Having seen “Children of Men” this past weekend, I found it very hard to describe the movie. David Ansen writes a review that essentially sums up my thoughts on the film, except he comes to the exact opposite conclusion.
I found the acting to be excellent and the cinematography to be fantastic, on the verge of groundbreaking, yet the film never caught my attention. Not once during the film did I care what happened to the characters and I don’t think the story did either.
It was a pedestrian futuristic plot filmed brilliantly and that’s not enough to entice me. Being someone who loves the written word and becomes enthralled in a good story, I need more from a movie than phenomenal visuals.
Clearly, the movie is trying very hard to push sometime of political message beyond the standard chase fare, but I have no idea what it is. There were shades of anti-war, anti-government, anti-homeland security, pro-illegal immigration, pro-euthanasia and even a little pro-life message, along with a sense of unaviodable dispair. With all those messages crammed into one already weak plot it did more to hide the characters and the messages than anything else.
I left the movie with a sense of pointlessness. I felt like the film was almost trying to make a point of being pointless – throwing so many messages that none resonant, never explaining the purpose of the journey and never examining the motives of the characters’ actions.
Ansen concludes, “‘Children of Men’ leaves too many questions unanswered, yet it has a stunning visceral impact. You can forgive a lot in the face of filmmaking this dazzling.”
For me, I can’t forgive the plot. The filmmaking was truly original, but a movie must also put forth a coherent story. “Children of Men” never did that and it left me wishing the stunning visuals weren’t wasted on such a worthless script.
Actually, Louis wrote up a really great review about “Children of Men” for 2or3 recently. I hope you can find his post, I can’t. I remember that it was well written and insightful.
It was here:
http://www.wholereason.com/2007/01/a_thriller_fait.html
Try not to let my posts spoil it for ya if you havent seen it yet though ;)
I absolutely, positively, entirely hated Children of Men. Good Lord was that film awful.
Sorry, Aaron, but I think you are wrong on all points. I reproduce my review here:
!SPOILER ALERT! (don't read if you haven't seen the film)
My buddy talked me into seeing "Children of Men" rather than Pan. I have to say I was a bit surprised as it wasn't really a totally negative film at all. Sure, there's the dystopian future replete with chaos, authoritarianism, violence, and despair, but there's also tiny whisperings of hope and joy (which people here seem to have missed). Yes, they didn't explain the infertility epidemic, but that's just a given to the story. What was important was what could happen in the event of such a catastrophe (or a similar situation).
The arc of the story was, I argue, hopeful and positive. Clive Owen's character goes from a despondent and impassive man to one committed and active in the pursuit of saving this girl and her baby. Though the ending was tragic, it definitely left one with a new sense of hope, a the sense that his death was a sacrifice for good. The ship that picks her up was named "Tomorrow," which was a good indication of the final verdict here.
And I'm surprised the xians here didn't pick up on the strong xian vibes at work. The forces of gov't and terror pursuing the pregnant Kee; her birth scene in the run-down room and on a dirty mattress; the flight from danger; the vision of Kee and her baby as Madonna and Child – it is unavoidable, especially in the scene where Theo leads her out of the building and all the fighting stopped and the people, soldiers and immigrants both, were transfixed with awe and wonder. I found that scene one of the most moving and transcendent I have ever seen in film: I was mesmerized. Here, a child brings new hope to the world. How xian can you get? (a good spirituality without dogma or judgment or hate – hope and goodness and innocence and transcendence in the midst of horror and squalor and violence and despair and death)
Lawanda's [and Aaron's] criticisms are trivial. She missed the point entirely. A shame. And, no, the previews don't reveal everything. They miss the essential humanistic affirmation and spiritual vision presented in the film. I found the movie a virtuistic piece, worthy of any and all award consideration. It's rare that a film forces us to look unblinkingly at the worst of humanity while still giving us hope. In that sense, it was a deeply spiritual (even xian) film.
***
I might add that film should be approached as primarily a visual medium. Yes, screenplay is important, but the visceral impact is far more immediate. Film works on all levels – visual, aural, physical, intellectual – and doesn't solely depend on a literary base (for that, go to the novel or poetry). How much language was present in "2001: A Space Odessey"? The more I think about "Children of Men" the more impressed I am: one of the best of the year. It's a shame it was overlooked for prizes. To describe the script as "worthless" is absurd: so stunning a film could not exist without a good script. Also, it was NOT pointless; the opposite, in fact. Frankly, Aaron, I'm surprised at you.
I absolutely, positively, entirely hated Children of Men. Good Lord was that film awful.
My wife and I didn’t like it either, but I didn’t hate it. I reserve that word for movies like
– Get Shorty
– The Holy Grail (sorry, doesn’t stand up with time)
– Rocky V
– A Mighty Wind
– Kung Pao
– Citizen Kane
I didn’t hate it. I reserve that word for movies like – Citizen Kane.
Bah!
I just say absolutely NO REASON for the film to have been made, unless the long shots WERE the point. But so what? I just don’t understand the film’s existence.
Sam, what didn't you like about it. Mind you I haven't seen it yet so please no spoilers, but it looks like this is one of those love it hate it films. Lawanda is the only one who didn't absolutely "hate" it but she didn't "love" it either (I already read why hun :)
Oops, Seeker seems neutral about it too.
I just think that it’s point was not made that powerfully, and the actual point, which seems to be “the children are our future” seems trite. It was dreary, and just didn’t impact me that much, seemed a waste of time.
I mean, how did it impact you?
Cineaste,
Obviously, you ought to see the film first. And you should keep in mind that I saw the film on a bootleg DVD purchased in New York City's Chinatown. But here are the two reasons that the film didn't remotely affect me:
1. Technical prowess is awesome. The film is filmed with long shots. But technical prowess for no reason? I mean…great. I get it. You've figured out ways to shoot incredibly long single shots. Neat. But if that isn't mixed with something compelling? Then I don't see the point. See Nicholas Cage's Snake Eyes for example, which starts with an incredibly long shot for no reason other than the director saying something like, "Oh my God! Nicholas Cage is terrible. We've got to cover for him. Let's get a long shot in here, pronto."
2. Ultimately, I found the story uncompelling. It just didn't interest me a bit. I prefer quirkier movies though – "Lone Star" "Science of Sleep" "the Station Agent" to name but a few. The movie just didn't hit my tastes.
Louis, I can see all of your points, but I am still like Sam – the story just did not click with me.
I thought the extended scene with the blood and grim on the camera was original and interesting, but I found myself more concerned with the neat way they were filming it instead of the story.
I guess maybe pointless isn’t the right word, but I think it went for the shotgun effect and just did a scatter shot of dozens of points and none really caught me.
I caught the spiritual nature of the event, as you say almost Christian in the reverence from everyone about the baby, but that doesn’t make it good. It also painted those who were actually religious as loons, but that really was a unimportant part of the movie.
Seeker sumed up my sentiments after leaving the movie theater – I felt like I wasted my time either that or I had enrolled in a class on great Hollywood visuals and filmmaking with no real attention to the plot.
I can see how some people love the movie. I agree that it is essentially on of those movies that causes people to react one of two ways.
But seeker, Citizen Kane? hate? You have to be kidding me. Brilliant acting, truly groundbreaking cinematography and a plot that was interesting (not superb, but enough to grab me).
There’s no accounting for taste. Still, I pity those who cannot see the merits of this film.
I can see the merits, but I also see the negatives, which (to me) overwhelmed the positives.