Children of Men

junkeR · Post by **junkeR** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:16 am

Anyone see this movie? Any thoughts on it?

This is one of those movies I just can't seem to get out of my head. I keep replaying scenes and thinking about it. I watched it last night with my girlfriend and I was, for the most part, impressed. I didn't like how it ended but that's fine.

I think I may have to watch it a few more times and fully understand everything about it.

CMoon · Post by **CMoon** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:24 am

I missed it at the theatre--still wan't to watch it.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:29 am

My wife really likes it. I plan on watching it a second time this coming week. There is some impressive technical stuff-- seamless, lengthy, unedited shots that extend over a variety of scenes of action, and that sort of thing. Impressive set designs.

futurebiblehero · Post by **futurebiblehero** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 12:54 am

Out of all of the movies I've seen in the past few years, it's hands down my favorite. People often argue that the plot is too straightforward to be better than, say, Pan's Labyrinth, but that doesn't diminish it's effectiveness for me. I was completely shell-shocked the first time I seen it in theatres; you don't get that too often with action movies these days.

Gorecki · Post by **Gorecki** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 1:04 am

I watched it not knowing a thing about it and was blown away. It's one of the finest pieces of directing I've seen, and the whole look and atmosphere of the film is absolutely perfect. Superb plot as well.

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:21 am

It's a pretty Catholic movie. Right-wing in the sense of "Ohnoes women can't have babies anymore, what will we use them for?" The suicide pills thing too. But left-wing in other areas, like opposing fascism, xenophobia, etc.

People say the first 10 minutes of a movie can usually be cut out completely, that was the part of the film that I liked. The exploding cafe and etc., very scary. I also liked that it was a dark tone overall and a sort of ending very rare for hollywood flicks. But please don't go see it 'for the special effects,' it's 2007 heres. The ending was just stupid though, I won't give it away. Well I will.

*spoilers from hereon*

God, the ending was just hilarious though. "Theo? THEO! NNNOOOOOOOO!" the only way that could have been more played would be if she shook her fists in rage at the heavens. I got a lot of nasty looks in the theater after cracking up letmetellyou. I'd like to see a youtube thing with Vader from episode 3 overdubbed.

subcons · Post by **subcons** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 2:35 am

Not movie of the year for me and it doesn't bear repeated viewing IMO, but an excellent film worth seeing at least once.

This movie has some of the best, well done long takes ever. Either that or some insanely seemless editing. The one continuous shot in the war torn city towards the end seems like 20 fucking minutes.

Daigohji · Post by **Daigohji** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 7:19 pm

Easily one of the best films of last year. It had such a cohesive, relentless atmosphere and was an interesting world to explore.

DBH87 · Post by **DBH87** » Thu Mar 29, 2007 10:16 pm

junkeR wrote:Anyone see this movie? Any thoughts on it?

This is one of those movies I just can't seem to get out of my head. I keep replaying scenes and thinking about it. I watched it last night with my girlfriend and I was, for the most part, impressed. I didn't like how it ended but that's fine.

I think I may have to watch it a few more times and fully understand everything about it.

my favourite bit was when clive owen had the bag over his head and that guy was saying we'll be watching you, when you're at work, when you sleep, when you take a piss we'll be watching. ALL the F**king time.

Clive Owen replies with Geez you're breath stinks, no it doesnt, yes it does:):)

watch that bit about ten times

Dann · Post by **Dann** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 3:30 am

I thought it was mediocre, personally. certainly not as good as pans labyrinth or Babel.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 5:03 am

i liked the south park parody of children of men

Neon · Post by **Neon** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 6:12 pm

Twiddle wrote:i liked the south park parody of children of men

link PLZ.

Twiddle · Post by **Twiddle** » Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:28 pm

Neon wrote:
Twiddle wrote:i liked the south park parody of children of men
link PLZ.

it was last week's episode dude

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 3:08 am

I'm half-watching this right now. Pay attention to the animals. They are present in nearly every scene.

Nuke · Post by **Nuke** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 11:59 am

Twiddle wrote:i liked the south park parody of children of men

Aye, it sums up it's silliness perfectly.

ktownhero · Post by **ktownhero** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 2:33 pm

junkeR wrote:Anyone see this movie? Any thoughts on it?

This is one of those movies I just can't seem to get out of my head. I keep replaying scenes and thinking about it. I watched it last night with my girlfriend and I was, for the most part, impressed. I didn't like how it ended but that's fine.

I think I may have to watch it a few more times and fully understand everything about it.

While I recognize that Children of Men is an incredible feat in cinematography and book translation, my final verdict on the movie is that it is pretty terrible. It has a cool premise, but does not deliver on it. The movie is overly dark and depressing, and there's never any explanation about what is going on. It's just like suddenly in this short time span humans can't have babies any more... Oh, except for one random woman... and everybody wants her baby for no obvious reason. In the effort to get the baby to the "Human Project," (and what the hell is that?), they have to go through the darkest, craziest shit ever. Nothing makes sense, nothing is explained, everything is depressing.

