Children of Men
 

Children of Men (2006)
I love a good concept film. Jim Carrey endowed with God's powers for a week? I'm intrigued. A serial killer who adopts the seven deadly sins as his MO? I'm there. The world has devolved into chaos because women have stopped having children? Just tell me where to sign up.

The last of those three is, of course, the premise behind Children of Men, a strikingly perceptive film that sometimes looks like it takes place in the aftermath of a massive nuclear war. It actually takes place in London in 2027. Fragments of a somewhat futuristic society (dazzling monitors and adverts punctuate almost every scene) contrast with the debris and violence. Without the investment in the future that children represent, our more destructive tendencies are going untamed, and society is beginning to collapse.

Clive Owen plays Theo Faron, a former activist who apparently couldn't beat the government bureaucracy, and decided to join them instead. On the outside, Theo is aloof, unaffected, and sarcastic. But on the inside he, like the rest of the species, is waiting for something to awaken his hope and idealism. And one day, he finds it: a pregnant woman named Kee (played by the appropriately named Claire-Hope Ashitey). He joins up with a group of people keen on overthrowing the establishment, and they begin an effort to deliver Kee to a group of scientists called The Human Project in hopes of finding a "cure" for mankind's infertility.

Amazingly, director Alfonso Cuarón has made a science fiction film about the downfall of society that doesn't include stale warnings of nuclear winter or artificial intelligence. The real danger, we are told, is within, a point which is emphasized through a surprising betrayal.

The film is surely a cautionary tale, but generally has the good sense to let us decide what it is we're being cautioned against. The infertility depicted in the film could represent any number of things. It could be a consequence of pollution, or punishment for a cavalier attitude towards the sanctity of life, or simply the natural result of humanity taking its status and abilities for granted. We're not given an explicit moral, though several clumsy attempts are made to shoehorn the issue of immigration into the proceedings. These are presumably emphasized in an attempt to make the film seem more relevant, but the themes here are so broad and timeless that zeroing in on this one issue steals some of the film's considerable elegance.

Most of the performances are sublime, from Owen's cynical Theo, to Michael Caine's ease and humor. Ashitey is passable as the potential savior of all humanity, but seems like a bit of a caricature at times, perhaps because most of the people around her are deathly serious. The film goes to great lengths, however, to relieve the considerable tension (which is almost unbearable at times) with random moments of levity, every one of which rings true, no matter how irreverant.

Surprisingly absent from the tale is the issue of religion. Most of the major characters spend the duration of the film trying to protect Kee from those who would senselessly harm her. The historical irony of us once again trying to protect a savior from the very people needing to be saved is apparently lost on them.

These flaws notwithstanding, Children of Men is a borderline masterpiece. It is technically brilliant and occasionally funny, but consistently poignant. For all the pessimism on the surface, the film is optimistic at its core. It depicts a world not without hope, but in which hope is dormant, waiting for a spark to ignite it again.

Fantastic review... Was going to write one, myself, but this covers it.

Great job, Chris.

Excellent review. :yup:


Here's one from the Washington Post that really hit me:

i like the reviews of this movie... i just hope this movie wont happend in real life.

I love apocalyptic Sci-Fi and this one delivered on all points for me. I loved the British setting as well. If you are a fan of the film, but still feel you want more answers, i highly reccommend the book by P.D James. Its not as ambiguous and written beautifully.

In regards to your discussion in the shout box with bobby B Sedai, i agree with you, i thought the ending was perfect. And we do have an answer to the babys fate as over the beginning of the credits you hear the sound of children laughing so that points to it being a success.

P.S Happy New Year Guys!

Happy New Year Blib! :)

All I'm saying is that the ending felt so abrupt and if there was still more to be told.

All your examples are accurate, but they merely demonstrate that films can end abruptly; not that this one did. Going much further would have shifted the tone of the film considerably, in my mind.


That's how I see it, at least.

