Children Of Men


This film is wonderful. It's unfortunate that it didn't find a wider audience. I've never read the book so I can't compare but I recently re-watched the film on DVD and it still holds up. It's a very bleak look at a possible future. I loved "V for Vendetta," but this is a much more realistic (and therefore, immensely more frightening) vision of what could possibly be around the corner for mankind.

Highly recommended. Alfonso Cuaron is a master of his craft.

>>By The Walrus   (Friday, 27 Apr 2007 04:31)

Children of men was such a great movie. it was beautifully shot, and pretty real. This is something i can see happening in real life but not in ten years. i highly recommend this movie!

>>By jayulian   (Tuesday, 1 May 2007 03:06)

It's one of the bleakest films I've ever seen, but beautifully made and gripping. I recommend this movie too, but not to anyone who's feeling depressed.

>>By Flagg   (Sunday, 16 Sep 2007 01:19)

I guess I'm out of the norm here. The acting was great but I thought the movie was boring. I couldn't grab it.

>>By coca   (Sunday, 16 Sep 2007 01:25)

i loved this movie.

i thought it was beautifully written and acted. . .Michael Caine was brilliant!

i also thought it would have grabbed a larger audience. . .it had plenty of blood and explosions and even some tits. . .

maybe it didn't have enough CG monsters for the average viewer.

>>By drowninginflame   (Tuesday, 2 Oct 2007 03:49)

You have such a cheery non-cynical view of the film industry, I'm glad Flork has people like you.

>>By Flagg   (Thursday, 11 Oct 2007 22:22)

I love this movie... its shows what our could become if we are not careful. its a possible future that we are not ready for. classic acting by micheal caine and all round good cast.. its a pity it didnt do better in cinema but thank god for dvds...

>>By zeromenace   (Wednesday, 17 Oct 2007 17:11)

I think this movie was well executed and acted. But I think its philosophical content was muddied by a primitive Christian bias. I hardly think human extinction would be so lamentable if the species continues to be so stupid about reproduction, population and ecology.

>>By lspaul   (Friday, 23 Nov 2007 23:27)

There are a few ways of looking at that. Human extinction might be good for the planet but you wouldn't be there to appreciate it remember.

>>By Flagg   (Thursday, 6 Dec 2007 02:37)

This film hit me right between the eyes. I don't go to many violent films, so I didn't have much distance from the rampant brutality in this film. I don't see Children of Men as a realistic story - more as a parable, I guess. Given my low violence threshold and the fact that it was a story that tells us something about ourselves, the ballet-like closing battle sequence left my jaw on the floor. Like del Toro, Cuaron seems to be using violence to talk about fundamental issues in a way Hollywood is clueless about. (Hollywood seems to use violence to trigger our limbic systems and not much else. Kind of makes me want to puke.)

(I'm with you, drowning, I was hoping the bang-em-up special effects would make it a hit with the action crowd, giving Cuaron more opportunities. But then I think of the difference between Clive Owen's character and any character Bruce Willis has played and I see how this film would have left their cardboard character mentality in the dust.)

I read the book afterwards. Cuaron took great liberties with it. I find both storylines intriguing. I don't embrace the underlying beliefs of Cuaron or P. D. James but I appreciate how both have provoked thought on the bleakest of meditations: the imminent end of human existence.

>>By humdinger   (Thursday, 6 Dec 2007 16:58)

No offence but I think that's sort of a snobbish attitude to take towards action films. Sure, plenty of shit high-budget blockbusters are churned out by Hollywood, but you seem to be dismissing the entire genre, which really isn't fair.

Sorry to go off topic from Children of Men.

>>By Flagg   (Friday, 7 Dec 2007 22:04)

Fair enough, Flagg, I wasn't trying to get all uppity. I've seen a few stinkers lately - Fifth Element comes to mind. What are some action movies you think shouldn't be written off by sweeping generalities?

>>By humdinger   (Wednesday, 12 Dec 2007 02:29)

C'mon Flagg!

I wanna know too!

Most of the Action movies I generally think of as being good are borderline Sci-Fi or borderline Martial Arts. . .

so i'm just curious.

>>By drowninginflame   (Friday, 14 Dec 2007 05:58)

The Bourne trilogy for one, and the latest Bond film. Films whose main purpose is to entertain and thrill the viewer, not to make him or her think about deep important questions or anything, and yet are still wonderfully made, well-written, inventive and aesthetically beautiful.

In my opinion.

