Moviepro (www.moviepro.net)

We have taken some photos of "Children of Men". They represent actual movie quality.

• Brilliant film posted on 30 Aug 2009

  I recently watched this film and I have to say it blew me away. I'm not usually a fan of Clive Owen, but I think his role in this film was spot on. Micheal Kane plays a successful futuristic type of hippie, again a spot on performance. The Director didn't stick to standard camera views and managed to keep the audience on the edge of their seats throughout the whole film.The story itself is intriguing, although could possibly do with a bit more explaining, and it shows quite a vivid future for the united Kingdom. Director uses some powerful images to emphasize the scene and the story, but still manages to keep it within a reasonable limit. The message is quite subtle throughout the film and I believe it shows a unique view of what the future holds for us.Absolutely worth a watch.

• Clive Owen delivers posted on 30 Aug 2009

  This movie shows a future not so far from now that really could happen! There are a lot of serious themes touched in this movie but handled in such a way that you can laugh about it if you want to! It is nice to see sensitive issues like immigration and terrorism portrayed in this way! But how important the subjects are for me it didn't matter that much! To me it was about the wonderful performances by Clive Owen and Micheal Caine! Finally Clive Owen has got a part he can show what he can do as an actor! I knew he was a good actor,after seeing him in "The croupier", "privateer 2:the darkening" and "Second Sight". He is an actor who is able to show you the changes a character goes through! He is able to give a normal character a very dark side without making it ridiculous! Also in this movie you see development in his character. The way Clive Owen acts is done as realistic possible! When a bomb explodes he is genuinely scared and bothered! It is just fun to see him act! Micheal Caine was a joy to see also! He'd really make me laugh! Children of men is a good movie!

• Absolutely brilliant posted on 30 Aug 2009

  Children of Men BLEW ME AWAY. Having played Half-Life 2 the world it takes place in reminded me of that game. But everything about CoM is excellent. The acting, storyline, action, music and so on. It's just a perfect movie from start to finish, and I can't wait to see it again.Clive Owen proves (yet again) that he's a brilliant actor and the same goes for Michael Caine (the rest of the cast is equally brilliant).I simply cannot recommend this movie enough. GO SEE IT. If you don't, then you are missing out on the best movie of 2006.Technically the movie is out of this world (when you see the urban war zone scenes, you will know what I mean). A couple of times I was thinking "how the hell did they do that??".

• I had high hopes for Children of Men, and I wasn't disappointed. posted on 28 Aug 2009

  I had high hopes going into a screening of this film after seeing the trailer on the television and I wasn't disappointed.The story is simple, the scenery is beautiful and the direction is executed perfectly.The whole world has gone infertile and mankind is on the brink of extinction, but one lone pregnant woman holds the key to the world's problem, in her young belly. 'Theo' (Clive Owen) is dragged into the 'mission' by his ex-wife Julianne Moore and must battle enemies from both sides of the fence if 'Kee' (Claire-Hope Ashitey) is to give birth to the first child in 18 years.Alfonso Cuarón directs this film beautifully, at times it felt as if I was watching the cinematic beauty of nature evolve from heaven to the hellish land of industrialism as every detail, angle and shot was done down to a tee. Instead of opting for a 'Hollywood' stance or trying something new/inventive, Cuarón uses the surroundings and the people he works with instead to the visual beauty of a film which must be an Oscar contender. He also created a beautiful, yet believable futuristic vision of the world marred by immigration problems and more enclosed-topia than utopia.Clive Owen has given the Oscar selectors a little prod in the back with a magnificent performance in this film, he plays 'Theo', a depressed worker of society who is horrified by the violence he witnesses day and day out, yet his character transforms throughout the film leading to a newer, more refreshed 'Theo' who has taken over from Julianne Moore (Julian) as the lead protagonist in the film. He is also backed up with some superb supporting acting from Julianne Moore (Julian), Michael Caine (Jasper) as the laid-back futuristic 'hippy' of the modern world and Claire-Hope Ashitey (Kee), a young actress who has taken to such a large role with so much professionalism and enthusiasm that you think she'd been acting for years.The film itself contains a large amount of action and aggression as it shows the repression of immigrants looking for new life in Britain and the way the masses are dealt with reminds the viewer of totalitarian regimes such as Hitler's Germany and Stalin's Russia, however the action is portrayed brilliant, at times with just the sound of rapid gun fire in the background to intimidate and give the viewer a sense and perspective of the location in which the characters currently stand. The 'Coup D'Etat' scene shows the masses rising up against the elitist minority and gives the viewer a large sense of satisfaction; however this is culled quite quickly with the bleak and up-close killing taking place of those who are both guilty and innocent.I went into this film with high expectations and came out wondering what would challenge it for the 'Best Oscar' gong next year. Alfonso Cuaron's directing is hard-hitting, beautiful, bleak and brilliant. Clive Owen steals the show with his emotional rise to the protagonist of the world and the supporting actors just build upon his performance and the film as a whole.9/10. Definitely one of the films of 2006.Written by Jordan Winter.