Like I said, the camera work is impressive, the movie itself blows. Go see the director's friends movies, Pan's Labyrinth and Babel, they are far superior films.

professor ganson · Post by **professor ganson** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 5:42 pm

ktownhero wrote: The movie is overly dark and depressing, and there's never any explanation about what is going on. It's just like suddenly in this short time span humans can't have babies any more... Oh, except for one random woman... and everybody wants her baby for no obvious reason. In the effort to get the baby to the "Human Project," (and what the hell is that?), they have to go through the darkest, craziest shit ever. Nothing makes sense, nothing is explained, everything is depressing.

These were all things I liked about the movie. Though, yeah, perhaps a bit too depressing and, yeah, the cinematography is what's most remarkable. And the use of animals.

Necronom · Post by **Necronom** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:27 pm

I think the movie is meant to be seriously depressing and dark...I mean humanity is on the brink of extinction, no babys = no future, fucking end of the world shit. The settings of the film reminded me very much of the city and rural landscape in Half Life 2, only way more realistic, political and pretty much doomed.
Nothing is explained?! Erm, seriously? It's pretty obvious that the baby has a very different value to the different factions - politicians and terrorists want to use it as propaganda, the government wants it for experiments in order to find out why it suddenly worked, for many people the baby is like a messiah and the Human Project, like the name says, they probably want to find out why it was born too so they can change the situation, give humanity a second chance...
The good thing about Children of Men is it's not some ultra-stylized Hollywood rollercoaster ride that asks a question in order to shove down a politically correct answer down the throat of the viewer 30 seconds later

ktownhero · Post by **ktownhero** » Sat Apr 21, 2007 9:48 pm

Necronom wrote:The good thing about Children of Men is it's not some ultra-stylized Hollywood rollercoaster ride that asks a question in order to shove down a politically correct answer down the throat of the viewer 30 seconds later

That might be a good thing, but that doesn't make a good movie. There are plenty of films out there that don't follow the traditional Hollywood formula. Some are good, some are bad. I happen to think this one is bad, but of course that is just my opinion.

Have you seen Babel and Pan's Labyrinth? They were made by this director's best friends, and I'd say they are far superior films over all.

D · Post by D » Sun Apr 22, 2007 4:49 am

ktownhero wrote:It is pretty terrible. It has a cool premise, but does not deliver on it. The movie is overly dark and depressing, and there's never any explanation about what is going on. It's just like suddenly in this short time span humans can't have babies any more... Oh, except for one random woman... and everybody wants her baby for no obvious reason. In the effort to get the baby to the "Human Project," (and what the hell is that?), they have to go through the darkest, craziest shit ever. Nothing makes sense, nothing is explained, everything is depressing.

Like I said, the camera work is impressive, the movie itself blows. Go see the director's friends movies, Pan's Labyrinth and Babel, they are far superior films.

We should all check out the movies you recommended.
The "for no obvious reason" goes for almost all movies I ever saw. I almost feel some kind of parody on movies in general was hidden in this movie. For an English film I thought it was pretty impressive. It has a few laughs in it. It's just a little bit different from other movies. I cannot imagine you regret watching it though.

kengou · Post by **kengou** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:01 pm

I just watched this thing last night. I was definitely impressed with the long-takes and camera work and directing. The action scenes were also really visceral and gritty, but in a good way (too many movies try and fail). I'm also really glad it was so nontraditional; I don't think Clive Owen actually shot anybody in the whole film, he wasn't an action hero and that felt really refreshing.

The story, though... wtf? It came down to a basic Hidden Fortress plot (we have something the bad guys want, we need to escort it to the good guys through bad guy territory). The premise, while really interesting, was never really explained, which seriously brought the movie down. Why can't people have babies? That's a HUGE plot point that is barely addressed, and it makes the fact that someone actually IS pregnant that much less meaningful. For that matter how can that woman have a baby while nobody else can? It really isn't explained, and it needed to be. A lot of the plot just felt loose like that; like, why they needed to put themselves into prison in the middle, or why there was suddenly tons of fighting near the end. Maybe somebody yelled it out in an incomprehensible accent, but I just didn't catch any reason behind half of what happened.

So... interesting movie, but I'm guessing everyone who said they love it doesn't care as much about plot as cinematography?

charlie chong · Post by **charlie chong** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 2:31 pm

meh the whole story had been done before and the b-movie style ending was terrible

the end section in the city was cool enough visually i guess..

