Children of Men

I swear one point as Theo and key were turning a corner during the battle, a walker was going to come down. And also all these random characters leading you around who get killed suddenly or do something naughty. Was def. in this movie =)

And A Half Life movie would be great (personally want to see 2 more but hmm) Anyways not to hijack this thread. But Doug, never know. Id hurry I know Cuaron must be a HL fan probably garnaring for the rights right now! =)
 
Just got back from the movie.

Isaac_Brody said:
I didn't think the human project was the point of the film. I think Clive's Owen's character undergoes an amazing transformation. He's lost a son, and in the end the hope for humanity is named after his dead son. I think it ends in the right place because the human project is a different film, it's a plot based film, and not a character focused one.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more. But I also think even more than that, the movie was a thematically focused one.

A lot of the unanswered plot elements were like Hitchcock's macguffins.

"The element that distinguishes a MacGuffin from other types of plot devices is that it is not important what object the MacGuffin specifically is. Anything that serves as a motivation will do. A true MacGuffin is essentially interchangeable. Its importance will generally be accepted completely by the story's characters, with minimal explanation. From the audience's perspective, the MacGuffin is not the point of the story."

The story was really all about the idea that we've forgotten what a miracle life is, the newborn baby the strongest visual for that. What better way to make that stand out than in a world where there are no more children? Am I curious as to what exactly the Human Project is? Sure, and its fun to engage my own imagination in trying to think of what it is. I don't think Cuaron had to know what exactly it was to make this movie.

Anyone's thoughts about the character Merica? I think it's pretty obvious that the name Merica was chosen for a reason (A-merica), just not sure how to interpet that. Or am I getting too deep?
 
Isaac_Brody said:
I didn't think the human project was the point of the film. I think Clive's Owen's character undergoes an amazing transformation. He's lost a son, and in the end the hope for humanity is named after his dead son. I think it ends in the right place because the human project is a different film, it's a plot based film, and not a character focused one.
Click to expand...

I understand what you're saying but I don't like this sort of elitist attitude that these- self-proclaimed "auteur" filmmakers have these days that it either has to be one or the other. It either has to be a hollywood plot-based exposition heavy story or an independent ambiguous subtext-laden think-fest. I think that it can be both. You can satisfy that portion of the audience that's really fascinated by that aspect of the story without sacrificing the integrity of the film and your vision. I know the freedom project wasn't the point of the film. But throw us a bone.
 
c.g._eads said:
I understand what you're saying but I don't like this sort of elitist attitude that these- self-proclaimed "auteur" filmmakers have these days that it either has to be one or the other. It either has to be a hollywood plot-based exposition heavy story or an independent ambiguous subtext-laden think-fest. I think that it can be both. You can satisfy that portion of the audience that's really fascinated by that aspect of the story without sacrificing the integrity of the film and your vision. I know the freedom project wasn't the point of the film. But throw us a bone.
Click to expand...

Uhh...let's see, the movie follows Clive Owen's character. He dies in a boat after safely ferrying the girl out of harms way. And you want the film to continue on without him? You want a half an hour more explaining the human project? Right.... That bone enough for you? :huh:

The movie satisfied my plot needs and exceeded my character expectations. The plot was very strong in the details of the environment. The environment was familiar but tweaked at the same time. It felt like London, but minus the warmth. I was shown plot without being banged over the head.

I think you want a different film than what was there. If you want more plot and less character there's always The Island. I didn't think this film was an "ambiguous subtext-laden think-fest." I have to ask though what's wrong with subtext?
 
Isaac_Brody said:
Uhh...let's see, the movie follows Clive Owen's character. He dies in a boat after safely ferrying the girl out of harms way. And you want the film to continue on without him? You want a half an hour more explaining the human project? Right.... That bone enough for you? :huh:

The movie satisfied my plot needs and exceeded my character expectations. The plot was very strong in the details of the environment. The environment was familiar but tweaked at the same time. It felt like London, but minus the warmth. I was shown plot without being banged over the head.

I think you want a different film than what was there. If you want more plot and less character there's always The Island. I didn't think this film was an "ambiguous subtext-laden think-fest." I have to ask though what's wrong with subtext?
Click to expand...