• Grey, grim, gritty and depressing, as it should be posted on 28 Aug 2009

  I won't tell the story of the film as others do over and over, but I will offer a commentary.In this gritty and harsh end-of-the-world-coming film there were too many unexplained reasons for everything bad that had happened/was happening to the world for me to say this was a great movie, but it did have its very effective moments if you could look past its story holes, inconsistencies and oversights. It is true that harsh, apocalyptic films like this one are tough to watch, but are absolutely necessary for all of us to see many times from this point on, as people worldwide do not respond to subtle messages about our environment, pollution, war, and global warming so they must be hit in the face by a story like this one regularly to show what can/could happen to us if we don't wake up and stop the world-killing atrocities that we are committing against other humans and to the earth. The film story left out the causes of the horrible state of the earth and concentrated on the effects of these atrocities, which were truly horrible to witness. All of it was very shocking, as something like it really could and may happen.The story of getting a mother and child, the only one in the world, out of England to someplace secret to perhaps provide a chance for humans to start anew, was your typical chase story with all the typical suspense, pitfalls, threats, violence and mayhem along the way. Nothing too unusual or different there. The ending was the hope the filmmaker gave us. But, what would that baby girl do later to save our species even if she escaped? Any possibility for the future hinged on finding a fertile male somewhere, but no babies had been born for many years so what were the chances of that? Would they try to use frozen sperm from an earlier and fertile time? No questions like this one were ever posed or answered.The impact of the obvious "baby Jesus" scene near the end was very forceful, as it represented the filmmaker's idea of perhaps the only chance at a new beginning for our human-screwed-up-world in 2027, just as Jesus' birth was hoped to be 2000 years earlier. That powerful scene showed the immense reverence and amazement of even the military, which briefly ceased its vicious attack on insurgents as the mother and baby passed by. It was like a 2x4 slamming into your head as it made its point of, "this baby is perhaps the only chance for human survival!".I had a problem with story inaccuracies, as in its technical representations everything.....the tanks, guns, cars, clothing and even TV's showed no improvements over those around today and in many cases they were worse. No progress there, so the problems shown were obviously around for many years, perhaps since 2007? No clue, no answers. Also, if the country was in such chaos, why were the roads everywhere passable without roadblocks? Where did they get fuel? And, how did everyone eat, sleep, work, make money to live on, etc.? No good explanations were given for any of that. The film just wanted us to accept what it showed and concentrate on the devastation and human depravity. But I needed a more full and complete story of the social mess and its causes, and this wasn't one so I was left with too many unanswered questions that should have been answered.This movie has been out a week and hardly anyone was in the theater, so it probably won't make a profit.... depressing and/or apocalyptic films, even though foretelling an impossible or even somewhat hopeful future for us, usually don't make money. We just don't want to face what we have done and what may result from it so we stay away.

• amazing movie, wonderful cinematography posted on 28 Aug 2009

  I saw this movie tonight, and was mightily impressed. Slightly depressed, as well. Fabulous casting, wonderful cinematography, and interesting view of a future world. Go when when you are so up that something that has a rather dark view of the future won't drag you down, or when you are so down, that the hope and courage of the characters can bring you back up.Don't think that contains any spoilers -- certainly not any more than the tag line for the movie -- but there you are. How can one write a review of this movie without saying as much? I rate it up there with another of Julianne Moore's best efforts: "The Hours". She's good at just about anything she does, but when she's given a role that she can really sink her teeth into, artistically, she can light up the screen. And I don't think there's any doubt that Michael Caine was born to play the aging hippie! Clive Owen lets his dark good looks, and the ability to speak of unimaginable pain through only the haunted look in his eyes work to good effect in this role. I gave the movie a 9 out of 10, so I think I must have appreciated it!

