Children of Men

i loved the technical abruptness of the ending (well put, btw).... straight to black, then the title.... i thought it was great....
i think it works much better than if it faded out.... not sure why,... just 'cause
 
this may be a dumb newb question, but you start noticing things after hanging out on this board for a while...so this whole movie was shot at 24 fps right? the same 24p that we can shoot at with the dvx or hvx, where its mentioned in the manual that at such slower frame rate panning the cam needs to be done very slowly in order to avoid a strobe effect in playback...with the quicker long lasting pans in the movie it looked like that effect was pretty obvious. am i right in all these assumptions? anotherwords, thats what the side effect of cam moves at 24fps looks like on the big screen or am i just seeing things?
 
My girlfriend and I just rented this 2 days ago. We were both grossly underwhelmed.

<ducks>

I don't get it. The acting was superb (Michael Caine is genius), the photography and direction were great. I liked the look of the movie. I just really did not get into it at all. It really felt contrived.

I mean, it held my attention for the most part. I think the story just didn't work for me.

My 2 cents.
 
dvxusr said:
this may be a dumb newb question, but you start noticing things after hanging out on this board for a while...so this whole movie was shot at 24 fps right? the same 24p that we can shoot at with the dvx or hvx, where its mentioned in the manual that at such slower frame rate panning the cam needs to be done very slowly in order to avoid a strobe effect in playback...with the quicker long lasting pans in the movie it looked like that effect was pretty obvious. am i right in all these assumptions? anotherwords, thats what the side effect of cam moves at 24fps looks like on the big screen or am i just seeing things?
Click to expand...

You are correct. You'll see it in many more movies than you'd expect, too.
 
thanks, good to know for personal reference.

since I dont want to be totally off topic, c'mon, pull my finger :Drogar-Smoke(DBG):
 
My God, what an amazing film. Just stunning on so many levels. The palpable sense of despair in this dystopian future is really stifling, in exactly all the right ways. Clive Owen is brilliant, and this was one of the few films where I actually enjoyed Julianne Moore's presence. (however mercifully small her part actually was)

Is it just me, or is nearly every shot a walking, handheld wide angle? Unbelievable choregraphy in every scene. The long takes just blow my a$$ away.

I just got the HD DVD from Netflix and have been watching it in stunning 1080p. HD DVD is seriously cool for films like this because there are so many visual nuances that I didn't even notice in the theatrical release, but can clearly perceive in Hi Def.

I'd dare say that 1080p at home is easily better than a typical release print. The encoding job on this film is amazingly good; I felt like I was watching a D5 studio master.

Highly recommend the HD DVD for those who might be considering the format to go with their shiny new HD set.
 
Last edited:
Mars United said:
My girlfriend and I just rented this 2 days ago. We were both grossly underwhelmed.

<ducks>

I don't get it. The acting was superb (Michael Caine is genius), the photography and direction were great. I liked the look of the movie. I just really did not get into it at all. It really felt contrived.

I mean, it held my attention for the most part. I think the story just didn't work for me.

My 2 cents.
Click to expand...

Well, upon watching it again, it really felt like they were more worried about what they considered a meaningful soundtrack then they were about actually telling the story.
 
I really enjoyed the acting and the story. I just wish they had stuck the camera on sticks a few times. The long battle shot was well served as a handheld shot but I think the director and DP just went overboard with unmotivated handheld shots through so much of the movie.
 
I think you and I both have reservations with todays extensive us of handheld Blaine. I did find this film to use this cinema verite with a purpose and not like the Bourne films for example.
 
J.R. Hudson said:
I think you and I both have reservations with todays extensive us of handheld Blaine. I did find this film to use this cinema verite with a purpose and not like the Bourne films for example.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. It was invisible handheld and never felt contrived.

On another note: anyone actually read the book? I couldn't finish it; I just wasn't engaged at all, and I bought it because of all the glowing reviews and the unique premise. Glad they pulled a rabbit outta the hat with the film adaptation.
 
I dont like most handheld stuff and I think only a couple cinematographers do it right. Emmanuel Lubezki, Janusz Kaminski, and Roger Deakins usually pull off great handheld shots.
 
Last edited:
Elton, you can find my fairly extensive review/comparison with the book earlier in this thread, I think. I agree completely.
 
I just saw this last night. Simply one of the best films I have seen. Everything worked.

c.g._eads said:
Now, I will say this. The movie had a HUGE plot hole. And if this weren't so masterfully made, this would bother me a lot more. But I'm giving Cuaron the benefit of the doubt (barely). There is no way in hell. No way ever, that the British government would've killed this baby because it was from an immigrant (thus ensuring that the plot worked - sneaking a pregnant woman through Britain). I mean sure there would've been some major politicking going on. But PLEASE. HUMANITY was at stake here. No baby had been born in 18 years or whatever it was. The future of the entire planet is at stake! And you're telling me that the British government, if they found a woman who could actually have babies, that they would kill her and the baby and cover it up just because the woman was an immigrant??? No way. I don't buy it for one second.

So that bothered me. But it was such brilliant filmmaking that in the end, I didn't care.
Click to expand...

I think the point was the the British government would hide the fact that the baby was born to an immigrant. They would take the baby and give it to a "Posh" British citizen and make believe a Brit was the first to have a child. They would likely keep the real mother secret and she would never see her baby again or any future babies again.
 
This is in reference to c.g._eads.

Even if that was the case, your ability to believe that people would actually do something like that or not, does not make it a plot hole.
 
Simply a great movie in all aspects. The behind the scenes footage of long unbroken sequences was amazing insight into filmmaking.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top