Lordstar · Post by **Lordstar** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 3:11 pm

i missed it too. but i intend to watch it.

neorichieb1971 · Post by **neorichieb1971** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 6:29 pm

I was impressed by the movie the first time through.

What I want to know is why Denmark is the only damn country in the world to have it on Blu ray.

I'd give it 4/5.

Post by **Shatterhand** » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:31 pm

The reason why women can't get pregnant anymore isn't explained because the humans DON'T KNOW what happened. I thought that was obvious? It isn't explained because no one in the movie know why it happened.

At the same time, no one knows why the girl managed to get pregnant, so again the viewer never knows why this happened because no one in the movie knows either.

Not everything in a movie has to be explained. In this case, it doesn't matter why, but the consequences of this. No more babies being born means the extinction of humanity very soon, and a women being pregnant means a new hope for humanity. The movie is about much more than that, it goes beyond the main plot, with lots of smaller details that have to be noticed.

Also, the long war scene at the ending wasn't one single shot, there are 3 cuts in there if I am not mistaken, yet it's extremely impressive, the logistics to do that scene must have been insane. Also that scene where they play with a ping-pong ball inside a car, while the camera rotates to frame each passenger of the car is EXTREMELY impressive, I have no idea of how they did that shot...

kengou · Post by **kengou** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 12:06 am

I know they gave an "Explanation" being that there WAS no explanation, but that's seriously weak. A real sci-fi story has to have some fictional element of the universe protrayed in the story, and it has to explore that element. In Children, it's the no-preggo thing. They introduce the premise but they don't explain what caused it which lends it virtually no weight. The story fails to explore the only major sci-fi element, and fails to examine anything ABOUT it, which really changes this from the possibility of "interesting sci-fi action movie" to "gritty action movie set in a dystopian future with an almost-interesting premise".

Zebra Airforce · Post by **Zebra Airforce** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:25 am

I didn't know there was a movie! I read the book not too long ago. It was good.

dpful · Post by **dpful** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 6:20 am

kengou wrote:I know they gave an "Explanation" being that there WAS no explanation, but that's seriously weak. A real sci-fi story has to have some fictional element of the universe protrayed in the story, and it has to explore that element. In Children, it's the no-preggo thing. They introduce the premise but they don't explain what caused it which lends it virtually no weight. The story fails to explore the only major sci-fi element, and fails to examine anything ABOUT it, which really changes this from the possibility of "interesting sci-fi action movie" to "gritty action movie set in a dystopian future with an almost-interesting premise".

Sci fi should be more than that even. The foreign/fantastic concept should unveil something unique or interesting about regular stuff- attitudes or reactions or whatever. I thought the strange setting of the movie didn't really reinforce the motivations of the characters, which was pretty regular wartime struggle mumbo jumbo. Good action setup, though. I think that's why the movie was particularly un-uplifting. It's because nothing unusual really happened.

Also, I really disliked pan's labyrinth. It seemed like two seperate concepts (about the girl and the general guy), and the whole movie hinged on the interaction between their lives, yet I felt their lives were almost totally seperate and neither seemed to have a clue about the other, which seemed to invalidate the whole plot. It was like the audience could have used some fantasy escape world (after watching the guy for so long), but not the girl, who was never even around. Unless she just really hated living in the mountains.

Post by **Shatterhand** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:23 pm

kengou wrote:I know they gave an "Explanation" being that there WAS no explanation, but that's seriously weak. A real sci-fi story has to have some fictional element of the universe protrayed in the story, and it has to explore that element. In Children, it's the no-preggo thing. They introduce the premise but they don't explain what caused it which lends it virtually no weight. The story fails to explore the only major sci-fi element, and fails to examine anything ABOUT it, which really changes this from the possibility of "interesting sci-fi action movie" to "gritty action movie set in a dystopian future with an almost-interesting premise".

Who said this is a "real sci-fi story"?

kengou · Post by **kengou** » Tue Jul 15, 2008 3:52 pm

Shatterhand wrote:
kengou wrote:I know they gave an "Explanation" being that there WAS no explanation, but that's seriously weak. A real sci-fi story has to have some fictional element of the universe protrayed in the story, and it has to explore that element. In Children, it's the no-preggo thing. They introduce the premise but they don't explain what caused it which lends it virtually no weight. The story fails to explore the only major sci-fi element, and fails to examine anything ABOUT it, which really changes this from the possibility of "interesting sci-fi action movie" to "gritty action movie set in a dystopian future with an almost-interesting premise".
Who said this is a "real sci-fi story"?

A number of people I've seen online raving about the movie as a really good science fiction movie. I guess what I mean is, it felt like it was trying to be science-fiction, but it failed. It introduced a science-fiction like premise but then completely failed to deliver on it.

shmups.system11.org

Children of Men

Children of Men

Re: Children of Men

Re: Children of Men

Re: Children of Men

Re: Children of Men