Children Of Men

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

I thought that this movie surpasses a lot of stuff coming out as nationwide releases as far as technical achievement (which now that I reread that sentence, it does seem to narrow down the accomplishment).  It was very entertaining to watch, but this movie went overboard with its preaching and obvious imagery.  I know that the points might need to be made, but they seemed to muck up the movie by shoving it in our faces. 

I liked it, but when I read reviews for it I can't help but think that the reviewers might have added to the movie what they wanted to get something more from it. 

But maybe this movie was such a parrallel that it skips storyline points and an exit strategy in favor of pushing beliefs around.

[JG]

what obvious imagery?  shoving what in our faces?   this movie was so understated.   

[Chest Rockwell]

what obvious imagery?  shoving what in our faces?   this movie was so understated.   

I agree. Cuaron used visual motifs and imagery to convey ideas as opposed to just telling us, or making it obvious. Sure, the baby was an obvious Christ figure, but it was done well, as opposed to, say, The Matrix. But other things like the animals I don't think average viewers would even notice if it wasn't brought to their attention (except the pig balloon).

I also found it interesting that the baby was computer-generated (it was right? I plan on seeing it again).

It's not my favorite of the year but it's up there, so far. I will say that Cuaron and Lubezki probably deserve any award that comes their way.

[Gloria]

I thought this movie was breathtaking.

WARNING! LOTS AND LOTS OF SPOILERS FROM HERE ON.

There were moments that just felt so real.  It was bleak and cynical -- no hope in the last generation of people.  The unexpected explosion in the beginning set up the entire movie.  I was at the edge of my seat.  I enjoyed the subtlety of the political statements -- the politics acted more as the setting, which I think added to the realism.  The story was so suspenseful and constantly bombarding you with explosions and twists.

Clive Owen was great in this movie.  His face after Michael Caine's character died was so so soooo heartbreaking.  Also, Julianne Moore can do no wrong.  She's so amazing.

As for interesting technical elements, the one part that really stood out for me was the blood on the camera lens following Clive Owen into the building in the camp.  It was a fairly long shot, and the blood stayed on there.  I felt it gave the scene a documentary-like feel of a warzone.  I didn't really find the long shots very distracting -- I guess I was too busy clutching the armrest.

One issue I had with the movie was the blatant symbolism in naming the boat "Tomorrow".  It made me twitch a little.  It seemed a little forced, considering the future was what this movie was all about.  The need to reiterate it in this way seemed phony. 

END SPOILERS

I haven't been able to see many movies in the last few months, but I'm very glad I was able to see this one.

[edison]

what obvious imagery?  shoving what in our faces?   this movie was so understated.   

The only image I can think of of having something shoved in my face was this one. This was in the background when Marian was kicked off the bus.

[I Don't Believe in Beatles]

Hey, someone fix this:

News: Children Of Men, the last great film of 2005, is now playing in theatres!

[Pubrick]

Also, Julianne Moore can do no wrong.  She's so amazing.

i don't remember her character doing much of anything other than *you know what.* her role and dialgoue were entirely expository, she talked and talked and i could barely remember anything she said cos she didn't deliver it with any discernable intention behind it. it was like watching her read her script for the first time.

it baffles me, but at the same time i understand why this and little miss fat girl are getting so overrated. we can't wait for the big movies of 2007, we are in a hopeful state of mind and so these two films are the perfect conduits for our dellusions. nah that's bullshit. the truth is that maybe some of you went to this with low expectations and were surprised to find a good movie. and i never said it wasn't good. or you expected a good movie and got one, and that's enough apparently to herald something as brilliant. and then some of you went to little miss adorable little girl and got ONE good basic story with many other threads left hanging loose, and were happy to just have one satisfying arc that ended at its climax.

they were good, but in any other year they would not be praised so readily without acknowledging their flaws. little abigail is a revelation, and here the black girl is also. let's be thankful for that, and not get carried away to the point where everyone is ignoring MIRIAM in this movie and the absence of julianne moore's soul, or the absence of any satisfaction outside the title character in little miss ray of light.

things that are good are being billed as brilliant or "great", i haven't seen any other year with standards being lowered so much. this is the exact reason The Departed (who?) was overpraised. it was a competent film that even scorsese must be wondering why he made it in the first place... oh right, he needed a hit so he could make something he actually gives a shit about.

[w/o horse]

i'm going with pubrick on this one and NOT going to say it's the best movie i've ever seen or that it is uninhibitedly awesome, because it isn't.  outside of the technical achievement and a moment towards the end, this is a disappointingly flaccid film, one that seems like it was written by kids in middle school for an assignment where they had to imagine some sort of dystopia.  cuaron makes the most out of very little--the scenes everyone talks about are really amazing--but the film suffers from the all too common among film students, there's-more-in-the-filmmaker's-head-that-isn't-on-screen, and the wow factor can only carry for so long.

Put me in this pile.

It made me appreciate how great Time of the Wolf is - there's a film with the true intention of exploring despotic perversity and human ego.  Children of Men had hollow, archetypal characters void of tangible emotional substance and the whole thing was this big Amazing Baby Race plot drenched in drab visuals.  There wasn't anything for me to cling onto - character or otherwise.  How can a film that is so intent on providing dismal presages of the future, and a film that does have this atmosphere, be content with resting its narrative in gimmicks and hashed false pretense opportunities?  On the Panic in the Streets commentary they talk about the difference between Panic in the Streets and Outbreak, how for all Outbreak's technology it simply leaves behind its characters so the tension of the pandemic never leaves the screen.  This is how I felt about this one.

[picolas]

spoils

- i didn't like any of the characters. they weren't very nice. except for caine, but he was still kind of weird with his newfangled music. not to say that many of the characters weren't good people. they were just kind of.. passive-aggressive and narcissistic? i'm not sure how to best describe the overall unlikability in the writing/acting, but this hindered the movie so much.
- the idea that a government would produce advertisements saying it's still around despite lots of other governments falling with lots of pride is not right/would not happen.
- i did not buy the idea that the youngest person in the world would be a celebrity who clearly hated his fame and fans and would be mourned like he was princess diana.
- jullianne moore was surprisingly bad/awkward, but i'm glad a well known person was cast because it made her death a little bit more shocking.
- i knew clive owen would die about an hour in because the heroic story of a man who used to care but doesn't anymore and then does and dies because of it was becoming pretty clear. not sure if that's a bad thing alone, but here it seemed unoriginal. maybe it's because five people wrote it.
- i truly don't know how they did some of the shots aside from actually doing them. they were astounding. eventually i gave up and let the movie be impossible.
- there are tons of genuinely thrilling, suspenseful, wonderful moments because of the use of all-in-oners. like the chase down the hill with the broken car. you get the sense it's not rigged because you can see the chasers chasing and the chasees escaping in the same frame. i really felt like maybe they'd be caught. and when owen was about to be executed, even though i knew he was going to get out of it, i had no idea how because i also knew he was going to do it all in one shot.
- i want to see it again.

[MacGuffin]

I was astounded by this film. There was so much tension, more so than a horror film, that I had no idea what was going to happen next and what direction it would take. It did a nice job of putting danger at every corner. This became the forefront for me that noticing the long takes was almost an afterthought for me. I was that focused and into the story.

[polkablues]

I can tell already... this movie is going to be the cause of the Great Schism in Xixax.  Brother will fight against brother, and the series of tubes that is the internet will run red with blood.  And it's all going to end in one big apocalyptic "West Side Story"-style dance-off.

EDIT: In this analogy, the people who liked Children of Men are the Jets; those who don't are the filthy PRs.

[Sunrise]

picolas...just wanted to respond to a few things you wrote:

** SPOILERS **

- i didn't like any of the characters. they weren't very nice. except for caine, but he was still kind of weird with his newfangled music. not to say that many of the characters weren't good people. they were just kind of.. passive-aggressive and narcissistic? i'm not sure how to best describe the overall unlikability in the writing/acting, but this hindered the movie so much.

I felt this way at the beginning of the film and I'm sure that was the intended reaction. What characters (besides the one that is in a wonderful state of hash heaven 24/7) in that world aren't going to be 'passive-aggressive and narcissistic'? I think Theo's general demeanor and state of mind at the beginning of the film seemed quite true to his character and, for me at least, made his actions and his journey all the more meaningful.

