Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 29, 2006 1:11:19 GMT
Children of Men Alfonso Cuarón 2006 UK / USA London, 2027: with the entire female population infertile, and the government at war with nationalist rebels, a ministry worker must escort a pregnant refugee to a safe zone called the Human Project. Outstandingly-shot film, full of breathtaking sequences, using long takes and a hand-held, fiercely independent and roaming camera which restricts our view but enhances the immediacy of many incredibly complicated settings. The most impressive of these are the rebel attack on a car full of people, with the camera rotating three-sixty degress inside the car, before alighting and ending up left to observe two dead policemen as the car speeds off; the giving birth of a child in some worn-out, secluded safe house, with the very near threat of war and manic dogs outside; and the moving to different levels via a stairwell in a building at the heart of the fierce battle, with the relentless cry of a baby which, by the end of the shot, has silenced the guns and brought calm to a scene of devastation. The odd one-liner in moments of tension add little, but it's a genuinely thrilling film.
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 21, 2007 1:38:23 GMT
Just saw it, relatively dissappointed. Perhaps I eloborate later if someone's up for discussion.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 28, 2007 12:52:57 GMT
Just saw it, relatively dissappointed. Perhaps I eloborate later if someone's up for discussion. Come on then, what didn't you like about it?
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 28, 2007 21:32:54 GMT
Children of Men Alfonso Cuarón 2006 UK 1st time, 1 sittingHhhhmmm alright it's been a while now. No one's fault but my own I guess. I felt like Cuaron relied a little to heavy on his cool special effects, whether it be his vast war-torn landscapes or his uncut, 360 degree swinging camera, it all just felt a little George Lucas/Peter Jackson to me. Every piece of dialogue between Clive Owen and Julianne Moore felt forced and kind of pretentious on the writer's part, like we were simply supposed to like it because it was vague and they were being sassy and sarcastic towards one another. I found several of the side characters to be badly acted and ultimately annoying, and the sequence where Clive is sneaking the black girl through the village holding her baby was fucking infinitely long. I was just not impressed, overall.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Jan 28, 2007 22:13:54 GMT
That is such a surprise.
The things you've picked up on, the stuff you're criticising, and, I must say, the style in which you've written it.
What do you mean exactly by "pretentious" dialogue?
|
|
Boz
Published writer
Posts: 1,451
|
Post by Boz on Jan 28, 2007 22:38:24 GMT
Hhmm I didn't know I'd be inducing such a shocked reaction. Being sarcastic? If not explain that a little more for me pal.
As for my use of the word pretentious, I've gotta admit I'm probably exemplifying an argument I see Vercetti make a lot, that people use that word without knowing exactly what it means. This is all I really meant:
...like we were simply supposed to like it because it was vague and they were being sassy and sarcastic towards one another.
Thinking back on these criticisms I feel like I can see an Irreversible retort coming on, like "well hey, Irreversible did all that crazy stuff with the camera and you liked that movie!" Which yes, I will admit, I did, but I felt like that movie had soul and this one didn't, for lack of a better explanation.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Jan 29, 2007 5:47:39 GMT
(In response to a deleted message):
I absolutely, totally agree with Kino.
Besides, do we NEED to know any more specifics?
If anything, between 2006 and 2029, alot of shit has happened, and the movie makes the assumption that the audience knows what is going on. Of course we don't, but with subtle clues and press clippings, we have a general idea.
If anything, CHILDREN OF MEN might be the best damn science fiction released under Hollywood since.....since....since.....BLADE RUNNER?
|
|
Jenson71
Ghost writer
Bush is watching you
Posts: 810
|
Post by Jenson71 on Jan 29, 2007 6:46:28 GMT
Anyone else notice on the TVs in the movie they have the terror alert level? You know like "TERROR ALERT: ELEVATED" running across the ticker at the bottom. I know Fox News always has this. Whenever it gets elevated, I run out to the store and buy some more duct tape and gallon jugs of water. Nobody else seems to do this, though. I guess that's social darwinism. They were warned and refused to listen. Thank God for Fox News and my duct tape though, cause I'd probably be blown up by a terrorist by now.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Mar 26, 2007 22:56:14 GMT
If anything, between 2006 and 2029, alot of shit has happened, and the movie makes the assumption that the audience knows what is going on. Of course we don't, but with subtle clues and press clippings, we have a general idea. It's not even important, really. I mean, it's only set in the future to give the details of the fiction some room to breathe. It's about the present, and the infertility is a metaphor. The world is a mess and we have no future. I'm not sure I share Cuarón's optimism, ending the film as he does on a note of triumph and hope, but it's an overwhelmingly beautiful sentiment nonetheless. It's a very humane film. It's a future classic, for sure. the sequence where Clive is sneaking the black girl through the village holding her baby was fucking infinitely long. Yeah, but what about that shot? As it appears in the film it's a little over six minutes. Originally it was longer, and I actually think the whole scene was done in one. That's nearly eleven minutes. Apparently the producer kept reminding the crew that it was "not an Olympics of one-shot deals". So they start cutting into the shot after six minutes, but the way the remainder of the scene is staged you can see that it was originally one big flowing Steadicam shot. Perhaps they should've left it; it's not like they radically alter the style afterwards, there's just a brief conversation and then some reverse shots of awestruck soldiers and refugees when they descend the stairs into the ceasefire.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Apr 2, 2007 20:12:49 GMT
>>> filmick.co.uk If you live in the UK, your first chance to buy Children on Men came in December. The single disc edition was virtually bare bones and when news broke about a replacement 2-Disc edition coming little more than three months later, it felt like a slap in the face. Early adopters had been had.
