Re: Children of Men
 

It occurs to me that this movie ended around the point that I might have preferred it began. I find that frustrating in many films.

Re: Children of Men
 

Now you're onto something.
I also think I'm tired of the "ominous future" stuff. Both the visual and audio-scapes in this film were very noisy - lotta stuff laying around in both, doing nothing but saying "oooh, things are bad in the future" and eh... I find that mildly annoyingly blah, at this point.

What were the groundbreaking technicological advances? I kinda missed those, somehow.

I thought Kee was the only character who was really compelling. As stated upthread by someone astute, this is a stock glum Owen turn.

I really thought this was, at best, an ok film. The hype has left me feeling placebo'd.

Re: Children of Men
 

I know what you mean.

I'd like to think the future would get better too. Those kind of movies are few and far between. Usually they are not executed well either.

Re: Children of Men
 

Well if someone has read thus far into the thread I have to say that:
It obviously does get better, it is nice to see that "Men" are still men and they have a love of "life" and "family" and are willing to do anything to protect that. The last 20 minutes of this film are so wonderful that I cannot understand the dislike. I say this because I am confused and I am not judging those who do not like it. One of My favorite films of the last ten years.

Re: Children of Men
 

Wow Yoda, I really liked your review. I recently saw this film myself, and I dare say it's amongst the best movies I have seen recently. It still did not outrate Crash though :P

Re: Children of Men
 

Re: Children of Men
 

*faints*

The Island. Now I know you are busting my balls. ;) The Island was an overblown commercial, full of product placement and random action scenes, aped from 100 other science fiction films. CoM was such a better film. I mean, they are both chase films, but, that is where the similarities end.

Also, It isn't just the technical achievements I like. I also like poetry in film, Adi, just as much as you do. I am not some tech head, over here. I love films like In the Mood for Love, Amelie, Dolls and The Thin Red Line. Poetry in motion, for sure. That said, CoM IS poetic, moving, and possesses a dark beauty all its own, IMO. The score is also amazing. Guess you have to be into dystopian flicks, tho...

Re: Children of Men
 

I agree with Sedai that it's not just the technical achievements that make the movie.
I want to add that the subject is also very well-chosen. It's not a light subject they touch with this movie. And they did a very good job not making this a slow, uninteresting movie as you would expect with this topic.

Re: Children of Men
 

Well yeah, my granny's bathroom is better than The Island. And it's olive-coloured...

I think I know my way around dystopia, though, loving Brazil and Blade Runner as I do. I just didn't find anything at all in Children of Men that you do - I didn't think it was a bad film, just something I wouldn't want to watch again in a hurry.

At least Logan's Run featured a prime Jenny Agutter... ;)

Re: Children of Men
 

Someone upthread said that it seemed hard to see this as set in the future because not much had changed technologically. I'd have to say that this was on purpose. After all, if babies stopped being born around 2009 or so, then there would be a heck of lot less reason to keep going with the technological advances. If all humankind was going to be gone within a century, why bother?

It is, after all, the hope of future generations that drives so much of our advancements.

I'm not sure how I felt about this movie. I found it suffocatingly dismal and despairing almost all the way through. The realism others have lauded made me feel way too depressed about the world it was presenting.

A few totally stray thoughts:

In the long running scene toward the end where Theo is literally dodging bullets, at one point he runs into a bus filled with people. One gunshot must have hit someone nearby because for the next few minutes we see a few blood spatters right on the camera lens. This totally took me out of the story until somehow they managed to wipe those spots away (must have been at a camera angle change, right?). It made it look like some sort of cameraman or journalist must have been running behind Theo, which, of course, isn't true. But I couldn't get my eyes off those spots of blood on the camera lens.

I'm sure they left it like that on purpose, but I can't see why they'd want to remind us that there was a camera following Owen around.

The ending was indeed abrupt, but the sounds of children playing answered our questions in a way that left just enough to the imagination. What made the ending almost TOO abrupt was this: The screen went black and then "CHILDREN OF MEN" burst onto the screen in very large, stark white letters.

