Children of Men -- other fans?

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 1:11pm

MILD SPOILERS (no more than reviews). I was late(r) to this film, but found it every bit as provocative and riveting as most reviewers. And it's a "yin" dystopian film in a "yang" world, i.e. Cuaron has a unique take on the mega-violent future, buidling his entire story around P.D. James' Christic plot centerpiece, a pregnant woman in a barren world. For a movie that doesn't back away from showing the brutality and carnage in a terrorism focused world, it has a beautific sense of light and calm atits center -- the miracle of life. At a key moment late in the story, that miracle literally causes the ugliest and most heinous human behavior to ebb and fully retreat in its presence. It wrings tears without contrived tragedy or sentimentality. The screenplay's 3rd act is the most harrowing and perversely the most uplifting.

People may think it's a downer -- and be forwarded, some of the deaths depicted in the story are most vivid and unsettling -- yet it's also one of the most spiritual movies currently available.

Don't be turned off by the odd, esoteric title, or the ad campaign that makes it look like a cross between V for VENDETTA and 28 DAYS. This film is special, and unlike many, truly haunting. You can't stop thinking about for days.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 1:30pm

To be honest, I haven't thought about it since I saw it. I am in the extreme, extreme minority - but I absolutely hated it. Nice direction, but I hated it. Not what I wanted it to be.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 3:28pm

Two friends agreed with Munk. One refused to tell me why he hated it. "I just HATED IT. Period!" When I said it's because it pushed his buttons, he wouldn't talk further.

[AC126748]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 3:35pm

Agree with Munk. I wanted so to love it, and I really tried, but the film keeps the audience at arm's length throughout, and is static. Clive Owen and the direction/cinematography were effective, but that's about it.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 4:04pm

If it scored a BP nomination, I would see it again. If not, I'll wait for DVD.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 5:07pm

Amazing film.

[Mandi Moo]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 5:12pm

I didn't like how they ended it. Even just letting it fade to black would have been better than stamping "CHILDREN OF MEN" on the screen.

I did like it though. It wasn't at all what I was expecting it to be, and I felt that it was a bit slow in parts, but overall I really enjoyed it.

[duroc]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 8:49pm

There were some aspects of it that I enjoyed. I thought the acting was good, as was the cinematography. And the script was well written - you could tell that by the complexity of the story that it had come from a novel.

Overall, though, I wasn't too impressed. I think it is a bit over rated. And, Mandi Moo I agree with you about the ending. I thought it was too abrupt. In fact, it reminded me a little of the ending from The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym.

[everythingtaboo]

Posted: 1/15/07 at 9:16pm

It didn't really end with the "Children of Men" card. If you listened in the background, it was the sound of children laughing...which keyed into the speech about what had become without that sound filling it. It hinted there was a future now.

Without a doubt, a lot of people will be disappointed, because it's not a typical way to tell the tale. Little in the way of score or dramatic flourish, it's a verite as you can get with a film set in the future. And it's supposed to have little heart - the world as it was depicted reflected an almost total lack of it. Clive Owen was really great, starting the movie completely numb, and gradually finding heart, his purpose.

In its own gritty way, a beautiful film.

[buffyactsing]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 8:52pm

I wasn't a fan. I didn't even really appreciate most of the cinematography except the shot where Kee was in the barn and there was a beautiful shot of her from afar. I also loved Micheal Caine. I thought I was going to love it based on the topic, but it really seemed more like an intelligent action film that just went on and on and had nothing new to say. I was so dissapointed and I hate to say it...bored.

The only thing that was exciting for me is that most of the actors were normal looking aka not "super glamorous/beautiful" which you usually only see in foreign films like these.

I love downers. Dancer in the Dark is one of my favorite movies of all time. This just didn't do anything for me. Maybe I'll see it down the line and be able to appreciate it.

Updated On: 1/21/07 at 08:52 PM

[shesamarshmallow]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 9:05pm

And the script was well written - you could tell that by the complexity of the story that it had come from a novel.

I completely disagree - you could tell from the simplicity of the story that it was based on a short story. The screenplay didn't do much to flesh it out, and I think it was severely underwritten.

