Children of Men-

welsh

Junkmaster
240706_children_of_men.jpg


Has anyone seen it? The story is apocalyptic, playing on the theme of infertility and inability to reproduce.

This concept has also been used in Margaret Atwood's Handmaiden's Tale and Frank Herbert's The White Plague.

What did you think?
Great Cast. Reviewers seem to like it.

Review from Rolling Stone-

Children of Men

Starring: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Charlie Hunnam, Michael Caine, Gary Oldman

Directed by: Alfonso Cuaron

RS: 3.5of 4 Stars Average User Rating: 3.5of 4 Stars

2006 Universal Pictures All Movies
One of the pleasures of modern movies is watching an artist like Alfonso Cuarón at work. His Y Tu Mamá También is easily the most erotic explosion of the new decade and he made the only Harry Potter flick (The Prisoner of Azkaban) that found darkness and depth beneath the gloss. In the spellbinding Children of Men, his best film to date, Cuarón, 46, fills every frame with his passion and intellect. Here’s a movie that grabs you hard, pops your eyes, provokes your mind and ultimately lifts your spirits. As director and co-writer, Cuarón, born in Mexico City, takes on a 1992 novel by P.D. James set in 2027 in battle-battered Britain, the only country left to soldier on in the face of massive terrorism, immigrant invasion and global infertility (no child has been born since 2009). The death of Baby Diego, at eighteen the youngest living person, has caused a period of national mourning.

Hope is the first casualty among survivors, who include Theo (Clive Owen), a former activist playing out his days as a bureaucrat for the Ministry of Energy. Owen’s powerfully implosive performance lets us see past the barriers Theo has erected around his emotions. Theo is a shell of a man until his former lover, Julian (Julianne Moore), begs him to help the Fishes, underground rebels dedicated to aiding refugees, called "fugees," who are regularly captured, tortured and kept in cages. Since Theo and Julian share the sorrow of having had a son who died, Theo agrees to slip a fugee named Kee (the remarkable newcomer Clare-Hope Ashitey) past the police to find safety with the utopian Human Project. But when Kee’s secret is revealed -- she’s eight months pregnant -- she and everyone who sides with her become a target for special-interest groups of conflicting and sometimes lethal motives.

Those motives can be maddeningly unclear at times. But a second viewing, which Children of Men richly rewards, deepens our understanding. Cuarón, invoking shattered landscapes from Beirut to Baghdad, is dedicated to locating shards of humanity among the ruins. That he does, not just in the person of Jasper (a hilarious and heartbreaking Michael Caine), a former political cartoonist now devoted to weed, rap music and sticking it to the system, but in the small details that measure what our planet has lost. Is it possible to capture the terrible absence of a world without children? Cuarón does it. His chief collaborator is director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki, a weaver of visual miracles. No movie in the last year is more redolent of sorrowful beauty and exhilarating action. You don’t just watch the scene -- shot with a hand-held camera -- in which Theo, Kee and other passengers jammed in a car with them are attacked from all sides, you live inside it, ducking each fresh, ferocious assault. The technique disappears to envelop you in the moment. That’s Cuarón’s magic.

I’m not usually one for political fables that include symbols such as a ship called Tomorrow. But Cuarón has a gift only the greatest filmmakers share: He makes you believe.

PETER TRAVERS

(Posted: Dec 28, 2006)

So your thoughts?

What do you think would happen if, slowly, mankind discovered that it could no longer reproduce the species?
 
i've seen it, but i'm not all that hyped about it. it's ok to see once, but i doubt i'll ever watch it again. acting is fairly solid and all, but the movie just doesnt work that well for me.

as for what would happen: total anarchy? :)
 
I've seen it - I guess it wasn't an all too bad movie, yet still I wouldn't give it more than two stars out of four.
It's a fairly predicteable movie, from what I remember - and it never really 'drags you in', since it uses those same 'CHARACTER EVOLUTIONZ' character progression arcs you've already seen in ten million movies.
The idea might seem promising, but the execution left me a bit wanting.
 
I've been wanting to see it but its wide opening has been slowgoing in the US. Eventually it will come to where I live.

