Author |
Message |
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Re: Children of Men
Shack wrote: Also adding to Snrub's post, the title Children of Men can kind of be seen as a play on "Children of God" Honestly, I think you could see it from both sides, as seen by the fact that the origin of the baby is never explained. For a person of faith in CoM's future, the baby could be seen as a modern day blessing of god, a jesus and saviour of the human race. For someone like Theo, who doesn't trust giving the baby to the world because he doesn't trust the idea of a baby saviour to override natural evil human behaviour, or doesn't believe in god because of the mess the non-fertile world turned into under his watch, the baby does not belong to god, it belongs to his mother and should grow in private in the seclusion of a group that believes in his humans first side. The movie never really specifies whether the baby is an act of god or just scientific luck, and leaving it up to interpretation and discussions like these debating the two sides of the science-god coin is just the point. Or something like that. edit: Box beat me to it I'd say the film ideologically comes down on the side of science the moment it makes the joke about Kee's baby being a virgin birth. It purposefully makes the audience think for a split second that a higher power might be responsible before immediately dismissing such an idea as ridiculous.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:06 pm |
|
|
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Re: Children of Men
Zingaling wrote: Snrub wrote: Zingaling wrote: Snrub wrote: As for you, Zingaling, I've just about given up on you. While taste itself is entirely subjective, I think I can honestly say that you have none when it comes to film. Heh, okay? If I actually cared what anyone on a movie forum filled with film snobs thought of my taste in film, I guess I'd be upset by that? But, honestly, I don't. For the record, I find CoM to be a solid film (B-ish); I just cannot understand the love for it. I'm not alone in that sentiment either, so...whatever. But at least it's closer to it than The New World. You or anyone else thinking that my taste sucks is irrelevant to me because, frankly, I think the same about most of you (that some people here are farrrr too involved in dissecting a film instead of trying to enjoy it for what it is, and stuff like that). That said, I still like you, Snrub. Chill out, though. I'm allowed to not like (or like less, because I still enjoyed CoM) what you do like. You'd be allowed to not like what I like if what you didn't like had any rhyme or reason to it, but frankly your taste baffles me. I imagine you're the kind of guy who pretends to like critically panned films just to go against the grain. Hardly. I like tons of critically acclaimed films. I don't prefer them always over other films, but I do like tons of films that are considered great films. Yeah, "critically acclaimed" was a bad choice of phrase. I guess what I meant was you always seem to like films that internet people hate, and dislike films that internet people adore.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:08 pm |
|
|
trixster
loyalfromlondon
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:31 pm Posts: 19697 Location: ville-marie
|
Re: Children of Men
Darth Indiana Bond wrote: 1984 > Children of Men....yes I went there. If you're referring to the movie version of 1984, then you're a moron, as it's a giant turd. If you're referring to the book, then you're also a moron, because you can't compare two different art forms like that. I love the novel as well, but to qualify it against a film is foolish and wrong.
_________________Magic Mike wrote: zwackerm wrote: If John Wick 2 even makes 30 million I will eat 1,000 shoes. Same. Algren wrote: I don't think. I predict.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:09 pm |
|
|
Mannyisthebest
Forum General
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:53 pm Posts: 8636 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
Re: Children of Men
You had to create this thread,
Its not in my top 100, but it is a great film but overated.
The pacing of the film really pissed me off and really they should have expanded more on how the future looks like.
I do not see what makes this film a so called "Modern Classic"
There is nothing breathtaking/iconic or spectacular about it, it is disturbing.
_________________The Dark Prince
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:09 pm |
|
|
Libs
Sbil
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 3:38 pm Posts: 48626 Location: Arlington, VA
|
Re: Children of Men
I thought it was a good film, but most certainly not the masterpiece it's made out to be around these parts. Just what I think.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:09 pm |
|
|
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Re: Children of Men
Box wrote: Shack wrote: Also adding to Snrub's post, the title Children of Men can kind of be seen as a play on "Children of God" It's a quote from the Bible. Quote: Oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! - Psalms (ch. CVII, v. 21)
Again, that's an (unfortunate) handover from the book (distinctly religious) to the film (had to take the title). It means nothing with regards to the thematic intentions of the film.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:09 pm |
|
|
Johnny Dollar
The Lubitsch Touch
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 pm Posts: 11019
|
Re: Children of Men
Oh, lord, is this nowheresville argument rearing its ugly head again?
_________________ k
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:10 pm |
|
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
Re: Children of Men
Snrub wrote: I'd say the film ideologically comes down on the side of science the moment it makes the joke about Kee's baby being a virgin birth. It purposefully makes the audience think for a split second that a higher power might be responsible before immediately dismissing such an idea as ridiculous. How do the other characters react when they hear the baby cry? This is irrespective of what Cuaron or the film 'thinks', but is it not a miracle birth to them? I mean, there might be a joke about it being a virgin birth, yes, but there is no question that, from the perspective of the film, the birth of Kee's baby would be the most miraculous since that of Jesus. If it is not an outright miracle, it assumes qualities that render it nevertheless miraculous, the most significant of which is its extraordinariness. It's the only birth in an infertile world. For all intents and purposes, it is a miracle.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:12 pm |
|
|
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 38266
|
Re: Children of Men
Also... Theo... theology... that's not a coincidence right? I guess if it was introduced in the book though, not that I've read it...
