Review: Children of Men

Well, being as I'm a mod in this forum now, and being an avid movie watcher, I figured I'd start doing movie reviews for ATS as an attempt to spice up the forum a bit. I will do my best to avoid ruining the movies for anyone, and if I need to post spoilers, I'll do so with a nice big warning beforehand.

The first movie I'd like to kick off this new initiative with is Children of Men, which received 3 Oscar nominations, and a ton of non-Oscar awards. The trailers for this movie were extremely vague, and mostly consisted of accolades lauded upon it by other people and institutions with many scenes of despair and only mere hints at the premise.

The tagline was "Bladerunner for the 21st Century", which only makes sense if you've actually seen both movies and looked past the plot and only examine the story of Earth. If anything, Children of Men presents an even bleaker picture of Earth. Instead of being a dystopian future of cool flying vehicles, massive corporate arcologies, and cool neon underworld markets, we are presented with basically the same exact problems we have today, only amplified a hundredfold:
Britain's closed borders and aggressive deportation measures border on Nazi Germany overtones. Rioting by the radical Muslim element is rampant across the globe. Some sort of nuclear device was detonated in New York. Terrorism is everywhere, and there's no longer a distinction as to whether it's the government or the resistance. In short, it's exactlly how the world will be if no one really ever did anything to change the course of the world for the better, and just kept on doing things as we are right now.

This is the way the world ends. Not with a bang, but a whimper. Humanity, in the absence of the sound of children, has lost all hope. Everyone's miserable lives only get progressively worse as the conscious and subconscious realization settles that, globally, there is no future for mankind beyond those already living, and those already living have no incentive to make the world a better place. So it just spirals into a worse and worse condition. There's never going to be another baby, so why worry about what state you leave the world in when you die, or worry about how someone else's life is going to end.

The grim atmosphere is conveyed by just how understated the scenes are. The protagonist, a very average man, walks down the sidewalk past several cages of illegal immigrants waiting to be sent to a refugee camp in much the same attempt at embarassed obliviousness that one normally reserves for panhandlers begging for change. There's nothing comical about it, but neither is it overly preaching about the horrors of treating ones fellow man like an animal... it's just another bit of unpleasant environs to an already hopeless world.

Perhaps the most "preachy" part of the film deals with the drug "Quietus", which is basically a suicide kit, and it seems to play a constant and ever-present role in the background in the form of advertisements, posters, used kits, and even conversation pieces. The world has become just so depressing that most people have accepted suicide as a common alternative to waiting for the end of humanity altogether.

Which gets back to the real point of the film: the world is a horrible place, not because of any one thing, but because of a whole lot of little things that no one felt obliged to do anything about anymore. I guess once you remove the possibility of another generation of the human race, that's what you get.

Clive Owen plays Theo Faron, our average Protagonist. He is neither suave, dapper, athletic, graceful, nor lucky. In fact, he's about the least-action oriented protagonist in an action film I've ever seen, but he pulls it off brilliantly as a man who, despite all his shortcomings and lack of charisma, tries to do the right thing in the face of an overwhelming number of reasons not to.

Julianne Moore was very pretty, and played her part well, but honestly brought nothing to the role that couldn't have been done with any other British actress that wasn't Judi Dench, and perhaps even she could have played the role adequately. It wasn't that Moore's acting wasn't good. It was, it's just that her role wasn't that important to the film. The character was a vehicle towards getting Theo involved irreversably into the storyline, and little more than atmosphere and history besides.

Michael Caine played the aging Hippy "Jasper", brilliantly, as he usually does for any role, but I was left feeling the part was just too small for him. It was hard to look at the character and say "There's Jasper", instead, I could only look and say "Michael Caine is in this movie?"

Kee, the true "main character" of the film, played by Claire-Hope A#ey, was extremely well acted, and I look forward to seeing more films with her in it. Her lush patois accent with clear enunciation makes one sit up and listen with attentiveness, and she's quite pleasant on the eyes. Of course, you could say that about any number of actresses, but unlike most, Claire actually knows how to act. I was left with the impression that she's done a lot of stage acting. Look for more exotic (as in mysterious, not strippers) female roles to be played by A#ey in the future.

