Children of Men

bullvine

Its on TV tonight. What makes this film so special, I just dont get it, I'm a huge Sci-Fi fan but I am really confused by the love for it.

Did I miss something?

Thanks

5uspect

It's something of a polarising film, I know people who hate it simply because it is so bleak and "nothing happens". I love it myself but wasn't too happy with the ending. The book is also quite good but with a lot more religious themes.

It builds a fantastically uncompromising bleak world that many have compared to that of Half-Life 2 in it's aesthetic. Cuarón however said he didn't want to make a sci-fi movie but a story of hope.

It's also technically brilliant. Have you noticed the extremely long continuous takes?

hidinginthebush

I think it's a brilliant film. It's dystopian theme is so tiring and heavy throughout, I think Clve Owen is great in it, and as 5uspect said, the continuous takes are amazing:

the battle scene at the end, anyone?

sillo

Clive Owen, good
Dystopian themes, good
Execution on the theme, good
Michael Caine playing a wacky drug addict grandad, good
Technical excellence, good

what's not to like

JohnK

Have to say I found it to be quite boring myself.

5uspect

It's not overtly sci-fi either. The film doesn't in any real way rely on the technology of the time. In a sense this has the effect of making it somewhat timeless and will hopefully help it age well down the years.

This is a trap so much sci-fi falls into, unfortunately.

Phuckitt

Absolute dross, saw it in the cinema then watched it last week, I forgot how bad it was

Goldstein

It's probably the greatest science fiction film of the last decade or so - Up there with District 9, Sunshine, Moon, Serenity, Primer etc.

There's a lot more to the genre than spaceships and aliens.

Mickeroo

What Goldstein said. Amazing film from both a technical and story point of view imho.

5uspect

I was quite disappointed by Sunshine TBH. While Brian Cox helped keep things somewhat sensible it had a quite generic and uninspiring plot.

Back on topic, Children of Men does a great job of building a convincing world with very little exposition. The various billboards, photographs and newspaper cuttings throughout are just enough to let you put the fragments together.

Gee Bag

Have always had a huge soft spot for British Sci-fi, I find it to be more substance over style when compared to a lot of stuff from the US.

Children of Men has:
(i) Highly original plot
(ii) Perfectly cast (Clive Owen is excellent, and I'm not a fan of his)
(iii) Stunning cinematography (especially the long single-take scenes in the forest and battle at the end)
(iv) Draws on contemporary events in an intelligent manner (Immigration, torture in Iraq, etc.) without being in your face or sermonising.

It's one of my all time favourites, definitley in my top ten (but not in the top 5)

bullvine

I'm gonna watch it again but I just don't see anything in it that is that impressive. The whole dystopian world, I wasnt impressed with, I have seen it done much better in other movies. Clive Owen was ok, as was the story but nothing to really test the brain.

Giruilla

Goldstein wrote: »

It's probably the greatest science fiction film of the last decade or so - Up there with District 9, Sunshine, Moon, Serenity, Primer etc.

I'd say it's on a level above those films to be honest! Theres things I don't like about it.. Michael Caine being one them.. but the long takes make the film (almost impossible to tell where the cuts are). These just kept me so engrossed in the film. One of the biggest problems I have with modern cinema is the awful and fast quick change camera editing.

The final scene when he walks out with the baby in his arms is absolutely epic!

Psychedelic

I only saw this the other night, having just finished the book (which was very different but fairly poor overall).

The film's storyline is quite thin and has some plotholes, the upbeat songs every few minutes in the first half feel out of place for the grim dystopian setting, Michael Caine's character is just Michael Caine with long hair (he's the same guy in every film but I just can't stand him so that's just a personal gripe), Julianne Moore's character was pointless. But there are some good things such as the battle scene which was really well done, the giving birth scene and the part where he carries the baby out of the building. Well made film but average at best.

Goldstein wrote: »

It's probably the greatest science fiction film of the last decade or so - Up there with District 9, Sunshine, Moon, Serenity, Primer etc.

