The best part? Not the cinematography, or the set dressings....

In the court of the crimson king used, on film, with perfection.

Hand over the oscar now.

All those A's makes me want to like the movie less..

No, I still like it very much but all those A+ and A's seems too much for me. I feel like I've missed something important, but I know I didn't.

I cannot believe this film was looked over for Babel. This is definitely one of the best films of the year. More later, but a definite A for me.

Okay, so I saw this for the 4th time in theatres. That's the most I've seen a film in theatres since Titanic!!

Wow.

Anyways, another point I wanted to bring up: I can't stress enough how perfectly songs were used in this film. In most films, you have random songs just included for some beat in the background, and it's just kinda faded in and out. Here, the songs are relevant and edited along with the film like you would edit any other part of the film (the film itself, the sound, etc). Plus, the chosen songs are GREAT picks.

The Court of the Crimson King in particular is just brilliant. Not only is it a great song, but the way it was edited into it's entire sequence. It suddenly jumps in as the film cuts to Theo in the car, then softens once the film moves into after they've crossed the bridge, and then once again changes and sounds like it is playing from a stereo within Theo's brother's house.

Peace,
Mike.

A-


I don't remember whether I reviewed the film in this thread before or not and frankly I don't have the patience to search through 14 pages... I saw it all the way back in November and was very positively impressed. However what Riggs has said above is true. All the praise for it makes me want to like it less than I actually did (note: No, I still don't like it less, it just bothers me a bit).

Children of Men is a VERY well-made dystopian actioner, but it is really nothing that hasn't been done/shown before in one way or another. For what it is, it is superbly conceived and executed, but seriously, there are little innovations here. Clive Owen's reluctant tragic hero who in the end sacrifices himself for the good...all been there/done that. I knew Owen would die by the end less than 20 minutes into the movie. It is really very good, but it is not a masterpiece to stand forever in the pantheon of movie history. It just isn't.

Now I do have to give a lot of kudos to the filmmaker, Alfonso Cuaron. The personal directional touch was felt very well throughout the whole film. Cuaron did one of last year's best directing jobs with the film. The technical aspects have been praised over and over in this thread and it is all well-deserved. The cinematography and the editing are simply baffling. The one long shot with Clive Owen running through the "battlefield" at the end (which was mentioned many times) had my jaw simply dropping. The cinematography was without a shadow of doubt one of last year's very best (maybe tied with Miami Vice). The visuals were very good as well. What I LOVED about the movie was how "real" it looked despite the futuristic setting. It is always pretty harsh, raw and down to earth. Thanks to the frantic editing, great cinematography, good pace and good job by the sound editors, it seemed like there was more actual action scenes in the movie than there really were if you think of it.

One big surprise to me was Julianne Moore's early death and that was the only really unpredictable part of the film to me. Still, for what it is, innovative or not, it is very solid. Clive Owen shines in the lead role (another great turn after his slick Dalton Russell in Inside Man). Michael Caine is entertaining and sometimes touching. Julianne Moore is sadly wasted and has no really outstanding moments. The pregnant girl did a good job too.

On the whole, an interesting, entertaining and on the technical level simply perfect outing of the genre.

Looking back on it now my grade is probably an A-/B+. It's technically amazing, but I didn't feel a great amount of connections to the characters, sans maybe Caine. But then again I gave V for Vendetta an F and Clockwork Orange a C+, so considering I don't have a great track record with these kind of films, it was satisfying enough to my expectations.

I must say I'm surprised at the completley gonzo reaction.

Saw it Loyal, already gave it a brief review couple pages back.

I just realized I never chimed in on the best reviewed film of the year here at KJ.

My friend and I write reviews for several places, and we alternate reviews. Children of Men happened to be his review, so I'll post his full length review (which I agree with 100%), and the short blurb I wrote for my own records.

My friend's review:

Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men is a thrill ride that promises more thought than it actually delivers. The provocatively brainy premise, that women cannot birth children for unknown reasons, seems to indicate a paranoid vision of a future world that is half fable, half dystopian future. Cuaron supplies the dystopian future quite well, but Children of Men is intellectually benign, leaving us with a bombastic moving picture show of war, desolation, and poverty that succeeds visually, but never reaches beyond its most basic plot elements.

Clive Owen plays Theo, a dreary sadsack who stays alive on a modicum of energy just for the sake of getting drunk. He eventually gets entangled in a mission to escort a young girl out of Britain, his participation apparently motivated by his lack of things to do. When it is revealed that the girl, named Kee, is pregnant, Theo's character changes as he suddenly becomes invested in the mission and engaged in the world as it crumbles around him. There are other various characters along the way who provide more depth than Theo and Kee, but their visitations are brief. As soon as the plot is given its driving force, Cuaron focuses entirely on the adventure and ignores the powerful concept.

The film is clearly divided into three acts, the first of which presents us with a war-damaged London that simultaneously recalls newsreel footage of the bombing of Britain in World War II and CNN images of the streets of modern Baghdad. This nightmare vision of western culture is the greatest strength of the film, and the explosion that opens the film shocks us as the horror of a Middle Eastern terrorist bombing is supplanted in a modern urban setting. The effect is similar to that of seeing the World Trade Center fall. This frightening London seems to be Cuaron's main interest: he spends a lot of time showcasing twisted, alternate reality versions of real streets that modern Londoners could have trampled on to see this movie. For him, decadent western life is just a passing phase that will soon be replaced by neo-fascism and political oppression.

