'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 mean, christ, the revelation in a sodding stable?

oh, was it a stable? i just thought it was a derelict building.

Why not throw in a manger, while you're at it. And did every woman on the side of good have to be called a variant of Mary? It would have been too obvious to make the pregnant girl a Mary, I suppose.) Surprised you didn't catch that, Emsk.

ki?

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:15 (nineteen years ago)

With the genders relieved of the ability for procreation, would the balance of power changed?

I don't get this, you seem to be saying that a truce of fucking is the only thing holding back the Council of Men and Council Of Women from outright war? That's a pretty literal interpretation of the battle of the sexes, I think (also it implies a lack of hope, which by definition anyone who hasn't taken their Quietus has some of).

And did every woman on the side of good have to be called a variant of Mary?

But.. they aren't. Kee isn't, and Julian isn't, and Miriam and Marichka are quite obscure variants, I think you're reading more into this than there is.

"Britain Soliders On" - terrifying, but at least the idea that our Island/Blitz mentality would keep us soldiering on.

Well yeah, this seems to sit in an awkward and interesting way with her Tory nature. On the one hand clearly Clamping Down on Immigration works, and the story isn't kind to people opposed to same, but the film, possibly just by having an person you can empathise with playing Kee, seems to run against it. People who've read the book, what's it like?

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:29 (nineteen years ago)

(It's not a stable)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:29 (nineteen years ago)

Ah, I missed the A Bomb on NYC. I thought the "were your parents there when it happened" was a 9/11 reference.

OK, a milking shed, not a stable, but still. It was a very overt nativity reference.

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:34 (nineteen years ago)

oh i get it! she showed him her belly in a milking shed. i thought you meant it was born in a milking shed. ok i do think you're reading too much into it, think that was just highlighting the grossness of procedures used (i didn't catch exactly what she said as they showed shots of the equipment and cows) vs the natural.

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:36 (nineteen years ago)

I think, in a film that paid that much attention to detail, I'm not "reading too much into it" but picking up on something you haven't been indoctrinated to see.

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:38 (nineteen years ago)

er... surely if you've been indoctrinated you're the one picking stuff up that's not necessarily intentional? i mean, even now you've pointed it out, i still think you're wrong.

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:43 (nineteen years ago)

For gods sake, Emsk, the scene where they walked out of the building, and all the soldiers just laid down their weapons and stared at mother and baby like there was a halo around them? You didn't see *anything* Christian in there? Oh, never mind. It's pointless to argue with atheists. They'll never see anything Christian in something they like.

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:45 (nineteen years ago)

You saying there's no symbolism intended in their being in a stable is the same as the Country Life reviewer saying that the London of the film doesn't look anything like the "real" London.

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:46 (nineteen years ago)

Yes, except that she's right and they're wrong :)

You don't have to be Christian to realise why it's a good idea to have a cease-fire around the first baby in 18 years.

The problem with Christians is that they don't believe that Athiests can feel awe at things.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:49 (nineteen years ago)

no i didn't! "like there was a halo" - but there WASN'T a halo! i thought that scene was pretty cheesy tbh but i didn't think it was christian - it was just - holy shit, they haven't seen a baby for 20 fucking years, bloody hell wtf! and you were the one who used the word "indoctrinated"...

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:49 (nineteen years ago)

kate i do like some christian stuff too, like 'in the bleak midwinter' and the christingle service.

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:50 (nineteen years ago)

I'm not saying you can't feel awe at things, I'm just saying you just refuse to acknowledge very overt symbolism because you don't like the things it symbolises.

x-post

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:51 (nineteen years ago)

I think Kee's 'I'm a virgin' joke was a very obvious statement that the film WASN'T going to be a Christian allegory.

― chap who would dare to contain two ingredients. Tea and bags. (chap), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:53 (nineteen years ago)

if i thought it was there i would acknowledge it, but i honestly don't think it was there! they were in a barn because they were on a bloody farm, and where else is there to go to be private when there's a big bloody meeting going on in the farmhouse and it's raining outside? nice touch of gruesomeness with the cows.

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:55 (nineteen years ago)

It's pointless to argue with atheists.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Monday, 2 October 2006 09:55 (nineteen years ago)

I haven't read it, but I was told that in the book it's Julianne Moore's character who is pregnant, interestingly.

