I just got back from seeing this. What a movie. Besides being an incredibly entertaining movie with a really interesting plot, it really made me think alot. Mostly about my political views, since this movie seems very Liberal and anti-war and I always kind of considered myself pro-Iraq war and other things. This movie made me think over my opinions about war and illegal immigrants and issues like that.
Has anyone else seen it yet?
[ January 07, 2007, 12:07 AM: Message edited by: GaalDornick ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I saw it this afternoon. Very enjoyable. Quite a good cast (Chiwetel Ejiofor, Clive Owen, among others), and an entertaining thought-provoking story.
While it's true that the film seems liberal, bear in mind that it paints a bad picture of radicals and 'whatever-it-takers' of all sorts.
SPOILERS!!!!
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l
Remember, Chiwetel Ejiofor's character Luke not only murdered his superior (and, probably respected friend), he was willing to kidnap the Dylan and Kee, exposing the two of them to repeated mortal danger, as well as murder many other people who only wanted to protect Kee and Dylan, as well as, you know, save humanity, in support of his anti-government, pro-minority cause.
l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l l SPOILERS END (extra space given for additional buffer, until the thread title is changed) Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Yes, I saw it a while ago. Sorry to rain on your parade, but I thought it was unimpressive and the political message was weak. Frankly I didn't think the plot or characters had much substance either.
But it's a good thing that it got you thinking. I've always been anti-war and generally speaking pro-immigration, so perhaps it wasn't as profound for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm really not sure what political message there was in the film, to be honest. On the surface, it would appear to be that crackdowns on illegal immigration are bad.
But on the other hand, like I said, the one group portrayed fighting against that kind of thinking were...bad.
The only real political message I could discern was that fanaticism is bad, and in an apocalyptic scenario there's going to be lots of fanaticism.
What about Theo, for example, struck you as insubstantive?
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
I saw it this afternoon. I'm not one to engage is deep political discussions, but I found it to be a good edge-of-your-seat thriller with a fascinating premise. It's not often that I get into a movie to the point where I'm actually scared for the characters or genuinely feel bad when something unpleasant happens to them, but I felt that way for this one.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"SPOILERS END (extra space given for additional buffer, until the thread title is changed)"
Is it really necessary to put a buffer and spoiler warnings after the spoilers are over?
"Remember, Chiwetel Ejiofor's character Luke not only murdered his superior (and, probably respected friend), he was willing to kidnap the Dylan and Kee, exposing the two of them to repeated mortal danger, as well as murder many other people who only wanted to protect Kee and Dylan, as well as, you know, save humanity, in support of his anti-government, pro-minority cause."
This is true.
One of the reasons I always considered myself pro-war and anti-most Liberal views is just because the people I know that are the All-Government-is-evil-authority-is-evil-UFOs-exist type just annoy the hell out of me, probably even more than the radical Conservatives do.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Rakeesh: Personally I thought the acting was rather flat. Mostly though it was the secondary characters, not Theo. The film doesn't do much to get you interested in them, so I didn't feel very emotionally involved in their story.
What can I say, if I don't see substance in a character, what's there to talk about?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: "SPOILERS END (extra space given for additional buffer, until the thread title is changed)"
Is it really necessary to put a buffer and spoiler warnings after the spoilers are over?
I think Rakeesh didn't want people to accidentally skim the spoilers while reading the next person's post.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Exactly, Euripides.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"Personally I thought the acting was rather flat. Mostly though it was the secondary characters"
I hope you don't mean Michael Caine. I thought he was great. I really almost cried when he died even though I knew it was coming pretty much since the moment the alarm sounded. His line on the suicide pills being legal but ganja is still illegal was great.
I wonder what happens to the baby. He's probably going to end up being the last person left alive on Earth, if no one ends up killing him.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Political stuff aside, I loved this movie. It kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time. I found myself holding my breath and gasping a lot. From what I have been reading (the actual book it was based on), Clive Owen was very true to the part. Everyone on that world had lost hope and was "flat." They hadn't had hope for many years. I'm sure I'd be as mechanical as they were. Just living each day with a dark rain cloud over my head.
