Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Has anyone seen Children of men?

I thought it was really good, P.D James is a very good writer and i thought the film did the book justice

I know it has Cuaron at the helm, but I think this really looks awful.

Originally posted by Castle
Has anyone seen Children of men?

I thought it was really good, P.D James is a very good writer and i thought the film did the book justice


I thought it wasnt out till Christmas?

It's been shown at festivals.

I think it looks pretty damn good. I can't wait to see it.

currently the only other movie i want to see besides 300 and eragon

Originally posted by Castle
Has anyone seen Children of men?

I thought it was really good, P.D James is a very good writer and i thought the film did the book justice

Ive seen many trailers of it and it looks really good. its got clive owen it who is a really good actor to.

It came out in the UK. I wanted to see it, but I didn't get round to it seeing as there's so many films I want to see this month.

(Oooh I really want to see Eragon and 300 too.)

Dam i went to see that today only the cinema was full

It was released in Australia today-I intend to see it next week sometime.

Children of Men Trailer

Based on a P.D. James science-fiction novel, Children of Men is set in a futuristic dsytopia where humankind is on the brink of extinction and a sole pregnant woman holds the key to survival. A disillusioned bureaucrat (Clive Owen) and a woman from his past (Julianne Moore) are tasked with shepherding the pregnant woman to a secret organization that's been researching how to restore fertility to the world's population.

Cast: Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, Chjtwetel Ejiofor, Peter Mullan

Director: Alfonso Cuaron

Release Date: Christmas Day, 2006

I really want to see this, it seems like a compelling story, and great actors

Yeah saw the trailer for this a while ago, doesn't look like your every day run-of-the-mill film. I'm giving it a watch.

Saw it a while back, thought it was pretty good. Not as good as I expected, though. Clive Owen gives a really good performance.

Christmas day 2006? seriously? i saw it, like, a couple of months ago...

solid movie, not as good as i was hoping though...

Originally posted by Solo
I know it has Cuaron at the helm, but I think this really looks awful.
Originally posted by Solo
Saw it a while back, thought it was pretty good. Not as good as I expected, though. Clive Owen gives a really good performance.

So, you expected it to be awful, you actually thought it was pretty good, but this wasn't as good as you expected it to be?!?!?!?!

What?

Originally posted by Ya Krunk'd Floo
So, you expected it to be awful, you actually thought it was pretty good, but this wasn't as good as you expected it to be?!?!?!?!

What?

Well, the trailer looks pretty awful. But after a while, all the hype caught up with me. Critics calling it a masterpiece. So I went in with pretty high expectations.

It's pretty good, story line is limited but it paints a nice picture of our current society.

I saw it tonight, thought it was fantastic. Almost cried near the end. A very hard-hitting warning, I think.

The film's theatrical run got expanded to 1000+ theaters, practically wide release. So I'll be catching it again tomorrow. Everyone else should, as well, if not only for the cinematography.

great movie!

am I the only one who didnt think it was very good? Maybe i was expecting too much but I found parts laughable and it seemed like the writers decided to go on vacation early and just created the final half hour ending in about 5 minutes.

also clive owen winner of the worst death scene even

i thought it looked good...but i remember seeing a trailer for it a while back and figured it never got released

Originally posted by forumcrew
am I the only one who didnt think it was very good? Maybe i was expecting too much but I found parts laughable and it seemed like the writers decided to go on vacation early and just created the final half hour ending in about 5 minutes.

also clive owen winner of the worst death scene even
I respectfully disagree, I think it's probably the most human, and realistic death ever to take place on the silver screen.

i thought this film was absolutely amazing. the images we see are so haunting and powerful, and that action seen which is all in one shot is one of the most amazing and horrifying sequences i have seen in recent years. the ending was very abrupt, but it is better to end the film with people wanting more than wishing it would end already.

ok but they were so secretive the entire time then the writers arnt sure what to do so they just have them pull the baby out and stroll down the road. They go right past everyone on both sides and waltz over to the boat.... um if it was that ****in easy why didnt you do it an hour earlier?

Originally posted by forumcrew
ok but they were so secretive the entire time then the writers arnt sure what to do so they just have them pull the baby out and stroll down the road. They go right past everyone on both sides and waltz over to the boat.... um if it was that ****in easy why didnt you do it an hour earlier? a) you really don't need spoilers for that.
b) you obviously didn't understand the movie

i did understand the movie. They made a big point of being unable to go to the government or have the government find out. So under that assumption if you show the government a baby and have the woman who is fertile there they would detain her.