Without giving away the ending, I must say it really ended the only way it could. Had it ended any other way, I would have been very angry, either with the director (Alfonso Cuarón) or with the world he'd created, or it would have come across sappy and words like "jump" and "shark" would have come to mind. That said, don't expect to be cheering with glee at the end. I left the whole experience feeling empty, bitter, and a bit fearful for what might come of the world if we ignore our problems for long enough. Maybe that was the whole intention of the movie.

As far as technical details go, the soundtrack was adequate, but nothing I'd go out and buy. It was, however, good enough that it never seemed inappropriate.
The cinematography was outstanding, especially during the battle scenes. Emmanuel Lubezki already has a lucrative list of previous projects, but be prepared to see him start handling the likes of Jerry Bruckheimer films, and other action giants. I genuinely felt as if I were being propelled through entire battles in this movie, and unless I miss my guess, most of the most complex scenes were either done in one shot, or done in such a way as to really FEEL like one shot. If you're a film student, see this movie for the cinematography alone (what it won most of the other awards for).

Overall, I give Children of Men 8/10, with 10 being a perfect score. The lack of a compelling musical accompaniment kept me from getting too involved in the film, and I thought perhaps the Quietus got pushed a bit much. We get it. It's suicide in a box and the UK has a big problem with suicide media. Point made. But honestly, those two reasons are not enough to not see the film. See it, and learn something from it, and maybe walk away better for it.

nice review. I've had the movie sitting on my desk for about two months now and haven't had the time to cue it up.

one thing, which I didn't see in your review, is the inability for women to get pregnant. You certainly implied it but for anyone who hasn't read anything about this movie, it might be nice to know that the problem of procreating is a major aspect of the movie.

Based on your review, I'll go out and rent this today.

You gave me a different view of the movie than what I got from the trailers shown on TV.
I'll tell you what I think of it after I watch it today.

I may make today a double feature, I want to rent Flyboys as well.

I'm not sure how I forgot to mention about the inability of women to procreate... It must have been in a paragraph I deleted on accident in editing. Sorry about that. Live and learn I guess.

Thanks for the compliments on the review. Gonna do one for "Borat" next.

I liked the movie.. It has some nice scenes in it. But it is definately not for everyone, and the ending is well, lacking..

Yeah nice review man, I put up a call to all to see it right away here last September (we got the movie a long time before the states).

Unfortunately it didn't do as well as it should've done, although I guess one can take comfort in the fact that the best films are never embraced at the time of release. Sad but true.

Brilliant film, and instant classic. It's short on topic and plot. But its long on atmosphere and visual impact. You will not forget the images in this film. Not for a long time.

Had not heard of this movie until I read TheLibra's review. Rented it last night and was stunned into quiet reflection after watching it. Gives one pause for much thought. The ending was a bit lacking but several side issues were introduced (discrimination, illegal immigration, etc.) that tended to draw my attention away from the lackluster finale.

I agree. The ending was a let down .But even with that letdown, I still rate this film high. I gave it a 9 out of 10.

I'm confused, why do some people not like the ending?

Without giving too many spoilers away for those that haven't seen it.

I would like to know how they got some of those continuous shots that lasted like 5 minutes and seemed impossible. Some of the car interior shots as well moved all around between the actors then exited the car and we find the car is a small compact. How did they do all that?

How did they choreograph some of those scenese is beyond me.

Originally posted by John Nada
I'm confused, why do some people not like the ending?

I think it's because nothing further is explained about "them", and because there's still indication that the world is going to get any better. In fact, even with the last scene (the silent walk down the stairs), and the revelation it brought to people, they only pause to reflect, and then immediately engage in gunfire once more. It's as if the momentum towards societal decay is just too far gone, even for a miracle.

Originally posted by ben91069
I would like to know how they got some of those continuous shots that lasted like 5 minutes and seemed impossible. Some of the car interior shots as well moved all around between the actors then exited the car and we find the car is a small compact. How did they do all that?

