In that case, I demand pictures.

And £1000.

So why is it called Children of Men, and not women?

Because...

Now why don't you plan on seeing it!?

Because the author of the novel was a sexist.

It's called Children of Men because Children of Humans would sound stupid.

That's exactly what I thought the title meant. They were just referring to "man" as in "humankind" (like when old textbooks refer to humankind as "man" in general).

Peace,
Mike.

Noooo! It's the Dil!

I'm not as icky as you think: I'm above 3rd rock!

If it's as good as you claim, it wll ruin all other movies for me so I am best off not seeing it, so I can enjoy films in my ignorance.

Also, I saw a clip from it of them driving and being chased by a crowd that reminded me of 28 Days Later.

Lol. Men did own women and men will own women. Go play with puppets!




































theheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

It's nothing like 28 Days Later.

And yes, there's a chance it might ruin all other movies for you... but if you don't watch it I'll tear your bollocks off.

A+

Best film of the year so far (but I haven' watched many new movies this year). The film rocks from start to the end...

Clive Owen is simply brilliant in this film. In particular (and this is just one scene), his reaction after it is first revealed to him that Kee is pregnant is superb. He really reflected in his character the disbelief and the true incredibleness of having seen a pregnant woman during those times. It's really at that moment, thanks to Owen and his character, that we understand emotionally the impact that this infertility has had on the world. We see that it's been a big one, a really big one.

The battle scenes in this film outdo anything I've seen in any so-called "war" genre films. Even with blood splattered on the lens, Cuaron still shoots on. Even aside from the first amazing car attack (which is what everyone seems to be referring to in their reviews as the one amazing scene), the rest of the war we see waged between Britain and the "fugees" is absolutely riveting and close feeling. One of the reasons why these scenes succeeded was because of the simple decision to shoot everything in generally one streamlined shot as opposed to cutting-across-at-all-angles-mania that a lot of directors instill into their "action" films nowadays.

When a film succeeds so well, the thematic elements work so well too. In particular, the whole sequence involving the baby literally being placed between two sides in an ongoing battle was excellent. It clearly demonstrated the contrast between war and chaos and the effect of children in our world. You hear gunshots flying, bombs exploding, chaos happening, and when this baby is revealed to anyone, on both sides, everything comes to a halt. For a brief moment, everyone is struck in awe by the beauty of a newborn child. The character Luke had put it so well in saying something like "I had forgotten how beautiful they were". Again, another moment where we witness the the impact of no children in the world on the people still left living, that they had actually forgotten just how beautiful they were, and they needed this reminder. So beautiful. Once Kee and Theo have exited the building and are out of the way, suddenly one decides to resume war and fires a shot, and soon everyone is back in war mode, ready to attack. A clear message shining light on how important our children are. When I say "our", I speak globally.

The female character who was the one who escorted Theo and Kee to their room (and ultimately helped them to their boat and whatnot, I can't remember her name) really touched me. She was annoying and we didn't know what the fuck she was rambling on and on about all the time, but her unwavering support of Theo and Kee and their mission was touching. She was a stranger, a fugee, but the only one who did what she did.

There were so many emotional moments, but the last scene of the film really got to me. It ended on the perfect note. One of the best compliments that I can give this film is that it felt all too real. Did you guys catch all the signs and newspaper clips and pictures and such? Man oh man, such detail is what lends to what feels like a reality. Great work.

A

Peace,
Mike.

*reads Mikes review, ticks him off Snrubs kill if they dissent list*

I'm surprised Owen's performance hasn't been talked about more this season, he was as superb as the film. The best film of the year for me.

A+

Count me in as an official Children of Men loonie.

What a fucking awesome masterpiece.

****/****

Things I loved:

The use of moving cameras... especially the bit when the bus is pulling into the concentration camp and passes a number of nicely-framed scenes. These are happening simultaneously, but the movement of the bus reveals them one at a time to make a short silent film with a definite chronology and "ending".

