CHILDREN OF MEN Post-Release Discussion - Page 7

Which I didn't notice the first time, by the way. In the theater, I thought it was a random bullet. It wasn't until my home video viewing that I caught that reaction.

Well, I can't fault you for missing something, anything, during that sequence (or the film in general, as it's as visually subtle as it is overwhelming). I didn't even want to blink.

I just walked for three hours straight to see this movie for the first time in a second-run theater. I probably would have walked 24 hours straight to see it, it was that good. I'll echo the "greatest movie I've ever seen in a theater" feelings others expressed earlier on, this movie has completely blown me away. The best film of 2006, though I didn't get to see it until 2007.

I was at the edge of my seat from the burning car onwards, completely tensed up and never knowing who was going to bite it next. From the baby's birth onwards I was sure it was going to get killed at any moment, the word "heartbreaking" used to describe the ending from reviews dancing evilly around my head as I watched. When they were running through the thick of the battle I originally thought that the Russian woman was holding the baby in that little bag of hers, and that when the rebels went off with the screaming Kee I was convinced that would be the last time we'd ever see her, which was completely heart-rending.

It's funny and sad for me in a way, this movie feels like it was specifically created just for me (or more accurately, to evilly taunt me), as I've spent the last few years working on movie concepts that were very similar in technique and scenarios to what was on the screen there. It's good to see them done so well (and undoubtedly far better than I'd ever be able to do in my life, Cuaron is a genius above geniuses), but anything done in that vein from hereon out is gonna be seen as completely derivative.

As much as there's the idea of the neo-nativity story here and so many other messages and allegories below the surface, the one that I was thinking about on the hour and a half walk home tonight was how it, as all great sci-fi does, commented on our world today. Violent Islamic fundamentalists, ultra-right-wing militarists, brutal underground revolutionaries, angry and desperate immigrants straight out of the French riots, and it doesn't say they're directly influenced by one or the other any human chain of events. The film says that the world we live in is severely sick, the entire human race is severely sick, and thus in every part of the world every group of humanity is lashing out against all the others in a subconscious reaction to that.

To ape V there's something terribly wrong about the planet, something that's made the natural state of people the world over far more violent and aggressive than it might be otherwise. The cause? Take your pick. Pollution, devastation of our world, disconnect from the natural order, disconnect from each other in this increasingly isolated technological evolution, but the worse things get, the more humanity as a whole seems to be at each other's throats. Or at least that's what Cuaron seems to be saying in part.

Someone needs to create a website cataloging all the details and newspaper headlines from this movie and put together a more clear backdrop for this world they've created.

Here's a question. Why were the rebels called Fish? Was there every an explanation or implication as to why?

We don't get one in the movie, as far as I know. In the book, the rebels call themselves the five fishes, and have fish code names for each of the five members, although I don't recall what they were.

I noticed, upon my second viewing, that Guillermo Del Toro has a five second cameo. Awesome.

Where?

When it cuts to a close-up of Julien, you'll see Del Toro's face under her arm.

Hmm, I have to kind of echo this post. Children of Men is a great movie that, for me, is unfortunately lodged in that uncomfortable place between an outright failure and a brilliant masterpiece (in that sense very reminiscent of Requiem For A Dream), simply because it has so many good ideas and such good execution of them most of the time that the bits that don't work for me are just that much more disappointing. I wouldn't overanalyze it that much, too, in any other year - it's just that, this had to come in the same year as two of my most beloved films in a long time, both of which are quoted above.

I DO think it was one of the best films of the year - to be exact, I'd rank it at number three. The flaws that bother me (like the casting choice for Kee and the humor that falls completely flat) certainly aren't as important as those in, say, United 93, which would be slotted in at number four. But they were there, and they were enough to take me out of an otherwise excellent experience.

I loved this film, tons of details took me towards the climax so tenderly it was just amazing. Owen sold the movie when he rush out of the car (then I noticed the long shot) and couldn't light that cigarette.

I noticed two things: the slow pan to the graffiti at the refugee camp seemed like "Apocalypse Now" at least for me. When Jasper (loved this character and his Ruby Tuesday) referred to the suicide kit it sounded like the emergency kit from Dr Strangelove. The one carrying, among other things, a bible and a shotgun with one bullet.

I saw it for the first time On-Demand (tv) last night, and thought it was brilliant - the background future London detail alone was worth the price of admission.

Caught it on dvd finally and wished I hadn't tried to view it at 1am and exhausted. Brilliant, and I echo the sentiments of the better posts in this thread.

2 questions/observations, though.

1. Theo makes a comment about one of his abductors' bad breath (acceptable insult). Then later, when he visits his cousin he mentions to one of the security people that he's got something in his teeth. Was there anything besides this tiny pattern, besides establishing Theo as a blunt personality or am I reading too much into it? I don't know why I even noticed it.

2. The ping pong ball scene. It was a cute way to show a connection between the estranged couple, but I find it weird that she carries that ball around with her. Anyone else? It certainly wasn't an ordinary memento. I'm thinking it was to add levity to the scene to contrast with the tragedy that quickly followed.

This just in.

Children of Men named "Best of '06" by Matt Damon and George Clooney, further proving that they...uh...have great taste...I guess we all knew that already, hunh? Anyway, here's the whole thing, it's a funny read.

I don't think it's because he has a "blunt" personality - both of those people are different variations of people in authority, and it's probably just a way for him to tell them off in a way that makes them feel insecure. It would be very simple for him to tell the kidnapper "fuck off" or something, but telling him his breath stinks makes him shutup and stop threatening Theo. In the case of the security guard, I took it as his way of just abusing the rent-a-cop, someone who he surely loathes...

BTW, either of those remarks are great when you're talking to a complete idiot. I've used both, and it works wonders in getting them to shutup, and leave the conversation...

You're right, it's much better than Blade Runner.

And it's important to remember that Blade Runner wasn't BLADE RUNNER the year it was released. It was met with lackluster box office and critical indifference. It took many years to be recognized as a great film.

Harrison Ford wishes he were still as cool as Harrison Ford.

From Roger Ebert's live chat transcript:

Just saw the movie again tonight and it still kicks ass.   Found this video that has some background ads.   One of the things that seems to be confirmed is that pets have taken the place of children when it comes to pampering.   Also "Earth Grown" bananas?

 

http://www.foreignoffice.com/projekts/movies/movie_com.htm