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

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.

I feel like an odd person out that my complaint about COM is that it explained too much--there was no reason to actually show Caine's death, for example.

Yet the casual manner in which the soldiers yanked the midwife – and she's never mentioned again – atones for it.

x-post "atone"?

(For some reason the lingering detail that helps make it "worthwhile" to me is that he takes care of the very practical and humane detail of dosing the dog.)

All the little heartbreaking moments are the core of the film - if you dull (further) the ending and take away Caine's death and so on, you're left with a cold, cold film. The warmth is what makes it all work.

There were only two out of place moments, IMO - the midwife speech and Theo's reaction to Moore's death (when he breaks down in the forest, it was over the top)

If Peter Boyle got remembered for that shitcom, I really don't see Caine obits leading with Alfie or Hannah and Her Sisters, esp if he does 2-3 more pretentious Batman movies.

xpost You would be surprised, Alfred isn't exactly an unfortunate role on par with, say, Obi-Wan Kenobi...

OK I apologize for the tone of this, that's coming off a lot more pretentious than it's meant to be. It just didn't ring right to me at all.