'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)
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?

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)

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.

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)

Wait, he's actually dying for humanity because Kee = the key (ha) to continuing human life

Tape Store (Tape Store), Thursday, 11 January 2007 01:18 (nineteen years ago)

i'm going off this film.

jed_ (jed), Thursday, 11 January 2007 01:22 (nineteen years ago)

it's never made clear exactly what the human project is

There's a line about them being a collective of scientists working on the infertility problem, right? I thought that was enough. Obviously they're the ones to get this miracle woman to, for study.

I didn't have a clear answer when my friend asked me afterwards why they didn't let the government know. Just because she's an immigrant? Surely the government would value a baby more than they would hate an immigrant, right? Since the hatred of immigrants stemmed from a loss of hope, at least indirectly, and this baby would be hope, and Britain would have something suddenly that no other country did. Right? That's a great deal of hand to have.

I dunno. Apparently not.

there to preserve disorder (kenan), Thursday, 11 January 2007 06:24 (nineteen years ago)

I guess the themes here are 1) never EVER trust the government, and 2) people many people would prefer to kill people that make them. Like the moment when a whole war zone stands in awe of the baby, and then goes right on fighting.

there to preserve disorder (kenan), Thursday, 11 January 2007 06:26 (nineteen years ago)

prefer to kill people THAN make them

there to preserve disorder (kenan), Thursday, 11 January 2007 06:30 (nineteen years ago)

Maybe they were afraid that government scientists would give her the E.T. treatment.

there to preserve disorder (kenan), Thursday, 11 January 2007 06:31 (nineteen years ago)

yeah, that gov't didn't exactly seem like the type i would rush toward if i was a pregnant immigrant.

max (maxreax), Thursday, 11 January 2007 07:10 (nineteen years ago)

Just saw this, and I'm fully in the "awed" camp -- I walked out like a cross between a teenager ("totally rad") and a crappy film critic ("sensational! edge of your seat!").

A lot of the "but this wasn't explained" questions seem a little weird to me, especially when it comes to the stuff that totally was explained: e.g., going to the government is precisely what Owen is suggesting in the kitten-claws bit! To which everyone responds that they'll take away the baby and deport Ki, which she and Miriam are against for obvious moral/personal reasons, and the Fish are pushing because of their own baby-having agenda.

When this ended and the title flashed back up, someone behind me snorted derisively, and then, when the title gave way to credits, two other people snorted exactly the same way. I'm a tad mystified by this: it's laid out pretty clearly that the scope of the thing is "we must get her to the boat," so ... what, were they hoping for an extra fifteen minutes of montage where it's all like "hooray, we have sorted out the baby problem, and everything is going back to normal now?"

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 11 January 2007 08:22 (nineteen years ago)

P.S.: They totally had me at "hippie Michael Caine," but that car ambush one-shot totally sealed the deal.

P.P.S.: As far as Christian overtones go, I feel like this was fairly light on them, considering how much the scenario jumps up and down screaming "hello I am totally wide open for as much Christian-overtone pushing as you could possibly want to do" (and considering the director was born / raised / educated in Mexico, where surely Virgin Mary-tales are going to loom large in your experience and imagination no matter where you wind up in terms of religion).

nabisco (nabisco), Thursday, 11 January 2007 08:29 (nineteen years ago)


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