'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)

Wonderful movie. But I don't look forward to having my brother ramble on about it for hours on end.

And damm it now I want to go and listen to Itchy Woooooooo all afternoon.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:11 (nineteen years ago)

Occurs to me that in making the pregnant woman & baby (Dylan, eventually) unique on earth and thus the hope for all of humanity, the film forces us to look at the world through a parent's eyes. It's basically a movie about having kids in a horribly inhospitable world.

this is a good point. I had a child six months ago and that's partly why this movie was so affecting to me, absolutely. Also, the birth scene in this is terrifyingly realistic and I can't figure out how they did it. cgi?

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:14 (nineteen years ago)

i'm not sure that Sigur Ros track is actually in the film, just the trailer.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:19 (nineteen years ago)

i didn't notice it

― kyle (akmonday), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:20 (nineteen years ago)

jesus christ 2/3rds of this entire movie was feeling like you were about to get shot in the face

I AM ABOUT TO TYPE A SPOILER RIGHT NOW ALERT MESSAGE!!!!!

so what's the deal, they get the girl's baby to safety, so "the plan" for redeveloping the population then is to bottleneck the entire human species through it? wouldn't that ultimately mung-ify us all? better than nothing, is that what we're supposed to accept?

― ath (ath), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:21 (nineteen years ago)

I think it was implied that "Tomorrow" had something to do with the Human Project or whatever and that maybe with the baby & the mother they could possibly develop a cure for the infertility.

― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:24 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe it would be more apt to say "I feel that it implied".

― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:24 (nineteen years ago)

the film starts with the hysteria surrounding the death of the worlds youngest man, the "plan"/"human project" just makes sense from that point. it's totally believable even if it's unfeasible in a larger sense.

― jed_ (jed), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:30 (nineteen years ago)

"Tomorrow" (cripes) ...implied, OR bludgeoned over the head

You know who was great? Peter Mullan as Syd, the Bexhill guard.

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:32 (nineteen years ago)

I AM ABOUT TO TYPE A SPOILER RIGHT NOW ALERT MESSAGE!!!!!

We know nothing about "the plan" other than, you know, the first child in 18 years has been born and maybe that would be a good place to poke around for a solution. Anything beyond that is stuff you're making up in your own mind.

I think it speaks well for Children of Men that nearly every major criticism I've read is due to either misunderstanding or imposing unnecessary conditions from the outside.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:33 (nineteen years ago)

what about the criticism that every second spent watching the film is one where you're grimacing in fear that you're about to be shot in the fucking face with a gun any second

― ath (ath), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:36 (nineteen years ago)

I thought that was praise!

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:37 (nineteen years ago)

wink.gif

― ath (ath), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:38 (nineteen years ago)

You know who was great? Peter Mullan as Syd, the Bexhill guard.

Totally didn't notice that that was Peter Mullan, which increases my regard for him.

― jaymc (jaymc), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 20:40 (nineteen years ago)

What makes his performance all the more convincing is that even until his last scene you're not exactly sure what side is on.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:07 (nineteen years ago)

I really don't get the tendency of asking questions about every film plot as if it were neorealism and you're an attorney. As long as it doesn't violate its internal logic ... Is this the fallout of those roleplaying games?

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:09 (nineteen years ago)

So is this ILE's most admired film of 2006? Seems like it.

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:13 (nineteen years ago)

(pls God, no more polls)

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:15 (nineteen years ago)

What I really liked about this film and one of the reasons I'll most definitely be seeing it again, was that, since it didn't make everything super explicit, I felt constantly engaged with the movie, trying to make sense of the clues that were scattered throughout it and not just some passive viewer.

― M. White (Miguelito), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:17 (nineteen years ago)

Syd was great even though I was too dense to realize he was talking in the 3rd person about himself until after the baby was born.

― jambalaya backgammon (grady), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:19 (nineteen years ago)

since it didn't make everything super explicit, I felt constantly engaged

Yeah, it was the oposite of this.

― Fleischhutliebe! like a warm, furry meatloaf (Fluffy Bear Hearts Rainbows), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:27 (nineteen years ago)

It's worth noting that we don't even know that this is the first child in 18 years... it's never made clear exactly what the human project is, and I sort of thought that there might be more than just one mother and baby.

― max (maxreax), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:30 (nineteen years ago)

I think Children of Men makes it pretty clear that, in the film's present, "Baby Diego" is/was the last human known to have been born on earth, and he was born a little over 18 years ago.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:38 (nineteen years ago)

heh. I read Adam's line as "Baby Dago."

― Alfred, Lord Sotosyn (Alfred Soto), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:43 (nineteen years ago)

Either way. We get all kinds in here.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 21:45 (nineteen years ago)

That's what I meant; clearly Diego was the last baby known--but it also seems pretty clear that most world infrastructure has collapsed, and there's no reason to believe that lil' Dylan is the only baby in the entire world.

― max (maxreax), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 22:17 (nineteen years ago)

well it depends what the cause of infertility is, doesn't it (something the filmmakers aren't interested in).

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 22:19 (nineteen years ago)

i was half expecting nicka's new sn to be "Baby Diego."

― jambalaya backgammon (grady), Tuesday, 9 January 2007 22:29 (nineteen years ago)

you know it had to be good when no one on ilx has griped about the radiohead usage.

cat clawing onto clive owen's leg = AWESOMENESS

― Jimmy_tango (Jimmy_tango), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 01:03 (nineteen years ago)

Best shot in the movie.

If there's one thing I'd criticize about this otherwise wonderful movie, it's that the kitten was criminally underutilized.

― Adam Beales (Pye Poudre), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 01:05 (nineteen years ago)

haha grady, I was actually thinking of using "strawberry cough"

― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 01:27 (nineteen years ago)

Ha, it never even occured to me that there could very well be other babies about that have slipped under the radar. It's a great idea.

p.s., the sci-fi parody linked to by Fluffy Bear etc upthread really is very funny.

― chap (chap), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 02:06 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, i mean, it seems silly to have a "human project" just sort of sitting in the azores jerking each other off. i sort of felt like there might be another baby, or maybe not, but the movie emphasized the disconnect and lack of knowledge that made me believe that there might, just might, be other babies

― max (maxreax), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 03:42 (nineteen years ago)

i don't remember radiohead being used at all either

― kyle (akmonday), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 04:21 (nineteen years ago)

I remember Radiohead, but not precisely which section. Maybe it was on when Michael Caine and the hippie midwife were getting high?

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 04:25 (nineteen years ago)

i think it's the "2003" music on the radio.
Don't have the patience to read through this thread, but MY what a very very very good film that was.

― Forksclovetofu (Forksclovetofu), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 04:29 (nineteen years ago)

it was life in a glass house i think?

when they were smoking w33d the first time and telling jokes about scientists munching stork.

― jambalaya backgammon (grady), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 04:34 (nineteen years ago)

on second viewing, when clive/theo is on the train on the very beginning, and people start throwing stuff at the train--doesn't it seem like all those ruffians are under 18? i'm just sayin.

― cutty (mcutt), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 05:03 (nineteen years ago)

is the cut between the woman carrying her arm out of the bombed coffee shop to the title credits cribbed from another movie? It (and the sound effect) seemed very familiar.

― milo z (mlp), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 05:04 (nineteen years ago)

Michael M, Yeah...Kazakhstan was 'annihilated' (atomic bomb).

― Tape Store (Tape Store), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 05:13 (nineteen years ago)

life in a glasshouse was on right before michael caine puts on the "zen music" noise blast

― dmr (Renard), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 06:18 (nineteen years ago)

xpost: the scene where people throw shit at the train is on youtube now -- they do not look to be in their 60s but could easily be late teens/ early 20s, to me.

― Michael J McGonigal (mike mcgonigal), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 06:38 (nineteen years ago)

there's just so much i feel like i missed though, so i can't wait to see it again. i know i wrote that before, i just haven't felt quite this way about a big-ish movie such as this since, i dunno, '12 monkeys'? and that had way more flaws, really. hoberman may have put the similarities between the two in my head though, when he wrote how both films seemed similarly buried by limited release...

― Michael J McGonigal (mike mcgonigal), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 06:41 (nineteen years ago)

watched this last night at home and gripped the arms of my chair for nearly 2 straight hours. i felt like a bomb had gone off right in front me of at the end (listening through headphones is a good reason for that) but it wasn't until hours later that i realized i'd been coming up on some sort of stomach bug the whole time, getting more and more tense as the film progressed. afterwards i felt feverish, disoriented and felt like every muscle in my body was sore, a very, very strange experience.

but yeah, an amazing, film. "emotionally draining" is otfm.

― mikebee (heywood), Wednesday, 10 January 2007 21:03 (nineteen years ago)

There could totally be other kids, and other stories like this one.

A big thing this movie accomplished for me, and what I think it accomplishes for probably just about everyone who sees it, is the feeling of what War is Really Like. Never knowing peace, always being on the move, life being very very cheap, having crowds and movements and passionately violent people always around the next corner saying some stuff you agree with, a lot of stuff you don't, and you not really knowing how to handle it, not feeling equipped to deal. It's what people in Iraq live with every day but I can't think of an article or television report which has made me feel it the way that this movie did.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:05 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, now i think about it it totally makes sense that "the human project" contains many children no one knows about.

― jed_ (jed), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:08 (nineteen years ago)

don't know if its been said, but julianne moore's tattoo = hawt.

― jambalaya backgammon (grady), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:24 (nineteen years ago)

Just saw this last night and was blown away. I noticed above a couple of mentions of all the shots of Theo's feet. I dunno anything about Cuaron and his spiritual inclinations, but something was tugging at my backbrain.

Today it came to me. In the New Testament, Romans 15:10, I believe (might be 10:15 - it's been a long time since Bible college), says, in part, "How beautiful are the feet of them that preach the gospel of peace."

It just seems appropo, somehow.

― Hey Jude (Hey Jude), Thursday, 11 January 2007 00:30 (nineteen years ago)

hmm...speaking of the Bible and feet, (and I'm sorry to sound like Michael Medved (ok, he's Jewish, but you wouldn't guess it by his "Nativity Story" comments)) Jasper = Jesus?

He washes Theo's feet and dies for him the next day. There are probably more (maybe not).

― Tape Store (Tape Store), Thursday, 11 January 2007 01:09 (nineteen years ago)

Everybody dies for Kee, though, all of them.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 11 January 2007 01:16 (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.