Originally posted by forumcrew
i did understand the movie. They made a big point of being unable to go to the government or have the government find out. So under that assumption if you show the government a baby and have the woman who is fertile there they would detain her. the concern was the fact that the mother was an illegal immigrant and they were afraid she would be tortured and killed

More importantly, not losing thier secret weapon to use against the gov't.
They didnt care about the actual mother at all.

And, I dont think it was that easy to walk over to the boat. He did get shot at by a few soldiers and I think was shot at with an heavy machine gun. Also, walking through the building while tanks were blasting it away with tank shells.

It was easy afterwords because individual soldiers were taken aback by the newborn baby, and didnt really care about orders because it was the first evidence of the future.

The original idea was to walk over to the boat, but they got inturupted.

Originally posted by Smasandian
More importantly, not losing thier secret weapon to use against the gov't.
They didnt care about the actual mother at all.well, the freedom fighters didn't, maybe, but Theo sure did

the original idea was the sneak to the boat and yea they got shot at by everyone. Then after he got the girl and baby back he just said forget being sneaky lets go out in the open maybe everyone will let us pass. And everyone let them go freely not one person tried to stop them.

Originally posted by forumcrew
the original idea was the sneak to the boat and yea they got shot at by everyone. Then after he got the girl and baby back he just said forget being sneaky lets go out in the open maybe everyone will let us pass. And everyone let them go freely not one person tried to stop them. because they were stunned to actually see a baby. After 18 years of infertility, wouldn't you be?

As Strangelove pointed out, those people seeing the baby were absoutly stunned. Didnt you notice all the people crying, praying, trying to touch the feet of the newborn baby? It's kinda of thier saviour to them.

Also, Strangelove, Theo did, but I dont think the Phishes really cared that much outside the fact that she might be useful for testing to see why she was pregnent. But other than that, once they had the baby, I dont think they cared less about her. I think.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Also, Strangelove, Theo did, but I dont think the Phishes really cared that much outside the fact that she might be useful for testing to see why she was pregnent. But other than that, once they had the baby, I dont think they cared less about her. I think. Right. But some of the Phishes wanted to keep the baby in the country so they could use it as a rallying flag against the totalitarian government

Yeah, I know.

Originally posted by Smasandian
Yeah, I know. fantastic

I thought it friggen ruled. Put the plot aside. It was such an easy concept, like some kind of silly thought P.D James has about women being infertile once and writes a book about it with that whole eerie 'what if' feeling

but Emmanuel Lubezki! what a beautiful cinematographer. His work on Sleepy Hollow was absolutely breath taking and most of what i was thinking through this entire movie was "holy crap these shots are beautiful."

baldhe

Originally posted by jusanotherfreak


baldhe

i was trying to figure out how to use the spoiler crap, but its editing system is anal:



The colors in the movie were so incredible. Even in a random moment where Theo was coming out of his door when he hears the motorcycle outside the Phishes' barn, and that one light was on in the hallway. The same sort of image was used when Kee was giving birth, and all they had was that one really bright lantern in the room. Everything in London and the Immigrant Camp was really washed out and bleak, grays and dark darks. Then in Jasper's house, and in that random Gypsy's friend's house, and the old school, they used color really nicely to create this really nostalgic sense of safety...
oh man i forgot how good that whole school scene was. With Kee on the swing framed in the broken piece of the window.

I'm going to shut up. Point is, Emmanuel Lubezki rules.

Everybody is talking about the visuals, but what about the sound!?! Like the beginning when there is an explosion that makes Clive's ears ring and the director has that ringing continue and slowly fade over a few minutes so you are experiencing what he is. Brilliant.

I quite enjoyed it, very realistic as to what the world would like if we were in the midst of such a disaster.

The imagery of a dying London was very disturbing. Michaelangelo's David with an iron leg, Picasso's Guerinca in a dining room, the flying pig balloon.

Speaking of sounds, the ending was a bit too happy for me though. The noises of children playing as the credit rolled.