Well, considering the story has been exclusively from the Theo character's (Clive Owen) point of view, what more is there to say? His important and heroic chapter in the fight for survival is complete. The ending is emotional, powerful and correct. Anything further would just be scientific gobbledygook and the kind of stuff the movie had intentionally avoided all along.

You want exposition, but there isn't any. I think it makes it a stronger movie, not a weaker one.


As a warning, sounds like you'll also want to avoid BladeRunner, The 400 Blows, 2001: A Space Odyssey, The Thing (1982), Limbo, Once Upon A Time in America and any number of other great pieces of cinema that have open-ended finales.

I still adore the movie. It's not like the ending ruined it for me. I just felt like it ended a little earlier than I expected.

I just threw my review up in my review thread

Great review Bobby

Thanks for the great review Yods :yup: The theme reminded me of "The Handmaid's Tale" even though not a great movie, it was the theme of world infertility, that sucked me in :yup: so I think I am going to like this one :yup:

This film has only just been released in the States hasnt it? It's strange. This film was released over here in the summer. Should be available on DVD soon i expect.

Wonderful review! I loved this movie, too. It was so very different, and yet done with such confidence. What I mean is: I could feel the writer/director/actors' confidence in the story and the way it was being presented. It was a totally great find for me, because I just stumbled into the theatre one day and decided to catch a flick, any flick, and Children of Men was the movie with the most convenient start time.

Now Sandyblurt have you given the edning away http://bestsmileys.com/notlistening/2.gif

Ok Yods... I want to stick this review for the sidebar, but you didn't rate the film! I know you are new here and stuff, but, get with it! ;)


For now I am going to just give it a 4.5, as that seems about where you would place it....

You hit the nail on the head. Entertaining movie, get the message, but one I would not buy on DVD or go see again.

If anything this movie pushed me closer to becoming a Clive Owen fan.

Who hit the nail on the head? Hit the reply button to quote the person you are responding to. :)

All that i will say is that i have a new hero; Emmanuel Lubezki (ASC).

Absolutely agree.

I still can not get over the experience this film crew created. The camerawork was some of the most riveting and realistic stuff I have ever seen. Brilliant work, throughout.

On the R2 DVD the only special feature is a nice (if brief) behind-the-scenes look at how they designed and created some of those amazingly long and unedited shots. The scene when the car is attacked is especially impressive, and the rigging and the camera arm they invented - damned coolness. That Alfonso could devise and then coordinate such a thing is remarkable.

I don't expect Children of Men is going to get much attention when the Oscar nominations are announced this week, but it surer than ***** deserves a pile of 'em. But taking a piece of wisdom from a great movie that actually did manage to garner Academy acclaim, "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it." Indeed.

thanks for the review yoda....i thought that the film was well done, the ending didn't seem abrupt for me...i was actually expecting it and wasn't surprised at all...

it is a frightening view of the future...

I'm sorry to say this, because I almost never say this, but I thought Children of Men was awful. I really didnt enjoy it. I'm not much of a sci-fi fan to be fair but the only things I really liked about this film were Clive Owen and Michael Caine. The storyline did nothing for me.

What about the technical achievements of the film? Certainly that left some soft of impression...

The never ending shots had a riveting effect - because the s/fx were so realistic. I was amazed...

Immagine...
 

The idea of the possibility of this movie as truth is terrifying to me. Could you imagine!? But unfortunately its not so far fetched...

Did you guys know the man who wrote Children of Men, Mark Fergus, is scripting the new Iron Man movie with Robert Downey Jr.?

Re: Children of Men
 

Great review, and thanks for the info on Iron Man tb.

Re: Children of Men
 

This movie was just ok for me. I have a dislike of "dirty" futures. I like "end of the world" stuff but it's rarely done well. I had hoped for more.

Re: Children of Men
 

More what? More stuff you don't care for? This film is groundbreaking in many ways, both in concept and execution. Wondering why you would "hope for more" content you say you don't care for.

EDIT: Nevermind. I see Night of the Comet in your top ten. Children of Men is most certainly not for you... :indifferent:

Re: Children of Men
 

Actually, I liked parts of it. The father was particularly colorful.