I was really interested in that Quietus product. It frightened me to my core. Death in a glass. It looked so pure and clean....and final. I actually got depressed in that scene where Michael Caine kills his wife and dog. It was scenes like that that will haunt my dreams. I watch too many movies and read too many books like that though.
Posted by plaid (Member # 2393) on :
I read the book years ago. Unsettling.
One thing that bothered me about the book was the lack of explanation for how every human suddenly became sterile. (I'm assuming P. D. James skipped giving one because there really isn't any plausible explanation for how it could happen as she described.) Does the movie try to give any explanation?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Actually, the most alarming part to me about the suicide drug was how it was the ad that was playing, right when Theo woke up. More insidious, perhaps, than its packaging was the way its hopeful message was what greeted you before you were even entirely awake.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Nope. There are protestors that say it is because God is punishing them and has taken away his greatest gift because humans have been sinning. But the movie never hints that it may be the true explanation.
By the way, I'd be very interested to read what you people think about the political side of this. I'm still thinking about it and I've never really formed a hard opinion on subjects like these. Like I said, I always leaned towards one side, but every time I think about it I always come up with a different conclusion as to what's right.
And since this is my thread I can say if it is ok to derail the topic of the movie or not. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Um yeah, spoilers.
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I hope you don't mean Michael Caine. I thought he was great. I really almost cried when he died even though I knew it was coming pretty much since the moment the alarm sounded.
His last words were "Pull my finger". I couldn't take the scene seriously.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"His last words were "Pull my finger". I couldn't take the scene seriously."
Weren't they "F*** you!"? The way he said that and threw whatever was in his hand at the guy shooting him was a pretty good line, IMO.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, he knew what was coming and it was a means of both expressing contempt and having a good laugh. Seemed to work for me, consistent with the character.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
I loved it. The action scenes (which, if you noticed, were actually single shakycam shots, going without a single cut for as long as ten minutes) took my breath away, harrowing in how real they felt. The acting was uniformly excellent- understated, but creating distinct characters in an instant through simple character beats and unexpected moments of dark humor. Cuaron's cemented himself as my favorite director working today. He has an incredible eye for imagery, shooting a movie set in this dystopian future without being heavy-handed with the setting, instead packing the frame with subtle reminders of how the world has changed. His attention to detail, and his ability to pull powerful performances out of his actors, is what made "Prisoner of Azkaban" the best of the Harry Potter movies, and he does himself one better with "Children of Men."
quote:Originally posted by Euripides: Um yeah, spoilers.
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick:
I hope you don't mean Michael Caine. I thought he was great. I really almost cried when he died even though I knew it was coming pretty much since the moment the alarm sounded.
His last words were "Pull my finger". I couldn't take the scene seriously.
Really? I found that it felt very true to the character, and made his death far more painful than had he been shouting defiance (which, really, is what he was doing in his own unique way), begging for mercy, or other action movie cliche. Jasper was my favorite character in the movie, and he remained Jasper to the end.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
Oh well, every man to his own.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
There was one thing that kind of bothered me. In the refugee camp, someone was shot and the blood splattered on the camera. It stayed there for over five minutes, shaking camera and all. It made me a little motion sick watching it. Did anyone else get that feeling?
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I thought that realism was one of the film's saving graces.
Posted by neo-dragon (Member # 7168) on :
No kidding. I don't watch a lot of war movies so I don't know if they're like this, but when he was making his way through the camp I felt like I was there with him! The explosions, the bullets whizzing by, people dropping dead left and right just inches away... Makes me wonder if I'd be able to cut it as a soldier. My friend said she felt shell-shocked.
[ January 08, 2007, 01:09 AM: Message edited by: neo-dragon ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I noticed the lengthy blood-spatter too, but I couldn't tell you the last time I got motion sickness at all, and I don't think I ever have from watching something. Just lucky on that score, I guess.
Posted by raventh1 (Member # 3750) on :
Valentine, I was actually saddened to see it go, what you saw was a 5 minute long clip that was uncut. That's pretty rare in cinematography. Then again, I'm a total film / photo geek along with all of my other geekatudes.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I didn't like the blood splattered on the camera. It sort of took me out of the movie. Reminded me I was watching this through a camera. I was so into it until that moment and then it seemed like we were holding a camera and following Theo around, as if it was a documentary. But YMMV, I guess.