• At least I didn't waste my money in the theater... posted on 28 Aug 2009

  I wasted my money by renting the DVD. This movie was a mess. I have never read the book, so I can't comment on the discrepancies. I was just unfortunate enough to believe the movie reviewers that unanimously agreed that the movie was a masterpiece. This couldn't be farther from the truth.The movie begins and ends with no explanation as to why children are not being conceived. In fact, I'm still a little puzzled as to what the movie was "about". The very little dialogue that was in the film didn't help explain. I guess the viewer was just supposed to know the general facts and not ask questions.The character development was poor. I felt absolutely no connection to any of the characters in the movie. As they began to encounter dangerous situations, I found myself thinking "Who cares?". There was little, if any, back story on any of them, so it was hard to feel any emotion for them.The movie itself was gray and dark. I'm supposing that was to create a somber, ominous mood. All that achieved was creating a depressing atmosphere reminiscent of a movie about World War II.Don't waste your money.

• Full of original action, emotions, by no means a classical movie story posted on 28 Aug 2009

  This film was a very big surprise, as I never heard of it before seeing it. And the title was not promising for me.It was one of the few movies that made me drop a tear while watching it with other people. First, in the car, Theo and Julian start to play, they catch a ball with their mouths, their heads coming closer and closer. There was a feeling that their love will be revived as soon as they meet, and, as the action goes, this feeling is stronger. Only that a few seconds after the ball game Julian dies. Love won't resurrect.Second, there is an incredible scene where all the fights stop as the soldiers hear a baby crying. It caused emotions just like a real world event seen with one's own eyes. This moment ends very soon, too soon I guess. The action will continue to have nearly impossible situations, each one solved with a little luck and some divine protection. By no means a classical happy-end story, there is no strong promise that the world will be better, almost everyone dies, the love story is killed early (though the ones carrying the most of hope survive) and though people survive, their condition and perspectives worsen every day. I don't know what still holds me from giving it a ten, maybe the genius scene when the peace lasts only for 10 seconds.

• Take Note Filmmakers, Cuaron's "Children of Men" is the Best Film Made in Recent History posted on 24 Aug 2009