The loose second act of the film has plot twists, intrigue, and some fist-pounding performances, none of which liven it up. Cuaron has not invested much care into the meaning of his characters or the plot, so when a group of freedom fighters switches from being evil, to being good, then to being evil again, we find it difficult to care too. The movie picks itself up when Theo and Kee must penetrate an area of Britain destroyed by a war between the British military and immigrant insurgents.

This last third of the film recalls the Vietnam in Stanley Kubrick's Full Metal Jacket, and is where Cuaron feels most at home. Shooting in long takes that successfully place us in the war with Theo and Kee, Cuaron proves that he is a skilled craftsman. His previous films, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban and Y Tu Mama Tambien, both used similar shooting styles to evoke the mood of their respective locations (Hogwarts and Mexico), as well as grab the viewer by the gut, rather than the head. While those films were successful, his material here doesn't deserve such treatment: Cuaron isn't saying anything more than "babies good, government bad." The film's climax is a tour de force of violent battles that are given little context and seem orchestrated just to provide our heroes a few last minute obstacles to overcome. Meanwhile the first baby born in twenty years is symbolic of nothing. Though the movie wants to be reverent, it has nothing to revere except youth, which it worships single-mindedly.

I can recommend Children of Men if only for its terrifying vision of a destroyed capitalist society, but it is held back from greatness by its own lack of depth. It is easy to be mesmerized by the cinematic power of the last thirty minutes, but most people will leave the theatre with images rather than thoughts.

My blurb:

An archetype structrue and lack of any real depth ultimately cripples Children of Men, but Cuarón's assertion to direct the living hell out of an otherwise flimsy screenplay make this film worth seeing. The film is peppered with awe-inspiring moments of movie magic and brilliant visual cues, where Cuarón's ample skill and vision are on full display. His use and understanding of geography and space when staging his elaborate one-take action sequences is unparalleled, and truly has to be seen to be believed. One day Cuarón will stumble upon a script or idea that can match his prowess behind the camera, and we will be treated to a complete and utter masterpiece. Until then, we settle for exceptionally well made near misses.

I gave it three stars, my friend doesn't "do" grading systems.

You forgot to mention that you and your friend were both whacked on cocaína when you watched it.

You should get him to sign up here...would be interested in reading more.

Decent review but I really don't get why some people need a film spelt out for them. This film invoked for me an old phrase coined by Jim Baker back in 1991 to describe the messy aftermath of the Gulf War. Welcome to the Ragged End.

I think Dr.Jams long post on the whole movie is the best reference as to why people love it and why just because it doesn't spell everything out doesn't mean its shallow.

Even though I'm not part of the crazy COM cult, I thought Cuaron's ability to create a world where you don't need all the explanations, the way he leaves things as the unknown and unseen, is one of its strengths. Someone earlier in this thread complained about how they never explained how this pregnancy problem was caused, and the perfect answer was given by one of you, that if anyone knew how it was caused, then the problem and fucked over world wouldn't be there... The aura of unknown is very good in Children. The other side of the stick is, like... This season of Lost. I prefer what Cuaron did. Gave him more time to focus on the more important stuff.

It's not about things not being spelled out.

It's about there being zero emotional or mental weight to the film.

Did I mention how kypade is my favourite poster ever?

Seriously.

Peace,
Mike.

Did I mention how makeshift is my favorite poster ever?

Seriously.

Zing & Shifty sittin' in a tree, k-i-s-s-i-n-g...

(...and just in time for Valentine's Day!)

If there's zero emotional or mental weight in the film, why were there tears in my eyes when Theo and Kee leave each and every soldier on the street awestruck as they pass?

Haha. Bradley, you're awesome too.

Peace,
Mike.

The hype around this (very good) movie is one of the most insane (not in a positive way) things I have witnessed at KJ. Ever. Good thing I'm not spending much time here anymore because I am sure I would have been annoyed by it a whole lot.

I think the fact that even the backlash for this film must preface every post with "it's still a great film" says a lot. :O :O :O

Getting annoyed if a film that you didn't love gets massive praise is a bit strange i think. I've seen films i don't really like get that treatment but i just shrug my shoulders and think "good for them they enjoyed it". Why wish for people to think less of a movie they loved? Thats idiotic.

It's a strange occurrence, for sure, Gullimont, but its a pretty common one. I dunno why either, but it seems to happen with every well-loved film...the more praise it gets, the more some people get turned off of it...

I think its because they recognize that the movie is objectively only 'good', and the other 98 percent of us are wrong, and its annoying to have so many be unable to see how over-praising they're being. :o

Freakin' story of my life!

(But I'll still always love you [i]Bubble Boy...)

Yep, that's where my A-/B+ comes from as well. I was never emotionally invested in Theo or Kaye.

Who wants to bet that if COM had done better at the BO, that we wouldn't be seeing the collapse of support that's occured in the last couple of pages of this thread? If this had done $100+ million business and gotten a best pic nod at the Oscars, people would have been climbing aboard, rather than abandoning it like rats from sinking ship.

Interestingly, just the opposite occured with Pan's Labyrinth -- once it started to roll at the BO with huge expansions for a foreign language movie, the reviews went from modest on the first pages to insane raves on the latter ones...

An interesting phenomena, and one I shouldn't be too surprised with, given that this is a BO prediction site at it's core. But still, I'd like to one day see an experiment, where every member of WOKJ sees a movie without seeing any BO reports, any reviews, or any pre-hype... and writes their review cold, flat out that first day based on their own personal reaction to the film. I'd bet the results would be very different from what we usually see here in the "Everyone's A Critic" forum...