The movie was awesome. Never gets boring. Michael Caine was also really good. I liked the way some of the movie was shot. I thought it was cool how some of the scenes were made in one shot, never cutting away. Made you feel included in the moment when that happened.

Originally posted by SpaceMonkey
The movie was awesome. Never gets boring. Michael Caine was also really good. I liked the way some of the movie was shot. I thought it was cool how some of the scenes were made in one shot, never cutting away. Made you feel included in the moment when that happened. Steadicam is the shit

Yeah, the tracking shot was fantastic. Best scene of the year.

My girlfriend proposed a date night for us tonight soooooooo we're going to see it this evening.

Saw it, liked it, but feel it's fairly overrated by the press. Had some great scoring, pretty interesting cinematography, but it ran a little too long, and was a little vague in fleshing out what exactly the freedom fighters really were looking to gain. For example, what political leverage they'd have with the child, considering the government was already killing off the immigrants, unless that was a hoax, and they really were just terrorists.

So, 6.5 out of 10..but I still liked it. I was just expecting a little more Sci Fi out of it, and less drama.

Originally posted by The Core
Saw it, liked it, but feel it's fairly overrated by the press. Had some great scoring, pretty interesting cinematography, but it ran a little too long, and was a little vague in fleshing out what exactly the freedom fighters really were looking to gain. For example, what political leverage they'd have with the child, considering the government was already killing off the immigrants, unless that was a hoax, and they really were just terrorists.

So, 6.5 out of 10..but I still liked it. I was just expecting a little more Sci Fi out of it, and less drama. ...it's not sci-fi....it's a futuristic drama.

I gathered that after a while, but it's based off of of a Sci Fi novel. There were a lot of things to suggest it was the future, but it still looked pretty primitive.

Originally posted by The Core
I gathered that after a while, but it's based off of of a Sci Fi novel. There were a lot of things to suggest it was the future, but it still looked pretty primitive. Well it's only 20 years in the future, and after nuclear war has devastated the entire world. I doubt technology would be moving in leaps and bounds.

i think the whole point was to show a future that is horrifying. the whole world has gone to hell. there is perpetual civil war, terrorism, epidemicks, racism, crime and poverty. because one of the elements of the world cuaron created was poverty, there isn't any high tech sci-fi stuff. When Theo visits his cousin who is wealthy, then we see the more advanced technology. and yeah it's only 20 years in the future. most movies over-estimate what technology will be like in the future.

^which makes children of men feel more down to earth and relatable. I just don't think I would be able to enjoy the movie that much if the soldiers were wearing power armor wielding laser rifles, while shooting up a multi platform city in hovertanks while the flying cars whizby.


.......

after writing all that, maybe i actually do

Originally posted by The Core
For example, what political leverage they'd have with the child

I think the point of some of that is to symbolize what political parties do today. Parties often don't do things because they are the right way to do things, but because they can show that they were right and the others were wrong so that in the future people side with them.

my god this was brilliant. clive owen was fantastic, michael caine was fantastic, alfonso cauron's direction was also fantastic. i was really impressed as i wasn't looking forward to this much and then i saw it and was utterly blown away by this movie.

I thought this movie was fantastic. Well writen, directred, acted. One of the best movies I have seen in a while.

i just watched it. it has to be the most emotionally stiring film of all time. i almost cried at the end, and i never cry at movies. Its magnificent: 5 stars.

Originally posted by Solo
Yeah, the tracking shot was fantastic. Best scene of the year.

when he is running through the battlefield to get tp the bulding near the end? if so, i totaly agree. maybe one of the best scenes of the decade.

meh. just saw it. it was pretty good. the only extraordinary elements were michael caine and some of the "saving private ryan" shots of clive owen running through the ghetto.

it was really predictable though, and using a baby as a metaphor for innocence/hope is a little obvious. i really was hoping it was going to be ultimately nihilistic, and either the human league didn't exist or some psychotic happens to trip key on the baby...something.

Yeah, in a world of global infertility, the first baby born in almost 2 decades dying would have made a much better film

it would have made it thematically more interesting, more complex.

just saw it.......SO amazing. one of the best movies i've seen in a long time, and Clive Owen is such an amazing actor and the film was just done so well! ugggh, awesome

Originally posted by manorastroman
it would have made it thematically more interesting, more complex. You want us to go extinct, don't you? ermm

There were tons of things in this film that were brilliant, and perhaps even innovative. The movement of that camera inside the car while they were trying to escape that ambush, absolutely amazing, a beautifully made film.