How did they choreograph some of those scenese is beyond me.

I don't know, I wouldn't mind watching a "making of" to see how they did it. The best I can figure is that there was a lot of vocal coordination on when to get up, when to detonate stuff and things, and when to run, how long to stay down, and then later all the dialogue and foley was added later. The camera would have had to be a steadycam mounted on a rail that traversed the area or something.

But yeah, the amazing quality and coordination of the continuous shots is what I assume won it all those cinematography awards.

I saw this film today twice and was blown away. The cinematography was excellent and probably the best I've seen. The relevant references were outstanding and I believe that it may well hold a sequel. There are many things that I missed the first time around, but just one thing that people, with the DVD can look at, as a point of interest, (relevant to today) is when they enter Bexhill camp. One of the cages contains this:-



There's plenty more references to look out for, but I suggest that you check that one out.

If you have not seen this film, it's definitely worthy of attention, even if it is merely for visual stimulation. It has some of the most incredibly made scenes that I've ever seen in any film. The fact that many appear as one continous shot is really impressive

*WARNING! STRONG LANGUAGE AND VIOLENT SCENES TO FOLLOW*

(Possible spoilers too!)







[edit on 6-4-2007 by Xeros]

I'm another one that was entranced by the entire movie, and it was well worth the few bucks at the video store and the time spent watching it.

But I was also a little put off by the religious connotations of the ending.

This is one of those movies that I hope has a sequel in the works. The way it ended almost begs for another chapter.

Excellent review, thelibra. I watched this in the cinema a while back. I went in with high, excited hopes (it's based in England!) and left with the feeling that I had just watched an excellent film.

Now, I know that it's your review, displaying your opinion and feelings towards a film, but I have a suggestion. Perhaps at the top of your post, you could create a paragraph / bullet point section involving the main aspects of the film such as title / date / genre / ete. I also feel that an

IMDb link could help, as a central point for all online movie information. Not to mention, that this film also made it into the IMDb Top 250 film list, a fantastic achievment in its own right, hehe!

Of course, it's up to you. But a format always helps if review will become a regular theme.

BLUE.

Reasons for a sequel: Who are the "fishes"? Why are women infertile? What exactly is the "human project"? I'm sure there is more, but maybe a sequel more relevant as to where we are going and how it pans out?...

[edit on 11-4-2007 by Xeros]

Originally posted by BLUELol
Now, I know that it's your review, displaying your opinion and feelings towards a film, but I have a suggestion. Perhaps at the top of your post, you could create a paragraph / bullet point section involving the main aspects of the film such as title / date / genre / ete. I also feel that an IMDb link could help, as a central point for all online movie information.

I think that's a great idea, Blue. I'll use that idea in my next review, which should be coming out today or tomorrow. Thanks for the idea!

It might also do to have a score breakdown as well, and how I arrive at the score.

this movie was awesome

i'll agree with street corner philospher when he says its an instant classic

i saw this twice in theatres i loved it so much, i'll definitly be asking for this for my birthday

one of the best movies i've seen in the past few years

I too really enjoyed the movie. Very well done and it had a ton of symbolism. One thing I have to admit is that it gave me nightmares that night. It was such a bleak picture of the future and really not all that unrealistic. Very disturbing.

I agree that the ending was lacking. I wanted to see what happened with the baby!

I thought the movie was excellent. The scene where the huge battle is going on near the end of the movie, where everyone stopped when the baby came through made me want to cry. I'm a mother of two small children and can't imagine life without them or other kids now.

I went out and got the book afterwards and am reading it slowly but surely in my spare time. Big surprise, it is VERY different than the movie so far. Some things I understand why they cut from a book's plot, but other things don't make sense to me. I usually prefer to read the book first then see the movie, but in this case, I think the reverse order is better, as I'm getting a lot of history and backstory the movie didn't touch on, but the movie wasn't ruined for me because it wasn't faithful to the book in many ways.