Let me clarify. I just wanted one more minute of film. I loved everything up til that point. I wanted to learn more about this project. Because if you're going to tell me that ferrying a girl through a war-torn nation with death around every corner was worth it to get to this Freedom Project, it would've been nice to know what the project was so we could better understand the rationiliztion behind all the risk. I mean it wasn't like The Freedom Project was a throwaway motivation. It's repeatedly mentioned all over the script. If you build something up like that, it's just nice if you pay it off (not necessary, but nice).

It's no secret that the one beef people have with this movie (the only thing I'm hearing really) is that the ending could've been better. And I do think it comes down to Cuaron being a little bit lazy. When you write a script, there are always things that you want to focus on. Themes, characters, plot-lines. But in doing so, you can't forget about the rest of the script. Sure maybe this scene or that ending to a storyline aren't as interesting as your main focus, but that doesn't mean you should ignore them.

He built up The Freedom Project (is that even what it's called or am I getting that wrong?) and used it as a sort of McGuffin but it still had a lot of meaning. It still had a lot of resonance with the audience. So why not end that in a satisfying way by taking one more minute on the boat to just see somehting. An image. A person. Other babies. SOMETHING. To just satsify our curiosity. That's all.
 
c.g._eads said:
So why not end that in a satisfying way by taking one more minute on the boat to just see somehting. An image. A person. Other babies. SOMETHING. To just satsify our curiosity. That's all.
Click to expand...

Am I the only person that heard the children laughing and playing and babies crying at the end when they flashed the "Children of Men" across the screen? Notice how I used the plural "children" and "babies", i.e., there were more babies born, they grew up to be happy children, etc, and the human race is essentially reborn. Why show some epilogue when it's unnessacary...I'm suprised they showed as much of the boat as they did, I thought it would have cut out as soon as she noticed the boat.

I think the ending was very powerful and by using the audio with the black screen and the text it lets the movie resonate with the viewer for a second or two before they get up to leave, therefore bringing the viewer full circle without resorting to showing every last little thing, even if it would be just a "bone" or two. Filmmakers should take note, the art of storytelling relies on many things and one big thing is the use of imagination, and Cuaron gave us that in spades, IMO. Too many filmmakers leave nothing to the imagination, therefore leaving us hollow and expecting every last detail to be divulged.
 
To get back to the issue of all the hand held camera work, I think what we're seeing in movies like this, and War of the Worlds, Saving Private Ryan, is more than just shaky hand held work, which has been around since Godard. It's a new virtual reality aesthetic, putting the audience into the action by simulating how an individual would observe the action if he was there. In this case, it made what are actually relatively simple action scenes feel incredibly intense just by limiting our perspective. I think when done well this style actually makes an audience FORGET they're watching a film, contrary to what others have said, because they become a participant in the action.
 
oneinfiniteloop said:
Am I the only person that heard the children laughing and playing and babies crying at the end when they flashed the "Children of Men" across the screen? Notice how I used the plural "children" and "babies", i.e., there were more babies born, they grew up to be happy children, etc, and the human race is essentially reborn. Why show some epilogue when it's unnessacary...I'm suprised they showed as much of the boat as they did, I thought it would have cut out as soon as she noticed the boat.

I think the ending was very powerful and by using the audio with the black screen and the text it lets the movie resonate with the viewer for a second or two before they get up to leave, therefore bringing the viewer full circle without resorting to showing every last little thing, even if it would be just a "bone" or two. Filmmakers should take note, the art of storytelling relies on many things and one big thing is the use of imagination, and Cuaron gave us that in spades, IMO. Too many filmmakers leave nothing to the imagination, therefore leaving us hollow and expecting every last detail to be divulged.
Click to expand...

I did hear the children playing but was under the impression that it represented a vague sound effect that represented the future (and did not come from the actual boat).