Posted by Tarrsk (Member # 332) on :
But that was the point- it's *supposed* to feel like you're watching from the viewpoint of a guy following Theo around with a handheld camera. It's the same "found footage" style used in Battlestar Galactica and Firefly to make the viewer feel like they're watching reality, rather than a choreographed special effects extravaganza. That's also why Cuaron chose to use handheld cameras (as opposed to a SteadiCam or a crane camera- handhelds give that characteristic shakiness to the image), and why he made the major action sequences single, uninterrupted shots. YMMV, but it's an aesthetic choice that I found incredibly immersive. Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
If I remember correctly though, that scene had a few too many people who were shot as soon as they were in view of the camera. That did make it feel choreographed.
Speaking of uncut scenes, has anyone seen the Russian Ark? Now that was amazing.
Posted by fiddle_stix (Member # 9941) on :
i thought it was a great a movie. i really liked the point they made about the upcoming generation way back in 2003 not preparing for such a future. im 20 and i feel like a lot of people my age today simply dont think ahead or about the human race as a whole. im not saying there aren't exceptions, but i find the majority of my generation to be quite self centered. not that we're gonna become infertile in the next 20 yrs, but u never know... Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
Agh, I went in to this thread hoping to find just a brief summary of what it was about, but my eyes immediately found the sentence about Michael Caine's scene. Man, there's goes one plot twist... *sigh* Anyone capable of giving me a non-spoiler summary of what the premise is?
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Ahh crap. I'm really sorry about that. I thought putting Spoiler in capital letters in the title should do the trick.
From the first paragraph of wikipedia's entry for this:
quote: The film opens in London in the year 2027, in a world in which no child has been born since 2009. Due to unknown factors, the entire human female population of the planet has become infertile. Scientists are at a loss to explain why, and cannot solve the problem. The last aging generation of the human race has lost hope for the future, and human societies have fallen apart. Old newspapers hint at devastating events which have occurred within the last twenty years.
That seems to be a pretty good summary of the scenario without saying anything about the plot. And again, I'm very, very sorry about the spoiler. I'll bang my head against a wall now if it'll make you feel any better. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Basically, the film is set about three decades into the future. In the 'present' of the film, we learn it's been approximately 20 years since the last human child was born. This stems from an inexplicable, worldwide infertility on the part of all women.
It's an apocalyptic scenario, really. With the exception of the United Kingdom, the world has descended into anarchy with anything resembling a modern government in shambles. However, the UK government is very restrictive and authoritarian, and there is massive social, economic, and political difference within Britain. The film's premise is that Clive Owen's character, Theo, comes into contact with a woman, Kee, who is very pregnant, and what will be done with her.
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Gaal, this was not your fault. You identified the thread as a spoiler thread in the title. Hitoshi has no one to blame but himself. No offense, Hitoshi, but the thread was labeled correctly. If you want a non-spoiler thread, it would be best if you start one titled "Children of Men (NO SPOILERS PLEASE).
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
If nobody is getting pregnant, and they don't know the cause, how do they know it's the women who are infertile?
Haven't seen the movie, just curious.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
dkw,
We don't know, actually. It's just mentioned within the film that all women, everywhere, are infertile. It's a statement made on...a news report, or something, I think.
Hehe, I was wondering if my phrasing on that bit would draw questions a few minutes after I wrote it.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
I actually thought that it was the men that were infertile for alot of the movie until it was stated outright. I think I figured it out when...
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS * * * ...Theo asked Kee who the father was and she said she basically said she didn't know or care. I figured if it was the men that were infertile they would be alot more interested in discovering who the father is.
End Spoilers
But the scientists could probably figure out it was the women that were infertile through examing them and realizing they weren't producing eggs or something. no?
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
Dana, in the movie they know there is a problem when all of the women start to miscarry. It doesn't seem to matter what term they were in. I think the are just assuming it's women.