There's a lot more to the genre than spaceships and aliens.

I wouldn't call it science fiction, it's a chase movie with a mini war movie at the end, with only one sci fi element, and there is nothing else explained about this and it is not developed as a plot - women can't get pregnant, one woman does, that's pretty much the extent of the sci fi.

johnny_ultimate

Psychedelic wrote: »

I wouldn't call it science fiction, it's a chase movie with a mini war movie at the end, with only one sci fi element, and there is nothing else explained about this and it is not developed as a plot - women can't get pregnant, one woman does, that's pretty much the extent of the sci fi.

It is every bit a sci-fi film. Every single event in the film is driven by idea of a world of infertility and its inherent consequences. In measuring the effect of a future shift in humanity and civilisation, it is far worthier to wear the tag of science-fiction than most shallow space operas. That the film is able to balance the grand themes with a very dramatic and very human story is what makes it such a joy.

This is why I hate genre classification, though. It's a fantastic film on its own rights. It really doesn't matter how we choose to label it. But if we must insist, science fiction is a more than worthy tag.

tunguska

JohnK wrote: »

Have to say I found it to be quite boring myself.

Agreed. I thought the concept was great, but somehow the makers did the cinematic equivalent of snatching a defeat from the jaws of victory. I still dont know how they made a balls of such a great idea.

Goldstein wrote: »

It's probably the greatest science fiction film of the last decade or so - Up there with District 9, Sunshine, Moon, Serenity, Primer etc.

There's a lot more to the genre than spaceships and aliens.

Gotta disagree. District 9 is magnificent, moon is very good, but Sunshine and Serenity???? Sunshine had some good cinematography and thats about it. Serenity is very light weight, cant take it seriously at all. Great sci fi films = Bladerunner, Gattaca, Alien, 2001.

5uspect

tunguska wrote: »

Agreed. I thought the concept was great, but somehow the makers did the cinematic equivalent of snatching a defeat from the jaws of victory. I still dont know how they made a balls of such a great idea.

Out of curiosity, what way direction you have liked the film to take?
I personally found it a refreshing compared to the awful crap that has gone under the name of sci-fi in recent years.

Gotta disagree. District 9 is magnificent, moon is very good, but Sunshine and Serenity????

Have you watched Firefly? Serenity is supposed to be light entertainment, it's a Western/Space Opera mashup. It's great fun, you shouldn't take it seriously.

spacecoyote

Have to say I really enjoyed this movie.

What I really did feel is the tension that is built up throughout, and keeps building up through the final battle scene. I felt totally engrossed in the movie and couldn't look away.

It's very rare that a movie manages to inspire that sort reaction in me so I highly recommend it to anyone who asks it from me

wandatowell

I think im going to have to give this film a second chance

Sad Professor

Excellent film, incredibly well directed by Cuaron. My only criticism of it is the ending, which I find overly abrupt and lacking in resolution. The film doesn't really have a proper third act and I feel it holds it back from greatness. I appreciate that Cuaron was deliberately going for an open ending and I didn't necessarily want everything wrapped up in a big bow; but the best endings transcend what what went before them and I don't think this one did that. Instead it just left me wanting more. The first act establishes a particular setting and situation that you expect will play into the events of the third act. But there is no third act. The second act is all about Owen getting the girl to safety, there's a big battle and then the film just ends. This would be fine if it was just an action movie, but the first act promises so much more.

bullvine

Ok, watched it again. Still not that impressed. Its an ok movie. Nothing you have mentioned above is selling it for me. I agree with above poster, its "cinematic equivalent of snatching a defeat from the jaws of victory"

I agree technically its a very good film especially during the battle scene at the end, I really enjoyed the continous camera shot. However, I found the look of the sets like something they had reused from the set of 28 days later or something.

I also found most of the Characters incredibly annoying, especially Syd and the Midwife.

slave1

Great film, great casting, solid performances and the single shot scenes could have been avoided to make the film makers life easier but really add to the experience.