The use of the baby in the final thrilling confronation.

The plausibility (for the most part) of the future presented for our consideration - anyone who lives in the UK will recognise it as bigger slices of today's crappy cake.

Great story, great acting, great visuals, plenty of shocks throughout. I actually regretted seeing this alone, since, on several occasions, I wanted to turn around and mouth "wow" at someone...


Things I wasn't sure about, but didn't stop me giving it an A and loving the film to bits:

Nostalgia for the sixties and seventies didn't make much sense, given when the film was actually set (I would've preferred some well-thought out, plausible kind of nostalgia for Now - interesting test of the imagination).

Pink Floyd references sort of undermined the message - Children of Men is a fresh dystopia and shouldn't weaken the newness of its message by refering to old dystopias. If all I knew about the film was that the Pink Floyd pig floated in the background at one point, I would expect it to be a lame rehash of The Wall/ Nineteen Eighty-Four, etc., etc., written by an ageing rocker who didn't realise that the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the rise of other, essentially different problems had rendered the traditional dystopia slightly (not wholly) out-of-date.

The Buddhism seemed unlikely. People turn to the old certainties in times of great hardship. Obviously, there would still be Buddhists, but I felt that maybe a resurgence in traditional Christianity would have hanged together better with the film. It just stuck out a bit, but there's no accounting for taste.

Preponderance of nose-piercings. Plausible, yes, but I just don't like them.

Things I loved:

The use of moving cameras... especially the bit when the bus is pulling into the concentration camp and passes a number of nicely-framed scenes. These are happening simultaneously, but the movement of the bus reveals them one at a time to make a short silent film with a definite chronology and "ending".

The use of the baby in the final thrilling confronation.

The plausibility (for the most part) of the future presented for our consideration - anyone who lives in the UK will recognise it as bigger slices of today's crappy cake.

Great story, great acting, great visuals, plenty of shocks throughout. I actually regretted seeing this alone, since, on several occasions, I wanted to turn around and mouth "wow" at someone...


Things I wasn't sure about, but didn't stop me giving it an A and loving the film to bits:

Nostalgia for the sixties and seventies didn't make much sense, given when the film was actually set (I would've preferred some well-thought out, plausible kind of nostalgia for Now - interesting test of the imagination).

Pink Floyd references sort of undermined the message - Children of Men is a fresh dystopia and shouldn't weaken the newness of its message by refering to old dystopias. If all I knew about the film was that the Pink Floyd pig floated in the background at one point, I would expect it to be a lame rehash of The Wall/ Nineteen Eighty-Four, etc., etc., written by an ageing rocker who didn't realise that the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the rise of other, essentially different problems had rendered the traditional dystopia slightly (not wholly) out-of-date.

The Buddhism seemed unlikely. People turn to the old certainties in times of great hardship. Obviously, there would still be Buddhists, but I felt that maybe a resurgence in traditional Christianity would have hanged together better with the film. It just stuck out a bit, but there's no accounting for taste.

Preponderance of nose-piercings. Plausible, yes, but I just don't like them.

Things I loved:

The use of moving cameras... especially the bit when the bus is pulling into the concentration camp and passes a number of nicely-framed scenes. These are happening simultaneously, but the movement of the bus reveals them one at a time to make a short silent film with a definite chronology and "ending".

The use of the baby in the final thrilling confronation.

The plausibility (for the most part) of the future presented for our consideration - anyone who lives in the UK will recognise it as bigger slices of today's crappy cake.

Great story, great acting, great visuals, plenty of shocks throughout. I actually regretted seeing this alone, since, on several occasions, I wanted to turn around and mouth "wow" at someone...


Things I wasn't sure about, but didn't stop me giving it an A and loving the film to bits:

Nostalgia for the sixties and seventies didn't make much sense, given when the film was actually set (I would've preferred some well-thought out, plausible kind of nostalgia for Now - interesting test of the imagination).

Pink Floyd references sort of undermined the message - Children of Men is a fresh dystopia and shouldn't weaken the newness of its message by refering to old dystopias. If all I knew about the film was that the Pink Floyd pig floated in the background at one point, I would expect it to be a lame rehash of The Wall/ Nineteen Eighty-Four, etc., etc., written by an ageing rocker who didn't realise that the collapse of the Iron Curtain and the rise of other, essentially different problems had rendered the traditional dystopia slightly (not wholly) out-of-date.

The Buddhism seemed unlikely. People turn to the old certainties in times of great hardship. Obviously, there would still be Buddhists, but I felt that maybe a resurgence in traditional Christianity would have hanged together better with the film. It just stuck out a bit, but there's no accounting for taste.

Preponderance of nose-piercings. Plausible, yes, but I just don't like them.

Oops - sorry for inadvertant triple posting...

Just saw this today at a theater by Fashion Island. I have absolutely no clue what to think. I am confused as to whether I actually love this movie or hate it. The plot was just way too far-fetched for me. There is no way the Government wouldn't approve of women having babies. All Clive would have to do is walk to his friend with the mansion and ask for help. This would be the biggest story in the World. I am thoroughly confused as to why this movie even exists in the first place.

With that being said, I was on the edge of my seat. The action scenes were fantastic and the characters seemed real. As of this moment I am going to give it a B. Let me sleep on this movie and I might change my grade once I have time to think this movie over.

Tried to get tickets to it in the only theatre playing it in Toronto... Sold out.. whores.

I'd suggest seeing it again.

The issue with taking it public and going to the government isn't that they wouldn't approve (they force people to take mandatory fertility tests, after all), it's that they'd take the baby from Kee, give it to an english woman (i.e., someone who isn't a fugee) and use it for their own political gain. When Theo finds out that the Fishes are planning to do the exact same thing, he takes Kee on the run to protect her and her baby from anybody who'd want to use the baby for their own malevolent purposes.

Actually, I just want to mention some more specific bits I loved. I know spoilers are allowed in here but I genuinely don't want to spoil it, so they're hidden.

[spoil]Michael Caine's very tender last words to his wife. Incredible understated acting. Plus, I now get a lump in my throat whenever anyone says, "Pull my finger."

The magnificent scene, all in one cut, with the backwards car chase - I honstly felt that this was sans pareil.

The fact that everyone shuts up and stops fighting when they see the baby. That silence after all the slings and arrows of outrageous pyrotechnics is staggering. In any other film, this would've been predictable and sickly-sweet. In this film, it was a powerful statement. That's a real tribute to the film. I haven't cried in nearly a decade and for the record, that's the closest I've come. Other occasions when I got the old lump in the throat include two episodes of The Simpsons and the ending of Armageddon when you see the Latin motto on his badge, but I had bad hangovers on those occasions and was feeling pretty hormonal. This time it was genuine.

The fact that the futuristic stuff is downplayed (e.g., the holo-type monitors in the office) visually - the direction really reflected the fact that, as soon as you can actually see it and hold it in your hand, "futuristic" stuff becomes instantly mundane - no Jetsons-style nonsense here; this was a realistic vision of the future.

People lobbing crap at the train. Pointless, plausible. Like I say - same crappy cake, bigger slices.[/spoil]

I'm sort of speechless. Not at all what I expected from the film. Shocking, moving, scary in some respects even. I don't quite know what to say yet.

I agree that it was a very well made film, it seemed almost poetic in its meditations I guess. The ending completely caught me by surprise, at that point I was expecting something ... entirely different (I'll get to that later), and then, it just ended. Wow.

Color me impressed. Best film of the year? Yeah. It nudges Little Miss Sunshine from that spot, which isn't an easy task.

Wow, so...

This actually will end up being one of the best reviewed films of the year.