Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

greenamp · Jan 7, 2007, 05:31 AM

Just... wow. Everyone should see this movie. That is all.

RAILhead · Jan 7, 2007, 09:50 AM

That spoiled it for me! CRIPES!!!11!

Railroader · Jan 7, 2007, 09:59 AM

I was going to see it, but now that al of the major plot point have been revealed forget it. They'll be lucky if I watch a trailer for it now.

EDIT: RAILhead beat me to it. That's what I get for leaving a page open and not responding right away.

amsalpemkcus · Jan 7, 2007, 10:44 AM

meh. the ending sucked.

funkboy · Jan 7, 2007, 02:19 PM

An abrupt ending, but did there really need to be any more?

Sorry to give away yet the third huge plot point in this thread.

keekeeree · Jan 7, 2007, 02:28 PM

Originally Posted by greenamp

Just... wow. Everyone should see this movie. That is all.

Seconded.

Yose · Jan 7, 2007, 02:55 PM

I concur - this movie is a must see. It felt real.

Railroader · Jan 7, 2007, 03:20 PM

Originally Posted by funkboy

Sorry to give away yet the third huge plot point in this thread.

I feel like I have seen the movie already. $$ saved!

voodoo · Jan 7, 2007, 03:29 PM

After seeing the trailer, I just can't be bothered. Too angst-y.

V

greenamp · Jan 7, 2007, 04:02 PM

Originally Posted by voodoo

After seeing the trailer, I just can't be bothered. Too angst-y.

V

The trailer really doesn't do it justice at all. Go see it.

keekeeree · Jan 7, 2007, 04:50 PM

Originally Posted by greenamp

The trailer really doesn't do it justice at all. Go see it.

Agreed. The wife and I were checking RottenTomatoes.com to see what was out this weekend and getting good reviews. We saw Children of Men getting a freshness rating of 93%. Neither one of us had even seen a preview for this movie so over to Apple's movie trailers we went. And while the preview didn't blow us away, we were intrigued.

Then we were blown away at the theater.

- - e r i k - - · Jan 7, 2007, 06:44 PM

Children of Men had potential but didn't live up to it. Very meh.

- - e r i k - - · Jan 7, 2007, 06:44 PM

Oh, it's finally out in the US now is it?

Kerrigan · Jan 7, 2007, 06:52 PM

This movie really just appeals to people who want to see their political anxieties projected onto the big screen, and don't care much about the drama or character development.

Nevertheless, I'm a fan of that director, and I imagine he was constrained too much by the novel upon which the movie was based.

keekeeree · Jan 7, 2007, 08:09 PM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

This movie really just appeals to people who want to see their political anxieties projected onto the big screen, and don't care much about the drama or character development.

Nevertheless, I'm a fan of that director, and I imagine he was constrained too much by the novel upon which the movie was based.

Seen it?

Gamoe · Jan 8, 2007, 04:25 AM

I didn't care for it. It was mostly emotional without much substance to back it up. The ending felt like the middle of the movie, and there was no clear explanation given about the main points. It "just happened". Also unnecessary scenes violence and deprivation.

I've seen worse movies, but I'm no fan of this one.

MaxPower2k3 · Jan 9, 2007, 02:41 AM

Just watched it. The story didn't wow me... the war seemed poorly explained and I felt like I was just supposed to take it for granted that it was there and brutal. That said, it was technically fantastic, with a lot of amazing stuff going on in it.

Spoiler:
The scene in the bombed-out refugee town near the end was fantastic. I found an article about it after I saw it, and they actually got that entire 9-minute scene in a single take. There aren't any invisible cuts or edits. A few minutes in, they had an effects artist rotoscope out the blood drops on the lens, but it's all the same take. Being a film student myself, I can only imagine the work that went into shooting that. Article about Spoiler.

Kerrigan · Jan 9, 2007, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by keekeeree

Seen it?

Yes, why else would I give my opinion of it?

demograph68 · Jan 9, 2007, 07:44 AM

I enjoyed this one a lot. The overall environment plays a crucial part in telling what is going on. (A finely detailed one at that) Instead of explaining it in a flashback montage, it all gets pieced together from Theo's point of view, from beginning till end. [SPOIL]Having it end with Theo's death is a fitting conclusion for, in my opinion, a truly remarkable film.[/SPOIL]

I also like the way animals were depicted, almost like surrogate children.

keekeeree · Jan 9, 2007, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by Kerrigan

Yes, why else would I give my opinion of it?

'Cause you didn't give your opinion on the movie. Instead you made some broad generalizations about those who liked the movie.