Still, on that last statement Drowning, I would agree with you: for me, sci-fi aspects make an action film more interesting, and martial arts improve virtually any film because I love them.

>>By Flagg   (Sunday, 16 Dec 2007 19:54)

I'd say some examples of good action intensive movies are Princess Mononoke, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, There Will Be Blood. Well those are just some recent ones that come to mind. I guess westerns and anime films might not really classify. Well I really liked the Bourne trilogy. How about The Lord of the Rings, well I guess that would be sci-fi. Ooh, I know Children of Men! Damn, that's sci-fi too. Yeah, I'm going to agree with the proposal that a movie cannot be good with action alone, however, action in no way must take away from the value of the film.

On the topic: I think it's interesting how so many people have commented on how "realistic" (i agree) and "plausible" the film is, because essentially the film is based on the preposterous sci-fi phenomenon that every single person in the world becomes sterile. Now that is good filmmaking!

>>By Chema Caillet-Bois   (Monday, 25 Feb 2008 08:07)

Simply fantastic. I could see this scenario manifesting within my lifetime. Highly plausible considering who knows what changes happening in our present climate /environment may alter our DNA, becoming sterile, etc. We could be living in a " who knew " period.

>>By Gerry B   (Wednesday, 20 Aug 2008 02:00)

makes you think, we have never ever considered the idea that we couldnt have anymore children.. we are more concerned with the idea that we are having to many... but it just shows how moral we really are and that without our children to carry the memory of you there is really no point in going on... class film making... i love the idea

>>By zeromenace   (Thursday, 11 Sep 2008 16:13)

is that why we have children? to carry us on in memory. . .

do you remember any of your relatives past your great-grandparents? i certainly don't. . .they were gone before i was even born. so. . . once anyone who ever knew you is gone. . .are you gone also?

i don't think anyone debates whether we should or shouldn't produce offspring. the debate is really about our claim to being the superion species on the planet. most species produce offspring exponentially, thusly, their populations are exposed to the brutal processes of natural selection. . .

if we were really superior, we would use it to keep our population at a sustainable rate.

at our current rate we face extinction. . .

i won't be having a child.

i won't be remembered by many.

>>By drowninginflame   (Friday, 12 Sep 2008 00:59)

>so. . . once anyone who ever knew you is gone. . .are you gone also?

No. Things you do have consequences, probably reaching beyond the people who remember you. Just because no one knows your name, doesn't render your actions meaningless. That's what I think.

Just so I'm not completely off-topic, Childred of Men is a really cool film.

>>By Flagg   (Saturday, 13 Sep 2008 00:06)

it is a good film. indeed.

i agree with you. everything we all do leaves an imprint in history. . .whether it's remembered. . .or even realized. . .

i just think people shouldn't have children to carry on their memory. . .in my opinion that's such a strange reason to reproduce.

michael caine was excellent in the movie. i couldn't say that enough. . .

>>By drowninginflame   (Sunday, 14 Sep 2008 06:13)

The birthing scene and subsequent awe displayed by all other characters drew some interesting parallels to many other hugely meaningful births. One specifically that comes to mind would be the birth of William to Scully in X-files. The Children of Men child was first child for 11 years and William was the first supersoldier child to be born naturally. Thoughts?

Also, I know I'm jumping into this conversation uninvited, but I think its oversimplifying to say that the only reason people have children is due to the fact that they want to be remembered. I'm not sure that I've encountered anyone who felt that way exactly. Many people feel that a child is an expression of love between one another and I'm sure many people have no idea why they want a child-they just have one. It's a part of our biological programming to reproduce, a base instinct yes, but a necessary one for the perpetuation of the species. imo

>>By jadeshadow   (Monday, 15 Sep 2008 22:22)

I think people have kids because it makes them feel good. I think it's quite a selfish thing to do, and currently I certainly have no plans to ever do it.

>>By Flagg   (Tuesday, 16 Sep 2008 05:34)

i'm on the same page.

i'm in my late 20's. . .most of my friends have children. . .people actually look at me with pity because i don't have a bushel of children by now. . .

i will never have any children of my own. i don't want any part of it. . .plus there are enough unwanted children in the world already. . .i'll take one of them. . .i'd take all of them if i could.

i don't know how it is in england. . .but you're actually punished by the government here in the states if you don't have children. . .and you're not married.

in the form of taxation. . .

what is this world coming to?

>>By drowninginflame   (Thursday, 18 Sep 2008 23:07)

The discussion board is currently closed.