Children of Men


Movies

Liberty's Edge

Looks good. Think I'll go see it now.


Let me know how it is; I'm going to try reading the book first, but I may not be able to wait.

The book is supposed to be much different, since the protagonist is a 60 year old Cambridge professor, rather than a 30 something Clive Owen. And the book is also supposed to be less violent than the movie looks to be.


I saw it last night. Easily the best movie I have sen in the last year.

A tense, dramatic, emotional, thought provoking movie. It will stress you out, make you sad, and tear you up.

A fantastic film. I think everyone shoudl go see it.

Liberty's Edge

Great Movie!

It had a message to it, but it wasn't the least bit hamhanded, which I truly appreciate.

There was a definite political overcurrent, but neither side wore the white hat.

Cyberpunk at it's best. (notta lotta gadgetry mind you)...

And his cousin, the collector,...brilliant!
I want that on the wall next to my dining room table.

And Michael Caine, he needs a best supporting actor Oscar for that.

Liberty's Edge

I'm still sitting around, thinking "woah, what a great movie."
I haven't enjoyed a flick this much in a long long time.


Best Picture of the Year.

Liberty's Edge

d13 wrote:
Best Picture of the Year.

Yup. I know it's early, but it'll hold up.

No. I hope there's 20 better movies this year than Children of Men.
I know there won't be.

Liberty's Edge

OMG. I was looking at it at IMDB, and two of the writers are writing John Carter of Mars for 2009.
But it's on the production backburner. Bummer!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I honestly don't know why it was given good ratings. Maybe I had to read the book first. It was 2 hours of boredom to me. They never explained WHY it all happened, or what happened after 'Tomorrow' saw them. That's alot left unsaid. But oh well, whatever, i'm not gonna see it again.

Dark Archive

Bladeboy wrote:
I honestly don't know why it was given good ratings. Maybe I had to read the book first. It was 2 hours of boredom to me. They never explained WHY it all happened, or what happened after 'Tomorrow' saw them. That's alot left unsaid. But oh well, whatever, i'm not gonna see it again.

The "why?" and "what happens next?" are not what the movie is about at all. The movie is about the emotional state of mankind when there are no more children's voices to bring center to their lives. The book does not try to explain why its happening any more than the movie. Honestly, if you were bored with it and were left asking those questions then I have to believe that you missed the entire point of the film.

I'm pretty sure this movie is going to go down as a classic. I hear only one bad review for about every hundred awesome reviews.

Liberty's Edge

Oh, and James, what with your art school background and all, there's a certain part of this movie I think you'll really get a kick out of, without handing out too many spoilers.
I had one humanities class in college about western art which I actually tried really hard to thoroughly absorb, but I understood what it all meant.
The class ticked me off because they inserted one Frank Frazetta painting into a slide show. It was a man's hand with 5 tiny seminude women; they were apparently inserting this one painting into the slideshow to dismiss his entire body of work. But the rest of the time I paid real close attention.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Best post-apocalyptic movie ever. So much better than the typical ADD brain dead action flick. A movie that can make a suspenseful car chase when the car is not even running is a winner.

And the directing is amazing. The camera work is almost entirely first person, so instead of doing 10-15 cuts per minute like most films, you are stuck in one spot, seeing the action unfold from the perspective of the protagonist. Very visceral.

And doubly visceral if you actually have children. It's possible some of the scenes will have less emotional impact if you are not a parent. It's one of those types of movies.


Heathansson wrote:

Oh, and James, what with your art school background and all, there's a certain part of this movie I think you'll really get a kick out of, without handing out too many spoilers.

I had one humanities class in college about western art which I actually tried really hard to thoroughly absorb, but I understood what it all meant.
The class ticked me off because they inserted one Frank Frazetta painting into a slide show. It was a man's hand with 5 tiny seminude women; they were apparently inserting this one painting into the slideshow to dismiss his entire body of work. But the rest of the time I paid real close attention.

Sweet. I'm definitely going to see it soon, then. I did my junior thesis project last year on Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" which has some similar themes (women's issues, fertility, post-apocalypse, etc.) so this film seems to be right up my alley.

Liberty's Edge

Sebastian wrote:

Best post-apocalyptic movie ever. So much better than the typical ADD brain dead action flick. A movie that can make a suspenseful car chase when the car is not even running is a winner.

And the directing is amazing. The camera work is almost entirely first person, so instead of doing 10-15 cuts per minute like most films, you are stuck in one spot, seeing the action unfold from the perspective of the protagonist. Very visceral.

And doubly visceral if you actually have children. It's possible some of the scenes will have less emotional impact if you are not a parent. It's one of those types of movies.

I agree 100%. So glad I know how to pop a clutch...