Posted by Hitoshi (Member # 8218) on :
quote:Originally posted by Valentine014: Hitoshi has no one to blame but himself. No offense, Hitoshi, but the thread was labeled correctly.
It was more a statement of my bad luck than anything (for example, a book I was reading fell open onto the ground. When I picked it up and turned it over, the first sentence I read was describing a character's death.)
Posted by Valentine014 (Member # 5981) on :
I apologize, Hitoshi. I was cross. I could've said that nicer.
Posted by Mig (Member # 9284) on :
It's been years since I read the book, and I don't remember the immigration issue at all.I need to reread this, or at least find the audiobook at the library.
The thrust of the story was about how people need children to add value to their lives even if they don't do the actual parenting. In the book people obsess over their pets, dolls, etc., as substitutes for children. The book was more about the meaningless of people's self obsession and desire for immidiate gratification, than it was about the immigration debate. The book is about why do we have children and what kind of world do we want to leave them.
The book is a deeper and more nuanced study of modern life than Cuaron makes it. But a simplestic approach is always easier to market, so I'm willing to give Cuaron some slack. That said, I enjoyed the movie, Ithought it was well made, and I have to respect a film maker who can so effectely put his vision on the screen, no matter how pedestrian that vision might be.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
For the record, I don't think the movie was anywhere near 'about the immigration debate'-it rather seemed to me incidental, something that would naturally happen in a world where Britain was the only 'First World' nation left on earth. I also don't understand why you think the vision was 'pedestrian'.
Posted by I Am The War Chief (Member # 9266) on :
Personally I didnt see it as anti war or anti immigration.
SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS
I saw theo as the savior of man christ like figure which was re-inforced by 2 things, 1 if you save humanity you usually have to die which i predicted pre-movie, and 2 that scene where he had to put on sandals and walk her down the stairs and up the hill not killed by his burden but by a soldier. The scenes with the busloads of immigrants reminded me of the Warsaw Ghetto's complete with uprising and angry gaurds. I also thought it was interesting that the youngest persons in the world were 18 that is why all the schools were empty.
END OF SPOILERS END OF SPOILERS
Posted by Ginol_Enam (Member # 7070) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mig: In the book people obsess over their pets, dolls, etc., as substitutes for children.
Yeah! In the movie, I noticed there were a lot of dogs that got a lot more focus than dogs would in a movie that wasn't explicitly about dogs. I hadn't figured out what it meant, though.
Posted by Telperion the Silver (Member # 6074) on :
One of the themes of this movie seems to be about Europe's fear of their declining population coupled with the massive immigration from Africa and the Middle East.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
SPOILERS * * * *
After Kee gives birth and they're taken with the crazy lady into a building, they're fed and Theo gets shoes, as they leave, they pass by a woman who's sitting on the sidewalk holding her dead son. She cries, in Sinhalese, "My son left me and went away! My good boy. Why?" Said in a native Sinhalese accent by actress Nirmala Martis, her first name being a perfectly good Sinhalese name. * * * *
END SPOILERS
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Spoilers * * * *
I just thought of something. I bet Sid, the military man that bought marijuana from Michael Caine, is going to think that Theo was the one that killed Caine when Sid returns to Caine's house and finds him riddled with bullets. To Sid, there was some guy that came to him using Caine's password and was running away into a prison and then Caine is mysteriously dead from gunshots. I would think it was Theo if I were him.
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
Umm ... Sid's dead. I really doubt he made it out of there without either getting shot (remember he was not in uniform) or before the bombing. He was a funny character though.
I thought it was a good movie. Not the best, but it was interesting. I really liked Clive Owens character. I also was a fan of the camera work. The scene where everyone stopped fighting and just stared at the baby was the best in the movie, IMO. It really hit a chord with me. And the way it was broken was fitting too. I will say I was annoyed at the ending though. It seemed very abrupt. At the very least it could've faded out instead of cutting like that. But oh well. Overall I did like it.
Posted by stihl1 (Member # 1562) on :
Since the title of the thread says spoilers all over it, I'm not going to bother here.