Still it was an awfully dirty looking future.

I had hoped that they'd found a way to make a child without women or sex.

Of course movies in which the hero dies are not usually my fav.

It was never explained how or why this girl got pregnant.

Unlike some I can enjoy certain aspects of a film and not enjoy certain aspects without it being a totally black and white issue.

I take it you have disdain for one or more of my fav movies. Judgments like that are interesting in what they say about the person judging others.

And Children of Men was, IYO, groundbreaking how, exactly?

Re: Children of Men
 

No...sex? No women? No thanks! I feel that intimate personal relationships are absolutely required for a healthy relationship, physically, emotionally, and spiritually. You can rebut this issue if you wish, but I don't see how.

Fair enough. Some people don't go for noir trappings in film. Me, I almost require them...

IAs the quote in my sig states, I tend to like a little room to contemplate and dream in film, so the issue you metion, and the end were right up my alley. I prefer to leave the spoon at home....

Unlike...whom, now? Yeah, I don't like looking at things as black and white, either, not since I was a little kid watching Star Wars films in the 70s. There are hundreds of films I like certain aspects of, but am nt so crazy about others. Children of Men, however, I am over the moon for... anyway...

It says absolutely nothing, as I never judged any people, just films, which...is what this site is for...discussing film! From time to time, people are going to disagree with you when it comes to film. This is in no way a personal attack or a judgement on YOU. :) A word of advice for a long tenure at the wonderful MovieForums. Roll with the punches, and never take anything too personally. So, my judgement of a b-movie from the 80s says nothing about me, really. :)

Well, except that I don't like Night of the Comet.... ;)

The level of realism was fantastic, for one. In the cinematography department, multiple sequences in the film were groundbreaking. The sequence in the car was 6 minutes long, without a cut, and featured never-before attempted camera work that brought the camera to life in the car, bringing the viewer into the scene in a way that hadn't been done before. A free-floating camera that followed the action perfectly, while at all times remaining in the car, sweeping around, between, and at time what appeared to be through the various actors. It isn't just my opinion that this was a groundbreaking sequence, it is just a act, which is illustrated by various people on the film crew, in the short making of doc on the DVD. The escape from the village was also groundbreaking, in that it was another uncut shot, this time 9 minutes long, that brought the viewer RIGHT into the middle of the action. The moment they leave the tunnel and head out into the village, the shot starts, and proceeds through their capture and subsequent escape from the dreadlocked baddie, Patrick, and continues to follow our intrepid hero through a series of intense and moving events, culminating with the the death of Lucas in the building after Theo finds Kee and the baby. Incredible, intense, disarming, and utterly engaging. Some of the most engaging cinema ever, IMO. So yes, the film IS indeed groundbreaking, as far as I am concerned. :)

Re: Children of Men
 

I thought we were talking about a film, not relationships. The title implied for me, that some scientific advance, perhaps cloning or something like that was part of this film.



Ok, I can agree to disagree about this and many things.



Again, I can understand that.



I'm not talking about black and white. I don't mind that.

I'm talking about grime and actual dirty looking people, world, inanimate objects and so on.


I'm happy to hear that you don't judge people. That was not the impression I was getting.

I can dislike a lot of movies other people like and vice versa, that's cool with me.

Okay, thanks for explaining your POV.

Re: Children of Men
 

HA! Touche', for sure... I will go put on my silly hat, right now!


Oh, for sure. I LOVE black and white films, old and new. I was on the same page as you, talking about black and white dichotomy, conceptually. Hence the comment about Star Wars, with it's clear cut black hat/white hat gig...


Got it. Soooooooo, I take it you don't care much for Blade Runner, then? ;) Funny how I am intrigued by dystopian concepts... Not sure why...




Yeah, I tend to say what I mean, and not pull any punches. You know what they say about first impressions. I must say, some of the members I thought were rude/mean on the forums when I first joined, are some of my favorite members now...[/quote]


Oh, like I am DONE! ;)

Re: Children of Men
 

http://www.gay.hr/web/smilies/catfight.gifhttp://www.gay.hr/web/smilies/giggle.gif

...

