Children of Men

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 24 Sep 2006, 18:47

Anyone seen this yet? Well I have and it's awesome. 4.5/5.

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 24 Sep 2006, 18:50

Stop being such a smug bastard about it

I do want to watch it, and hopefully will be able to sometime this week.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 24 Sep 2006, 18:55

Children of Men – 4 out of 5 (maybe 4.5!)

What an Amazing film, some of the most wonderfully realised action scenes I have seen in a very long time. The long takes and seamless CGI really stood out for me and I wasn’t going ohhh look at the pretty CGI, as it was perfect! And helped to pull the extra long takes together.The reverse car bit blew my mind, as did that finale, mind-blowing stuff I have to say and that makes it easily one of the best films of the year for me. As it just came together so many times to show me what exciting direction looks like when its brought to the screen so perfectly by using all the tools available.

The future setting was perfectly realised with some wonderful real world technology, if a little ignorant in the way its political message about illegal immigrants was forced down our faces every 15 seconds. Yes the UK sucks for immigrants at the moment, but doing it that way in the film just felt wrong to me, even if the truth is the UK is becoming a dumping ground for anyone who wants to come in legal or illegally.

Still I admire the film for its shocks, its setting of familiar places and normal everyday settings and the fact it did not seem to hold back at all. The language was course, the violence swift and brutal and the various bits and pieces just slotted together to create a very nice film which tried something a little different, even if it did feel kind of familiar in its plotline.

In the end I found it to be a quality film, which while not perfect, it really stood out as a film of the year in many ways, still less political bull would have helped. I must say my heart was racing in some sections, the tension and plain excitement at what was before me and the way in which it was presented to me just really came off so perfectly. I cannot wait to see this film again, and really the films a real gem and should at least be seen just to see something with a slightly different take on what we are being force fed this year so far.

Shen · Post by **Shen** » 24 Sep 2006, 21:09

yeah i really want to watch this too it looks really really good

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 24 Sep 2006, 21:28

Hmm... I got the impression that it failed to capitalise on the book and didn't bother to explain the plot, concepts or politics other than some heavy handed left-wing propaganda. The rest being just standard blockbuster chase and action. I must say I wasn't much interested in the first place... but what I've read hasn't changed my mind any.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 24 Sep 2006, 21:45

No idea what you have read, but its unlike anything you have seen I would say. Stuff the polotics, its a film that really is very good. Explaining everything all the backstory etc.. would take an enture miniseries, they explain exactly what we need to know in the film.

Blockbuster chase and action, not even close.
The action is not like a Blockbuster at all, the action is as if you are there in the scenes close to the people fighting and being killed etc... that never happens in films, its as if you have been stuck in the film, very odd feeling too, but ridiculously exciting dodging bullets and cars etc..

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 24 Sep 2006, 22:04

Blimey Mark you must be the only person whose read a bad report on it.

I too have heard really great stuff. I must say the dystopian future plot has been done many times before so at first I wasn't sure (the plot doesn't look very original) but seeing as it's had such good write ups I'm now interested.

The director made "Y Tu Mama Tambien" so he's already off to a great start. It has a decent cast too.

romerojpg wrote:Children of Men – 4 out of 5 (maybe 4.5!)

And to think the director is Mexican hey Romero

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 24 Sep 2006, 22:16

Many directors are Mexican silly boy haha

I just found out something shocking!

$150 MILLION budget!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I thought it was a small film, no wonder the effects were so perfect and seamless! jesus.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 24 Sep 2006, 22:56

Man I have no clue what all you guys are on about. First time I ever heard of this movie or a book or whatever...!?

Can anyone enlighten me about what it's about? In the meantime, I'll be going to bed so I'll check back tomorrow

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 24 Sep 2006, 23:00

Romero you're clearly aroused (just like me). The CGI was so nicely integrated that I walked out of the cinema with a 10' boner (not so seamless).

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 25 Sep 2006, 00:17

BiscLimpkit wrote:I walked out of the cinema with a 10' boner

Did he have a name?

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 25 Sep 2006, 17:18

Yi you maybe havent heard of the film as its not out anywhere in the wortld yet

the UK for some reason gets it 1st! even america doesnt get it until Late December/early next year!

The Plot
Its the end of the world basically, set in the UK, people cannot have children anymore and basically the entire world has gone to hell as the human race isnt going to be around much longer if no children are born. So basicaly everyones rather depressed and the UK is one of the few surviving places on the planet untoutched by constant war and riots etc.., and the UK government tries to stop everyone elese from around the world getting in, by any means they can.

Its basically Saving Private Ryan crossed with 28 Days later, via some strange films you havent seen before

very hard to describe really.

The 150 million budget at least explains how the hell they tricked me with the amazing shots in the film, as I had no clue at all how most of it was done on anything but a massive budget. I thought it was quite cheap say 60million max, nice to see I was fooled

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 26 Sep 2006, 01:47

Alfonso Quaron, hmmm he's a good director. But Clive Owen?! Why? Fucking terrible actor.

Markgway · Post by **Markgway** » 26 Sep 2006, 17:40

Clive Owen is more wooden than a forest.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 26 Sep 2006, 18:07

He is one of the best things in the film, never seen him do such a good job or get to be a real lead for once, he stands out and deserves credit for once.

BiscLimpkit · Post by **BiscLimpkit** » 26 Sep 2006, 20:43

Clive Owen is more or less awesome.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Sep 2006, 20:57

And now for a complete different point of view 8) :

I saw this last night and pretty much completely agree with Kevin's review here:

http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=62896

At the end I was scratching my head trying to work out if I'd seen a good or bad film.

I thought about it and I'm sorry to say for big chunks of the film I was bored. There were people talking through big parts of it and even a couple of walk outs, other people were clearly bored too.

I don't mind why women became infertile as that was answered nicely for enough for me: We don't know. We don't know why some get cancer and some don't, such is life.

1. Okay so the world has turned to chaos/a war, but oddly Britain is left completely untouched. O-Kay.
2. Why on earth would women becoming infertile turn Britain from the world we have today to the world depicted in "Children of Men".

Now what I think is the biggest flaw with the film (X-Men 3 is badly in places but at least it's exciting):

3. At times what was happening on screen should've had tension sky high (it really should) but it dawned on me half way through, the film had zero tension. Sure it was shocking but there was no tension. Why?

I didn't really care for Clive's character, the plight or ultimately the outcome. I'm sorry to say Alfonso Cuarón is a much better director than he is writer (the script is lousy to say the least). When the action does come it looks more like he's ripping ideas from Paul Greengrass' recent work and Saving Private Ryan than anything original or new.

Michael Cain is terrific however, it's great to see him playing a part for once and not Michael Cain on film. It was also really odd to see a proper Hollywood film depict England that actually looked like England, most of the time it's nothing at all like the UK.

I've been disappointed again and again by this years films, 2006 is easily one of the laziest years for Hollywood films in ages.

1. X-Men 3 - Not a disaster but lazy. I'll be getting the DVD.
2. Superman Returns. It went from being great to really weak. I'll be getting the DVD
3. Miami Vice - I reckon it would've been could if they'd stop bloody mumbling all the time. The second half was much better.
4. Volver - Well I didn't get too bloody see this, despite driving 45 minutes to see the film. It came and went so quickly. Why are quality films like this (I suspect it will be quality) on for such a short time and crud like Pirates of the Caribbean on weeks?

All in all why none of these 4 films are turkeys, none I can say outright are fantastic either. Get your act together Mr. and Misses Hollywood.

Children of Men is not a patch on Y Tu Mama Tambien, not even close.

6 out of 10. I couldn't give it any more.

romerojpg wrote:Its basically Saving Private Ryan crossed with 28 Days later, via some strange films you havent seen before very hard to describe really.

Oddly a fair comparison but I'd say:

Saving Private Ryan, mixed with 28 Days Later mixed with 1984.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 27 Sep 2006, 21:08

Hey its up to you if you dont like it

but your wrong

Still I thought the tension was so hight I acctually had piss streaming down my legs in excitement (well I thought it was pee).

Y Tu Mama Tambien had me in tears, what a sad film (sad bad). If it was in english, it wouldnt get any response at all from anyone.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Sep 2006, 21:39

romerojpg wrote:Y Tu Mama Tambien had me in tears, what a sad film (sad bad). If it was in english, it wouldnt get any response at all from anyone.

If it had been English language there's no way it would've been the same film so you can't IMO make such a statement.

It was clearly very Latin American and in many ways Spanish too. If it were in English all the nudity would be cut and so would the entire feel and mood of the film too. Personally I thought it was great. You are correct I doubt it would've been praised so much but that's more so because of the reasons I just mention than just being in English.

p.s - Are there any South American films you do like? That's not meant to sound sarcastic btw. I'm curious.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 27 Sep 2006, 22:34

Honestly I dont even recall what is in what language

I look at the film, not the language, I am sure I have seen many good ones, just dont recall any of them I guess.

Yi-Long · Post by **Yi-Long** » 27 Sep 2006, 22:59

romerojpg wrote:Yi you maybe havent heard of the film as its not out anywhere in the wortld yet the UK for some reason gets it 1st! even america doesnt get it until Late December/early next year!

The Plot
Its the end of the world basically, set in the UK, people cannot have children anymore and basically the entire world has gone to hell as the human race isnt going to be around much longer if no children are born. So basicaly everyones rather depressed and the UK is one of the few surviving places on the planet untoutched by constant war and riots etc.., and the UK government tries to stop everyone elese from around the world getting in, by any means they can.

Its basically Saving Private Ryan crossed with 28 Days later, via some strange films you havent seen before very hard to describe really.

The 150 million budget at least explains how the hell they tricked me with the amazing shots in the film, as I had no clue at all how most of it was done on anything but a massive budget. I thought it was quite cheap say 60million max, nice to see I was fooled

Thanks for the info, Romero... sounds like a great movie the way you described it...

Then again, you can make a visit to the toilet sound like going to Disneyworld...

...so I'm going by the DVDtimes review and write this off as another one of those 'might catch it if it ever drops by on TV' flicks...

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 27 Sep 2006, 23:06

The DVDTimes review seems the oposite of most poeple, in fact I just think its wrong on many points.

Reviews in the press are loving the film, Hell even the twonks on the IMDB have gave it 8! thats very high for such a film as this, very high indeed.

bradavon · Post by **bradavon** » 27 Sep 2006, 23:16

romerojpg wrote:Honestly I dont even recall what is in what language I look at the film, not the language, I am sure I have seen many good ones, just dont recall any of them I guess.

Huh?

I asked what South American films you liked not what language. Interesting post, even if it's unrelated to what I asked you

romerojpg wrote:The DVDTimes review seems the oposite of most poeple, in fact I just think its wrong on many points.

Romero has a point Yi. The general write up has been very good.

romerojpg · Post by **romerojpg** » 27 Sep 2006, 23:36

South American = I have no idea what a SA film is most the time, I look at the film, not where it came from in other worlds.

EvaUnit02 · Post by **EvaUnit02** » 28 Sep 2006, 02:16

Jesus fucking Christ, it's based on a novel by uber-hack PD James!