I also loved this movie for all the reasons stated above, but it must be said that this is some of the best actual nuts-and-bolts filmmaking I have seen in a long time. Some incredibly memorable images - the explosions going off in the distance through the fog as Theo and Ki sit in the rowboat were so haunting. And this should be the number one film cited in any defense of CGI work, which I usually hate with a passion.

― Tiki Theater Xymposium (Bent Over at the Arclight), Monday, 2 October 2006 10:07 (nineteen years ago)

But I liked the "cheesy" ending.

was it that cheesy though? there were cheesier bits. i dunno, i didn't leave with much of a feeling of hope, even once she'd been picked up. who are these human project people? they might be just as bad as the fish. or they might just be useless.

It had me in tears in points. I know I don't see films as often as other people, so they tend to affect me more.

i dunno if it's anything to do with seeing less films... i see quite a lot and i was in tears pretty much the whole way through! i think it's just that it's an incredibly well-made, timely, insightful, powerful film that chimes with modern fears and is realistic enough to upset us in a non-escapist way.

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 2 October 2006 10:25 (nineteen years ago)

I thought others were saying that it was cheesy? Or maybe they were referring to that "escaping from the gunfight" bit. It did leave me with a sense of hope, that the Human Project were going to be decent folks, or at least a better life for Kee than the Fishes or the Government. Or, at least that they were *real* when there was so much fear that they weren't. But now you've stripped me of that hope... waaahhh!

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 10:28 (nineteen years ago)

there were some very clear references to christ's birth throughout the film, it's just obtuse to say otherwise.

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 2 October 2006 10:55 (nineteen years ago)

the only defense of cgi you will ever need = the ping pong ball! (it HAD to be, rite???)

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:00 (nineteen years ago)

the concept of the future salvation of humanity being born amid muck and violence and war has a history, to say the least, but i don't think the film went much beyond that

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:04 (nineteen years ago)

the ping pong ball was great.

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:09 (nineteen years ago)

ok, i thought the meeting bit was cheesy (in that the acting was, it was a bit stagey) and the laying down their arms was (sure, the ones that saw them would prob have stopped firing, but the ones who couldn't see and they yelled "ceasefire!" at and they just did? no fucking chance), but that was it really... i liked the end, that it was quite murky.

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:23 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, actually that's one thing that's maybe not been said yet, how completely convincing Julianne Moore and Clive Owen are as exes.

xpost - soldiers be following orders.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:26 (nineteen years ago)

the one huge plot hole was that there would have been no chance whatsoever of them escaping after the baby had been revealed.

also it's not been said yet how totally hott Owen is in this.

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:28 (nineteen years ago)

did anybody else see the banksy stencil in richy-cousin's battersea fortress? it looked as though an entire wall had been removed and relocated - i think that and the guernica overloaded my little brain with danger levels of mirth

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:30 (nineteen years ago)

I, too, wondered how they managed to get away after the baby had been revealed. I thought Syd's reaction was far more natural than the soldiers'. That was a rather terrible plothole. Especially as it was the baby that they were all supposed to be fighting over!

Err, yeah. I didn't want to be the one to mention it, though. I was watching the whole film going "err, is it me, or is Clive Owen really hott in this? Coz I didn't think he was all that in King Arthur, but errr, hottt."

x-post yes, I laughed out loud at the Banksy in the Tate. (And it was the Tate for that sequence, weirdly, even though the outside was Battersea Power Station.)

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:33 (nineteen years ago)

Okay okay I did think it was cheesy not just that everyone stops fighting, but also that they're struck dumb. I would have thought that at least one senior soldier would have tried to provide an escort.

(xposted to fuckery :)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:36 (nineteen years ago)

Are you calling me fuckery, sir?!?!

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:37 (nineteen years ago)

emsk and jed and Andrew i felt that, too, even before they'd met the soldiers - surely ONE of the holed up fugees, or ONE of the soldiers would have had their "take charge switch" flipped by the sight of that baby and taken it upon themSELVES to escort this precious cargo to whatever authorities they felt could handle it best, i mean cutie owen is practically hopping on one foot! i can just buy the reaction in the film though - humanity has been seriously re-superstitionized (who can blame them) and i can easily imagine everyone simply being struck dumb with religious awe just as they are

xpost kate - the soldiers were just fighting to suppress the fishes; the fishes had blasted into bexhill to get the baby in order to lend mystical authority to the anti-government/pro-immigrant uprising they wanted to trigger; it turned out that the blast triggered the uprising, which i'm not sure they were counting on... anyway i think the only people "fighting" over the baby were the fishes?