I really liked the film. I wouldn't put it in my top 10, but pretty close. I'm gonna watch it again. What do you guys think of the last scene?

This film work in this pic is amazing. The camera movements are so original for the genre. ANy comments?

I feel cheated. The build up was cool but all of that so open ended... You don't even know how the baby affected the rest of society or if that "project" was using the baby for leverage as terrorists or anything...

That ending was so lazy.

Would've you have preferred they either had: a) A three and a half hour long running time to wrap up everything nicely, or b) A rushed, tacked-on ending for the same effect?

Maybe you would, but personally, I liked how the movie ended.

That was a shit ending. Just like "No Country For Old Men" and critics eat it up.

That was so dumb. The whole point of watching the movie was to know what happened once everyone find out about the child or once the project go to the child... that's the whole point of the movie.

It was about the main characters but it was bigger than them. What happened to the world? Can women become pregnant again? There are a myriad of unanswered questions. And that sequence with at the end with all the gunfire was cool but so unlikely to occur that way. The army let them walk away... Are you serious?

Sigh, the last 10 minutes hurt my feelings

Originally posted by chithappens
That was a shit ending. Just like "No Country For Old Men" and critics eat it up.

That was so dumb. The whole point of watching the movie was to know what happened once everyone find out about the child or once the project go to the child... that's the whole point of the movie.

It was about the main characters but it was bigger than them. What happened to the world? Can women become pregnant again? There are a myriad of unanswered questions. And that sequence with at the end with all the gunfire was cool but so unlikely to occur that way. The army let them walk away... Are you serious?

Sigh, the last 10 minutes hurt my feelings

I didn't mind that, in a way it was a story about Clive Owen's character in a weird setting, it ended with him and was left as open as it was for him.

Originally posted by chithappens
I feel cheated. The build up was cool but all of that so open ended... You don't even know how the baby affected the rest of society or if that "project" was using the baby for leverage as terrorists or anything...

That ending was so lazy.
Maybe we aren't meant to know any of those things.

The movie is from Theo's point of view. The audience only knows what he knows and is only present for what he is present for. When he dies at the end, so does the audience.

The ending is lazy? Seems like you're lazy because you don't want to put any effort into thinking of what happened after the credits rolled.

I personally thought this was a brilliant film.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Thanks for ripping me off. Thanks for giving credit to the guy that ripped me off.
I seriously didn't read your post.

Are you gonna kill me now?

Originally posted by chithappens
...



I agree but I at least wanted to know what happened with the project. It was about him but that's is what he spent the whole movie risking his life for. At least have him live long enough to have seen if they full of shit or not. The way he died was so cliche. Girl names baby after his, he foreshadows his death with the whole "don't let her go"; the beginning of the movie hits you with a lot of moments you are not expecting and then the end hits a lot of cliches.

I write a lot so it just bugged me a bit.

Side note: I finished that story on the Zeus religion. Just making some revisions now. If you want to check it out let me know.

I guess some of the scenes were cliche, but at least the ending was not an "Oh, Happy Hollywood Ending" ... I think the movie was relatively unusual anyways and I did enjoy it a lot.

And I'd like to read it when you are done. Can you PM me it?

Originally posted by chithappens
...
Sorry about snapping at you but I just don't see the problem with the ending. I agree the film leaves unanswered questions but I think the film was left that way so the audience can make their own decision of what happened after.

Yeah well Hollywood is doing a lot of these "disjointed, end abruptly" endings and calling them instant classic (i.e. No Country For Old Men which was even more of a head scratcher in a sense). It's annoying to me cause I feel like that is lazy on the part of the director and the studio. The ride there was nice but I walked away kinda upset.

To me, all the soldiers and people acting so surprised that no one was trying to grab the baby or attack them (when the whole movie sets you up to be cynical after so many betrayals and random attacks) did not make sense because of the tone of those times set up before that moment. But then a guy shoots a rocket and the entire army forgets everything and not one soldier pursues them... Just clunky writing in my opinion.

But yeah, I will certainly show it to you when I'm done. It came out pretty decent but the end needs to be crafted carefully. I don't want a reader to cringe like I did after finishing "Children of Men."

