Children of Men

[MDC 8,241]

I was just going through the supposed 100 best sci-fi movies of alltime on Rotten Tomatoes and this was listed as #7, right before the Empire Strikes Back and better than both Terminators, Aliens, Robocop, etc. This movie got almost universally brilliant reviews, 3 stars and up.

 

Did anybody else think it was pretentious, overwrought and dull as fock?

[davebg 0]

I wouldn't rate it quite that high, but I thought it was a good flick.

[edjr 7,099]

I have had it sitting on my living room table for 3 weeks.. a rental from blockbuster online.

 

I'll watch it one of these weeks.

[PimpDaddy 0]

I was just going through the supposed 100 best sci-fi movies of alltime on Rotten Tomatoes and this was listed as #7, right before the Empire Strikes Back and better than both Terminators, Aliens, Robocop, etc. This movie got almost universally brilliant reviews, 3 stars and up.

 

Did anybody else think it was pretentious, overwrought and dull as fock?

 

Just by posting this you have spent too much time on it

[naomi 362]

Yes. The odd thing is I remember liking it after seeing it in the theatre, but then renting it later for my mom and hating it. Finding it all of those things. The first part makes you think it's going to be a cool movie.

[PimpDaddy 0]

Yes. The odd thing is I remember liking it after seeing it in the theatre, but then renting it and hating it. Finding it all of those things. The first part makes you think it's going to be a cool movie.

 

Are we supposed to read your name backwards, is that some sort of attempt to be creative?

[Boz/BoFan 0]

It was one of bigger pieces of liberal junk propaganda ive ever seen, so yeah, pretentious, overwrought and dull as fock is exactly how i would describe it.

[30 Fat, Bald & Texan 5]

Are we supposed to read your name backwards, is that some sort of attempt to be creative?

Pot called and wants the kettle back

[naomi 362]

Are we supposed to read your name backwards, is that some sort of attempt to be creative?

 

Forwards is preffered.

[MDC 8,241]

Yes. The odd thing is I remember liking it after seeing it in the theatre, but then renting it later for my mom and hating it. Finding it all of those things. The first part makes you think it's going to be a cool movie.

 

I thought the beginning was kinda cool too. Then it turned into a big crapburger.

[PimpDaddy 0]

Forwards is preffered.

 

No offense intended, just wondering

[RicemanX 20]

only cool the first time I saw it. after it was just

[naomi 362]

No offense intended, just wondering

No problem

[Riddlen 1]

It was a decent but boring movie that I will never watch again.

[MDC 8,241]

It was a decent but boring movie that I will never watch again.

 

Hammer - Nail - Head.

 

Faaaaaaar from the worst movie I've seen but almost equally far from the best. I can't believe people were comparing it to Blade Runner. Children of Men was like a more boring and self-serious version of 28 Days Later, minus the zombies.

 

It was one of bigger pieces of liberal junk propaganda ive ever seen, so yeah, pretentious, overwrought and dull as fock is exactly how i would describe it.

 

How do you figure that? The movie was pretty much apolitical but if anything it was pro-life.

 

Oh wait, I get it: You're a right wing alias who is outraged by everything. Sorry.

[Snuff 10]

Been wanting to see this for a while. I guess I will wait a bit longer now based on these reviews. What was bad about it? Story line? Acting? Special effects?

[MDC 8,241]

Been wanting to see this for a while. I guess I will wait a bit longer now based on these reviews. What was bad about it? Story line? Acting? Special effects?

 

Well acted. Not very FX heavy and not much action, but a car escape scene in the beginning and a war zone scene at the end were extremely well-shot. If you're looking for an action packed sci-fi film this is not it; it was more of a political drama than anything. Started off with some interesting ideas but got extremely heavy handed and even kinda hokey at the end. The whole movie was so joyless and grim, I don't think many people who even liked the film are going to want to watch it over and over again. Not even remotely as good as all the buzz. Came out around the same time as Pan's Labyrinth, and PL kicks the snot out of it so far as visuals and storytelling. Meh.

 

[Snuff 10]

Well acted. Not very FX heavy and not much action, but a car escape scene in the beginning and a war zone scene at the end were extremely well-shot. If you're looking for an action packed sci-fi film this is not it; it was more of a political drama than anything. Started off with some interesting ideas but got extremely heavy handed and even kinda hokey at the end. The whole movie was so joyless and grim, I don't think many people who even liked the film are going to want to watch it over and over again. Not even remotely as good as all the buzz. Came out around the same time as Pan's Labyrinth, and PL kicks the snot out of it so far as visuals and storytelling. Meh.

 

 

I may have to skip it altogether then.

Have only heard of Pan's Labyrinth on this board, maybe I'll check that out. No idea what the story is about though, maybe I'll google it.

[MDC 8,241]

I may have to skip it altogether then.

Have only heard of Pan's Labyrinth on this board, maybe I'll check that out. No idea what the story is about though, maybe I'll google it.

 

I don't want to encourage anyone to NOT see a movie unless it's really without merit. For all I know you're going to love Children of Men. I just know I went in really excited to see it and left really disappointed and baffled about all the buzz. Maybe Netflix COM and Pan's Labyrinth on the same night? They're very different movies but might go together well. If you like Pan's Lab absolutely rent the Devil's Backbone (same director), I really enjoyed that one.

 

I just got a new batch of Netflix and I'm psyched.

[Snuff 10]

I don't want to encourage anyone to NOT see a movie unless it's really without merit. For all I know you're going to love Children of Men. I just know I went in really excited to see it and left really disappointed and baffled about all the buzz. Maybe Netflix COM and Pan's Labyrinth on the same night? They're very different movies but might go together well. If you like Pan's Lab absolutely rent the Devil's Backbone (same director), I really enjoyed that one.

 

I just got a new batch of Netflix and I'm psyched.

 

I just don't have time to watch movies anymore, which sucks becasue I enjoy them so much. Wife and I would at least twice a week rent movies (3 or 4)and settle in for a nice evening. Haven't been able to in some time. In fact, I remember I wanted to rent Talladega Nights when it first came to video. I never did, but that is the time frame since the last movie we rented. When TD first came out (actually even a little before that). Ah well, might do me some good to smell the outdoors occasionally.

[CantTouchThis 23]

Saw it like a month ago, i thought it was a good movie, very original and unique. I would give it a 7.5, maybe 8 out of 10 I actually rented it based off someone really hyping it on here, and reading and hearing other great reviews for it. My mom saw it too and she also didn't like it.

[Cdub100 3,996]

Meh... it was okay one of the top 100 scifi movie ever? Not even close

[iceblumist610 0]

It's pretty good as action movies go, but don't expect anything more than an action movie, 'cause you won't get it.

[MicktheGreat 1]

Personally, I thought it was one of the best films from last year (not as good as Pan's Labyrinth but probably one of the top 5 films or so from last year).

 

And I think the comparison to Blade Runner makes some sense -- both are slow movies that build to a crescendo, both are bleak (but have a underlying message of hope), both are highly satirical.

 

More than anything, Children of Men is a great technical film. Cuaron (the same director who did Amores Perros, which I also highly recommend) has a great vision for the atmosphere that he's trying to perpetuate; and his single-shot-scenes are absolutely incredible -- especially considering when he uses those single-shots, notably in some of the more "action" scenes in the movie. In that way, it's very ambitious (from a technical filmmaking standpoint) and will probably be studied for that quality alone (sorta like Hitchcock's Rope, for example).

[yostevo 0]

Top 100 is laughable. The plot is initially quite intriguing and the beginning keeps you captivated but as the movie progresses, the storyline gets lamer by the minute and the ending is abrupt and weak IMO. If you have a couple hours to kill, you could do worse but it will be the 1st and last time you care to watch it.

[ProfessorZ 0]

Did anybody else think it was pretentious, overwrought and dull as fock?

 

MDC, I thought it was a phenomenal flick, mainly because all the adjectives you just used, "pretentious" "overwrought" and "dull", describe most apocalyptic dystopias. They tend to be annoyingly pretentious and terribly crafted, mainly because their writers/directors are people with IDEAS!@# about what's wrong with EVERYTHING!@#, and summarily ram these half-baked notions down your throat. In the process they sacrifice story, character, and anything remotely affective (i.e. the good parts of "art"). Few apocalyptic dystopias escape their creator's issues. They all think they're Orwell, when they're actually Michael Moore.

 

But I thought Children of Men did a good job of escaping the trappings of the genre. I can't name a more affective scene in recent cinema than its end, when an entire urban battle just STOPS at the sight of the first human child in 18 years. That scene wasn't overwrought; it escaped sentimentality by refusing to have the soldiers lay down their guns and sing facking "kumbya" with their enemies. The shock on their faces was palpable; I remember one even crossing himself and praying. It was like they were hit by a life bomb. And you were right there with them because you knew it wouldn't last: the fear and anxiety on the protagonists' faces as they slowly made their way through the street told you it was momentary: the violencezz and chaos paused, but the fear remained. If anything cheesy would've happened the spell would've been broken, the affect lost, but no – the director and writers remained unpretentious by having an opportunist shoot a rocket at the dazzled soldiers, and then all the men return to killing each other. That climax (some might say the whole "point" of the movie) was incredible because it was both transformative, transcendent, and yet remained real by acting as nothing more than a bubble in the roar of the world.

 

I thought the rest of the flick was similarly affective without pretension. Perhaps because the story located the pretentiousness you expect in the characters of the rebels/activists. This wouldn't be the first time a movie has shown people like this as the mirror reflection of the power they oppose, but Children of Men's saving grace is how it keeps you locked in on the mother's (an innocent's) plight, as well as weaving in the complexity of a fallen man's redemption (Clive Owen's character).

 

That reminds of another great scene. When Michael Caine is telling the story of Owen's tragic past (the reason for his "fall"), the director has the screen effectively split: in the background is a fuzzy out-of-focus Caine telling the story, while the camera remains focused on Owen's face in the foreground, focusing on the pain playing across his face as the story unfolds. Incredible job by both the director and Owen. Again, this is just another instance of how the movie rose above the trappings of the genre to achieve something truly affective.

 

I'm really surprised you didn't like it.

[frank 2,359]

It sucked with a capital suck.

 

 

If you watched a scene or two, you would probably think it was a good movie.

 

 

 

Unfortunately, the movie has about 5 minutes of plot. Seriously, you can outline the entire plot with one sentence.

[Cdub100 3,996]

I justwent through that list and it's terrible.

[peenie 2,035]

the movie seemed like it was trying too hard to be clever and heavy.

never wanted to see it in the movies nor will i ever rent it.

[Riddlen 1]

MDC, I thought it was a phenomenal flick, mainly because all the adjectives you just used, "pretentious" "overwrought" and "dull", describe most apocalyptic dystopias. They tend to be annoyingly pretentious and terribly crafted, mainly because their writers/directors are people with IDEAS!@# about what's wrong with EVERYTHING!@#, and summarily ram these half-baked notions down your throat. In the process they sacrifice story, character, and anything remotely affective (i.e. the good parts of "art"). Few apocalyptic dystopias escape their creator's issues. They all think they're Orwell, when they're actually Michael Moore.

 

But I thought Children of Men did a good job of escaping the trappings of the genre. I can't name a more affective scene in recent cinema than its end, when an entire urban battle just STOPS at the sight of the first human child in 18 years. That scene wasn't overwrought; it escaped sentimentality by refusing to have the soldiers lay down their guns and sing facking "kumbya" with their enemies. The shock on their faces was palpable; I remember one even crossing himself and praying. It was like they were hit by a life bomb. And you were right there with them because you knew it wouldn't last: the fear and anxiety on the protagonists' faces as they slowly made their way through the street told you it was momentary: the violencezz and chaos paused, but the fear remained. If anything cheesy would've happened the spell would've been broken, the affect lost, but no – the director and writers remained unpretentious by having an opportunist shoot a rocket at the dazzled soldiers, and then all the men return to killing each other. That climax (some might say the whole "point" of the movie) was incredible because it was both transformative, transcendent, and yet remained real by acting as nothing more than a bubble in the roar of the world.

 

I thought the rest of the flick was similarly affective without pretension. Perhaps because the story located the pretentiousness you expect in the characters of the rebels/activists. This wouldn't be the first time a movie has shown people like this as the mirror reflection of the power they oppose, but Children of Men's saving grace is how it keeps you locked in on the mother's (an innocent's) plight, as well as weaving in the complexity of a fallen man's redemption (Clive Owen's character).

 

That reminds of another great scene. When Michael Caine is telling the story of Owen's tragic past (the reason for his "fall"), the director has the screen effectively split: in the background is a fuzzy out-of-focus Caine telling the story, while the camera remains focused on Owen's face in the foreground, focusing on the pain playing across his face as the story unfolds. Incredible job by both the director and Owen. Again, this is just another instance of how the movie rose above the trappings of the genre to achieve something truly affective.

 

I'm really surprised you didn't like it.

affectively boring. i dont doubt what you say is true and I agree that clive owen and teh black dude did great jobs, but that doesnt meant it was a good watch. It was clearly well made and even realistic as you said, but all tehat leadto booooooring and an anti-climatic ending.

[CantTouchThis 23]

Yeah, it was a good movie but that ending sucked. I was like..WTF....i mean, you know what happens after that but it would've been good for something to happen.