GREEN CINE Already a member? login
 Your cart
Help
Advanced Search
- Genres
+ Action
+ Adult
+ Adventure
+ Animation
+ Anime
+ Classics
+ Comedies
+ Comic Books
+ Crime
  Criterion Collection
+ Cult
+ Documentary
+ Drama
+ Erotica
+ Espionage
  Experimental/Avant-Garde
+ Fantasy
+ Film Noir
+ Foreign
+ Gay & Lesbian
  HD (High Def)
+ Horror
+ Independent
+ Kids
+ Martial Arts
+ Music
+ Musicals
  Pre-Code
+ Quest
+ Science Fiction
  Serials
+ Silent
+ Sports
+ Suspense/Thriller
  Sword & Sandal
+ Television
+ War
+ Westerns


Public Discussions

topics
GreenCine Movie Talk
In The Theaters
I just saw it and boy does it...
318

Children of Men
Topic by: underdog
Posted: January 10, 2007 - 10:26 AM PST
Last Reply: February 13, 2007 - 7:11 PM PST

author topic: Children of Men
underdog
post #1  on January 10, 2007 - 10:26 AM PST  
Who's seen this one? It's ripe for a discussion.

Amazing film.

I can't believe there's now this weird sort of backlash against it, or against people praising it, from a sort of right-wing critical perspective. If you see the film, it's (without giving much away) pretty clear that the film is critical of both the facist behavior of the government and then often psychotic, disorganized behavior of the uprising. But politics aside, even, this is an amazing master class in filmmaking - with a couple of long take shots that are breathtaking.

The entire cast is excellent, too, Clive Owen, Michael Caine, Julianne Moore, Chiwetel Ejiofor and all the others, and the finale is entirely moving.

While it is indeed bleak, there are many much needed doses of humor, too, in the dialogue, interactions between characters, that make it easier to get through.

See it! Discuss!
hamano
post #2  on January 10, 2007 - 12:55 PM PST  
Hey give us some kind of link, man! What is it, a film about gay adoption?... This is what I'm talking about...
underdog
post #3  on January 10, 2007 - 3:08 PM PST  
Sorry! This Children of Men site is pretty cool, too.

Reviews on Metacritic
SonjaBlue
post #4  on January 10, 2007 - 9:46 PM PST  
It deserves mentioning that however bleak, cold, pessimistic, and brooding the storytelling execution of Children of Men, the aftermath of a small combustible lingers in the air long after its fuse is snuffed out.

Welcome to the refreshing...wind that was "Jasper Palmer" or Mr. John Lennon -- in another life. Wouldn't you agree that there is something admirable about someone who looked Death in the face and -- not once, but twice -- offered the finger -- not as a gesture, but as a sort of...cloud cover?

Mr. Michael Caine: Still full of surprises. ;)
underdog
post #5  on January 11, 2007 - 3:58 PM PST  
Caine was terrific and that was an unforgettable scene.

****SPOILER ALERT*****

Why was he so defiant there? At first I thought he was going to take that suicide pill - obviously he gave one to his wife - but since he was still alive when the uprising brigade arrived, he decided to die another way, perhaps. Amazing scene.

Has anyone read PD James' original novel? Now I'm curious, though of course with different expectations.
Cinenaut
post #6  on January 11, 2007 - 6:55 PM PST  
Yes, Michael Caine was fantastic. There was a chance that his whimsy would have disarmed a different set of guys. He didn't get really defiant until he was shot in the leg.

I loved the way the sci-fi stuff was just blended into the background. The movie had great side characters, (Syd and Marika). I think that's one sign of a great movie, the bit players are interesting enough that you want to know more about them. They're not just there to advance the plot.

I haven't read the book, either. Quite a few guys worked on the screenplay. I wonder if they changed things around a lot from the book?
goodyerin
post #7  on January 14, 2007 - 12:34 PM PST  
I don't know how to do black bg so SPOILER ALERT!!


Scroll over!


(it's actually not THAT spoiler-y but okay...)







I think the reason Caine chose to handle it that way was because his character was sort of a stand-in for the failures of 60s activism and he wanted to go out with some rebel glory. He reminded me a lot of the parents in Half Nelson actually (who were portrayed kind of cheesily but it was a point that needed to be made). Great scene though -- and a great movie!

I think it totally deserves all the praise it's getting. Just say no, haters.
Cinenaut
post #8  on January 15, 2007 - 9:02 AM PST  
I think you might be right about the sixties metaphor.

I read Kazuo Ishiguro's Never Let Me Go last year, and there's a similar theme of the lost of idealism in a near-future Britain.


Cinenaut
post #9  on January 15, 2007 - 12:30 PM PST  
...or I should say "what could be a near-future Britain," since the novel takes place in an alternate 1970s - 1990s Britain.

Anyway, great book, just very very sad.
ALittlefield
post #10  on January 15, 2007 - 12:51 PM PST  
I enjoyed the film as well, although perhaps not as enthusiastically as others; I found it a darker version of V FOR VENDETTA, where once again we have a fascist gov. and rebels who, while having admirable goals, often wind up just as bad as the fascists. This seems to make both films almost nihilistic, especially CHILDREN OF MEN, in which calmly waiting out the end of the human race seems like a reasonable idea (indeed, that's what Clive Owen is doing at the beginning). Still both films leave room for optimism. My biggest problem with the movie is that I'm a little burned out on chase scenes, explosions, and normal guys becoming superman and surviving, time and time again, dangerous situations that would kill almost anybody. And I'm also sick of the Christ figure in movies....
dpowers
post #11  on January 16, 2007 - 12:21 AM PST  
hello... ^_^

it struck me as kinda orphic. like dead man. in fact a lot like dead man. except it got increasingly spatially complex as it went on, instead of conceptually.