*runs away*

Re: Children of Men
 

Astute, as usual, Adi ;)

Re: Children of Men
 

I didn't mean it that way but I occasionally do like silly hats!

I'm not fond of Star Wars either. LOL. I like shades of gray better than black and white thing in general. However, with characters, I do like to be able to understand them and / or trust some things about them.
You are right, I didn't care for Blade Runner much. It was interesting in parts but overall not my thing.


That's cool. I know how that goes. I've seen it before elsewhere.

OK, nice to meet you and discuss some things with you.

Re: Children of Men
 

Can just cut in here and say that I basically agree with Bleach, CoM was a fun flick, a good and an engaging watch, but unlike Mikey here, I don't think it will be regarded as a classic. The technical stuff may well be groundbreaking, but that's not exactly what makes a film great. To me it seemed too simple, too dry. I can recount the entire plot in two sentences; In the future, mankind somehow loses the ability to procreate normally. Then one day a pregnant woman appears and for the next hour and a half we watch her trying to escape to safety where she can give birth to this extraordinary child. Will it save humanity we don't know, for all we know it could be a fluke, an exception, a meaningless flicker of hope. The second thing is, Clive Owen, despite being uber sexylicious, his character interpretations always seem to be rather samey, always the gloomy lonely type...
Also, somehow the gloomy/gritty realistic setting, with only hints of future development made it hard for me to completely believe this was happening in the future (and that this was in fact a sci-fi film).

I'm not saying it's a bad film, far from it, obviously we each have different tastes and CoM struck a personal chord with you Mikey (whereas I'm more of a poetic type when it comes to film), but I think you'll find only a handful of people that are equally as enthusiastic about it as you are.

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...

Re: Children of Men
 

Well, with a documentary, you already KNOW and EXPECT a camera to be on the scene ... so, seeing things like splatters on the lens wouldn't confuse you.

With the shoulder-held cam thing in COM, I thought the effect was supposed to be more of getting you to experience what it's like to be running and dodging just like he is ... but NOT to notice the presence of a camera. It's a subtle difference, but in my mind, an important one.

I don't mean to belabor this point. It was one of about two things I disliked about the movie. (Is anyone going to hassle me about that end credits business? LOL.)

I just still don't "get" how it keeps you more in the experience of the movie. Once you notice a camera, you're out of the story and back to being a movie-watcher.

Re: Children of Men
 

Here is an interesting analysis and take on the film; Slavoj Zizek

hxxp://xxx.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgrwNP_gYE&feature=channel_page

Of course worthy to mention the long shots taken, also an interesting point is to compare this to Pan's Labyrinth and the subject of Hope sourounded by darkness by the director in two of the films and the out comes.

I'm glad there is already a review thread on Children of Men I can respond to.

I think your review of the film, Yoda, is a well-written, thoughtful one - I just happen not to agree with it.

I too like a good concept film. Children of Men is definitely a concept film; however, imo, not a good one. The concept itself is good and original, but once it has been fully revealed half way through, there is not much else of interest in the movie.



The first half of the movie is strong - strong enough that it kept me watching for the rest of it, hoping for an interesting twist or two that never came. The sets of London are great, and it feels like a realistic representation of an apocalyptic scenario where one city state is waging a futile battle to hang on to the remnants of its civilization and to stave off total anarchy. And I agree with you about the claustrophobic feel, especially in these London scenes.

My favorite scene is Michael Caine and Clive Owen getting high with each other. I've seen Caine in countless roles, but it must be the first time I've seen him play a cynical intellectual hippy - and he's outstanding in the role.

I'm intrigued by a certain line of inquiry in your review, Yoda. You speculate that one of the possible reasons for the global infertility could be 'punishment for a cavalier attitude towards the sanctity of life.' Surely, this is your own personal reading. Like you noted, religious inferences are absent from the film - aside from a bit of genuflecting near the end. While you say that the issue of religion is 'surprisingly abesent,' I actually thought the avoidance of religion and any kind of moral explanation or trajectory was one of the movie's strong points.



