana swipes an SUV to chase down the whisper people, after they take both her car and the kids.

Knowing is undeniably bold, in that it takes a certain courage to callously obliterate Earth without giving anybody—not even Will Smith—the chance to save the day. And I, Robot director Alex Proyas is, perhaps, even more bold to suggest that such an ending is a happy one. “They haven’t chosen us , Caleb,” John tells his son at the end. “They’ve chosen you .” He tearfully bids farewell to his son, hoping— knowing —Caleb will be safe.

It’s this dichotomy, I think, that will split moviegoers, especially Christians. Some, I imagine, will appreciate the fact that Knowing deals with spiritual themes head-on. The film suggests that when science runs out of answers, faith still holds the trump card. It tells us that, even in the midst of the worst sorts of disasters, we’re still in Someone’s hands. And it reinforces the idea that families are really, really keen.

Others will be appalled by the fact that this transcription of doomsday events doesn’t even share page numbers with the Book of Revelation. The whole idea of plucking a chosen few children for a second reboot of humanity (thinking of Noah as the first) will strike many as anathema.

I left the theater with more questions than answers. What was Proyas trying to tell us about God’s nature? God’s power? God’s judgment? God’s compassion? Or was he just trying to say that Ezekiel and the Apostle John got it all wrong, and it’s really translucent aliens who hold our destiny in the palms of their cold hands?

Knowing tries to tell us we’re not alone—then locks us in a closet and lets us stew in the dark as we imagine all manner of horrible ends we might soon face. It’s like I said, So much for comfort food.

Paul Asay has been part of the Plugged In staff since 2007, watching and reviewing roughly 15 quintillion movies and television shows. He’s written for a number of other publications, too, including Time, The Washington Post and Christianity Today. The author of several books, Paul loves to find spirituality in unexpected places, including popular entertainment, and he loves all things superhero. His vices include James Bond films, Mountain Dew and terrible B-grade movies. He’s married, has two children and a neurotic dog, runs marathons on occasion and hopes to someday own his own tuxedo. Feel free to follow him on Twitter @AsayPaul.

Latest Reviews

Beetlejuice Beetlejuice

The Front Room

reagan movie president reagan gives a speech

Weekly Reviews Straight to your Inbox!

Get the Reddit app

The goal of /r/Movies is to provide an inclusive place for discussions and news about films with major releases. Submissions should be for the purpose of informing or initiating a discussion, not just to entertain readers. Read our extensive list of rules for more information on other types of posts like fan-art and self-promotion, or message the moderators if you have any questions.

What are your thoughts on "Knowing" (2009)? SPOILERS

I remember liking it when I was younger, and I haven't seen the movie in at least over 10 years, but I watched it with my partner last night. I did notice some bigger flaws in the plot and the writing, but I still thought, overall, that it's a decent movie. I don't get the 39% on Rotten Tomatoes. Yeah, it's not great, but I personally don't think it's bad either. It has a really strong opening, that plane crash scene was one continuous shot, and I found it pretty intense. I enjoyed the journey and the unfolding of events, but I also enjoy these mystieries with "unexplained coincedences," so it could be just in my wheelhouse. I know some of the acting isn't good (besides Rose Byrne, but she's always great), and the plot does get kind of too much near the end. I wish it went a little more in depth with an explanation of how these aliens knew all this, why did they choose these kids, why the aliens care, and so on but I had fun watching this movie. The I can go on, but this isn't a review, I want to hear other people's opinions on this film. Am I in the minority here? Let me know what you think, I love having conversations over movies like this.

By continuing, you agree to our User Agreement and acknowledge that you understand the Privacy Policy .

Enter the 6-digit code from your authenticator app

You’ve set up two-factor authentication for this account.

Enter a 6-digit backup code

Create your username and password.

Reddit is anonymous, so your username is what you’ll go by here. Choose wisely—because once you get a name, you can’t change it.

Reset your password

Enter your email address or username and we’ll send you a link to reset your password

Check your inbox

An email with a link to reset your password was sent to the email address associated with your account

Choose a Reddit account to continue

Movie Rez Ball shows why Indigenous stories are best told by Indigenous people

Having people from those communities report on sport is essential for upcoming generations.

Social Sharing

"There is no white saviour in the film. The strength comes from within," director Sydney Freeland said of her feature film Rez Ball after its world premier at the Toronto International Film Festival this week. Of all the films at the festival, this is the one I wanted to watch the most.

TIFF doesn't traditionally have a long list of sports-related movies, but I heard the buzz about Rez Ball, co-written by Freeland with Sterlin Harjo (creator of Reservation Dogs ) . Rez Ball is a Netflix production and boasts LeBron James as one of the producers.

This story takes place on a Native Indian Reserve in Diné (Navajo) country in New Mexico. It follows a boys' basketball team at Chuska high school. While the story is fictional, it gives us a look into the real culture of sports within Native American and Indigenous communities. There aren't professional Indigenous teams in those regions so high school sports become robust places of growth and development.