lots of kubrick and hitchcock bits. fantastic scene design and establishment of location.

clive owen doesn't work for me as a cypher character. i sometimes felt that the line he drew between feeling and not feeling was too sharp, that instead of being yanked from reverie he was mechanically waking himself. of all the lost souls in tough future i've seen, he didn't grab me. fortunately what the camera was looking at was riveting.

okay thanks!
Catullus
post #12  on January 27, 2007 - 5:06 AM PST  
I liked the movie it was interesting and high quality but there were a couple logical issues that I just didn't understand

Spoilers obviously so stop reading here if you haven't seen it



1) why did the rebel group want to kill their leader over idealogical differences over the baby? I mean what can a rebel group do with a baby anyway that would somehow give them an edge over the government that would shoot them all on sight? hold it hostage? I really didn't get why they wanted the baby so bad like it would help them and would even set up their leader to do so.

2) Am I the only narcissist who wouldnt die for that baby? seriously everyone was like willing to die over a fricking baby, I just dont get it, I dont even want children and im certainly not going to go die for someone elses even if its the LAST hope for humankind. I just dont get that they would all willingly die for a baby does that make sense to the rest of you? (btw I think it would be great if we could no longer reproduce personally)

3) Why did all the millitary guys stop firing and then not only let the woman and baby pass thru unharmed but also let them go free without even trying to detain them? These are the same guys shooting civilians without any less pause than the worst nazi offenders would show to a jewish person in a concentration camp. I know horrible analogy but spot on, they just shot everythign that moved and im sure somewhat out of personal safety but when all the people came out of the front of the big building and were like dont shoot there was about all of a 1 second pause before they were all gunned down like dogs.

So why did they let a baby of all things go?
DLeonard
post #13  on February 12, 2007 - 6:04 PM PST  
I think your questions about the baby are interesting and the answer would seem to pertain to the issue of just what was the point of the baby/lack of children/infertility aspect of the story? This concept would appear to be key to the entire theme of the film, but I cannot come up with anything significant about it.

So, no children would signify the death of humanity, which is a pretty serious concept. Does the baby simply represent the rebirth of humanity, or hope for mankind's future?

I do consider it a fantastic film, I could almost watch it again today (I saw it yesterday) and be just as engrossed. But I can't help but feel that the big picture behind this story escapes me. Anyone have any thoughts on this?
Cinenaut
post #14  on February 13, 2007 - 9:16 AM PST  
Speaking about the book, P.D. James said: "I thought, if there was no future, how would we behave?" That's certainly one theme of the movie. How can these people go on living from day to day, with no future?
hardcle
post #15  on February 13, 2007 - 6:35 PM PST  
> On January 14, 2007 - 12:34 PM PST goodyerin wrote:
> ---------------------------------
> I don't know how to do black bg so SPOILER ALERT!!
>
>
> Scroll over!
>
>
> (it's actually not THAT spoiler-y but okay...)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think the reason Caine chose to handle it that way was because his character was sort of a stand-in for the failures of 60s activism and he wanted to go out with some rebel glory. He reminded me a lot of the parents in Half Nelson actually (who were portrayed kind of cheesily but it was a point that needed to be made). Great scene though -- and a great movie!
>
> I think it totally deserves all the praise it's getting. Just say no, haters.
> ---------------------------------

I thought it was simpler than that. I just thought he was trying to buy more time for them to get away.
hardcle
post #16  on February 13, 2007 - 7:11 PM PST  
> On January 27, 2007 - 5:06 AM PST Catullus wrote:
> ---------------------------------
>
> 1) why did the rebel group want to kill their leader over idealogical differences over the baby? I mean what can a rebel group do with a baby anyway that would somehow give them an edge over the government that would shoot them all on sight? hold it hostage? I really didn't get why they wanted the baby so bad like it would help them and would even set up their leader to do so.

The baby would've been a powerful symbol for the rebellion. If they could have got the word out that a baby had been born, they could have used it to gain support for the uprising against the government.
>
> 2) Am I the only narcissist who wouldnt die for that baby? seriously everyone was like willing to die over a fricking baby, I just dont get it, I dont even want children and im certainly not going to go die for someone elses even if its the LAST hope for humankind. I just dont get that they would all willingly die for a baby does that make sense to the rest of you? (btw I think it would be great if we could no longer reproduce personally)

You have to put yourself into the world of the movie. For 20 years, everyone on the planet already considers themselves dead, they're just marking time until it happens. It doesn't matter to them how they die .
>
> 3) Why did all the millitary guys stop firing and then not only let the woman and baby pass thru unharmed but also let them go free without even trying to detain them? These are the same guys shooting civilians without any less pause than the worst nazi offenders would show to a jewish person in a concentration camp. I know horrible analogy but spot on, they just shot everythign that moved and im sure somewhat out of personal safety but when all the people came out of the front of the big building and were like dont shoot there was about all of a 1 second pause before they were all gunned down like dogs.
>
> So why did they let a baby of all things go?
> ---------------------------------

That was a terrific scene. None of the military wanted to shoot the only baby they had ever seen, hence the cease fire. The sight of the baby stunned them all into inaction. By the time the shooting started again, they had passed most of them. I'd guess that all of the soldiers thought that someone else had taken care of them.

Besides, they needed to get away ;)

about greencine · donations · refer a friend · support · help · genres
contact us · press room · privacy policy · terms · sitemap · affiliates · advertise

Copyright © 2005 GreenCine LLC. All rights reserved.
© 2006 All Media Guide, LLC. Portions of content provided by All Movie Guide®, a trademark of All Media Guide, LLC.