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:13 pm |
|
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
Re: Children of Men
Snrub wrote: Box wrote: Shack wrote: Also adding to Snrub's post, the title Children of Men can kind of be seen as a play on "Children of God" It's a quote from the Bible. Quote: Oh, that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men! - Psalms (ch. CVII, v. 21)
Again, that's an (unfortunate) handover from the book (distinctly religious) to the film (had to take the title). It means nothing with regards to the thematic intentions of the film. Why unfortunate? I find it haunting, actually.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:13 pm |
|
|
zingy
College Boy Z
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 8:40 pm Posts: 36662
|
Re: Children of Men
Snrub wrote: Zingaling wrote: Snrub wrote: Zingaling wrote: Snrub wrote: As for you, Zingaling, I've just about given up on you. While taste itself is entirely subjective, I think I can honestly say that you have none when it comes to film. Heh, okay? If I actually cared what anyone on a movie forum filled with film snobs thought of my taste in film, I guess I'd be upset by that? But, honestly, I don't. For the record, I find CoM to be a solid film (B-ish); I just cannot understand the love for it. I'm not alone in that sentiment either, so...whatever. But at least it's closer to it than The New World. You or anyone else thinking that my taste sucks is irrelevant to me because, frankly, I think the same about most of you (that some people here are farrrr too involved in dissecting a film instead of trying to enjoy it for what it is, and stuff like that). That said, I still like you, Snrub. Chill out, though. I'm allowed to not like (or like less, because I still enjoyed CoM) what you do like. You'd be allowed to not like what I like if what you didn't like had any rhyme or reason to it, but frankly your taste baffles me. I imagine you're the kind of guy who pretends to like critically panned films just to go against the grain. Hardly. I like tons of critically acclaimed films. I don't prefer them always over other films, but I do like tons of films that are considered great films. Yeah, "critically acclaimed" was a bad choice of phrase. I guess what I meant was you always seem to like films that internet people hate, and dislike films that internet people adore. It's...possible. Not that I do it purposely, but films loved by the internet crowd aren't really my cup of tea? I can say that I liked films like CoM, Mulholland Dr., etc. but I'd never consider them amazing or one of my favorites of all-time. Films like The New World and Donnie Darko (I'm trying to think of other films, nothing's coming to mind), I either find too slow or too weird (so is Mulholland Dr., I guess, but I liked it). It's no secret that I'm far more mainstream in taste than most people here. Doesn't mean I'm trying to be an asshole about it.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:13 pm |
|
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
Re: Children of Men
Shack wrote: Also... Theo... theology... that's not a coincidence right? I guess if it was introduced in the book though, not that I've read it... Let's just say that it's about as accidental as Neo's name in The Matrix
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:14 pm |
|
|
Box
Extraordinary
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 12:52 am Posts: 25990
|
Re: Children of Men
Zingaling wrote: and Donnie Darko Well, I agree with you on that one. I can't stand it.
_________________In order of preference: Christian, Argos MadGez wrote: Briefs. Am used to them and boxers can get me in trouble it seems. Too much room and maybe the silkiness have created more than one awkward situation. My Box-Office Blog: http://boxofficetracker.blogspot.com/
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:14 pm |
|
|
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Re: Children of Men
Zingaling wrote: Snrub wrote: Zingaling wrote: Snrub wrote: Zingaling wrote: Snrub wrote: As for you, Zingaling, I've just about given up on you. While taste itself is entirely subjective, I think I can honestly say that you have none when it comes to film. Heh, okay? If I actually cared what anyone on a movie forum filled with film snobs thought of my taste in film, I guess I'd be upset by that? But, honestly, I don't. For the record, I find CoM to be a solid film (B-ish); I just cannot understand the love for it. I'm not alone in that sentiment either, so...whatever. But at least it's closer to it than The New World. You or anyone else thinking that my taste sucks is irrelevant to me because, frankly, I think the same about most of you (that some people here are farrrr too involved in dissecting a film instead of trying to enjoy it for what it is, and stuff like that). That said, I still like you, Snrub. Chill out, though. I'm allowed to not like (or like less, because I still enjoyed CoM) what you do like. You'd be allowed to not like what I like if what you didn't like had any rhyme or reason to it, but frankly your taste baffles me. I imagine you're the kind of guy who pretends to like critically panned films just to go against the grain. Hardly. I like tons of critically acclaimed films. I don't prefer them always over other films, but I do like tons of films that are considered great films. Yeah, "critically acclaimed" was a bad choice of phrase. I guess what I meant was you always seem to like films that internet people hate, and dislike films that internet people adore. It's...possible. Not that I do it purposely, but films loved by the internet crowd aren't really my cup of tea? I can say that I liked films like CoM, Mulholland Dr., etc. but I'd never consider them amazing or one of my favorites of all-time. Films like The New World and Donnie Darko (I'm trying to think of other films, nothing's coming to mind), I either find too slow or too weird (so is Mulholland Dr., I guess, but I liked it). It's no secret that I'm far more mainstream in taste than most people here. Doesn't mean I'm trying to be an asshole about it. Well, I disagree. Frankly you DO come across a bit asshole-ish about it.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:16 pm |
|
|
Shack
Devil's Advocate
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:30 am Posts: 38266
|
Re: Children of Men
I've always been more under the impression that Zingaling's tastes aren't against the internet grain, but intentionally in line with the mainstream audience of males his age. Like saying "yeah, I'm like them... and I like it!"
