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

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.

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.

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.

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.

(all of 2006, too)

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.

only 20 minutes take place in london!

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).

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.

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

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

the "Ruby Tuesday" cover was nowhere as cloddish as TOMORROW, tho.

I'm eager to see it again.

As for glamour, her teeth weren't capped.

I mean, it's a (mostly) non-cheeseball metaphor about the endurance/function of hope in a seemingly hopeless world. And that's an incredible feat in itself. And I don't know that I've ever seen a movie that depicted the horrors of war as being so emotionally horrible. So desperately sad and gut-wrenchingly brutal at the same time. The movie basically seems to argue that modern life is a collective failure of imagination, compassion and humanity.

And I think that's why it's being "dumped" in the U.S. It's a withering indictment of American foreign policy (check the Abu Ghraib/Guantanamo scene at the entrance to the 'fugee camp), and it ultimately asks you to sympathize with terrorists. Or terrorists-by-association, at least. It's everything V for Vendetta promised and failed to deliver. Subversive, brave, smart and furiously engaged.

Best movie I've seen in the theater in ages.

This may be changing -- full page ads running in NY papers, and it was #3 ($10.3 million) this weekend in going wide. The critics may have rescued this one, but we'll see if it has legs.

That's nice to hear.

That said, there wasn't a single empty seat in the house when I saw it on Friday night.

this superbly crafted action thriller is being treated like a communicable disease.

Ever sensitive to buzz, critics have gotten the message and are steering clear. When the New York Film Critics Circle met last week, Children of Men got only a handful of votes, mainly for Emmanuel Lubezki's sensational cinematography. Earlier this month, The New York Times imagined Academy members in surgical scrubs, with a "news analysis" noting the unusual goriness of the year's Oscar contenders: The Departed, Flags of Our Fathers, Blood Diamond, Apocalypto, and The Last King of Scotland. A more resonant and gripping movie than any of these, Children of Men wasn't even mentioned.

I did think that she'd never looked better than in the scene in the newspaper hut. Moore should walk around with a big halogen light next to her all the time.

Dreamgirls is not part of the particular equation being addressed there (melisma is the musical equivalent of gore).

saw this on Friday, if it counts as a 2006 movie it was my favorite movie of 2006