Children of Men

shit clive owen is in it. that guys a G after fuckin sin city. that does look like an incredible movie though
 
in case you can wait to see it in theaters, check for favorite torrent site... a dvd rip of it has been available for awhile.
 
I was in the car in the morning and of course I get like a 7:48 train so that means I wake up at like 5:30 and I heard that and I wasnt sure if I was hearing correctly cause the radio was on AM and was reporting news. Im like WTF!?
 
that was a good movie up until the very end. the girl walks out of hte hotel holding the baby, everyone is peaceful then they start shooting each other. that was stupid. then the movie just ended with her in a boat. i wasnt very pleased
 
that was an awesome movie. the ending did not suck. all the mother people that i watched it with were so pissed about the end, but how else could it have ended? you know she made it to the boat, and that was the point on the movie. theo didnt need to live, he saved her life so imo the movie ended fine, and was sick.
 
the first time I watched it, I couldn't believe I'd wasted two hours of my life on such a bad movie with no backstory and I couldn't figure out what all the hype was about. And then I thought about it for a couple days, and decided it was actually pretty rad to make a movie about one man in an incredible situation. There was virtually no exposition about the futuristic world, there was only one scene that Clive Owen's character wasn't in in the entire movie, and the movie ended immediately when he died. Children of men was solely about Clive Owen's character, which is a really cool concept. I liked it a lot the second time I watched it.
 
Please be quite and give yourself a barbed wire catheterization. Children of Men was seriously over looked at the Oscars. Cinematography was amazing (one shot/take goes on for freaking ever). And any dumbass who says the ending sucked doesn't understand how books are supposed to make people feel more empathetic.
 
I had that scene in which they drove around while "The Court of the Crimson King" played stuck in my head for days after watching "Children of Men"

That movie was filled with so many beautiful scenes that really stuck with me.
 
Its pretentious to tell people how to understand and react to movies. However COM was one of the best movies of the year and had no flaws in my eyes. The filming was truly masterful. For god sakes there was a speck of blood on the screen for like 10 mins.

Anyone has the right to dislike the movie but quite frankly fuck them that movie was a breath of fresh air in a sea of sequels and recycled ideas.
 
I thought it was extremely overly artsy. The story was pretty dry and failed to hold my attention for the most part. The acting was excellent (that was definitely one of the highlights) and I enjoyed Michael Caine's role. However, I also hated that it was absolutely driven 100% by post production work. Besides, the fact that the camera is shaky in every single scene doesn't make the filming 'masterful', it just makes it look unprofessional (although the scene where . Otherwise, it just wasn't terribly groundbreaking and the story moved at a snails' pace (no I do not consider it to be subtle, just boring).

Look at movies like Raging Bull, The Shining, and The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly. It's pretty obvious they were going to something along those lines, but where these films actually manage to engage you in some manner the entire time, regardless of what's going on within the story, this one simply crashes and burns. They were shooting to impress a certain group within their audience, namely philosophic film-types. They were very successful in that regard. But from the outside looking in, this movie simply fails to engage the viewer.

Nope, didn't like it. It doesn't deserve a place on the IMDB top 250 either.
 
It'd be good if you at least counterpointed the stuff that I brought up. I don't mind a good debate. Keep in mind this is my opinion and that I don't feel that it was a shitty movie, just that it gets FAR too much praise from most people and that in many parts it was incredibly overdramatic.
 
[steez]wrecka18, I agree, in part, that the filmakers were aiming for a more mature/"artsy" audience, although I don't believe the movie was as heavy-handed and convoluted as you make it sound.

The shaky camera bit has been played out... in fact, nearly every technique pioneered by Steven Soderberg (and perfected by Tony Scott) has had a hand in quite a few shitty movies that believed they were "masterful". I, myself, am disillusioned immediately when I see a grainy-digi-film, oversaturated, shaky camera, rushed documentry type of feel... almost in the sense that I silently say to the movie, "If you're going to use these techniques, you better damn well live up to it."

Children of Men wants to be great; it strives to be great. It wants to be a "masterful" movie as well as an important one. And, I feel, on all levels, it acheives it's goals. Yes, the cinematography was amazing; yes, the acting was remarkable; yes, the story was unique and engaging. The film techniques the directer used were spot-on with the story. The shaky camera was not used simply as a gimmick, it was used to portray the intense "craziness" of the movie.

And for the pacing... I feel it was perfect. At no point did it lose my attention, nor did it ever seem to "drag". The time between action set-peices was quite far, but only to allow the genious of the story to take place. If you want to see something that moves at a "snail's pace", watch a later-day Clint Eastwood movie.
 
agreed.

I didnt find the camera overly shaky. Nothing compared to other movies. I thought it was smooth and dileberate. I really enjoyed the 9min one camera shots. Just imagine how hard that would be to pull off. With gun shots and explosions. Great flick I re-watched it last night because of this thread.

Still loved it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top