That said, it made the direction all the more impressive. I loved all the background details that were put in to give us a fully realized world. It was impeccibly made and had some amazing set pieces.

So, like I said when I saw it, as an experience sitting in a movie theater it's one of the best and most thrilling I've had in the past few years, but as a movie it's really only so-so.

[aspen]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 9:09pm

"Overall, though, I wasn't too impressed."

This is my sentiment. Thinking back, I enjoyed most aspects of the movie--acting, direction, and the general premise--but for some reason it just didn't make a lasting impression on me. I didn't feel the need to dwell on it and analyze it afterward, which for me is the mark of a movie I really love. The again, that might be because I went with a friend to Wicked right after seeing it, which would numb anyone's brain. In any case, I'll try watching again when it comes out on DVD, if only for Michael Caine's wonderful performance.

[TheHumanTorch]

Posted: 1/21/07 at 10:55pm

i really enjoyed this film, definitely one of my favorites of 2006

[broadway86]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 12:52am

An absolutely brilliant film, one brimming with ideas and a disturbingly believable vision of the future. This movie has scenes that absolutely floored me. Fine performances all around, including Clive Owen, Michael Caine, and Pam "Miss Trunchbull" Ferris.

If this movie doesn't win the Oscar for Best Cinematography, something is very, very wrong.

[Revolutionary]

Posted: 1/23/07 at 1:05am

Loved this movie, it stayed with me for days after I saw it. I actually felt drained afterwards, and that never happens. Powerful stuff.

I just hope it gets nominated for more than best cinematography.

[sidneybruhl]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 7:02pm

Since the DVD was released today I wanted to bump this thread. I read the book and loved it but haven't seen the movie. From what I've read of the film, it seems like they may made some major changes. Would love to hear from anyone who has read the book and seen the movie. How do they compare?

[spiderdj82]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 7:07pm

I just finished watching it, like 5 minutes ago. I honestly don't know what I think of it. I mean, it was good but I guess I have to let it settle in my brain first before I come up with a honest opinion. But, no doubt the acting and cinematography were brilliant though.

[Cruel_Sandwich]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 7:56pm

Incredible movie. The entire message of the film moved me to tears. That the spirit of humanity will transcend any sort of political or military issue...

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 10:28pm

I saw it again in theatres, after my prior comment.

I certainly liked it more - hell, I liked it enough to purchase it today - but I wouldn't (by any stretch of the imagination) call it "incredible." Great cinematography, great editing, nice performances. Solid film, but incredible? The book is incredible, but the film was pretty standard, I thought.

[broadway86]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 11:46pm

Seen it three times. A masterpiece, and a future classic. imho, robbed of a BP nom, and a win for Best Director.

[munkustrap178]

Posted: 3/27/07 at 11:57pm

Broadway!

STOP joking around.

[Auggie27]

Posted: 3/28/07 at 10:05am

I agree that it was unfairly shut out of the Oscars in many categories. Let's start with the obvious -- the direction. And then (I'm a minority), Michael Caine's exquisite performance. One of the most underappreciated ... well, since Dennis Quaid's in FAR FROM HEAVEN. He doesn't chew scenery, but he's integral, and his character haunts me. I love Arkin, but to my thinking, Caine's work here is classic.

[sweetestsiren]

Posted: 3/28/07 at 12:53pm

I definitely appreciated it and think it was a well-made film, but it's not something that's stayed with me after seeing it. Cuaron's direction is always interesting and his movies are visually just stunning, but that was the best aspect for me.

[Mister Matt]

Posted: 3/28/07 at 6:14pm

I was pleasantly surprised by the film. I wasn't sure what to expect, but I really enjoyed the poignant unconventional science fiction story I witnessed on screen. The third act of the film was absolutely gripping and contained one of the most realistic battle scenes I've ever seen in a movie theatre. I was gripping the arms of my cushy reclining stadium seat. I would definitely watch it again.

[cheezedoodle]

Posted: 3/28/07 at 6:23pm

Loved this film. In fact - I walked out of Best Buy with it last night, along with Happy Feet and Mary Hartman, Mary Hartman. I shudder to think what that might mean.