And the idea that I (or the audience) wants "every last detail divulvged" is silly and exagerrated because it's not what I'm asking for at all. This keeps going back to the idea that it's a sin in any "important" movie to explain anything. That it's an insult to everybody's intelligence if you don't leave everything up to the viewer. You know as well as I do that you have numerous movies on your favorites list that explain a lot more than Children of Men does. Just as I'll admit there are a few movies on my list that explain less. I'm referring to this one specific film in which Cuaron set something up over and over and over but never paid it off. Had he just mentioned the project once or twice, I wouldn't have cared as much that he didn't pay it off. But he did, giving you the impression that it would be explained. That, to me, is lazy.
 
Batutta said:
To get back to the issue of all the hand held camera work, I think what we're seeing in movies like this, and War of the Worlds, Saving Private Ryan, is more than just shaky hand held work, which has been around since Godard. It's a new virtual reality aesthetic, putting the audience into the action by simulating how an individual would observe the action if he was there. In this case, it made what are actually relatively simple action scenes feel incredibly intense just by limiting our perspective. I think when done well this style actually makes an audience FORGET they're watching a film, contrary to what others have said, because they become a participant in the action.
Click to expand...

Yes, I don't think this movie could've existed without 10 years of first person shooters. It clearly borrows a video game aesthetic.

I think it's very interesting how video games have influenced other forms of media. Like the way in Madden football they started putting the "camera" behind the quarterback. And then one day the TV people said, "Hey, why can't we do that?" And before you know it, we now have the exact same view in football as the video game.
 
Last edited:
What do you guys think about Del Toro going against screenplay rule number 1: which is to have your protaganist be active and be making all the decisions? In this movie the protaganist is completely reactive and spends most of the movie watching everything that's going on.
 
You think? I thought he had active goals. At first he wanted money, but after Julian dies his goal becomes fulfilling her wish to get the girl to safety. I didn't find that reactive at all.
 
He is mostly a reactive character for the first half of the movie. But I don't think there's anything wrong with that. What you have here is the witnessed transformation of a passive, reactive character to one who understands and has agency in his own world. The precise moment is when he listens outsides the window and hears the Fish secretly plotting. From that moment he is an active character with goals and actions contrary and exterior to those of the other characters. I think it's a fairly traditional and ideal setup, particularly for science fiction and fantasy. Look at Lord of the Rings and tell me it's any different (actually, it's much worse).
 
Don't think that the film would have been improved by any further information on the Human Project, since the story isn't about the Human Project.

I mean, okay, the girl boards the ship, they take blood samples from her and from her baby, feed them into the machine that goes ping, read the screen and then solemnly inform us: "Yep, envelope glue. Humanity was made infertile and brought to the brink of extinction, from the cumulative effects of licking all those decades' and centuries' worth of self-sealing envelopes. Uh, huh. Envelope glue. All fixed, now that you're here."

The global infertility is a mystery to every last character in the story, and while it's the ultimate driver of all that transpires, understanding it wouldn't have affected the characters over the course of this story, and doesn't interest me, either. The audience's ignorance works to the story's advantage.

Although I've stopped licking envelopes. Just to be safe.
 
spoon fed info. is just plain boring, i love the fact that it leaves mystery to the viewer and lets the viewer think a little, it's the director/writer(s) respecting that we can figure it out or fill in some blanks that honestly are VERY VERY clear (short of sitting us down, crossing our legs and having someone put it up on the white board and saying "oh yeah, that's right, i knew that but wanted you to just tell me anyway)......everyone just wants everything dished out for them, it's bloody lame, i'm actually TOTALLY taken a back by some of these posts
 
You know, the more I think about it and the more you guys talk about it, maybe I didn't want to know any more about the Human Project. I think my beef was that the ending was anti-climactic in general. I guess I just wanted a little more of anything other than that ending.
 
Realest CG baby EVER.

I'd have more of a review, but I've read through the thread now that I've watched it and agree with a lot that was said. I especially took care to review the character and his troubles here and he is definitely reactive in the beginning, becoming active in the second half. This study helps me a lot in my own writing.

I will own this on DVD.
 
I'm going to see this movie in half an hour...i'm beyond excited! I've wanted to see this movie since I saw the trailer during the movie "Hollywoodland" (which sucked, btw). I'm going to be paying extra special attention to the cinemetography, since that seems to be the main aspect that everyone here is raving about. I'll post what I think when I get back! I have a feeling it's going to be one of my new favorite movies... :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top