The main actors, all Native American and/or Indigenous, are compelling and love this movie. In fact, at the Q&A afterward, it was easy to see that although they may be from different nations and communities across the U.S. and Canada, they were deeply connected because of the tradition of storytelling and because their identities were respected and amplified.

Some might find it hard to believe that in the year 2024 we still don't see a lot of feature films by Indigenous creatives. I'm not talking about films made about Indigenous experiences; I mean with Indigenous directors whose lens into these stories is unmatched.

Dallas Soonias is a Cree and Ojibwe volleyball player who also happens to be a brilliant film director. He recently called the play-by-play for volleyball during the Paris Olympics. Soonias is from the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation in Ontario. Storytelling is in his blood and something he does so beautifully. I asked him why it's important to have Indigenous voices in sport in particular.

"Representation matters," he told me via text. "Kids need to know it's possible to find success at the highest level in sport, they need to be shown examples of it. Having a voice in the media can speak to the specific needs and challenges Indigenous people face in this country."

Native American and Indigenous athletes and communities have suffered from systemic racism and barriers , and it continues. That's why having people from those communities report on sport and tell powerful stories is essential for upcoming generations to see.

Sports are deeply intertwined in many cultures. The depth of contribution to sport from Indigenous communities is profound. While Rez Ball tackles serious issues against an authentic backdrop, the tension in the film is intense. It's a deep dive into grief, dysfunctional family and community loss. But the resolutions and the navigating of those issues come from elders within the culture.

That's one of the biggest takeaways from this film and beyond that — the strength and history of resilience of Indigenous communities.

One of the most powerful learnings I had while covering the Paris Olympics was listening to Soonias speak with other Indigenous play-by-play commentators and presenters. They spoke about the history of Indigenous Olympic athletes, their inspirations and how they carry their identities in their work, and how they create change in their communities and use sport as a vehicle to uplift and preserve Indigenous languages.

I think about their conversation a lot. I teared up a few times at the joy and sharing of the piece. It also relates to other communities who don't often feel included in the sports space. The impact of storytellers sharing their own stories is so powerful.

Vanna Blacksmith is an Indigenous reporter with CBC North who covered the Paris Olympics for CBC Sports. Blacksmith is two-spirit and Eenou-Anishinaabe Bear Clan from the Cree Nation of Mistissini with Ojibwe roots from Wiikwemikoong Unceded Territory.

Prior to flying to Paris, Blacksmith told me she had never travelled broad before and this experience gave her her first stamp in her passpor t. She grew up playing basketball and competed in the North American Indigenous Games (NAIG) in basketball in 2014. She currently lives in Montreal.

Blacksmith spoke with a number of Indigenous athletes , but one of her interviews in particular got my attention. She interviewed Indigenous Olympian Apollo Hess. She knew that Hess, the first Blood Tribe Olympic swimmer and a member of the Kainai Nation in Alberta, was named 'Mo'tóyáóhkii', which translates to Ocean Boy, by his grandfather. She knew his home was an inland community.

Apollo Hess says Olympic experience a valuable asset for his swimming future

Three swimmers watch a race from the pool deck.

Knowing and learning about your subjects is a basic tenet in journalism. But it hasn't always been done well for people in the margins. Which is why Blacksmith's presence is essential.

I asked her what it felt like at that moment to speak with Hess.

"That vibe, we were both kind of nervous," she recalled over the phone. "Sometimes [Indigenous people] carry shyness in the spotlight. But it's like we were two rez kids living out a wild dream. We're away from our land and people for this really big thing. But there's a sense of togetherness that makes things a little more easygoing."

The interaction is important because the ease with which they talk is so plain to see. Her ability to find poignant stories, underline them and offer them to wider Canadian society is so powerful.

"It's rare to see Indigenous people at higher sport levels," Blacksmith said. "Communities see themselves in the athletes."

Blacksmith thinks that in addition to Olympians, grassroots accomplishments are important to chronicle.

"It all starts from where they're from," she explains. "The earliest stages are important."

I'm grateful to these creatives, storytellers and journalists for doing the work that needs to be done, and teaching us along the way. Sport is emboldened because of them.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Senior Contributor

Shireen Ahmed is a multi-platform sports journalist, a TEDx speaker, mentor, and an award-winning sports activist who focuses on the intersections of racism and misogyny in sports. She is an industry expert on Muslim women in sports, and her academic research and contributions have been widely published. She is co-creator and co-host of the “Burn It All Down” feminist sports podcast team. In addition to being a seasoned investigative reporter, her commentary is featured by media outlets in Canada, the USA, Europe and Australia. She holds an MA in Media Production from Toronto Metropolitan University where she now teaches Sports Journalism and Sports Media. You can find Shireen tweeting or drinking coffee, or tweeting about drinking coffee. She lives with her four children and her cat.