I really dug the realism and cinematography of this film. It was very convincing, put you in the action, kinda scared the crap outta me especially when Theo was trying to get INTO the building the soldiers were bombing the hell out of. It also conveyed well a great feeling of hopelessness, and a world in decay. The look and feel of the movie was well done.
I think because the characters were supposed to be flat and hopeless, I think they came off as poorly acted. I debated whether that was supposed to be or accidental. It just seemed that no matter what happened, Theo especially kind of just took it and kept going like nothing happened. That kinda bothered me a bit.
I really don't know that there was supposed to be a political message in this movie. I think it was a very good, realistic depiction of what would happen if this really happened. I think more important than any political message is the question of what happens to society when everything breaks down and all hope is lost. Basically, humanity was dying, everything was in chaos. Do we keep our morality and act like humans, or do we degrade into worse behavior and regress as society? Obviously we couldn't keep going on the same way, what changes would we make? Could we make them without compromising our morals? Would we create refugee camps to discourage people from coming into the country? Just imagine if the whole world went ot hell and the US was the only safe place left. Would we want to keep people from overrunning the nation and do the camp thing, or just let everyone in and overtax our resources? All valid questions that the movie addressed, but not necessarily in a political manner.
I think if there was any political message there at all, it would be that taking absolute sides in a political issue is unwise. Often neither side is the good guy or the bad guy, but rather usually they are both. Sometimes a person has to look out for their own best interests and not take a side.
That being said, when the whole movie was over, I was kinda disappointed. People just don't know how to end things, movies, books, etc. I think it's often a cop out to kill off a character. Not that I was looking for a story book ending, I just thought it wasn't fitting to kill Theo off at the end. Additionally, the ending of this movie reminded me of the classic British scifi movie ZPG: Zero Population Growth. The characters in that story escape with a baby in a boat in the fog as well, same kind of bleak outlook for the future. I'm not sure if that was on purpose, or just something I put together.
The movie was pretty much just a story about a action filled, suspensefull, screwed up journey to safety. Just an adventure flick. And frankly not the best, nor the worst.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I enjoyed the movie quite a lot. I liked the direction and the acting and pretty much everything. It was dystopian and fairly depressing, despite the vaguely hopeful ending, but I don't think all movies have to be happy ones.
The biggest "problem" is that it seemed to be trying to say something profound and try as I might, I can't think of anything particularly profound in it. I had the same "problem" (but even moreso) with The Fountain, which is laudably ambitious, but borders on pretentious when you get down to the central practically pro-death philosophy. (But that's another discussion altogether, I guess.)
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I saw it last night. Both my friend and I liked it a lot....until the end. When the lights came up, we each registered a double-take. It was like the movie spent all this time painting its picture and then....?!?!
I wouldn't have minded an open-ended ending, but throughout the entire movie, I felt as though we were really only scratching the surface of what was really an amazing story.
-pH
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I just thought of something. I bet Sid, the military man that bought marijuana from Michael Caine, is going to think that Theo was the one that killed Caine when Sid returns to Caine's house and finds him riddled with bullets.
Didn't Sid get his head smashed in by a car battery? I'm not so sure he'd ever wake up, much less get out of the camp.
Posted by The Pixiest (Member # 1863) on :
I saw no political message in the movie.
The political motives involved all seemed... pointless... without kids... Who cares who's rights are violated? The human race is done for. There's no point in fighting for a better day because we're not fighting for anyone.
I found this movie very powerful. I'm sure the book is even better and need to read it.
I noticed the long shots without a cut and was incredibly impressed by them. They had so many people involved... though it did pull me, briefly, out of the moment to think "How many takes did this take?"
The shakey camera and blood spatter made me feel like I was really there.
The abrupt end didn't bother me either because what they were fighting against was an abrupt end to humanity. Except, of course, the Fishes who were fighting for their political cause over the further existance of humanity.
This movie depressed... no... this movie made me feel hopeless all day yesterday.. and even into today. Everyone was just waiting to die.
Pix
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Pixiest:
I noticed the long shots without a cut and was incredibly impressed by them. They had so many people involved... though it did pull me, briefly, out of the moment to think "How many takes did this take?"
You will be very impressed with Russian Ark, even if you don't think it's a great movie (I don't).
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)