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:39 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, the Battersea thing is cool, he goes over the right bridge for the Tate Modern, and down the Tate's ramp, and end up a different reused power station on the south bank :)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:40 (nineteen years ago)

yeah that's right. the battle wasn't over the baby.

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:42 (nineteen years ago)

I suppose the principle fishes had all got shot, hence why Owen was able to get out of the building at all.

― Virginia Plainsong (kate), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:45 (nineteen years ago)

really good moment in battersea when owen asks the danny houston character how he copes

"i just [pops pill] don't think about it"

― jed_ (jed), Monday, 2 October 2006 11:47 (nineteen years ago)

Another plothole: wouldn't it have been a hell of a lot easier to get a boat from a bit further down the coast and row all the way to the bouy?

― chap who would dare to contain two ingredients. Tea and bags. (chap), Monday, 2 October 2006 12:07 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

Finally saw a 'coming soon' poster for this over here.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 20 November 2006 15:41 (nineteen years ago)

Almost 2 months later, I am still thinking of this movie, plot holes and all. It'll be interesting to see how it does in the States. Ned, what does the poster look like there? The UK posters were a bit cheap-o and generally unrepresentative, I thought:

http://www.thehollywoodnews.com/images9/children_of_men_poster.jpg

― Tiki Theater Xymposium (Bent Over at the Arclight), Monday, 20 November 2006 16:06 (nineteen years ago)

A quick GIS search didn't turn it up -- it's black with a few lines about how it's twenty years in the future and babies aren't being born anymore but something's about to change etc. etc. A small figure of a fetus in vitro, then the credits. (Amusingly one line reads 'from visionary director Alfonso Cuaron' -- nice way to oversell, folks!)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Monday, 20 November 2006 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

I still love it, I really want to see it again.

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Monday, 20 November 2006 16:24 (nineteen years ago)

it will prob be on at prince charles soon. next time i see it i am going on my own, the better to let the utter misery and hopelessness seep into me. rah.

― emsk ( emsk), Monday, 20 November 2006 16:27 (nineteen years ago)

great movie. yeah.

― sean gramophone (Sean M), Monday, 20 November 2006 16:35 (nineteen years ago)

one month passes...

Okay, so, revive.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 4 January 2007 05:57 (nineteen years ago)

(I still haven't seen this but some friends and I have made plans for next week at long last.)

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Thursday, 4 January 2007 05:57 (nineteen years ago)

Consensus from ILX Prime: very good, then Morbius starts talking about Steven Spielberg (may only happen in selected theatres)

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 4 January 2007 08:31 (nineteen years ago)

selected brains.

― there to preserve disorder (kenan), Thursday, 4 January 2007 08:38 (nineteen years ago)

i still don't know how they did the ping pong ball thing. I loved that. There's something that seems specifically French about having people show off some athletic or physical trick for the camera (Denis Lavant in Les Amants du Pont-Neuf, or the guy who mimes blowing up a balloon in Ma Vivre Sa Vie) .. it just occurred to me that the ping pong ball thing might actually happen in the middle of that long unbroken shot?? unpossible

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Thursday, 4 January 2007 11:18 (nineteen years ago)

(sorry) Long unbroken shot in the car = clear 'omage to Spielberg's War of The Worlds!

― Andrew Farrell (afarrell), Thursday, 4 January 2007 11:29 (nineteen years ago)

phew it is out on dvd soon, with this iffy cover

http://ec2.images-amazon.com/images/P/B000J4P9YO.01._SS500_SCLZZZZZZZ_V34326216_.jpg

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 4 January 2007 11:32 (nineteen years ago)

the only defense of cgi you will ever need = the ping pong ball! (it HAD to be, rite???)

I'd say so -- along with the rest of that sequence.

But the movie did not need another half hour.

pity I don't know who you are, farrell (most folx only get interesting when they talk shite about oneself).

― Dr Morbius (Dr Morbius), Thursday, 4 January 2007 14:54 (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.