'Children of Men', the new Alfonso Cuaron sci-fi flick

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (1517 of them)

An amusing review from Seattle who extrapolates all his problems in the film from the first line of the film:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/movies/296992_children25q.html

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

I can exrapolate all my problems with William Arnold from the last paragraph of that review.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:23 (nineteen years ago)

Oscar noms for this then?

Best bet is technical awards like cinematography and art direction. Maybe adapted screenplay -- but I doubt it'll get anything more major than that.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:26 (nineteen years ago)

As someone who doesn't like Julianne Moore's work that much, this film used her exceptionally well!

OTM.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:28 (nineteen years ago)

Oscar noms for this then?

Ditto on jaymc -- Lubezki's cinematography seems certain (he was nom'd for New World which died at the box office) and maybe editing as well as adapted screenplay, i.e. nothing the general public cares about. Universal is generally thought to be dumping it in the US, though it's opened well in 16 theaters so far.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:34 (nineteen years ago)

16 theaters????

Jesus

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:39 (nineteen years ago)

it opened here in SF, but I've been put off by a coworker's negative review and my own perceived dopiness of the fertile-black-woman-saving-the-white-man angle

― Shakey Mo Collier (Shakey Mo Collier), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

re: 16 theatres - wasn't that just the limited Xmas release? It's playing at the downtown Providence megaplex, and we're not exactly a major market.

Plus I can't seem to watch TV without seeing an advert for it.

― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

I had to take the train all the way downtown to see it the other day. I didn't expect a wide release, but I was hoping it'd at least be at Pipers Alley or in Evanston.

― jaymc (jaymc), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:43 (nineteen years ago)

yes, 16 screens as of last weekend (this is SOP for 'difficult' or arty films); congrats to Providence on being a rollout market for dystopian chase films.

http://the-numbers.com/charts/thisweek.php

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:49 (nineteen years ago)

City of God played there too, but only after it had rotated through the local arthouses.

― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 5 January 2007 17:10 (nineteen years ago)

Somebody ought to e-mail William Arnold with the wiki page for Stalingrad.

― milo z (mlp), Friday, 5 January 2007 18:15 (nineteen years ago)

(weeps for humanity)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Friday, 5 January 2007 18:17 (nineteen years ago)

it opened here in SF, but I've been put off by a coworker's negative review and my own perceived dopiness of the fertile-black-woman-saving-the-white-man angle

See it for Lubezki alone. Caine's good, Owen's good, Chiwetel Ejiofor's good ('Dirty Pretty Things'), Claire-Hope Ashitey's good, hell, even Julianne Moore, who I often don't much like, was good and Cuarón is an elegant story teller. He doesn't lay it on too thick, and doesn't assume you're an idiot but keeps the pace (mostly) rolling along quite smoothly.

― M. White (Miguelito), Friday, 5 January 2007 18:57 (nineteen years ago)

There is absolutely nothing "difficult" about this movie besides the violence and since when has that been a problem for American multiplexes? It's not even that arty, really.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 5 January 2007 18:58 (nineteen years ago)

No, it's really just a nicely paced little thriller with very vague (and I was thankful for this, but some reviewers seem peeved) religious and very overt (but not particularly deep) political themes.

― Alex in SF (Alex in SF), Friday, 5 January 2007 19:02 (nineteen years ago)

ie, difficult for American morons.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 January 2007 19:05 (nineteen years ago)

Naw, perfect middlebrow flick.

― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 5 January 2007 19:14 (nineteen years ago)

The video-game-ness Tracer mentioned back in the sandbox is very accurate and, as such, seems PERFECT for XBOXing American Joe audiences.

― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Friday, 5 January 2007 19:17 (nineteen years ago)

Dish up the action violence while making the audience think they're seeing something "deep" = cinema catnip in the US. Plus we love us some dystopian thrillahs.

Also syncs with America's current free-floating anxiety caused by foreign turmoil.

― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 5 January 2007 19:19 (nineteen years ago)

As an American who has actually never been to London, I hope I'm not entirely off-base though considering this Definitely A London Movie.

― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Friday, 5 January 2007 19:31 (nineteen years ago)

making the audience think they're seeing something "deep" = cinema catnip in the US.

Yes, but only if it's as secretly dumb as The Matrix.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Friday, 5 January 2007 19:36 (nineteen years ago)

I never understand what people mean by "deep".

I saw that critics in the U.S. were not too fond of the fact that nobody explains why women stopped having children, or what exactly the Human Project was, which both seem ridiculous.

I always figured it would be difficult to find a large American audience because it's so downbeat. It's a nightmare sprint through hell, really, and hardly contains the kind of cathartic action-adventure popcorn elements of a Mission: Impossible III.

Brilliant filmmaking is, unfortunately, not a selling point in most markets.

― The Ultimate Conclusion (lokar), Friday, 5 January 2007 19:55 (nineteen years ago)

16 theatres today?! I doubt that. It's opened two theatres in Columbia, MO today. And according to AOL, it's playing in Jefferson City, MO, too.

With regard to the film itself, I plan on writing more later, but for now, i'll just say that it is easily the best film i've seen in a megaplex in years.

― Tape Store (Tape Store), Saturday, 6 January 2007 04:13 (nineteen years ago)

It went wider today.

― milo z (mlp), Saturday, 6 January 2007 04:16 (nineteen years ago)

I just saw this movie. It was fucking brilliant. I loved almost every second of this movie, even the ones I saw coming (like the "twist" after the thing with JMoore, who by the way was used perfectly in this movie, Pete OTM).

Both Clive Owen and Michael Caine have this supreme EASE with whatever they're doing on screen, it's kind of terrifying. And God, SO FUCKING HARROWING.

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Saturday, 6 January 2007 05:38 (nineteen years ago)

Dan and everyone else OTM. "Harrowing" is the best word to describe those action sequences. Plus, I love how arbitrary the series of events are: companions you think are going to help Owen are rubbed off sudddenly, wrenchingly, while characters you assume are peripheral suddenly step in. I also admire how Owen isn't given any cute character tags other than that he once had a kid who died young: he's a smarter-than-average guy suddenly thrust into a situation beyond his control.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Saturday, 6 January 2007 06:42 (nineteen years ago)

I was told that Julianne Moore did the ping pong ball trick in this movie, but when I saw it it was a real let-down.

― The Yellow Kid (The Yellow Kid), Saturday, 6 January 2007 06:53 (nineteen years ago)

You were perhaps expecting something slightly different?

― M. White (Miguelito), Saturday, 6 January 2007 17:00 (nineteen years ago)

First impression: This movie was the best movie I've seen all year, new or old.

Second thoughts: Well, yes, there are certain flaws.

Resolution: Grafts everything I liked about War of the Worlds (panic, confusion, brutality, relentlessness) with practically everything I liked about Titanic (same as above, only with unapologetic sentimentality), and it's a goddamned miracle that something of that sort could be so widely and rightly beloved.

My worst fears about it (i.e. the cinematography being so ostentatious that it grabs you by the lapels and shouts "I. AM. CINEMALANGUAGE.") were wiped away once I'd realized one shot had been going on for five, six minutes without my knowing it. Which certainly puts it above the one epic shot in The Black Dahlia.

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 6 January 2007 22:17 (nineteen years ago)

First impression: This movie was the best movie I've seen all year, new or old.

(all of 2006, too)

― Eric H. (Eric H.), Saturday, 6 January 2007 22:27 (nineteen years ago)

this was excellent. the only big misstep to me was the musical cue when you find out the girl is pregnant (too obvious).

Which certainly puts it above the one epic shot in The Black Dahlia.

I just saw this last night and it's so fucking terrible (the movie, not the shot) that children of men seemed like citizen kane in comparison.

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 8 January 2007 01:45 (nineteen years ago)

biggest misstep - that godawful "Ruby Tuesday" cover.

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 8 January 2007 01:47 (nineteen years ago)

I hope I'm not entirely off-base though considering this Definitely A London Movie.

only 20 minutes take place in london!

― cutty (mcutt), Monday, 8 January 2007 01:53 (nineteen years ago)

Milo otm.

Two days later I'm also wondering if Clive Owen's going barefoot or sandal-clad is an allusion to Die Hard (Owen's feet are more attractive than Willis', though).

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Monday, 8 January 2007 01:54 (nineteen years ago)

Milo OTM, and actually the music in the film was below average. That's because the film is so good that you kind of expect them to not fuck up the soundtrack. And yet they did...the "Ruby" cover is unbearable.

the long tracking shots are unreal. the action sequences are great because, while they owe a slight debt to Saving Private Ryan, they aren't indulgent; they aren't Michael Bay'd to death.

The only thing I didn't like was the ending. But it's one of the better movies I've seen in a long, long time.

― don weiner (don weiner), Monday, 8 January 2007 03:55 (nineteen years ago)

It has a badass opening (EXPLOSION! GO BOOM!) And all the action is pretty awesome: the ambush in the car, the refugee camp. At one point there is blood on the lens which isn't new but it's still a cool device (for me). The thing that works in it's favor the most is that no one spends any time languishing over the deaths of everyone. It could have been one I-will-always-miss-you scene one after another but instead it opts to distract me with more violence. I'm not surprised everyone hated the "Ruby Tuesday" cover (I did to going into the movie) but coming out I thought this was the best usage of "Ruby Tuesday" that's ever been attempted.

― earinfections (Nick Twisp), Monday, 8 January 2007 04:27 (nineteen years ago)

i liked it, but i just watched the whole thing thinking ooh lookit that ah what a nice futristical wasteland, with out really caring abt the characters or outcome.

― jhoshea (scoopsnoodle), Monday, 8 January 2007 04:49 (nineteen years ago)

I liked the Jarvis Cocker song in the credits. Nicely underlined one of the real themes of the movie.

― Frogm@n Henry (Frogm@n Henry), Monday, 8 January 2007 04:51 (nineteen years ago)

They were a bit screwed as to the ending - both upper/hopeful and downer look like cliches in the end. These days I prefer the happy ending to indie-standard 'we're all fucked.'

― milo z (mlp), Monday, 8 January 2007 05:01 (nineteen years ago)

once I'd realized one shot had been going on for five, six minutes without my knowing it.

yeah, i don't think this was a showoffy film at all, by contemporary standards.

― Amateur(ist) (Amateur(ist)), Monday, 8 January 2007 05:06 (nineteen years ago)

one of my favorite things about the movie was the way the mid-40s characters--julianne moore and the midwife specifically--had like dreadlocks and tattoos and nose-rings, which is so appropriate, considering that they're all 80s babies

― max (maxreax), Monday, 8 January 2007 05:10 (nineteen years ago)

i liked the king crimson song

― kyle (akmonday), Monday, 8 January 2007 05:37 (nineteen years ago)

max True

― earinfections (Nick Twisp), Monday, 8 January 2007 07:29 (nineteen years ago)

I liked it fine, but based on all the rave reviews I was expecting something a little "smarter"/science fictionier. I wish there had been more focus on the infertility plot line, instead it was just a red herring to set up the one pregnant woman as the Macguffin, the treasure/secret code/whatever that has to be protected. Basically it was a fairly well-made action movie, and not much more. And that's ok.

Why was Julianne Moore so clean while everyone else was so grubby?

― n/a (Nick A.), Monday, 8 January 2007 11:14 (nineteen years ago)

Because she's Julianne Moore. I think it's in all her contracts.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Monday, 8 January 2007 11:29 (nineteen years ago)

Can I just state again that I've never been happier to see Julianne Moore in a role than I was in this movie?

― The Android Cat (Dan Perry), Monday, 8 January 2007 14:41 (nineteen years ago)

Admit it: you thought she was never sexier than when trying to whisper through a hole in her throat.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Monday, 8 January 2007 14:44 (nineteen years ago)

I really enjoyed this but as it was several months ago I totally cannot recall the "pingpongball" incident? Can someone jog my memory?

― Sick Mouthy (Nick Southall), Monday, 8 January 2007 14:45 (nineteen years ago)

julianne moore projecting a ping pong ball into clive owen's mouth which he catches and returns

― cutty (mcutt), Monday, 8 January 2007 14:47 (nineteen years ago)

Skipping 1417 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.