There was lots of potential in this movie. It's always more of a disappointment to watch a film that starts off strong and fails to deliver than one that can be easily dismissed from the beginning.

I'd rate it a 5.5/10

No sweat. And thanks. :) Wrote it awhile ago, though. It was right around the time I think I started writing reviews that weren't completely terrible (that's not false modesty, either).

A fair point. I've seen it once, so it's possible I was sustained by my curiosity. If I saw it again, I might think a lot less of it. But I'm not really sure how much I should penalize a film for its lack of rewatchability. Creating enough curiosity to get us both through the second half is still a feat of sorts, after all.

Well, all three of the possibilities I list are my personal reading, in the sense that they're all speculation. And to be even-handed, I listed one that aligns well with my politics, one that doesn't, and one that doesn't especially tilt in either direction. The point being, of course, that the film leaves the reason unexplained and is thus a vacuum for most people to either recognize as deliberate, or else fill with whatever worldview they brought into the film.

As for the absence of religion or "any kind of moral explanation"--let me make an important distinction: I'm not necessarily criticizing the film for lacking an explanation, moral or otherwise. I'm criticizing it for creating some alternate universe where religion seems not to even exist. For a film that seems to be trying awfully hard to seem realistic, that's a pretty big deal, because any world where this sort of change doesn't spark a lot of religious introspection simply isn't our world.



Sounds like we agree on the general flow of things. My rating's higher merely because I thought the setup and the first half are good enough to carry the rest of the film. And because...


But, if you're a little less in awe of that scene, and value consistency a little more, then the rating makes sense. :) I can't complain.

Good responses.

And I can understand this point you make

Personally, I was more struck by the fact that, twenty years in the future, there could not be seen any advances in auto engineering, clothes fashion, linguistic nuance (aside from a curious use of the word suave) and most notably music.

But I guess this could be explained, as another poster in this thread suggested, by the fact that an inability to procreate might have an extremely adverse effect on all other creative juices.

In a side note, although Y Tu Mama Tambien, one of Alfonso Cuaron's other films, is a completely different kettle of fish, I had a similar response (although I haven't seen it again since it first came out). It started out full of promise as a spicy, sexy coming of age menage a trois Mrs Robinson film all rolled into one. But it didn't seem to take the characters or the audience anywhere very interesting.

I probably like The Assassination of Richard Nixon the most of Cuaron's films I've seen - and that was mainly on the strength of Sean Penn's performance.

Re: Children of Men
 

Cuaron only produced Richard Nixon.

Re: Children of Men
 

"that was mainly on the strength of Sean Penn's performance"

sigh...

Not gonna touch on the lack of religious themes because I really don't care about that. Seems beside the point and the topic wouldn't really come up very naturally, given the conversations presented throughout the film. My curiosity is piqued but I don't think the exclusion is with considerable detriment to the film. Some research does show that Cuaron implemented religious themes in more abstract capacities.

What I want to talk about is:

I stand corrected - although who stands while typing on a computer?

I guess there's no Cuaron film that's left me with an overall positive impression.

By the way, this is not a snide question stemming from the fact that I didn't think much of the movie as a whole. I'm generally interested to know how this would have made a difference to the film and to you as a viewer.

Re: Children of Men
 

I understand what you're saying.

I guess to care enough about characters to extrapolate their fates beyond the conclusion of a movie requires caring enough about the movie that they're part of. Perhaps that's where we part ways on this one.

Yeah, that's probably where, lol. It's a favorite of mine.

I saw religious elements in the film. The group chanting repent repent, obvious based on history of some of our religions. Also, a miracle happens; this proves to be divisive to the organization causing a power struggle within to control it, to use it. That sounds very familiar history of religions.

I didn't notice that. Pretty interesting observation, it makes sense. If you look at the driving force behind cultural change, especially music and fashion; it's driven by the young. No one has be born for 20 years, makes sense things stagnated since then.


thanks for that link, very interesting take.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgr...e=channel_page