Why? There's no rule against discussing another film in a film's Everybody's A Critic thread.

Actually to tell you the truth I had no idea what the Joker was up to.

He was contradicting himself in a million ways.

And yet everything always seemed to work out perfectly in his favour... hmmm...

I call foul,

This is related to my main problem with Children of Men. We were supposed to get a chilling sense of randomness and chaos but it all looked very planned out, as if Clive Owen were walking through an elaborate theme park ride with stuff happening on cue around him.

I guess that's just the way you saw the film. Personally, I thought everything that happened to him happened as a result of a fairly organic script. Yes, his quest was sequential and progressively bigger, but it didn't strike me as being obvious or pre-ordained. Characteristically, it all fit together.

One thing I did like about Children of men though was that it didn't take a comic book hero, someone intended to entertain little kids, and make a bloody, gruesome, dark depressing film out of it that is not really suitable for kids. I hear Nolan is next up working on an R-rated version of Pinky and the Brain.

So in that sense, CoM comes off a bit better.

As much as I love this movie, I gotta say, this thread got...

Snrub fails at life.

FAILS!!!

To make peace...

I did read a raving review of CoM yesterday that kinda makes me want to see it...

Click!

Im with archie, it felt like that Beverly Hills Cop 3 thing where theres the gas tanker that explodes etc.

I wasnt thrilled with this movie at all. Massively disappointed in fact. I just didnt connect with the film at all, largely thanks to Clive Owen being blank as a slate, but also because all character development was sacrificed because character development isn't earmarked as "realistic" and clearly, this film had no qualms at sacrificing integral parts of a movies fundamental basis in the strive for the creaton of realism. Essentially, because it forgets so much of what makes a moivie good in the process, the film becomes unbelievable. Ironic really.

The whole thing with his parents was both the best and worst thing about the movie.

Son of a bitch.

Where's the problem?

Well, it would appear the Children of Men thread has been roundly thrashed by The Dark Knight thread.

But rest assured, you may have won the battle, TDK fans, but you shan't win the war. I'll continue my efforts to keep this thread alive long after the hubbub over TDK has died down and you've all skipped merrily onto your next "obsession of the week".

Will I still be fighting this war 50 years from now? Make it a hundred.

Well, you know Snrub, at least this is the better film.

If you didn't love Wall-E... I might have to kill you.

http://www.worldofkj.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=142&st=0&sk=t&sd=a

That is true. Also, Children of Men had a better second weekend hold.

It got outgrossed in less than 24 hours...

While your consolation is appreciated, I feel obliged to say the following:

So's your mum.

That said, where better to make my 8000th post on KJ than in my favourite thread. And with the added bonus of using my favourite insult ("so's your mum") to boot!

So's your mum, KJ. So's your mum...

I think Jiffylush's comment in this thread several months ago about the film as related to the book was right.

The theme of Children of Men (the book) is outright politics. If you expect something sci-fi-ish coming out from it, you are on the wrong page. The PD James novel is a critique of the police state as a result of an "idle" citizenship who is willing to compromise individual liberty for security and comfort "provided" by the government. The futuristic scenario is just a means to an end --- hopelessness is a catalyst for passive citizenship.

The film took the futuristic scenario but ignored the political undertone of the book. I don't think the filmmakers did justice to the book.

I gave this film an A before I saw it.
It's like an F for living up to expectations.
Overall like a C or D.

Did you happen to like The Dark Knight by any chance?

Funny, I have the exact same opinions of when I was watching The Kingdom last night, from both Archie and Michael.

If one looks at Owen being blank in this film or there not being character development, they weren't paying attention. I know Owen doesn't outright say, "My life fucking SUCKS but I'm going to find solace through putting a light in pitch black", but his mannerisms and the very subtle, intelligently-placed bits of backstory should be pretty clear on that. That's way more realistic and less contrived than flashbacks or epiphanies, and at this point in film history, way more effective.

It's like the people who complained about Lost In Translation being empty or boring or plotless or 2D because Bill Murray didn't make broad brushstrokes of emotion or didn't outright say or even act on "I'm lonely and I love you and though I can't have you, I'll pretend I can for just a little while".

I loved Lost in Translation.
It's actors actually did develop through doing pretty much nothing.

Clive Owen, however, is no Bill Murray, or even Scarlett Johansson (shudder).

I don't ask for my movies to be obvious, I ask for them to pull of subtle.
Also why is this being compared to The Dark Knight? They are super different.

It's not so much that the two are being compared, as such. It's more that they're the #1 and #2 threads (in terms of post counts) in the Everyone's a Critic section. My goal is to keep CoM on top.

So far, I'm not doing a very good job. But then, I am vastly outnumbered.