198 of 245 people found the following review helpful
Verified Purchase(What's this?)
Children of Men just came out today in Spain and it is fantastic.
The story line is totally original and the acting is superb. Clive Owen is captivating as a man caught between his sorrow from his past and the hope for a new world future.
The basic premise is set in the year 2027 and 18 years ago women mysteriously stopped being capable of having children. Society has started to crumble because all hope of the future has disappeared.
Owen's character (Theo), an ex-activist, is pulled into an underground "terrorist" group that has found something that will bring hope to the world; but hidden agendas and distrust are threatening to pull the only hope left apart.
The cinematography and set designs are top notch, and with a supporting cast that includes Michael Caine and Julianne Moore- it only takes a great story to that next level of excellence.
Also the soundtrack is really well chosen and they use the music to great effect in some scenes; for example King Crimson's "court of the crimson king" is especially effective.
I thought I would add that I just saw the movie for the second time today. The visual poetry and thought provoking ideas have stayed quite strong in my mind since I last saw it in October. The second time around the movie stirred up just as many thoughts and emotions as the first.
As some of the other reviewers has mentioned this is a very real feeling science fiction. The problems of tomorrow in this film seem to align itself with many of the issues that we are burying ourselves in today like our growing dependency on chemicals (many with unknown side effects), or the waste that we put in our environment, and last and certainly paramount, the decreasing faith we have of anything beyond our sciences in which we measure reason, and rely upon.
Children Of Men has become one of my favorite movies. And I hope that anyone with a thirst for thoughtfulness gets a chance to see this brilliant movie.
Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 16 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Jan 15, 2007 3:54:17 PM PST
Danny G. says:
In reply to an earlier post on Jan 15, 2007 4:09:13 PM PST
It's not mindless war porn.
To the original poster, the storyline is only somewhat original in the parts that diverge from P.D. James' book, The Children of Men (1992). In the book, Julian is the pregnant one and does not die at the hand of her own organization.
Last but not least, if you want to list war porn movies, then try starting with the real braindead ones. How dare you associate a movie that is about personal hope with war porn flicks? I guess you missed the entire ending when the ship came for Kee.
Posted on Jan 22, 2007 11:22:08 AM PST
S. Chaudhry says:
Is there a reason why 20 years into the future we are unable to just CLONE humans to replenish the population?!
In reply to an earlier post on Feb 26, 2007 6:59:39 AM PST
good idea, lets clone people to take our place. sarcasm implied. um, clones die, really really quickly, and even if they could survive for a long period of time they can't re-produce to what would be the point? you'd end up with the same problem in another generation. are teh clones going to keep making more and more clones to replace teh ones that die? and i don't think anyone would be comfertable with the idea of clones taking over. thats propibly one reason, and another is that they probibly still can't figure out how to make a clone that will live. they can't even figure out why woman are infertal, remember?
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2007 11:54:44 AM PST
"War-porn", Happy Camper???????
That's absurd. You see, "war porn" implies people would watch this for kicks and fun.
Did you have fun watching it? Me, I felt almost nauseous afterwards from the anxiety and horror. This is the sort of film that turns people AGAINST war.
I can't imagine the twisted, stunted mind that would watch this film and think "Cool!".
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 4, 2007 11:56:59 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Mar 4, 2007 11:57:45 AM PST
Saad Chaudry: Remember, 20 years into the future means the problem occurred...oh, right about now, in the next couple of years. We don't have the technology for successful human cloing now, and the movie clearly shows that most of the world has fallen into anarchy quite soon after "now". So, no, I don't think there's much chance that human cloning would be a viable option in the film's world.
Posted on Mar 9, 2007 10:39:15 AM PST
Maine Writer says:
So so acting and a mediocre script bog down an interesting premise.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 17, 2007 9:08:53 PM PDT
Jeremy J. Parker says:
The point of the film was not the inability of humans to have children, even if it was scientifically feasible. The children were meant to represent hope in general.
Posted on Mar 21, 2007 6:46:48 AM PDT
Brilliant? I have a difficult time agreeing on that description for a movie that never seems to take its scarily real ideas more than half-seriously. It is such a dark, utterly possible idea of our future - laced with freaking pull-my-finger lines? I am coming to despise Alfonso Cuaron. First he butchers the third Harry Potter film, and now he destroys Children of Men (a film for which I had great anticipation before it came out) with possibly the most god-aweful, ill-fitted ending to a film I have ever seen. It's almost like Cuaron got lazy or bored (or both) and just said, "okay, I've had enough, let's make it end . . . . now." This man seems to ruin everything he touches, and should not be tapped for any big or serious films ever again. I can't even put into words how disappointed I was when I left the theater. I might consider buy this movie when it hits the $5 bin - if only for the first hour of film that's actually worth watching.
In reply to an earlier post on Mar 29, 2007 2:42:27 PM PDT
I think MLK would violently disgree with you, since he wanted a world were movies like these could be FREE to express whatever viewpoint, however different, in a free world!