As for infertility... there'd be more sex? Birth control sales would plummet?
 
It kinda reminded me of 28 Days Later, in the sense that the cinematography was an attempt to be a little grittier, but at the same time almost halcyonian......both did use the same type of camera system, well sort of, one with the Canon XL1S and the other with the Arriflex...

Boring.....sorry about that, who cares, Ive been reading posts on here for 3-4 hours, trying to catch up with what ive been missing for the past few years of constant travel.....
 
For those in the US, did this ever come out? I really wanted to see this, Pan's Labrynth and Babel but NONE of the movies came out in my area. What's the deal?
 
I thought it was pretty cool. Without spoiling anything, I didn't quite like the end though, and it did have some silly moments. All in all it's easily worth a watch, though.

But what's with your cinemas? I saw it in November last year - in Prague, which is supposed to be in a second world country.
 
That's what you get when you live in some hick backwoods town....of New York? :scratch:

That's kinda strange, SimpleMinded. Pan's Labyrinth (which premiered in NY) and Children of Men were most likely limited releases but... they were definitely in some theaters. Babel is now available for rent so that's shouldn't be too hard to see (just avoid that evil Blockbuster).
 
SimpleMinded: All three released here, and to wide critical acclaim, but I may be a bit spoiled since I live in the SF Bay Area and we can usually count on being targeted as part of the marketing blitz for any "Experimental" films.

As far as Children of Men goes, it was... interesting. Didn't really serve as an action movie, a suspense thriller, a character study, or... anything readily definable, come to that. It was just there to be watched... kind of weak, but visually very well-done and with a higher IQ than most recent cinematic fare. It's worth a rental, but don't expect any big thrills, spills, or chills. Supposedly, the book was better.
 
Totally awesome. Never seen more realistic shooting action in a movie.
 
I have seen it two, maybe three months ago... It´s intristing, but (for me) entirely without bigger emotions. IMHO even The Island is a better movie than CoM with completely dry Clive Owen.
 
xu said:
Totally awesome. Never seen more realistic shooting action in a movie.

Was it realistic when (highlight for major spoiler):


They came out of that building with the baby, and all the soldiers just stopped shooting upon hearing and seeing the baby, and no one did anything to take care of/make safe/take credit for the baby but just continued about their shooting business after they had passed with it? I think not!
 
I love this movie. Certainly on my top 10 list.

I like the way they portrayed the different characters and how rich they were in content bla bla... Its a good movie. Go see it.
 
It was pretty decent movie. My favorite part has to be when the guy on the floor is still alive with no torso :D

Other then that I would have to give it a 3 out of 5 some parts were rather corny.
 
First of all:

It kinda reminded me of 28 Days Later, in the sense that the cinematography was an attempt to be a little grittier, but at the same time almost halcyonian......both did use the same type of camera system, well sort of, one with the Canon XL1S and the other with the Arriflex...

Comparing the Canon XL1S and the Arriflex LT/235 is truly stupid. The XL1S isn't even as good as the DVX100 - and it's a far cry from 35mm film. The cinematography in Children of Men was nothing short of tremendous. The hand held work is astounding. If you watch the film with any sort of technical eye it's a real treat.

I thought Cuaron's direction was superb. There wasn't a faulty performance in the whole thing. The attention to detail was meticulous and at times overwhelming - talk about verisimilitude. The nod to Banksy was particularly clever.

If you look at the fertility stats from Europe (here http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4793997.stm is just one example) the idea of a real crisis sometime in the near future isn't that implausible. The script came from a very logical thinker and I felt that the world Cuaron created was overall very believeable. One critic called it "a Blade Runner for the 21st century" and I definitely agree. As much as I liked V for Vendetta I felt Children of Men to be a franker, grittier and smarter look at the disintegration of order and the danger of totalitarian leadership (cough cough American neo-conservatives cough cough). Not to mention its blistering critique of the War on Terror. Children of Men is the best sort of science fiction; the kind that shows us our own world from a different hilltop.
 
I liked it... good acting, excellent filming, great theme.

I like the big scene at the end when they're running through the city and you're following them.
 
Back
Top