Luckily, now, Universal are agreeing to replace UK R2 copies of the single-disc edition with the full monty. And virtually for free.
Send your disc with a jiffy bag for the return item, stamped to the value of 70p, to this address:
Children of Men DVD Amnesty PO Box 188 Woodford Green Essex IG8 7RW
You have until June 30th. Ex-rental copies are not elligible. Tell them who sent you.
You won't believe how hard it was to get that address. I called, was put on hold, cut off; called again, was put on hold, given an e-mail address to try; I e-mailed and never received a reply; called again, was cut off again... I could go on. Somehow I don't think Universal want a large number of returns - but they are doing the right thing. Well, almost - they should offer something in return for the postage costs, really. Maybe a discount voucher from other Universal releases?
This is pretty cool, though I don't know if it applies to me. What's a 'jiffy bag'?
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Apr 2, 2007 20:25:25 GMT
Padded envelope. What I sent my masterpieces in.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Apr 2, 2007 20:30:48 GMT
Ah, merci.
|
|
RNL
Global Moderator
Posts: 6,624
|
Post by RNL on Apr 2, 2007 20:34:00 GMT
Details on the 2-disc edition here.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Apr 2, 2007 20:35:41 GMT
Much better cover, same as the R1.
I might send off for it.
|
|
Capo
Administrator
Posts: 7,847
|
Post by Capo on Dec 21, 2007 20:41:51 GMT
I never did send off for that replacement 2-discer, but I did re-watch this yesterday for the first time since buying it. It translates to a crisp small-screen transfer as opposed to a grainy big-screen print, but the beauty's still there: Lubezki's photography is lush - I count several different tones and light sources in the scene where Theo leads Kee and Miriam out of the safehouse; blues, greens, oranges, natural and artificial, all in the same space.
That sequence in particular might be the best chase scene I've ever seen. Inter-cutting provides a director and editor opportunities to "cheat" with timing, but this strains its edits to their essentials, cutting only when it needs to. As a result, you see both the chaser and the quarry in the same shot. It's such a short little example, but what a lesson in exciting filmmaking it is.
The narrative in a way reminds me of Gladiator, at least for the reasons I like it; it's very accessible because it comprises mostly action set-pieces exhiliratingly done, anchored too in some form of political perambulation - in the case of Gladiator, fictional mumbo-jumbo about the Plight of Rome, and in the case of Children of Men, about what the world is coming too. This is obviously more confrontational than Gladiator's period swashbuckling, though, but I still love its marriage of exciting action scenes and what some might call more "sophisticated" allegory (the kind of stuff my housemates shat on with reductive confusion when they watched it, saying, "Why is everyone infertile then?" Yawn.)
I've seen it several times now (thrice on the big screen), and each time I've began to cry at the moment where Theo and Kee descend the staircase at the end, and the first British soldier screams, "Cease fire! Cease firing!" It's such a small role, with one line and one action, but it's played to perfection; the immediacy with which this camouflage-clad, heavily-armed, violence-equipped army soldier recognises the fact there's a baby present overwhelms me.
Like wetdog, though, I'm not sure if I share Cuarón's optimism; though his portrayal is convincing enough to inject some form of hope.
EDIT: By the way, something else I related to more than ever yesterday was the film's effortless and convincing portrayal of London. Anybody who doesn't live in London who has ever spent time there (like me) will probably relate in some way to the indifference and alienating facelessness of it all as is shown here. It's allegorically universal, but still very geographically specific, I think.
|
|
|
Post by ronnierocketago on Dec 22, 2007 6:19:41 GMT
You're right Capo, CHILDREN OF MEN is a goddamn masterpiece, easily the best science fiction movie since BLADE RUNNER....that is, real sci-fi without having to be an action movie in disguise.
|
|