love

Author Topic: Children of Men  (Read 13926 times)

VmSoze

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 4710
  • I am The Christmas Spirit! :)
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #70 on: November 28, 2007, 12:10:00 PM »
That's a long post... I think I need a coffee before I attempt to read it.

Think_Long

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 877
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #71 on: November 28, 2007, 12:13:20 PM »
phew, you had a lot of pent-up criticism inside you. I suggest you post more frequently now on the board, that way you wont have to let it all out in one huge explosion like that, instead you can meter out your criticism in a healthier back-and-forth discussion format, trust me it's much more fun!

anyway, I certainly can't change your opinion on the film, however I do take issue with some of your points.  Yes, the ideas of infertility and the new society were sort of glazed over in the film, but I saw that as a consequence on the focus of this small micro-story within the overall situation. If Cuaron had decided to switch focus to the broader scheme, I feel like the film would have lost the touching and intimate story of Theo and his troubles. Plus, haven't we had enough of these epic sci-fi films that show the reshaping of the world (V for Vendetta case in point)?  Why not focus on a small, important aspect of this broad canvas? personally I feel that for this same focused portrayal of the characters made Blade Runner such a fantastic film.

Also, in regards to the uncut battle-scene, I didn't appreciate that just because of the technical difficulty involved. I felt like it's nature, being prolonged to such a degree, sort of induced a more personal feeling of the struggle and the chaos that Theo and others were dealing with.

Anyway, I my points aren't thought out very well, but there's a rough sketch on my opinion of my favorite film of 2006

pixote

  • Administrator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 33669
  • Up with generosity!
    • yet more inanities!
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #72 on: November 28, 2007, 12:26:02 PM »
Great  |  Near Great  |  Very Good  |  Good  |  Fair  |  Mixed  |  Middling  |  Bad

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11057
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #73 on: November 28, 2007, 12:41:17 PM »
 Disgruntled critic = frustrated artist


 I thought the film was done well - we didn't need flashbacks becuase the main idea behind sci-fi (especially dystopian genres) is that they reflect the society we live in NOW.

Hope is a powerful weapon and those who control it control society...you don't think that first baby wouldn't be used as a tool?
Then you aren't as jaded as you like to portray yourself.

A society without hope will eat itself - look at current events in parts of the world that the rest of us don't care about. The cruelty inflicted by it's own citizens usually is far worse than anything outside forces can do - Rwanda...Bosnia/Croatia...?

Yes - solving the infertility problem would have a gone a long way towards bringing back the altruistic nature of people. But I don't think that the ending really offered up any hope - rather it left it to you, the intelligent viewer, the sophisticated viewer to decide for yourself what happens next...a far more satisfying outcome then having it dictated to you like complacent sheep..dontcha think?
Hey, nice marmot!

Think_Long

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 877
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #74 on: November 28, 2007, 12:45:45 PM »

Yes - solving the infertility problem would have a gone a long way towards bringing back the altruistic nature of people. But I don't think that the ending really offered up any hope - rather it left it to you, the intelligent viewer, the sophisticated viewer to decide for yourself what happens next...a far more satisfying outcome then having it dictated to you like complacent sheep..dontcha think?

also, If we had gotten more resolution at the end of the film, that would have required more background story about the causes of the infertility, etc., thus making the film twice as long. Which, assuming you hated the film as much as jamesr did, would have made it TWICE as intolerable

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11057
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #75 on: November 28, 2007, 12:53:08 PM »
If you read back through this thread - I liked the movie. I thought it was a very thought well conceived vision of the future. Where and when it was takes a back seat to the story (as it should be) - a reluctant hero shoulders what is a near impossible burden and sees it through.

I didn't need all the exposition and background - I have a good imagination.
Hey, nice marmot!

Think_Long

  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 877
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #76 on: November 28, 2007, 05:17:07 PM »
reading the criticism/discussion about this film just makes me realize how much I love it, even after so many months of not seeing it. I was trying to figure out what kind of character I'd define Clive Owen as. He's not really a hero, but he's not really an antihero either. I guess he's sort of a semi-hero, but in any case I think it's worth noting that he is pretty bad-ass, yet he never even picks up a gun (if I remember correctly)

St. Martin the Bald

  • Lurker
  • Global Moderator
  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 11057
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #77 on: November 28, 2007, 05:56:44 PM »
I would call him a bad ass Eyeore.
Hey, nice marmot!

gateway

  • Elite Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1621
  • Boom De Ah Da.
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #78 on: November 28, 2007, 06:37:18 PM »
I would call him a bad ass Eyeore.

That would have been a great patented Sam Van Hallgren nickname.
"I hope someday to be rich enough to smoke giant cigars while cackling maniacally."
- Nathan Rabin (echoing my thoughts exactly)

Bondo

  • Objectively Awesome
  • ******
  • Posts: 21830
Re: Children of Men
« Reply #79 on: July 03, 2020, 07:19:39 PM »
However, to copy what another critic said, Children of Men is in essence a Nativity Story.

There was a twitter thing about describing your favorite film in a way that makes it boring and so, describing Children of Men I just wrote "A child is born" which of course is associated with the Nativity Story. Somehow in over a decade of having this as my favorite film and seeing it a handful of times it never actually had clicked as being the nativity story other than what seemed a throw-away joke about virgin birth.

But there really is so much more of it in there. Theo isn't romantically linked with Kee, but like Joseph, is not the one who conceived the child (per the literal reading). I don't know who is God, Julien? Maybe she's an angel? Are the Fishes Herod? In any event, Theo and Kee have to take a arduous trek while she is pregnant. She ends up having the baby in very humble conditions. The military men who pause their battle in awe are like the shepherds that come to visit. Ultimately mother and child have to flee the country. And of course, the child is seen as humanity's salvation. Like, when it is written down, it seems obvious that it has a more heavy religious context, but I was caught up in the political context all this time. Always wonderful when a favorite film takes on new layers all this time later.

 

love