Why don't you go to a book shop, buy No Country For Old Men and try and get it into your head that the adaptation was true to the novel and also made a good film?

Once you've done that, go back to the book shop and buy The Children Of Men. This film was loosely based on the novel.

It seems to me that you don't appreciate film as an art form, but rather as a medium which should tell you everything, without you having to think for yourself.

If you read these and are unsatisfied by the endings, then it's nothing more than a matter of taste. Your taste does not equal to laziness on the writer's behalf, just because you felt unfulfilled at the end.

Yep, and so your aggressive tone makes you more right... I think I understood the jist of that.

We are talking about the conclusion of a movie and if we think it is quality or not. It is merely subjective, not an objective fact.

The book might wrap it up better but I'm talking about the film. Nothing about the book will change my opinion of the film.

The way the movie ended was not in any way lazy. It was quite beautiful, in my opinion.

Originally posted by chithappens
To me, all the soldiers and people acting so surprised that no one was trying to grab the baby or attack them (when the whole movie sets you up to be cynical after so many betrayals and random attacks) did not make sense because of the tone of those times set up before that moment.
I saw the movie when it was in theaters and I haven't had a chance to rewatch it but I don't think the Army was after the baby. The rebel group was.

To me, the soldiers didn't try to grab them or the baby because they were in awe. There had been no people born for around 18 years if I remember correctly, so I can understand the fight stopping and such. I thought the scene was very moving myself.

They were the British army. If I remember right, Britain was the only country left standing (aka having civility; then again, we only see Britain so it could just be propaganda). They had been seen on the news as fugitives.

Remember right before that scene when the guy who helped them into the camp betrayed them (the guy recommended by Theo's father)? He says he saw them on TV and there would be a reward for them. So yeah, they could have just been in sentimental awe, but not one of those hundreds of soldiers thought to say, "You should come with us." They were criminals. It's cute to think they would all be like that, but at least one of the soldiers would have suggested they stay with them even if were simply for protection and not to take them into custody.

It struck me as odd. The same way that "No Country For Old Men" made me scratch my head a few times. The movie can't even be longer than 15 minutes if the main protagonist doesn't go back to the scene of the crime (and I was never certain of this but did he go back only to give that dying man some water?). It never made sense because he got away free with the money before he drove his truck back to the drug scene where he got the money from in the first place (some other really questionable moments of judgment and some disjointed editing after the hotel scene seemed odd to me). So he was dumb enough to do that, but meticulous enough to put the bag with the money into the vent with the string? And if he counted the money when he first got it, how did he not notice the tracking device before he was about to be shot in the hotel? It seems dumb but it is the minute details in characterization that make a difference to me.

But I'm not one of the 5-star reviewers so what do I know?

I loved this movie. Great dystopian SF.

I enjoyed the special features... They're interesting.

Originally posted by chithappens
They were the British army. If I remember right, Britain was the only country left standing (aka having civility; then again, we only see Britain so it could just be propaganda). They had been seen on the news as fugitives.

Remember right before that scene when the guy who helped them into the camp betrayed them (the guy recommended by Theo's father)? He says he saw them on TV and there would be a reward for them. So yeah, they could have just been in sentimental awe, but not one of those hundreds of soldiers thought to say, "You should come with us." They were criminals. It's cute to think they would all be like that, but at least one of the soldiers would have suggested they stay with them even if were simply for protection and not to take them into custody.

It struck me as odd. The same way that "No Country For Old Men" made me scratch my head a few times. The movie can't even be longer than 15 minutes if the main protagonist doesn't go back to the scene of the crime (and I was never certain of this but did he go back only to give that dying man some water?). It never made sense because he got away free with the money before he drove his truck back to the drug scene where he got the money from in the first place (some other really questionable moments of judgment and some disjointed editing after the hotel scene seemed odd to me). So he was dumb enough to do that, but meticulous enough to put the bag with the money into the vent with the string? And if he counted the money when he first got it, how did he not notice the tracking device before he was about to be shot in the hotel? It seems dumb but it is the minute details in characterization that make a difference to me.

But I'm not one of the 5-star reviewers so what do I know?

Sorry for the tone of my earlier post, I misunderstood you and thought you were claiming that the ending's objectively poor.

I think all it comes down to is taste, you may not enjoy scratching your head after a film, but I certainly do.