  Read This and Other Reviews at TheExpeditioner.com There are certain films whose story will be pored over, ruminated, discussed and wildly interpreted to the point of frustration. "Children of Men," Alfonso Cuaron's fourth English-language film, is not and should not be one. Instead, it is a pre-apocalyptic work of art whose genius derives not from the somewhat illogical plot line but from its masterful use of vivid imagery and cinematography of the highest caliber, leaving the audience enthralled and in a state of disbelief throughout the entire film."Children of Men," (a quotation from the bible: "Oh that men would praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men!") is essentially a nativity story based in a decaying not-too-distant future where women have become infertile and England has become an inhospitable haven for outlawed immigrants whose influx has led the British government to outlaw them entirely. Amidst this chaos the archetypal hero (aimless, emotionally defunct, melancholic) Theodore (Clive Owen) is recruited to accompany a pregnant refugee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) to safety out of warring Britain and into the hands of a group named The Human Project, located offshore in the Azores. Why exactly she can't stay and have the baby (fear that the government won't allow it because she's an immigrant or fear that rebel groups will use her as propaganda are two somewhat implausible reasons suggested) or what The Human Project actually does (a Mediterranean Manhattan Project plotting to begin civilization over again) are two of the more glaring questions that need to be quickly discarded to truly enjoy this film.Cuaron explained in a recent interview that he was not so much interested in addressing these questions as he was in exploring the metaphors presented by a civilization unable to procreate and the hopes that one child could bring to a hopeless people. But what he fails to mention is that he is very intent on creating a cinematic experience that has never been felt before; one that is created not by the story but by the monumental work behind the camera.Never before have I seen special effects so effectively used than in Children of Men; exemplified by their almost invisibility (take note George Lucas –- on second thought, please stop making movies). Whereas the standard vision of the future in film has been unfamiliar (Blade Runner, Mad Max, maybe even Waterworld), here the future is a mere twenty years off and the world is eerily similar, save for the minor technological advances such as digital billboards displayed on building facades and slightly more ergonomic cars. Filmed throughout with a bluish/grey hue, the world appears significantly more rundown but quite recognizable, as would be the case in this fictional social state, and the familiar London sites are seamlessly transformed digitally into pseudo-military checkpoints and public holding cells. Other poignant images inserted surreptitiously include scenes of caged foreigners ready for transport, an Abu-Ghraib inspired prison -- complete with attack dogs, disrobed and masked prisoners -- and a not-so-subtle visual allusion to Pink Floyd's classic album cover, "Animals," with an accompanying flying pig.Even more impressive is the way that Cuaron utilizes digital effects to give the allusion that the film has been shot in a series of long tracking shots, some of which run as long as nine minutes. Most impressive of these is during the film's climax where the hand-held camera seemingly follows the action of Theo from outside a war torn building, up several flights of stairs, through a gun battle and back down outside amidst scores of extras fighting, yelling and cowering from gunshots –- a shot so complex and physically impossible it is a wonder that at the time I didn't realize it was not truly a single take. What Cuaron achieves through this digital trick-of-hand (the scenes are actually several different shots digitally connected to appear as a single take) is to transport the audience directly into the midst of the action, sometimes in the first-person view, creating an exhilaratingly involving experience that has been lost with the contemporary trend of quick inserts and rapid-fire editing.The real accomplishment is that through the use of these techniques and despite the otherwise distracting plot holes, "Children of Men" transports the audience so entirely and convincingly into this rugged, bleak future that the simple act of childbirth creates an immense emotional impact. The result is that by the end the audience is left completely exhausted and mentally drained by the travails that Theo has gone through to deliver this small glimmer of hope into an otherwise hopeless world.As a I rode home after the film I heard a post 9/11 recorded announcement on the subway alerting passengers to be aware of suspicious packages or people; an alert not unlike the ones played throughout the film warning Londoners of the danger of foreigners. A striking similarity between a world so different from the recent past and a world portrayed so close in the future -- a similarity not lost at all on the makers of "Children of Men."

• what a great movie! posted on 20 Aug 2009

  Simply excellent. brought tears to my eyes. A wonderful movie indeed!!! No spoilers here..but to those of you who have not seen this: my friends, each second spent watching this movie is a second well spend. The movie hast a great cast, a shocking story, a touching soundtrack.For me, this movie can be placed in the list of great movies, next to Schindlers list and the pianist. It is a movie to see two or three times, rent it and then buy it!!!!!!!!!!.I honestly don't know what else to write to get this comment published. my god, why oh why does it has to be ten lines. Oh well... V of Vendetta is a great film too, you know. Both movies have a similar view of the future of mankind..are we doomed?

• The Worst SiFi film ever made (Inc. Beast from Yucca Flats) posted on 20 Aug 2009

  Maybe I should have read the book... This was absolutely the worst SF film I have ever seen!! The movie was just a set up for the director's shove it up your ass, political agenda. Yeah, I get all the overblown allegory to the problems of today, but not only was it heavy handed, but a first year film student could have made a better film. Here are just SOME of the reasons: Even if you take everything on faith, SOME background must be given as to the WHY of everything or the viewer can't be engaged. Esp. in SiFi, the story must be somewhat plausible. In the film, we are never told what happened 18 years ago to make the world what it had become. Forget about the infertility, what happened to the US? It is a much larger and stronger democracy than Britain. Who the hell are the Fish, why do they hate the gov.? I can understand the plight of the fugitives, but how did so many foreigners get into England in the first place? It's a fucken island for god sakes! Why would England let them all in, only to put them all in deportation/detention camps? In some scenes, the Londoners go about their business like it's just another sunny day, in others its Baghdad or Belfast to the 10th power! ON a lonely back country road, the car was ambushed, but some how the authorities have PHOTOS of who was in the car! Give me a break. How did the Fish find out where Jasper lived? How did they just happen to find Theo and Kee in the most chaotic crowded of circumstances? Did they have a transponder up Theo's ass? Why does everyone want the baby? Sure, for political reasons, but at least, why would Theo and Kee be so afraid of the Brt gov.? Was Kee supposed to be a fugi? She sure seemed British to me. If it was because it was a black baby, which they said would irk the white establishment, then why were the soldiers so reverent when the baby appeared during the fighting? And could the fight scenes be a more blatant attempt to draw a parallel to the Iraq war? The BAD westerners, oppressing the poor civilians, and the heroic insurgents! I almost choked when I saw the shots of the Arabs marching down the streets with their Arabic banners and machine guns. Yeah, I GET IT. And the best of all is to throw into the mix...the most horrible thing to confront mankind...GLOBEL WARMING!!! Did Al Gore fund this film? Every real scientist knows that though there is a cyclic warming trend, however, not nearly as severe as Mr. Gore would lead you to believe, mankind is NOT the primary cause (and I don't want to get in to a debate here..If you want the truth ask the founder of GRENPEACE among scores of other non-agendized scientists) But to somehow blame global warming for only the next 20 year to virtually put civilization in to chaos????????????? I could go on and on but you get the point. It was a confusing, and purposely vague plot, devised only to get a cross another "you have been warned" agenda. (If you don't believe ME, listen to the commentaries and short extra material on the DVD) Yes, I know many Sifi films have a warning message for mankind, but THIS movie was SO agendized that it made me want to puke. I'd rather watch the 911 conspiracy film, or Michael Moore's trash, because at least they are up front about their beliefs and don't have to hide behind the guise of a SiFi movie!

