Children of Men

[AmericanDragon 0]

http://www.apple.com/trailers/universal/childrenofmen/

 

It was the best movie I've seen all year. The trailer's tone is the complete opposite of the actual movie's. There are a lot of incredible tracking shots too.

[In Credible 0]

That looks quite good.

[brokentusk16 0]

I'm hoping to see it, but there are no theatres in driving distance that are showing it this week. Maybe after the new year it will pop up in my area.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

This was a great, great movie. So many good details, excellent performances, and one of the tightest, most propulsive narratives I've seen in a while. I loved how Cuaron avoided overloading the movie with "futuristic" stuff--it feels like he looked back 20 years, said "where were we then?," and then gradually modified stuff from present day to have that evolved but not unrealistic feel. Oh, and I loved the Tate Modern transformed into a big office building.

[Epic Reine 0]

The movie was amazingly shot and I loved how the action wouldn't let up or cut away. Top 5 of 2006 by far.

[brokentusk16 0]

Damn it! None of the theatres in my area are showing this film! I may have to wait and see it on DVD.

[theintensifier 0]

Anybody willing to give a spoiler-ish review?

[The Niggardly King 0]

It came pretty damn close to knocking off The Fountain for me. Children of Men is a top 10 movie of this decade for me.

[Lord of The Curry 0]

That right there is a no-joke, genuine candidate for best movie of this decade so far.

 

Goddamn. I'm not sure if it was meant to terrify but it did. What an absolutely vivid and intense portrait of a future that was. I can't think of anything else right now but what I saw a few hours ago.

 

I'll probably do a spoiler-ish review tommorow. Jesus.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

Very good movie. Kinda reminded me of Brian K Vaugahn's comic series "Y: The Last Man".

 

Pretty scary in its plausibility. I thought the really scary part was the suicide pills being advertised like medicinal drugs are now on TV.

[vivalaultra 0]

I just saw zee movie tonite, and I agree that it's awesome. Alfonso Cuaron is just....wonderful. Every shot in the movie was beautiful. The cinematography was off the chain. In addition to fine acting jobs by Clive Owen et al., the camerawork was extraordinary. It had a great documentary style. The one continuous shot in the refugee camp was breathtaking. The ending seemed, at first, to come out of nowehere, but totally worked and made sense. In every sense of the word, this film was fantastic.

[devo 0]

Fantastic film, with only two glaring flaws that I can name.

 

1) When Theo is chasing after Kee in the refugee camp, a little bit of liquid (probably meant to blood) is sprayed on the camera, and stays there for a minute or two. That's the only time the image is affected by what's going on in the scene, and it really took me out of the film while it was happening. The camera's either there or it isn't - you can't have it both ways.

 

2) The film ended way too abruptly. I'm not cool with none of the details about The Human Project being revealed after several characters died to get Kee to that boat.

 

Despite that, a terrific movie that captured the whole dystopian future thing better than any I've ever seen. The cinematographer deserves an Oscar for how brilliantly it was shot.

[theintensifier 0]

Fantastic film, with only two glaring flaws that I can name.

 

1) When Theo is chasing after Kee in the refugee camp, a little bit of liquid (probably meant to blood) is sprayed on the camera, and stays there for a minute or two. That's the only time the image is affected by what's going on in the scene, and it really took me out of the film while it was happening. The camera's either there or it isn't - you can't have it both ways.

 

2) The film ended way too abruptly. I'm not cool with none of the details about The Human Project being revealed after several characters died to get Kee to that boat.

 

Despite that, a terrific movie that captured the whole dystopian future thing better than any I've ever seen. The cinematographer deserves an Oscar for how brilliantly it was shot.

 

(1) I actually liked that. I thought it was rather odd at first, but it fit in well in my opinion.

 

(2) I agree 100% I disliked the ending very much, but I am realistic about it. It's one of those endings where you decide what happens. Right after the main picture goes down, and they go to the black background with the movie title, you can hear children and teen's laughing.

 

"Pull my finger!"

 

Top ten movies I've ever seen though. I really, really liked this movie. It leaves a lot of questions to be answered, and a sequel is very possible.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Fantastic film, with only two glaring flaws that I can name.

 

1) When Theo is chasing after Kee in the refugee camp, a little bit of liquid (probably meant to blood) is sprayed on the camera, and stays there for a minute or two. That's the only time the image is affected by what's going on in the scene, and it really took me out of the film while it was happening. The camera's either there or it isn't - you can't have it both ways.

I noticed that as well, but got away from it pretty quickly, because if I recall that was right near the absolutely perfect scene with Luke in the corner of the room firing out the window. "I used to have a sister..."

 

2) The film ended way too abruptly. I'm not cool with none of the details about The Human Project being revealed after several characters died to get Kee to that boat.

 

I'll go against the grain here and say I loved the ending. Hope for tomorrow, but who knows where it leads? For me, the point wasn't whether or not the Human Project were legit; that wasn't going to be what kept the world from falling apart. What would keep the world from falling apart--and the only reason it hadn't already collapsed completely--were people like Theo who, despite it all, were still trying to do something to save another person. The fighting will still go on, but Theo's whole arc is a small glimmer of hope in the middle of a firefight. A movie as daring and subtle as this one wouldn't have been suited to an attempt to explain the Human Project, and would have fizzled out like the last 20 minutes of something like AI.

[devo 0]

Fair enough. I don't mind the ending being really subtle so much as I do it being really abrupt.

[vivalaultra 0]

I think the ending was perfectly suited to the film. The point of view of the entire movie was Theo's POV. Every event in the film was seen through his eyes or in relation to him. The only information the audience had about events in the film occured because Theo heard the conversation where they occured or was present in the room where news of the event was posted. (ie-the conversation between Kee and Jasper explained alot of backstory about Theo's motivation, but the audience only heard it because Theo heard it. Same thing with the conversation between Luke and the Fish explaining their set-up murder of Julian. The audience only heard that conversation when Theo started listening in. When Theo died, that was the end of the movie. The children's laughter at the end, to me, suggested that Theo's job was done; he did his part to aid the human race, and, that was the end of the movie. He did his part and died...and that was that.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Fantastic film, with only two glaring flaws that I can name.

 

1) When Theo is chasing after Kee in the refugee camp, a little bit of liquid (probably meant to blood) is sprayed on the camera, and stays there for a minute or two. That's the only time the image is affected by what's going on in the scene, and it really took me out of the film while it was happening. The camera's either there or it isn't - you can't have it both ways.

I noticed that as well, but got away from it pretty quickly, because if I recall that was right near the absolutely perfect scene with Luke in the corner of the room firing out the window. "I used to have a sister..."

 

It would have been fine if the blood splatters hadn't mysteriously disappeared halfway through the shot, thus revealing the fact that it wasn't actually a continuous single shot but actually two (or more) digitally edited together to look like one.

[AmericanDragon 0]

Fantastic film, with only two glaring flaws that I can name.

 

1) When Theo is chasing after Kee in the refugee camp, a little bit of liquid (probably meant to blood) is sprayed on the camera, and stays there for a minute or two. That's the only time the image is affected by what's going on in the scene, and it really took me out of the film while it was happening. The camera's either there or it isn't - you can't have it both ways.

I noticed that as well, but got away from it pretty quickly, because if I recall that was right near the absolutely perfect scene with Luke in the corner of the room firing out the window. "I used to have a sister..."

 

It would have been fine if the blood splatters hadn't mysteriously disappeared halfway through the shot, thus revealing the fact that it wasn't actually a continuous single shot but actually two (or more) digitally edited together to look like one.

 

It was one continuous shot. Cuaron yelled cut when the blood got onto the camera but an explosion went off at the same time so no one heard him and the scene just continued. He liked the effect but then thought it got too distracting so had it digitally removed after a while. The scene in the car is the one that was edited together from separate shots.

[PUT THAT DICK IN MY MOUTH! 0]

Well then maybe he should have just left the blood splatters so people wouldn't get confused!

[buffybeast 0]

I started watching Children of Men last night and am intrigued by it so far. I haven't finished watching it yet I have several questions to post:

 

First, I am confused on the primace of this movie. Let me see if I understand this correctly: In 2009, the human race becomes infertile for some reason and the world goes mad? I don't understand the logic behind this. The world turns to anarchy because we can no longer reproduce? Does this make any sense? So thousands of people from shit hole countries flee to the UK for refuge, only to be caged up and deported? So foreigners are no longer allowed in the UK? Why? I'm very confused here.

[SuperJerk 0]

This thread is like reading transcripts of the Watergate tapes.

[AmericanDragon 0]

I started watching Children of Men last night and am intrigued by it so far. I haven't finished watching it yet I have several questions to post:

 

First, I am confused on the primace of this movie. Let me see if I understand this correctly: In 2009, the human race becomes infertile for some reason and the world goes mad? I don't understand the logic behind this. The world turns to anarchy because we can no longer reproduce? Does this make any sense? So thousands of people from shit hole countries flee to the UK for refuge, only to be caged up and deported? So foreigners are no longer allowed in the UK? Why? I'm very confused here.

 

The world went infertile in 2009 and the story takes place in 2027.

[Guest Fiscusalicious]

I started watching Children of Men last night and am intrigued by it so far. I haven't finished watching it yet I have several questions to post:

 

First, I am confused on the primace of this movie. Let me see if I understand this correctly: In 2009, the human race becomes infertile for some reason and the world goes mad? I don't understand the logic behind this. The world turns to anarchy because we can no longer reproduce? Does this make any sense? So thousands of people from shit hole countries flee to the UK for refuge, only to be caged up and deported? So foreigners are no longer allowed in the UK? Why? I'm very confused here.

 

The world went infertile in 2009 and the story takes place in 2027.

 

 

And no matter what the film proposes to say, it is blatantly clear that England here is meant to be the United States..straight down to the close-ups of anti-Iraq articles and "Bush" with a red blood x through it. The immigrant protection was even called "Homeland Security."

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

I started watching Children of Men last night and am intrigued by it so far. I haven't finished watching it yet I have several questions to post:

 

First, I am confused on the primace of this movie. Let me see if I understand this correctly: In 2009, the human race becomes infertile for some reason and the world goes mad? I don't understand the logic behind this. The world turns to anarchy because we can no longer reproduce? Does this make any sense? So thousands of people from shit hole countries flee to the UK for refuge, only to be caged up and deported? So foreigners are no longer allowed in the UK? Why? I'm very confused here.

Well, I'd finish watching it first. That should answer just about everything. But:

 

Of course the world goes to hell if mankind can no longer reproduce. That puts a finite timeline on the existence of humankind. With the youngest people in the world at least 18 years old, you're looking at extinction in less than a century, so accountability goes out the window for everyone who's left. The UK is established in the first 5 minutes as the only real surviving "superpower," particularly in Europe--they've managed to hold out some small semblance of infrastructure and daily life, mostly by instituting totalitarian and isolationist practices to the point that people from the outside are caged and shot. Immigrants are seeking refuge there because it's one of the last bastions of anything resembling "civilization," even if the policies barely keeping England on life support will almost certainly keep them out or kill them anyway. The world is hopeless, and so is pretty much everyone else in it.

[AmericanDragon 0]

I started watching Children of Men last night and am intrigued by it so far. I haven't finished watching it yet I have several questions to post:

 

First, I am confused on the primace of this movie. Let me see if I understand this correctly: In 2009, the human race becomes infertile for some reason and the world goes mad? I don't understand the logic behind this. The world turns to anarchy because we can no longer reproduce? Does this make any sense? So thousands of people from shit hole countries flee to the UK for refuge, only to be caged up and deported? So foreigners are no longer allowed in the UK? Why? I'm very confused here.

 

The world went infertile in 2009 and the story takes place in 2027.

 

 

And no matter what the film proposes to say, it is blatantly clear that England here is meant to be the United States..straight down to the close-ups of anti-Iraq articles and "Bush" with a red blood x through it. The immigrant protection was even called "Homeland Security."

 

 

The hooded man from Abu Ghraib.

[dubq 0]

I started watching Children of Men last night and am intrigued by it so far. I haven't finished watching it yet I have several questions to post:

 

First, I am confused on the primace of this movie. Let me see if I understand this correctly: In 2009, the human race becomes infertile for some reason and the world goes mad? I don't understand the logic behind this. The world turns to anarchy because we can no longer reproduce? Does this make any sense? So thousands of people from shit hole countries flee to the UK for refuge, only to be caged up and deported? So foreigners are no longer allowed in the UK? Why? I'm very confused here.

 

Paying attention to the movie might help you understand it's plot.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

I started watching Children of Men last night and am intrigued by it so far. I haven't finished watching it yet I have several questions to post:

 

First, I am confused on the primace of this movie. Let me see if I understand this correctly: In 2009, the human race becomes infertile for some reason and the world goes mad? I don't understand the logic behind this. The world turns to anarchy because we can no longer reproduce? Does this make any sense? So thousands of people from shit hole countries flee to the UK for refuge, only to be caged up and deported? So foreigners are no longer allowed in the UK? Why? I'm very confused here.

 

The world went infertile in 2009 and the story takes place in 2027.

 

 

And no matter what the film proposes to say, it is blatantly clear that England here is meant to be the United States..straight down to the close-ups of anti-Iraq articles and "Bush" with a red blood x through it. The immigrant protection was even called "Homeland Security."

 

I think you're right, but all of those articles & clippings also just showed that Michael Cane's character was an old left-wing activist. 20 years from now, opposition to the Iraq war will probably we somewhat akin to the way we view opposition to Vietnam today. Did that make sense?

 

My finocee asked me today,

why was Michael Cane's wife a vegetable? Was there some clue to that & one of the clippings on his wall?

[AmericanDragon 0]

I started watching Children of Men last night and am intrigued by it so far. I haven't finished watching it yet I have several questions to post:

 

First, I am confused on the primace of this movie. Let me see if I understand this correctly: In 2009, the human race becomes infertile for some reason and the world goes mad? I don't understand the logic behind this. The world turns to anarchy because we can no longer reproduce? Does this make any sense? So thousands of people from shit hole countries flee to the UK for refuge, only to be caged up and deported? So foreigners are no longer allowed in the UK? Why? I'm very confused here.

 

The world went infertile in 2009 and the story takes place in 2027.

 

 

And no matter what the film proposes to say, it is blatantly clear that England here is meant to be the United States..straight down to the close-ups of anti-Iraq articles and "Bush" with a red blood x through it. The immigrant protection was even called "Homeland Security."

 

I think you're right, but all of those articles & clippings also just showed that Michael Cane's character was an old left-wing activist. 20 years from now, opposition to the Iraq war will probably we somewhat akin to the way we view opposition to Vietnam today. Did that make sense?

 

My finocee asked me today,

why was Michael Cane's wife a vegetable? Was there some clue to that & one of the clippings on his wall?

 

[buffybeast 0]

What a dreadful movie. I just could not accept the basic premise for this movie and the subsequent aftermath/events that followed. The actors did a superb job and the cinematography was amazing. I simply cannot accept the underlying theme and events of the movie. It just seems far fetched.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Haha. I don't think you should watch movies.