Yuck. If you're going to hand us an abrupt ending, don't make it feel all icky and ruin the submersive experience by throwing gargantuan letters on the screen. Let it stay black for a little while longer, and then perhaps roll smaller credits from the bottom as usual. I felt I needed a few minutes to gather my thoughts and process the ending ... but those BIG WORDS IN WHITE ON A BLACK BACKGROUND jolted me out of that much-needed reverie.

So, in my opinion, a few technical choices took me out of the experience twice. Bad form.

I'm surprised no one mentioned this, but ...

Re: Children of Men
 

OMG, that was my favorite scene! I had some major goose bumps during that part. :yup:

Re: Children of Men
 

Ha. Love the blood on the lens. A squib misfired and a bloodpack popped a split second before it was supposed to. I loved the result, as did the director, so he decided to keep it. A wonderful mistake, and I wouldn't change it for anything. They had to remove the specks with CGI, because they couldn't wipe it off at a cutaway or an angle change, because there weren't any. That sequence is almost 9 minutes long, without cuts, everyone had to be perfect, all the effects had to trigger, etc. etc.

That is some shot, if you ask me.... all 9 minutes of it...

Re: Children of Men
 

I heard the director hated it, but couldn't re-do the scene because of costs. So they removed it digitally, he considered it too distracting.

Re: Children of Men
 

Yes, it is a great nine minutes, but Sedai -- how do you explain the blood spatters in terms of storyline? It makes no sense.

And it therefore shot me right out of the scene and into nitpicky-mode. I had trouble appreciating the scene after that moment.

I figured it had to be a mistake. I just don't get why he'd keep it if it ran the risk of being so incredibly unexplainable in terms of storyline.

Re: Children of Men
 

TUS, they may have removed it at some point in the ongoing scene (I noticed it just suddenly disappeared), but it was strikingly visible for a few full minutes on the screen before they got rid of it.

Sorry, but it was a mistake they should not have kept. I wonder why they didn't airbrush it ALL out instead of leaving a few minutes of the distraction in there.

Re: Children of Men
 

Austruck, how do you explain the presence of a camera at all in terms of story? The blood splatter is just a little less conventional than the cinematic vocabulary most people read so fluently that they hardly even notice it [which is why you did notice it]. It's perfectly reasonable for you to bring that up as something that [deliberately or not] "takes you out of it" ie makes you aware on a visceral level that what you're seeing isn't real, but "unexplainable in terms of storyline" isn't a valid complaint when it comes to cinematography. Maybe "appropriate in terms of storyline" is a better question.

Re: Children of Men
 

No, I meant what I said. How do you explain three or four stray drops of blood following around Clive Owen in midair for three minutes?

You can't really compare the existence of the camera to tell the story with drops of blood mysteriously following around the character that have to be explained as having been splattered on SOME object. Oh, a camera? Why is there a camera following Theo around? Unexplainable.

It sounds like everyone's agreed that it wasn't done on purpose. So that just proves my point that it doesn't belong there. Oh sure, it looks cool and freaky, but it takes this viewer out of the experience. And, that's a bad thing for a movie, or a novel, for that matter.

Re: Children of Men
 

Hey, don't get me wrong here. I really found this movie striking and highly effective in telling its story. The subtle little things they added to make sure we understood this culture (without really hammering it in our faces) were brilliant, and definitely made the ambiance of this movie.

Which is precisely why that two or three minutes of being jolted OUT of the story irked me.

Re: Children of Men
 

It didn't take me out of the experience. I think it made the twisted reality of the conflict even more enveloping, but that's just me.

Re: Children of Men
 

Well, I am of the mind that when a director or a DP chose to go with a shoulder-held cam, they absolutely WANT the presence of the camera to be noticed, or they would go with a stable camera rig. To me it makes it more realistic, like a documentary, and less Hollywood Blockbuster. It actually puts me MORE in the moment, not less... So the blood showcasing the camera presence just dort of adds to that...like some intrepid reporter is following them around, risking his life to follow our heroes...

That is just me, though...