• Best dystopia movie ever... posted on 20 Aug 2009

  This is the best dystopia movie ever. I haven't seen the movie version of 'Nineteen Eighty Four', though the images from this movie seem to jump from the pages of George Orwell's book. That said, seeing images from probably the most graphic and depressing dystopia book ever that you painted only mentally is not a comfort. There were movements in the narrative where I was literally wincing and flinching. To put things in perspective, I was merely shocked while watching horror masterpieces like 'The Shining' and 'The Exorist' (good movies, just a different reaction). As always, I only comment on movies that have a script that drives the movie machine and direction and acting that supports the script (Hitchcock-ian outlook towards movies, I am afraid) and 'Children of Men' is no exception.As far the basic plot line goes, the world as we know it has been turned over its head. The world has gone to hell in a hand basket, with only Britain managing to show a semblance of order (not necessarily law). It has managed to do so by becoming a police state that is treating citizens as possible terrorists and immigrants as rats carrying plague. The proletariat lives in squalor, filth, poverty and depression. Gone is the problem of over-population and increasing and/or high birth rates and low mortality rates. By 2027, the year the story is set in; entire human population has become sterile and pets are treated like surrogate children. The movie starts with the youngest person in the world, who is 18 and has a rock star popularity, being tragically killed in a senseless brawl.The protagonist, Theo (Owen), gives the overly sentimental news coverage of this tragedy a baleful look. In fact he reserves this baleful look for all existence. One fine day he is kidnapped (in a world with no kids, the term is ironical) by a terrorist group led by none other than his ex (Moore) and more significantly the mother of his child. The child died twelve years prior and the two find different ways of coping with the pain and go their separate ways. She entrusts him with procuring for her a set of transit papers for a girl, Kee (Ashitey), who is miraculously pregnant and has to be transported to 'The Human Project' off-Britain shore, a supposedly humanistic group and beacon of hope for mankind. The rest of the story deals with how she is transported to 'safety'.The direction is superb – notice the body language of characters to the bullets flying and grenade explosions. They are scared and cowering away from the violence and at the same time looking for a way out the muck they are in – the human survival instinct. There is a street fight–type of realism to the violence, without it being too graphic either. They have a sense of humor too that no amount of oppression and depression has been able to suppress. If there is any respite in this political atmosphere, it is that the police state is a bully and brute not an intelligent sadist. The government is not the Orwellian Big Brother that has successfully managed to make every pleasurable activity into a sin and is trying to control every aspect of lives of its own citizens. It is merely a fascist government trying to rid of all elements of society they think harmful.The message of the movie is nuanced. Paranoia has set into the society hence the police state has come in existence in the first place. Where did it start? Who induced it–the classes or the masses? By the time the events depicted in the picture have begun the world is in perpetual and vicious cycle of violence. The movie does not provide reasons why the world went sterile, whether there is any cure, if the 'The Human Project' is real or not, and if it indeed is real is it genuinely benevolent? None of these riddles are really answered and it up to the viewers to make up their minds. The movie was not really about the world going sterile – it was merely a plot device; it is more about how it reacts to adversity – constructively and destructively.A solid 9/10 and most deservingly in the Top250 IMDb movie list.

