'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)

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)

oh bollocks i missed this

― lex pretend (lex pretend), Thursday, 4 January 2007 14:58 (nineteen years ago)

well i guess there's only so much time.

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 4 January 2007 14:59 (nineteen years ago)

wow that case is an eyesore

― Dominique (dleone), Thursday, 4 January 2007 15:10 (nineteen years ago)

lex it'll be at the prince charles soon enough

― emsk ( emsk), Thursday, 4 January 2007 15:16 (nineteen years ago)

This movie was just incredible. It seemed like there were at least 2 or 3 sequences where there was just one long 5-10 minute running shot (I especially like the Bexhill blood-spattered camera chasing Theo). So full of details worth remembering - "strawberry cough", Marika carrying her dog, field of charred animal remains, etc.

― stoked for the madness (nickalicious), Friday, 5 January 2007 14:13 (nineteen years ago)

I liked the deer running through the school.

― Euai Kapaui (tracerhand), Friday, 5 January 2007 14:22 (nineteen years ago)

Is four stars from the Sunday Mirror really the best review they could rustle up?

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

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 5 January 2007 15:51 (nineteen years ago)

US poster, awful in a completely diff way: http://www.worstpreviews.com/images/posters/childrenofmen/childrenofmen3_large.gif

Will probably go see this next week. Oscar noms for this then?

― Edward III (edward iii), Friday, 5 January 2007 16:04 (nineteen years ago)

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)

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.