- the idea that a government would produce advertisements saying it's still around despite lots of other governments falling with lots of pride is not right/would not happen.

Impossible for anyone to know, but I disagree with your certainty. Advertisements/propaganda are a great way to drum-up a nationalistic/herd behavior and especially when the viewers' country is the only surviving nation. Whether that was actually true, or just the way the British government wanted to portray it, I imagine it had an effect of pacifying the nation in regard to anarchy and concurrently stimulating hatred against non-nationals. Once again, I found it true to the narrative.

- jullianne moore was surprisingly bad/awkward, but i'm glad a well known person was cast because it made her death a little bit more shocking.

I thought she was a little awkward as well, but she was given a thankless part. What more could she do with it? But I was just as shocked by how quickly she exited the film.

- i knew clive owen would die about an hour in because the heroic story of a man who used to care but doesn't anymore and then does and dies because of it was becoming pretty clear. not sure if that's a bad thing alone, but here it seemed unoriginal. maybe it's because five people wrote it.

Am I the only one that thought Theo's mortality at the end of the film was ambiguous? Also, I think the screenwriting credit is a little misleading. Cuaron has repeatedly said that three of the credited writers didn't do anything and were forced credits by the guild. He is adamant that what is on screen is his product along with one of the other writers.

- i truly don't know how they did some of the shots aside from actually doing them. they were astounding. eventually i gave up and let the movie be impossible.
- there are tons of genuinely thrilling, suspenseful, wonderful moments because of the use of all-in-oners. like the chase down the hill with the broken car. you get the sense it's not rigged because you can see the chasers chasing and the chasees escaping in the same frame. i really felt like maybe they'd be caught. and when owen was about to be executed, even though i knew he was going to get out of it, i had no idea how because i also knew he was going to do it all in one shot.
- i want to see it again.

I couldn't agree more and I would definitely recommend a second viewing...it will do nothing but add to any positives you took away the first time around.

[adolfwolfli]

samsong wrote: "...this is a disappointingly flaccid film, one that seems like it was written by kids in middle school for an assignment where they had to imagine some sort of dystopia".  I couldn't disagree more.  Have you looked at the images coming out of Iraq, Lebanon, Darfur, and other war-torn regions currently scattered across this increasingly chaotic world of ours?  They look hauntingly, nervously similar to Children of Men.  I thought this film might have been one of the more detailed, powerful, and authentic visions of a crumbling society ever put on film.  At times, it was positively chilling.  And I don't think technical achievement is the only thing the film has going for it – the characters were very well developed for what is mostly a "chase" or "action" film – Clive Owen's relationship with Michael Caine's character, especially, was very tender and believable.  Overall, a haunting film that I can't shake. 

[ᾦɐļᵲʊʂ]

i didn't like any of the characters. they weren't very nice. except for caine, but he was still kind of weird with his newfangled music. not to say that many of the characters weren't good people. they were just kind of.. passive-aggressive and narcissistic? i'm not sure how to best describe the overall unlikability in the writing/acting, but this hindered the movie so much.

That was one of the qualities I kind of liked about it.  How exactly would people act as no one can reproduce, so the current society as we know it is going down the shitter.  Also, on the music, because it's roughly 18 years into the future, rap would be sort of like oldies and songs like King Crimson's "Court of the Crimson King" would come off as more classical as the luxurious car pulls up.  It wasn't a too distant future, so the music was subtle enough to present that.

[picolas]

I felt this way at the beginning of the film and I'm sure that was the intended reaction.

i think so because the arch of owen is the guy who doesn't care ends up caring, but there were many other moments that seemed like they were supposed to be endearing somehow like when owen met the only pregnant girl and the first thing she said was "the fuck you looking at?" it was such an utterly stupid line/moment that it was tough to look beyond it and sympathize/root for her for the rest of the movie.

How exactly would people act as no one can reproduce, so the current society as we know it is going down the shitter. 

maybe people would realize the importance of their lives and generally hold each other closer. that tends to happen in other good movies about survival. it seems tougher/more exhausting to use your dying moments to be an ass than to be a non-ass.