• Superb - You MUST See this. posted on 18 Aug 2009

  I'll keep this short and spoiler free. I cannot find a thing wrong with this film - it is an absolutely stunning piece of work. The attention to detail in realising a near future world - the richness of it rendered without a single line of obvious exposition. Brilliant performances from all concerned. The long takes and the stunning set pieces are just beautiful - echoes of Brazil crossed with Channel 4 news. It makes it's political and social points cleanly and succinctly. The best British film since 28 Days Later - and it took a Mexican director to do it - I liked his take on Harry Potter, but this portends so much more, I will be keeping a close eye on any future films directed by Cuaron. Simply brilliant.

• Another Great British Movie posted on 18 Aug 2009

  For some reason the British Movie making industry has never flourished like the American. But every once and a while they get it right. This films hits you from almost every angle and you won't have a clue which next. The characters are Believable and the acting better. From the start you don't really know how you are going to really get into a film like this with the topic. Let me just tell you its worth waiting the first 10 minutes for the story to unfold. The action scenes are quite real and the camera direction in those scenes deserve an award themselves. Its always the quiet films that nobody mentions that give you the biggest shock. A must see if you haven't already.

• Not one of the best films posted on 18 Aug 2009

  An explanation of why I don't think this is a great a film as some have said: Unremarkable film for people who don't have much imagination. Its well made and well acted but the script is not very good, either they explain too much or not enough and almost everything is geared to driving the plot. I felt like I was being force fed the story, which didn't seem to spin out organically.Characters exist purely to serve the plot with the sole exception of Michael Caine who is the only one with a real character. There is a sense of place, but also the sense that somewhere just off the screen there is something else , the film crew (in Bladerunner we got a sense of a bigger world- the space stations of the replicants exists- here I'd be hard pressed to wonder if anything other than England does). Indeed much of the film's world makes no sense, scene after scene I felt was staged in the backgrounds and not real. You have scenes where everything is chaos and others where there is some form of order, but it sees to be two separate films. Also in a world of declining population there seems to be way way too many cops.The best "new world" film exist and don't have to explain things to you.In the best you learn stuff "accidentally" on the way.In say Reign of Fire the world's rules are given to you in ways that are natural, as part of conversations, glimpses at headlines. In the worst they either explain too much or so little that nothing makes sense. Here we get endless droning from the TV and on on the signs. But ts almost too much information that only rehashes what we already know. There are these statements from the terrorists when Julianne Moore kidnaps Clive Owen that are meaningless dramatically since Owen would know it already, but which are fed in to inform us. We shouldn't be told in essentially declarative statements about things. Look at Bladerunner, we're dropped in this world and we don't get an explanation of anything, the world is. Owens story is potentially a prequel to Dekers so its odd that the world here is not as complete.And the plot goes on and on and on with out any real character development. There are few if any real characters, mostly its just odd people wandering in and out with no real sense of who these people are.It would be okay if there was something for them to do, but there isn't, they just move the plot along. What is it between Julianne Moore and Owen? Who are these other people? I don't know. there are huge streams of back story that are hinted at but never touched, which can be gotten away with if you have characters and not cut outs. It would also help if you had a writer who wasn't interested in just moving the plot, who could with a line say volumes, thats not the case. The words are constructed to move things along not build character and situations.I know part of the problem is changes from the book (which I haven't read) Julianne Moore's character is actually two characters combined, and there are other changes that probably didn't help.Again its not bad, its just not one of the best films of the year, technically maybe, and certainly Michael Caine should be up for an Oscar, but the story as told on screen doesn't amount to much.

• Challenging, Inspiring, Great Discussion Catalyst posted on 16 Aug 2009

  DEFINITELY go see this with friends. Sometimes a work of art is of great value if for no other reason than the conversations it provokes. This film has the distinction of being a great film, AND a work that inspires great conversation. I went to go see it with a group of women, some of whom would never normally see a SciFi film. Over dinner we had a profound, wide-ranging, challenging conversation inspired by this complex film. Talk ranged from a delightful debate over the film's ambiguities (which were essential and thought-provoking; some viewers these days are too used to every plot element being handed to them on a platter), to the environment, politics, immigration, spirituality, etc. The film itself was gritty, aesthetically gorgeous, eerily believable in it's "not too distant" future setting, and, in the end, quite inspiring. Although all women in our group had different responses, all gave it a thumbs up. Bravo to Director Cuaron and producers Hilary Shor, Abraham, Bernstein, et al.

