Movie Review
Children of Men

By: Patrick McKay
2007-01-12



Posted 01/12/2007 - 07:15:30 AM by NickSouthall:
 I agree with pretty much everything Patrick says here - this is a wonderful, wonderful film that you simply have to see.
 
Posted 01/12/2007 - 11:31:23 AM by kineticandroid:
 I agree with pretty much everything Nick says here. You can just tell this movie is going to one of those "How did this not win any Oscars?" kind of films, and in a small way, that makes it all the more special.
 
Posted 01/12/2007 - 12:09:15 PM by pinkrobo:
 Yes - there's something comforting in knowing that Spielberg wins Oscars while Cuarón can make a film like this with little mind for convention or opening weekend figures. (Comforting in that, these days, I could care less for Oscar season.) The shot with Clive Owen listening around the corner to Jasper and Kee is just brilliant, and absolutely heartbreaking. And Patrick is entirely right: see this multiple times. My friend explained the Pink Floyd image to me, and I later pointed out the (direct) Abu Ghraib reference to him.
 
Posted 01/12/2007 - 01:40:48 PM by syurix:
 I agree, but maybe not on the scale of calling it a masterpiece. My main frustration with this film stems from the fact that Kee and Rasta-Honkey (I don't remember her name.) never act like they grasp the seriousness of what's going on, making me feel tempted to yell at the screen at several key points in the film. ("Pan's Labyrinth", which I saw the same weekend, has a similiar problem.) I don't know if this is script-level or directing-level but either way, it seems almost like a moment of subordinating the style of the film to the physcial realism of it. I do, however, think that this thing will age well. I don't know if it tops "Little Miss Sunshine" for my favorite film of 06, but it comes close (maybe if I see it a few more times, it'll pull ahead).
 
Posted 01/12/2007 - 02:06:18 PM by loderunner:
 I think the fact that "Cuarón never gives us enough information about this world" is what makes this film particularly successful for me--too many films try to pedantically explain the nature of a "crisis," painting a theoretical picture with minute details, and these explanations always lead to awkward plot holes or vastly undermining moments that make the audience throw its hands in the air. The beauty is that we're not given any "scene of explanation/consideration" in which the characters ponder the crisis or some authority on the matter runs through the possible problems and solutions in an Al Gore type mode. The world of 2027 is past that stage--it's all denial and despair. My friend, however, noted that the utterly benevolent and unchecked existence of The Human Project seemed somewhat out of place in the world portrayed.
 
Posted 01/14/2007 - 07:03:17 PM by dave_pullar:
 Agree with Patrick totally. It's a minor masterpiece and I think it will be one of those films that only gain full recognition years after the fact. Loderunner - Re: your friend's comment, I'm not sure whether the Human Project was entirely unchecked or benevolent. After all, the whole venture could have been an exercise in wishful thinking given that we have no idea what happens after the ending.
 
Posted 01/15/2007 - 05:04:47 PM by IanMathers:
 In fact, ***SPOILER*** other than being told that the boat that shows up at the end is connected with the possibly mythical Human Project, we don't have any evidence that Kee is 'saved' in any but the most basic, physical sense at the end. Even our protagnist audibly doubts the existence of such a benevolant source. That being said, this is the best new movie I've seen in years. It stunned me, and not only do you have to see it, I strongly urge everyone to do so in theatres.
 
Posted 01/15/2007 - 06:27:06 PM by loderunner:
 I think the panning across of the boat's name "TOMORROW" in bold white letters is suggestive of the kind of benevolence to which I was referring. I still think the ending would have had stronger implications if we leave Kee in the dinghy and fog alone without a boat at all. But obviously this is somewhat weak nit-pickery, overall. I do agree with you Ian, and Dave, that the ending has a power in it: that it applies a "happy-ending" when we extrapolate the rescue of Kee in conjunction with the rescue of the human race; or, it applies "wishful thinking"... or even the possibility that the Human Project will also turn the baby into another political weapon. Yes, this is the best movie of 2006, easy.
 
Posted 01/17/2007 - 12:58:09 PM by nhennies:
 Poorly acted, horribly written, beautifully shot. Don't understand what all the fuss is about.
 
Posted 01/17/2007 - 04:38:29 PM by pmckay:
 Poorly acted? Horribly written? >blinks eyes< Huh??
 
Posted 01/22/2007 - 07:09:14 AM by meatbreak:
 I saw this film last night (After Babel on Friday and before The Woodsman. Heavy weekend.). I agree that it is visually and emotionally stunning - HOWEVER. What is it with the timelines of the characters and the 60's nostalgia? They would all be approaching 90 or 100, yes? It just doesn't work and is very distracting. There's no reason at all for Theo and Julian to have met in the 60's, so why undermine the plot by miscalculating it - unless it was only to jam lots of musical references into it. The Animals album cover reference was funny, but silly. Great film though, for sure.
 
Posted 02/02/2007 - 05:13:55 AM by kamera:
 i don't know if this has already been said (i don't feel like reading all the comments), but Theo does kill someone: everybody's favorite guy, sid. while chasing them after his (sid's) decision to turn them in for money, he gets caught in a door and when he sticks his head out theo cracks it with a car battery. anyway, i'm not sure if this was good enough to walk out of "knowing" it was a masterpiece, but it will surely go down as one of the best films of the decade (and maybe "Cuarón's Masterpiece"). my only problem was the unbelievability of the fact that theo should have been shot dead so many times and doesn't until the end. while it makes sense poetically and cinematically, it's frustrating because it's the only element that doesn't seem believable (and the fact that everything else is so believable makes it even more unbelievable). that being said, still my favorite of the year until david lynch's art film masterpiece comes to detroit or dvd. probubly dvd.
 
Posted 02/06/2007 - 12:19:47 PM by cwperry:
 Wow, I didn't care for it very much. I'm intrigued by how so many people "KNEW" it was a masterpiece on first viewing.