I have the same three films in my top 5, but I totally don't get how Crying Game and Awakenings is in there.

I haven't seen the film since its initial run, but I recall the evidence for the Human Project's existence/foundation/everything being scant at very best. To me that doesn't differ much with the notion of god. I mean, I suppose there's a fundamental difference between just the notion of something being a "god" and being "human," even if it assumes god-like abilities, but then again, the story of Noah's Ark takes on on those same "human" traits.

Awakenings is a terrific film. It's one of those that either gets you or it doesn't. I can easily see how some people might find it a bit overly-sentimental, but personally I wept like a wee girl. In a good way!

But in the film the solution doesn't arrive. It's assumed that the Human Project will be able to save Kee and humanity at large, but that's outside the confines of the film.

You might say that the film puts its faith in science, but faith is all it has to work with. For all intents and purposes, science might just be a matter of faith (through the Human Project). I mean, we don't actually know what the Human Project is. All we have is the idea of the Human Project.

That's not enough to disentangle science, as represented in the film, from traditional theology.

Edit: I see that snack and I are getting at the same thing

Okay, you're becoming more transparent so let me give some advice. Be adamant against merging the threads for now, and let this one get to a bunch more pages all the while you stoking debate as best you can. THEN give in and request it to be merged. That's your only hope for taking the lead from TDK in the critics section.

That's in the sequel!!!

Yes, but even the story of Noah's Ark is entirely dictated and controlled by God. Even though The Human Project is scantly referenced and seen, it's very much the antithesis of God as represented in the bible. The very name 'The Human Project' is a kick in the face to organised religion and the idea of a God, as it's essentially deifying humanity itself. In the film, people have stopped pinning all their hopes on religion and God, instead they're relying on humans.

Speaking of which, what happened to the TV series that was supposed to be happening?

The TV series is still scheduled to go, in 2009, per imdb.


What do you make of that? I'm not sure what the point of it is.


Part of what makes Children of Men the film so great is how tightly wound it is. Precious little is spared, and you see just enough of the rotten world to get a sense of living in it would feel like, but it's not quite overkill (in my opinion).

But what IS the Human Project? All we see of it is a boat, and that's that. I mean, it could be anything. Even Darth Vader and his posse.

I thought I was being transparent from the start.

Technically, CoM still has the lead, I'm just working on keeping it (it's getting close).

Anyway Archie, how are you? What have you been up to? Come tell me in the CoM critics thread.

I imagine whoever makes the TV show will miss the point entirely and make it a straight adaptation - like The Shining TV movie.

I.e., shit.

We see people on the boat, which, to me, indicates that no supernatural force was involved. And again, the name "The Human Project" is extremely indicative of the idea that Cuaron wanted to enforce. Theo's a cynical character, overlooking the religious zealots that permeate the background. His faith and hope is ultimately in humanity itself. Humanity's ability to take care of itself. That's the myth he's chasing, and it's the myth the film ultimately presents as the solution.

Also, Box, I think we should try our best to refrain from engaging in Dark Knight thread conversations until we've finished this potentially endless debate. Or, at the very least, respond to said conversations in this thread alone.

For example:

Shack: I believe the Christian and Shakespearian allusions of Harvey Dent's character are overly simplistic and transparent.

Your top 75? I demand to know the other 74 films that trump it.

Feel free to list them one by one in separate posts.

They could be angels!


Your argument is persuasive, and I don't really have anything to counter it with. But I think we're both right, which is the reason why I said that the film finds itself in a bind re: The Human Project. It's just a matter of perspective, if you will, and not much else besides.


All this means is that we can go back and forth for dozens and DOZENS of pages.

1984 > Children of Men....yes I went there.

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.

Yeah, which is too bad because I wanted to write my review for the film after seeing it tomorrow. Guess I can do so here

It was my favorite film of that year, above Pans and Departed, it is probably in my top 5 favorite films of all time.

Absolute masterpiece.

Join the debate in the critics forum, then! Any debate! Initiate one!

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

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.

It's a quote from the Bible.

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.