• A classic that should not be overlooked posted on 16 Aug 2009

  There are two things that Harry Potter 3 and Children of Men have in common: odd nature scenes and director Alfonso Cuaron. As you can tell if you've seen both of those movies, they are very different. That goes to show how Cuaron can differ his style to suit the movies best. He goes from fun, fast-paced storytelling action in Harry Potter 3, then delves into serious, unentertaining drama for Children of Men. That's not to say that Children of Men wasn't entertaining; it was, but it wasn't necessarily fun. "Interesting" is the word that should be used if you had to sum up Children of Men in one word.What has made Children of Men so "universally acclaimed," according to metacritic.com, is its all-to-realistic look at the not-so-distant future, where one problem (along with many other small ones) can make everything go wrong. In the case of Children of Men, all women have become infertile. The youngest person on the earth, who was born in 2009, dies at age 19 as the film begins. As it progresses, Children develops some very intriguing characters, mainly Theo (Clive Owen) and Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey). Ashitey delivers a very good performance as Kee, a woman who is discovered to be the only fertile woman left on the planet. It is up to Theo and a few of his acquaintances to save her and have her deliver the baby.I can't even begin to talk about the mastery of the second half of Children of Men. It is truly like nothing I have ever seen before. A war has broken out in London (the main setting in the movie), and for nearly 20 minutes, the only camera being used is a hand-held one which follows Theo and Kee around the war zone as they attempt to find a save ground for the newly born baby. At one point, blood gets on the camera, and things keep rolling. It's little touches like that that can make a movie so great.When I left the theatre a week ago after witnessing Children of Men, I didn't feel too high on it, but after looking back, it's very evident as to how much smart planning went into it from the mind of Alfonso Cuaron. The film is so realistic in terms of presentation that you actually feel like you're sitting right next to Cuaron himself as he directs (as cliché as that may sound, it's true). I didn't like the movie as much as some, but thought it definitely was an experience that I recommend to most people who enjoy intriguing plot lines and smart film-making. -Nick HarveyGood) The whole idea, presentation & production, great vast number of entertaining characters Bad) not really much fun, can drag a bit 137) The number of movies I was on track to see in 2007 after finished watching Children of Men

• This movie was Blah! posted on 12 Aug 2009

  Man! This movie was such a disappointment! I have been wanting to see this film ever since I first saw the trailer, and I waited nearly a year to see it on Pay Per View last night. It had good actors and seemed to have a great story line! Where could I go wrong? Oh, and it has Sigur Ros playing on the trailer!! Boy, was I wrong! From the very beginning you're just throwin into a chaotic jungle of craziness. You find out that the world hasn't had a new born in a long while (of course, it never explains why) and (of course, you find THAT out in the trailer itself)....I very excited to see Julian Moore in the cast, but she dies within the first 20 minutes of the movie and doesn't serve any purpose to the story line. Well, she does throw a pregnate lady at the main character (whom I guess is the main character?) and then dies shortly after (apparently they have some past romantic life with him, but who cares??? SHE DIES). There are a whole bunch of other "terrorist" that help her out, but it never explains their roles either.There are also these people that are also trying to help the baby out, but it doesn't explain their role either. Why are they helping? Who knows! Why can't they tell anybody else? Who knows! The main character played by Clive Owen doesn't even know why he's helping out this girl, except for the fact that she has the last born baby....but, why does he care? It's not going to save his life? But apparently, Julian Moore told him so! Umm, what else? So, there's this really crazy, hippie dude that is friends with Clive Owen...we don't' know their history together, but the audience only knows that their friends. I had no emotional attachment to the guy, but of course..he dies...and I guess it was kinda sad to see an old man die.So, here's basically the story line.A girl who's pregnant runs around England with Clive Owen (with some random lady with crazy hair *not sure why she's there either*). There world is out of wack and England has a Nazi-like regime. There's a thing called the Human Project, and it apparently saves babies. There's a crazy lady at the ending who helps put Clive and the baby's mama in a crappy boat. And Clive dies at the end...with a horrible open ending (probably one of the worse open endings i've ever seen)....I never write about movies, but I felt strong enough to let the world now I disappointed I am. It could have been SO much better.