I loved the twonk asking for permission.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
James Keegan wrote:
Heathansson wrote:

Oh, and James, what with your art school background and all, there's a certain part of this movie I think you'll really get a kick out of, without handing out too many spoilers.

I had one humanities class in college about western art which I actually tried really hard to thoroughly absorb, but I understood what it all meant.
The class ticked me off because they inserted one Frank Frazetta painting into a slide show. It was a man's hand with 5 tiny seminude women; they were apparently inserting this one painting into the slideshow to dismiss his entire body of work. But the rest of the time I paid real close attention.
Sweet. I'm definitely going to see it soon, then. I did my junior thesis project last year on Margaret Atwood's "The Handmaid's Tale" which has some similar themes (women's issues, fertility, post-apocalypse, etc.) so this film seems to be right up my alley.

Keep an eye out for Guernica. It's a nice touch. I saw it but didn't know it was what it was until the credits thanked Pablo's estate.

Also, I am glad to see that in the future, cars have heads up displays.


You know, Guernica was actually covered up at the UN building when Colin Powell gave his deposition on why we absolutely had to go to war with Iraq, lest they unleash their WMDs. It wasn't intentional, but it's strange how coincidences like that work out.

Grand Lodge

Gotta agree with everyone else here. Great, great, great movie - possibly the best I've seen since City of God.

Inspired choices of venues as well - Alresford is a particularly dull and unpleasant London exurb, and Bexhill is one of those dreary British seaside towns where old folks go to die. I've been there only once, and I'd rather go back to the movie version. Genius!

Guess I have to get the book now...


Oh dear.
Can't complain about the cast, settings (excellent) or even the action.
However, despite being a rare film which gave you food for thought, It left me with the very distinct feeling that the back-story was far more interesting than the main plot.
I appreciate that a fine balance has to be maintained but IMHO this didn't quite strike it. Almost, but no. A missed opportunity.


Okay, I read the book and now I've seen the movie. Honestly, I rarely cry at movies, but this one got me. A few people I know hated it and I don't really see why. I will say that it may have had a few script issues, perhaps there wasn't enough real explanation on a few points. I could see people getting lost at certain points.

I think I actually liked the film a bit better. Theo Faron as a character is much more likable in the film version, but there is a bit of the book's message missing in the film. Part of the idea was that man's (not being biased; in the book, it's men that are infertile) lack of compassion was part of how the race lost the ability to reproduce and this was rather clear in the main character. It's not wholely gone, but it was much clearer in the book. Julian is also different in the book.

In this case, the movie deviated from the book in the right ways, which isn't always the case. Characterisation is much stronger; no abrupt changes like in the book, and the ending is much better in the film, even if it's left ambiguous to a degree.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

James Keegan wrote:


In this case, the movie deviated from the book in the right ways, which isn't always the case. Characterisation is much stronger; no abrupt changes like in the book, and the ending is much better in the film, even if it's left ambiguous to a degree.

What's the ending in the book like?

Liberty's Edge

You know what really endeared me to this movie was the subtle reference to "Guernica," and then the imagery in the cow pastures they were going by, almost saying, "this is Guernica set to film."
What'd you think of the statue as he entered his cousin's house? That blew my mind.

I felt the ending was a testament to the power of faith. I'm not necessarily advocating any religion, just a commentary on faith in general. I think it purposely left that up in the air because that's the ultimate nature of faith. If it's a known fact it kinda negates the concept.


Sebastian wrote:
James Keegan wrote:


In this case, the movie deviated from the book in the right ways, which isn't always the case. Characterisation is much stronger; no abrupt changes like in the book, and the ending is much better in the film, even if it's left ambiguous to a degree.
What's the ending in the book like?

How much do you want me to spoil it? I felt the ending in the book was really abrupt and made very little sense to me. I felt PD James could have gone on for a while longer with it, but she just didn't want to. There is a somewhat similar point in the movie, but I think it made more sense there. If you want me to be more specific, I can, but I've ruined stuff for people before and they haven't appreciated it.


Heathansson wrote:

You know what really endeared me to this movie was the subtle reference to "Guernica," and then the imagery in the cow pastures they were going by, almost saying, "this is Guernica set to film."

What'd you think of the statue as he entered his cousin's house? That blew my mind.

I felt the ending was a testament to the power of faith. I'm not necessarily advocating any religion, just a commentary on faith in general. I think it purposely left that up in the air because that's the ultimate nature of faith. If it's a known fact it kinda negates the concept.

I felt Guernica wasn't as powerful as a symbol as the David was. David missing a leg is a good symbol for the defeat of humanity, in my mind. Since the Renaissance was the rebirth of humanism after the Dark Ages, the idea that humanity's greatest achievements were being destroyed completely could not have been summed up better. The David is the perfect youth: perfect body, perfect mind in the Greek mold, as well as the greatest underdog. As a symbol, it also encompasses the failings of the revolutionary movement in the face of totalitarianism. That said, having Guernica in a government building, behind your head while you're eating dinner and your cousin is telling you just to not think about the impending death of the species is also a great piece of visual poking.


I just got back from the theatre. It was a great movie in every possible way...except for, why is the infertility never explained? It drives me up the wall when movies don't explain the premise of their plot!

P.S. David's missing leg might also be a metaphor for humanity's missing...third leg that's been gone for 18 years.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I just got back from the theatre. It was a great movie in every possible way...except for, why is the infertility never explained? It drives me up the wall when movies don't explain the premise of their plot!

P.S. David's missing leg might also be a metaphor for humanity's missing...third leg that's been gone for 18 years.

It's not explained in the book either. For me it isn't a problem, but for the people I spoke to that didn't like it, it was the major reason they disliked the film. The major idea, I think, is that infertility is a metaphor for the loss of compassion and humanity in the human race.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:

I just got back from the theatre. It was a great movie in every possible way...except for, why is the infertility never explained? It drives me up the wall when movies don't explain the premise of their plot!

I think the reason this was not explained was to prevent a number of nitpicks with any theory. First, they said doctors knew nothing baout hwy it was happening- which was similar to the reaction to AIDS initially, when no one understood it.

But if you put out a theory, and explain exaclty what went wrong, nothing is gained. The movie would not be any better. You would lose 5-10 minutes of screen time discussing it, and peopel woudl doubtless leave more unsatisfied with the answer than they were with no answer.


James Keegan wrote:
It's not explained in the book either. For me it isn't a problem, but for the people I spoke to that didn't like it, it was the major reason they disliked the film. The major idea, I think, is that infertility is a metaphor for the loss of compassion and humanity in the human race.

If that was the intent, fine. I would prefer in that case that the author/director hint at it, at least. Perhaps Key has a minor epiphany as her child is born, or whatever. I'm not saying the movie has to end with 'and they all lived happily ever after' but I need at least the hint of an explanation for my peace of mind.

On the other hand, if the author/director doesn't want the story to be about discovering the cause of the infertility I'd like to have SOMETHING. Just say that it's a disease or pollution...something other than forcing me to take the situation on faith.


Tequila Sunrise wrote:
James Keegan wrote:
It's not explained in the book either. For me it isn't a problem, but for the people I spoke to that didn't like it, it was the major reason they disliked the film. The major idea, I think, is that infertility is a metaphor for the loss of compassion and humanity in the human race.

If that was the intent, fine. I would prefer in that case that the author/director hint at it, at least. Perhaps Key has a minor epiphany as her child is born, or whatever. I'm not saying the movie has to end with 'and they all lived happily ever after' but I need at least the hint of an explanation for my peace of mind.

On the other hand, if the author/director doesn't want the story to be about discovering the cause of the infertility I'd like to have SOMETHING. Just say that it's a disease or pollution...something other than forcing me to take the situation on faith.

But the reason it happens is unimportant (as has been said before) to the plot of the film. It just serves as a starting point and an explanation for why the world became so topsy turvey. And there were some hints in the movie... well, not hints, but I believe there was some conjecture made by a couple of characters... Theo and Jaspar maybe?

Anyways... I have to add my name to the list of people who loved this movie too.

Great character arc for Theo. I like how this movie also didn't pull any punches or give in to Hollywood temptation and throw in action movie sequences. The camera work was amazing, and as was said before, very visceral.

My wife was in tears at the end of the movie, in shock. She doesn't usually go to these kinds of realistic/thinkpiece movies, and we really hadn't read or seen anything about this one before going except that it had some very good cinematography and the basic premise that humanity was infertile.

And I loved some of the irony in the film, especially with the title of the film what it is... all these people willing to kill and generally be animalistic to fellow human beings... does not fill me with great hope.

Intense film. Good stuff. Go see.


Somnambulant wrote:


But the reason it happens is unimportant...

It is important. It's important to me! Doesn't everybody know by now that the world revolves around me?

Liberty's Edge

Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Somnambulant wrote:


But the reason it happens is unimportant...
It is important. It's important to me! Doesn't everybody know by now that the world revolves around me?

No. It revolves around my kids. ;)


Heathansson wrote:
Tequila Sunrise wrote:
Somnambulant wrote:


But the reason it happens is unimportant...
It is important. It's important to me! Doesn't everybody know by now that the world revolves around me?
No. It revolves around my kids. ;)

To arms, to arms! I have been usurped! I shall be revenged!

Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Entertainment / Movies / Children of Men All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Movies
Dune - Part 2