That being said, I disagree that this movie plays to political anxieties. While it uses political anxieties as one of the means of driving the story and characters, IMO it certainly isn't what this movie is about.

Zeeb · Jan 9, 2007, 11:35 AM

I enjoyed the movie but it would have been better suited to be a netflix rental for me.

The idea that all women on the earth have become and have remained infertile for 18 or so years is wildly implausible. There was no explanation how this happened besides some vague reference to a flu epidemic years prior. I imagine that any attempt to explain the infertility would have been criticized -- since its impossible. I know its a sci-fi film and you have to suspend disbelief to a degree, but that's a lot.

After about 45 minutes it becomes a formula chase movie with unlikely escapes and lucky breaks--along with plenty of people with rifles, pistols, machine guns, bazookas and even tanks who have no aim--except of course at the end.

The characters were interesting however and a little more complex than your average chase movie.

keekeeree · Jan 10, 2007, 01:23 AM

Originally Posted by Zeeb

The idea that all women on the earth have become and have remained infertile for 18 or so years is wildly implausible. There was no explanation how this happened besides some vague reference to a flu epidemic years prior. I imagine that any attempt to explain the infertility would have been criticized -- since its impossible. I know its a sci-fi film and you have to suspend disbelief to a degree, but that's a lot.

I imagine a bunch of dinosaurs sitting at a drive-in theater watching Armageddon, looking at each other and saying, "Yeah...like THAT could happen!"

ShortcutToMoncton · Jan 10, 2007, 01:27 PM

I saw it last night, and was very impressed.

Best part: the ending. I'm shocked to death about people saying the ending was bad. The ending was absolutely perfect, and everything I'd ever want it to be. That's what the entire movie was shooting towards. Anything else would've been completely lame.

I like it when people can give good criticisms about a movie. I haven't seen any in this thread yet.

greg

Eug · Jan 17, 2007, 02:35 PM

The movie was very good IMO, although there were a couple of scenes with some plot holes IMO.

There were a few scenes that were just astonishing. Very long takes of extremely difficult material to film.

I give it a 4 out of 5, with the a note that a few of the scenes were amongst the best I've ever seen.

olePigeon · Jan 17, 2007, 02:38 PM

*major spoiler*

Overall I enjoyed the movie, but I got really annoyed when I noticed the "Kill off the likeable characters" trend. From the moment his girlfriend was killed, I knew that all the likeable characters would die, including the main character. So there was no surprise or worry for any of the characters being killed; kind of annoying. Other than that, I really liked it. I thought the tank and RPG scenes were even a little better than Saving Private Ryan.

4 out of 5.

I also gave Pan's Labyrinth a 4 out of 5. It's been a long time since I've seen a movie actually worth paying for to see at the theatre, and it was a treat to see TWO movies in a weekend.

Dark Helmet · Jan 17, 2007, 02:39 PM

What I have noticed is the general dumb population that generally likes XXX, rambo or fast and the furious absolutely HATES this movie calling it boring and pointless.

The more educated people who like to think about movies and not just look at them really enjoy it.

Eug · Jan 17, 2007, 03:02 PM

olePigeon,

You can change the colour of the font, so people don't see the spoilers unless they highlight it.

BTW, I like Pan's Labyrinth as well, but I thought it was overrated. I preferred Children of Men. It seemed to me that later in the movie the fantasy scenes just weren't fleshed out enough, and the reality scenes seemed kind of stereotypical at times.

Mithras · Jan 17, 2007, 03:11 PM

WTF with the posts jumping out of the box lately? Is there some way I can do that too? static link --> ??

On topic: Saw the movie. It was okay, but not that good. It had a very interesting premise, but the story as it actually unfolded was basically a "run from point A to point B" chase flick, with very few (zero?) interesting developments in either of the two main characters. Meh.

andreas_g4 · Jan 17, 2007, 04:36 PM

I think that it is probably the best flick I have seen in cinema in 2006. A friend of mine asked if I wanted to come with him to the movies, and I hadn't heard anything about it.

The movie impressed me with it's ugly, dirty appearence, it's dark but not fabricated looking vision of the future. Beautiful (in a technical meaning) pictures, a great anti-hero protagonist.

And I loved the attention to detail, on the screen and in the story. For example, that the mother-to-be reveals that she's pregnant in a barn, while the baby is considered a miracle from god… just wow.

It needs to be seen on the big screen, though.

Dark Helmet · Jan 17, 2007, 04:52 PM

I haven't seen it yet but the mood looked similar to 12 monkeys.