_________________Shack’s top 50 tv shows - viewtopic.php?f=8&t=90227
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:18 pm |
|
|
Mannyisthebest
Forum General
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:53 pm Posts: 8636 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
Re: Children of Men
the best film buff is the one that appreciates the smaller films and loves the good mainstream films.
He likes the old and the new....
_________________The Dark Prince
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:19 pm |
|
|
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Re: Children of Men
Box wrote: Snrub wrote: I'd say the film ideologically comes down on the side of science the moment it makes the joke about Kee's baby being a virgin birth. It purposefully makes the audience think for a split second that a higher power might be responsible before immediately dismissing such an idea as ridiculous. How do the other characters react when they hear the baby cry? This is irrespective of what Cuaron or the film 'thinks', but is it not a miracle birth to them? I mean, there might be a joke about it being a virgin birth, yes, but there is no question that, from the perspective of the film, the birth of Kee's baby would be the most miraculous since that of Jesus. If it is not an outright miracle, it assumes qualities that render it nevertheless miraculous, the most significant of which is its extraordinariness. It's the only birth in an infertile world. For all intents and purposes, it is a miracle. Yes Kee's baby is a miraculous birth, but the film grounds said miracle in reality. It's a miracle by chance, not by divine intervention. Kee's child is not God's child, it's man's. In many ways the "miracle birth" of Kee's child only re-affirms the film's central conceit that God is fiction.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:24 pm |
|
|
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Re: Children of Men
Mannyisthebest wrote: the best film buff is the one that appreciates the smaller films and loves the good mainstream films.
He likes the old and the new.... That may be true, but you've got to admit... a lot of old films are rubbish compared to the new.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:25 pm |
|
|
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Re: Children of Men
yoshue wrote: Oh, lord, is this nowheresville argument rearing its ugly head again? Agreed, I think it's time this thread was merged with the Everyone's a Critic thread on Children of Men. Mods?
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:26 pm |
|
|
Groucho
Extraordinary
Joined: Thu Oct 21, 2004 9:30 pm Posts: 12096 Location: Stroudsburg, PA
|
Re: Children of Men
Best Picture of 2006. Robbed at the Oscars.
_________________Buy my books! http://michaelaventrella.com
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:35 pm |
|
|
Nebs
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2006 8:01 pm Posts: 6385
|
Re: Children of Men
Come on trixster, please do not go there, no matter what people say.
_________________ ---!!---!!!!!!-11!!---!!---11---11!!!--!!--
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:41 pm |
|
|
Snrub
Vagina Qwertyuiop
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 4:14 pm Posts: 8767 Location: Great Living Standards
|
Re: Children of Men
Nebs wrote: Come on trixster, please do not go there, no matter what people say. Nebs, could you merge this thread with the Children of Men critic's thread? I stupidly didn't check to see if such a topic already existed, and, well, here we are. Much appreciated. Cheers. You're doing a great job. Lots of love, Snrub xx
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:44 pm |
|
|
Mannyisthebest
Forum General
Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 3:53 pm Posts: 8636 Location: Toronto, Canada
|
Re: Children of Men
Quote: a lot of old films are rubbish compared to the new. I thought that once my friend. However I learned that it does not matter how old (okay after 1940) and new something is, if it made well it will be respected and admired for all time. Sure we may consider these old films overrated but there is something in those films that even 30-50-70 years latter make them relevant and popular. Sure you guys hate or find The Godfather over rated but tell me if it sucks why is it so popular even today... Sure a film like Vertigo is over 50 years old now, but it is still a beautiful and timeless film even today. I think very few films were as beautifully as that film. So, I respect good, great film from any time and imo any good lover of cinema should as well.
_________________The Dark Prince
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:45 pm |
|
|
Johnny Dollar
The Lubitsch Touch
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2005 5:48 pm Posts: 11019
|
Re: Children of Men
trixster wrote: Darth Indiana Bond wrote: 1984 > Children of Men....yes I went there. If you're referring to the movie version of 1984, then you're a moron, as it's a giant turd. If you're referring to the book, then you're also a moron, because you can't compare two different art forms like that. I love the novel as well, but to qualify it against a film is foolish and wrong. And if you're referring to the calendar year, then you're still a moron, because 1984 introduced The Cosby Show.
_________________ k
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:46 pm |
|
|
bABA
Commander and Chef
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2004 12:56 am Posts: 30505 Location: Tonight ... YOU!
|
Re: Children of Men
nebs can you delete this thread and make sure it never shows up ever again.
|
Wed Jul 23, 2008 5:48 pm |
|
|
Who is online |
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests |
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
|
|