• Great Move but with a typical Hollywood cop out. posted on 10 Aug 2009

  You've seen the advertisements so you know the basics. Women mysteriously stopped having children. Some time before this Theo (Clive Owen) and Julian (Julianne Moore) lost their only child to an illness. The movie is about a number of things but of course the preciousness of life. How much more poignant would the story have been had Theo and Julian aborted the child rather than his death be due to illness? But of course, no matter how much the Hollywood clique rails against state sanctioned violence (executions, war, 'police actions' etc..) no criticism of abortion is ever to be found.Aside from this criticism, its dystopian vision is unsettling and intriguing. Well cast and well acted. I have only bothered to see 8 movies in the theater this year but this is clearly the best. I do not understand why the release is so limited, it was a real pain to hunt down and travel to the only theater in the DC area showing it.

• Gripping Thriller posted on 10 Aug 2009

  It's 2027 and the world is in chaos and slowly dying. No babies have been born for 18 years. Britain is surviving but is under siege from immigrants desperate to get into the country. Britain has almost become a police state and refugees or "Fugees" are rounded up by the government and shipped to detention camps. The Children of Men is a gripping thriller based on P. D. James's 1992 dystopian novel about the consequences of global infertility. The director Alfonso Cuarón creates a strange and compelling future world, with fascinating characters. The film is visually strong and the journey is enjoyable. On an intellectual level the movie is less satisfying. The plot doesn't really make sense and too much is left unexplained. Julian (Julianne Moore) is the leader of an underground group the "Fishes" (which includes Chiwetel Ejiofior). They are fighting for Fugee rights. The government claims the Fishes are terrorists, and the film starts with a bombing in London. The Fishes counter-claim that they are being framed by a government which wants to find a scapegoat to justify its repressive behavior. Theo (Clive Owen) is an employee of the Ministry of Energy in London and a former political activist. Theo and Julian were lovers 20 years ago. He drinks too much and is usually short of money. In return for some cash, Theo agrees to risk prison and possibly worse in order to ferry Kee, a pregnant immigrant (Claire-Hope Ashitey) to a refugee camp at Bexhill on the Sussex coast. Theo visits his cousin, Nigel (Danny Huston) an important man at the Ministry of Art to obtain the travel documents for Kee. Nigel is surrounded by masterpieces like Michelangelo's "David" and Picasso's "Guernica" salvaged from cities in their death throes. Kee is a walking miracle. The Fishes want to get her out of the country and into the hands of a group of scientists, called the Human Project. The Human Project may be capable of solving the mystery of the world's infertility. The Fishes fear the government will steal the baby and use it for propaganda purposes. It's not clear why this matters given that the human race is facing extinction and governments typically have a lot of resources to throw at such a problem. Throughout the movie the Fishes seem like a collection of clueless and deluded thugs with no coherent strategy and Theo gets sucked into their paranoid world. There are two exciting edge-of-the-seat chase sequences on the way to Bexhill. Conveniently, Theo's friend Jasper (Michael Caine) lives near the camp. Jasper is a former political cartoonist who lives with a sick wife, some weed and his old music. He hides Theo and Kee, and uses his contacts to help them break into Bexhill. The camp is a war zone with the British Army battling armed gangs of Fugees. Theo and Kee try to find a boat to row about a mile into the English Channel. Having grown up on the Sussex coast, I can confirm that this is an impressive feat. Most commercial movie thrillers don't really stand up to serious analysis and this one is no different. At the end of the film you are left with a lot of unanswered questions and there are significant holes in the plot. What is causing the zero sperm count? Is it the lack of babies that is causing global anarchy? What is motivating Theo? Given the large coastline around the UK, why is the rendezvous with the Human Project at a location which is heavily patrolled. It would seem to be the worst possible place to meet given the violence? Why are the Fishes so annoyingly stupid? However, if you forget about the implausible aspects of the story it is an enjoyable movie. Cuarón also directed 1995's A Little Princess, 2001's Y Tu Mamà También and 2004's Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. The movie was written by Cuarón, Timothy Sexton, David Arata, Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby.