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

Yeah me neither.

I should point out that (including in the works of Soderbergh, comparing Traffic to Ocean's Eleven, say), I tend to feel less of a need to acknowledge it (and risk offense by bringing it up around fans and/or trigger-happy ILXors) when the movie is less earnest.

*not like its even getting better overall press than trash like pursuit of happyness or whatever

UH

b. if that's your beef with me saying I had high expectations based on critical hype that weren't met, I still don't know why you brought up marketing ploys and Oprah and all this other horseshit.

-- Zwan (anthonyisrigh...), January 18th, 2007 6:18 PM. (miccio) (link)

What I found to be so amazing is just how natural and tactile the movie was. I don't see how the film technique concealed or was an attempt to conceal the story's obviousness. First, I thought the narrative was pretty transparent, not on the micro-level, but on the macro. Second, I thought the film technique served the story in that instead of concealing or distracting or overshadowing it enhanced the immediacy and the sensual, personal aspects of the story.

For example, contrast the long uncut scenes in Children of Men with The Player. Both are used, intentionally, to do completely opposite things, in The Player, you're supposed to notice the un-cut shot--Altman is being purposefully self-conscious, but in Children of Men, the long shots are meant to draw you into the film, and I think they succeeded, because so many people, even looking for it going in, didn't realize, technically, what was going on at the time.

The movie is more ernest than you think it is, and you are totally wrong that in Children of Men, Cuaron employs "the use of film technique to conceal a story's obviousness".

Anthony, do you think it's possible that it's people praise of this movie as "visionary" that's making you feel like the film itself was pretending to be "visionary," etc? (Or could you point to specific moments where you felt like it was gussying up conventions, or trying to pretend to be greater than them?)

A lot of the reviews acknowledged the creaks in the plot in hindsight, so it was pretty definitely the use of words like "visionary" that made me think this would be more than a great genre piece. I think people are missing that I'm not claiming the film itself is self-impressed, just less ambitious in form and atypical in convention than I expected.

X-post - how was Moore's death sentimental?

x-post I dare you to say that to a fan of it, Alfred.

I also got annoyed, reading certain US reviews especially, how they were all disappointed about the lack of explanation, which I thought was one of its better features.

I agree, however, that the Children's greatest strengths are not in how it derivated from conventional story telling. This is not an avant-guard movie. I think the success of the movie is in its sensuality and humanness.

I like Erin Brockovich up til about the last half-hour.

The only movies that stay in the public consciousness for even 6 weeks seem to be megacults like LOTR or inexplicable ones like Napoleon Dynamite, so yer not really sayin nuttin' dere.

x-post I hear you, Nabisco.

But, for the record, I've never encountered a gung-ho Soderbergh fan period.

Reviewing the reviews/hype is always annoying, whether it's responding to poster copy or scattered THIS IS THE GREATEST pronouncements, or slagging Traffic for not living up to Important hype (when it never seemed to want to be Important).

I can see where people can sit there and talk about the issues in the film, because obviously it is a story to do with those things (though not really sure on the "feminism" angle, to be totally honest, unless "wimmins bein' all bitchy and shit at everyone" is a feminist stance now), but I mean the thing that made Erin Brockovitch good was the character portrayals and the acting and the little comedies and moments in it. The film kind of falters when they get the settlement and you see her going and doing the "Julia Roberts Must Do This At Least Once Per Picture" weepy-eyed sympathetic huggles thing, IMO (or, the last half hour minus the epilogue, Morbius OTM). People trying to make the issue of big money/little people are missing the point, I think?

And I take it as a compliment!

"Reviewers" (I mean TV critics etc) and mass audiences don't like it when ANYTHING isn't only not spelled out for them, but not repeated a few times. Paul Schrader mentioned how unusual it was that Eastwood never specified how his character alienated his daughter in Million Dollar Baby.

Another plus for COM: now Michael Caine doesn't get remembered solely as Alfred the motherfucking butler.