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

like if I was setting an apocalyptic film in 2027 I might have a guy wear a CUOMO/STABENOW 2016 shirt.

I think it's just a prelapsarian thing but yeah, i don't see why it's so amazing

The shirt itself isn't what's amazing. It's the forethought (which i still wouldn't qualify as amazing, but really thorough).

i noticed it in real-time! no way he could have guessed the logo, which i remember pedantically thinking

just thought it was a cool detail

come to think of it there's a lot of focus put on owen's clothes in general. like when dude at the hideaway asks him what to do about the blood stains on his suit and he's all "throw it away" and ends up changing into raggedy hand me down duds from the compound, or the bit where he's wearing a 2012 london olympics sweatshit courtesy jesper, or how he lays down his coat for kee to have the baby.
totally need to see this again!

― m@p (plosive), Monday, January 8, 2007 4:09 PM (5 years ago)

"2012 London Olympics sweatshit"

2 other mentions of it upthread... *yawns, looks at watch*

>just thought it was a cool detail

otm. never spotted this in the film before, and somehow managed to miss the single ref to it upthread from five years ago.

A little something

http://io9.com/this-iconic-scene-from-children-of-men-was-actually-an-840211730

i know a lot of people hate on children of men, but i loved it (only saw it once), and that scene is incredible.

I enjoyed The AV Club's contrarian take on that scene from a few years back.

I appreciated it, even if I think any rational person would disagree with it. Watching a movie is by definition an act of suspending disbelief and if you can't get with it, get the hell back in the kitchen.

how do you disagree with a scene?

or, do you just mean that it's unrealistic?

Disagree with the takedown, not the scene.

takedown is dumb

xpost oh, sorry eric! i realize you meant you appreciated/disagreed with that AV club article

Yeah, I understand the sentiment, but my take is that, if a flourish throws you entirely out of the film, then you probably weren't that far into it in the first place.

yeah, like this part:

But I fail to see how shooting the whole thing in a single take, rather than in an equally expert conventional shot-sequence, makes it any more tense, riveting, or even claustrophobic. The main difference, as far as I can determine, is that we gradually become conscious of how many things could have gone wrong, and how hard the crew must be busting its ass to pull this off.

i think this viewpoint represents <1% of all moviegoers. i would hate to listen to music with overdubs with this guy. "wait, you mean to tell me the guitar player is doing all that at ONCE? that's impossible!"

also, shooting it all in one take TOTALLY makes it more tense and riveting. his failure to see how that's possible is just a failure, period.

Yeah, but I still get how one could feel that way. Sequences like this are about heightening the investment. If you haven't put emotional/intellectual coin in, then you ain't going on this ride. See: everything Brian De Palma ever directed.

tbh the other really long take towards the end of the movie i didn't realize was a single shot until Joel pointed it out to me

and I love long takes, and the Onion guy is just spouting for no obvious reason i can see

even if I believe to my core that the essential power of cinema lies in how shot A cuts with shot B.

yeah intro to film studies was a good class, wasn't it. now fuck off.

we gradually become conscious of how many things could have gone wrong, and how hard the crew must be busting its ass to pull this off.

i don't think most moviegoers even notice a lot of these epic one-take shots because while technically impressive many of them don't draw attention to themselves, they just exist to show some kind of flow of information or a connectedness or an elegant entry or keeping you in the intensity of a scene without the respite that even a cut can bring. i mean none of the most famous single take shots (i'm thinking of casino, goodfellas, a couple from COM, the player, touch of evil, some others) imo take you out of the scene, they draw you into it more.

an intro to film studies that stops at Eisenstein!

I don't think COM is all that but the long takes in it are rad.

also with com in particular it seemed like a logical response to the insane cutting that most 2000s actiony movies got obsessed with

There's always the potential with long takes that they're a bit of masturbatory one-upmanship among filmmakers (see: Gaspar Noe), but they're also the part in movies where cameras dance.

Bela Tarr's career is entirely about long takes, and I love him for it even if he was making films about concrete mixers.

i like that the first long take in COM feels like a runaway roller coaster--almost like those fake roller coaster rides they'd have in malls in the early 90s, where you'd sit inside a machine that moved around while looking at a movie shot from the perspective of front row in a roller coaster.

i think part of my extreme michael mann/ronin/johnnie to fandom comes from their (relative) patience compared to greengrass and similar filmmakers. unfortunately action movies are getting taken over by excessive edit addicts or dudes who only want to make movies for comic con adults.

even if I believe to my core that the essential power of cinema lies in how shot A cuts with shot B.

Which, ahem, the "one-take" scenes in CoM also demonstrate the artistry thereof.

lol that guy's full of it from so many different angles

I much prefer his piece on how many damned cats there are in L'Atalante.

i wonder if he thinks haneke's single take scenes are "just showing off" too

showoff

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oubsaFBUcTc

ISTR Ebert once making a similar complaint about some movie scene with a boat, and trying to figure out how they had captured the scene without getting the camera boat's wake in the shot, and it took him out of the movie. Maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.

Anyway in re the AV Club thing, I liked reading it because that's an almost universally-acclaimed scene in an almost universally-acclaimed movie, and this dude's all WHERE'S YOUR CLIVE OWEN NOW, MOSES?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ditPebZ8g

unseemly showmanship from Tony Jaa

haha

ISTR Ebert once making a similar complaint about some movie scene with a boat, and trying to figure out how they had captured the scene without getting the camera boat's wake in the shot, and it took him out of the movie. Maybe I'm thinking of somebody else.

It was this one.

Watching a movie is by definition an act of suspending disbelief

no it isnt!

lol that guy's full of it from so many different angles

― i wanna be a gabbneb baby (Hungry4Ass), Friday, July 19, 2013 3:12 PM (5 hours ago) Bookmark

nice

http://vjmorton.wordpress.com/2006/12/26/a-gelded-orphan/

I'm always suspicious of critiques that rely on direct comparisons with source material, especially when they're of a different medium.

SO. FUCKING. BLEAK.

Amazing how key footwear becomes in this movie

Top five for me.

Top 5 of all time, really?

RIP PD James too,

Definitely in my top five dystopian films but I don't know about beyond that...

top 5 dystopian films:

blade runner
akira
children of men
brazil
strange days

Yeah such a great film. Last time I can recall being knocked out in the theater by a big studio flick. "Gravity" such a wet rag in comparison.