Eug · Jan 17, 2007, 05:04 PM

I didn't like 12 Monkeys that much. The craziness acting factor was a little over the top, and a lot of the style was a rehash of Gilliam's previous movies.

Railroader · Jan 17, 2007, 06:30 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

I haven't seen it yet but the mood looked similar to 12 monkeys.

No. Just, no.

ort888 · May 16, 2007, 12:54 PM

Best movie I have seen in a long time. I loved every second of it.

sek929 · May 16, 2007, 01:00 PM

I second Ort888, fantastic piece of film.

The long shots were AMAZING, rivaling that of Kubricks movies. The car scene, the tank scene, the escape from the farmhouse scene, all brilliantly done action that was incredibly visceral. It felt real, it was acted perfectly, and it ended exactly the way it should have.

I give it a 4.5/5, best new movie I've seen in a LOOONG time.

Andy8 · May 16, 2007, 08:24 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

Best movie I have seen in a long time. I loved every second of it.

I must concur with you on this.

Railroader · May 16, 2007, 08:26 PM

3rded.

Spiderman III sucked!!! Saw it last night. Yech!

Randman · May 17, 2007, 12:27 AM

It started well but I thought it slowly degraded over time.

macgeek2005 · May 17, 2007, 10:43 PM

Yeah, the movie started off great, but then it just got worse and worse, and just when you think it can't get any worse, the director presents us with one of the worst endings in film history.

Railroader · May 17, 2007, 11:54 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Yeah, the movie started off great, but then it just got worse and worse, and just when you think it can't get any worse, the director presents us with one of the worst endings in film history.

I hope you're talking about Spiderman III, Babel, or The secret Garden.

macgeek2005 · May 18, 2007, 01:04 AM

Originally Posted by Railroader

I hope you're talking about Spiderman III, Babel, or The secret Garden.

Nope. I'm talking about Children of Men. It was one of those movies that has a nice backdrop and feel to it, making mediocre minds feel as if they're watching something new and profound. It was very cheap, and had a crappy ending.

ShortcutToMoncton · May 18, 2007, 01:40 AM

I thought the ending of Children of Men was one of the best endings I could've imagined.

And I'm a movie critic. Without a katana. So...I win.

greg

flabasha · May 18, 2007, 03:25 AM

Genius film. Top five of this decade, to be sure.

Railroader · May 18, 2007, 08:49 AM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Nope. I'm talking about Children of Men. It was one of those movies that has a nice backdrop and feel to it, making mediocre minds feel as if they're watching something new and profound. It was very cheap, and had a crappy ending.

Call me, a graduate of 3 colleges, a mediocre mind then. I also have two journeyman cards and two successful businesses. Yup, mediocre mind is me.

I only wish I was genius enough to be able to add classical music to movie trailers and post them on youtube.

sek929 · May 19, 2007, 02:58 PM

Originally Posted by macgeek2005

Nope. I'm talking about Children of Men. It was one of those movies that has a nice backdrop and feel to it, making mediocre minds feel as if they're watching something new and profound. It was very cheap, and had a crappy ending.

You are a pompous ass, your interests are mediocre, and if you ever get invited to a party I gather you'd spend the whole time in the corner by yourself because of your 'superior mind'

In some ways I think you pull this arrogant adolescent crap just to gain attention from the people on this forum. Bad attention or good attention...you don't seem to care.

We've got Railroader, Shortcut, and myself all agreeing about something. If that doesn't make Children a good movie then all is lost.

Railroader · May 19, 2007, 09:13 PM

Originally Posted by sek929

We've got Railroader, Shortcut, and myself all agreeing about something. If that doesn't make Children a good movie then all is lost.

You'll never get me to admit I agreed to anything with you. I won't even agree with you if you were me! I even disagree with myself about this.

Peter · May 19, 2007, 09:30 PM

decent movie. Not a classic, but was in my top films of the year.

Railroader · May 19, 2007, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by Peter

decent movie. Not a classic, but was in my top films of the year.

All true, and a darn shame, as well as a very good depiction of the current offerings of today's movie offerings.

Peter · May 20, 2007, 10:32 AM

yup, it was refreshing to see a movie that was not a sequel/remake/comic book spinoff/other spinoff/romantic comedy.

edit: just thought, CoM is based on a novel

oh well, can't have them all!

Eug · May 20, 2007, 11:12 AM

What's wrong with being based off a novel?

ort888 · May 20, 2007, 11:34 AM

Well, from what I have gathered, the novel and the movie are very different.

Read the plot of the book here.

The Children of Men - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia