Restaurant Owner's Email to Staff Belongs in Tyrant Hall of Fame
Murder For A Seat On The D Train
Stuyvesant Student Suspected Of Attempted Arson
NYPD Stop And Frisk Beat Keeps On Keeping On
Harlem Grandma Caught in Crossfire Has Advice for Bloomberg
Children of Men (directed by Alfonso Cuarón): Seeing movies in the theater is a wonderful viewing experience—big image, big audio, big popcorn—but there's no rewind button. To really enjoy a film like Alfonso Cuarón's futuristic drama Children of Men, the ability to rewind the really masterful sequences for an immediate second or third viewing almost seems necessary. As you watch Clive Owen's Theo makes his way through the chaotic English countryside in 2027 trying to protect the first pregnant woman in 18 years (Claire-Hope Ashitey), it's striking how much detail Cuarón is able to squeeze into the frame and still use long, single camera takes. To choreograph that many people, explosions, moving vehicles and whatever else all at once is a really amazing movie-making feat. As the Entertainment Weekly reviewer so aptly puts it, "Cuarón out-Touch-of-Evils Touch of Evil." While the DVD doesn't contain a commentary from Cuarón, it does have a short on how they put together the car chase and bomb in the cafe [pictured] sequences. Plus, it also features erudite comments from sociologists, philosophers and cultural commentators like Slavoj Zizek about the sci-fi plot's feasibility and glowing tributes from his fellow Mexican directors, Guillermo Del Toro and Alejandro González Iñárritu. On the official website you can sample some of this content to whet your appetite before you rent or buy the DVD. The weather in New York may be warming up finally, but Children of Men is definitely a movie worth staying in to watch or re-watch.
Other DVDs of note coming out today include the Oscar-winning animated penguin tale Happy Feet, Will Smith's Oscar-nominated The Pursuit of Happyness, the depressing Australian heroin-fueled romance Candy plus special releases devoted to director Darren Aronofsky, Dame Judi Dench and Shirley Temple. Maybe that's what was missing from Aronofsky's last movie, a singing, tap dancing moppet like Shirley Temple.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
You have got to be kidding. Children of Men needs to be seen on the big screen - that's where you can really lose yourself in Cuarón's long takes. Knowing that you can instantly rewind and watch it again destroys the magic. The idea is to sit there, riveted, trying to take in every last detail. "Oh I missed a bit. No problem, I'll go back to it." No no no no no!
Children of Men is one of the most overrated movies ever made. The cinematography was great but that's it.
I wouldn't exactly say overrated, though there were slight story holes given recent advances in science (i.e. cloning-if we can't have kids can we start cloning people?). I thoroughly enjoyed the last part with the battle between the terrorist and the British army. You definitely have to see that part in a movie theater.
Children of Men is the best movie I have ever seen in my life. No joke.
Aronofsky's last film wasn't missing anything..
It was the best, and most underappreciated, film of 2006.
Children of Men was the best movie I saw last year. No joke.
'Children of Men' is the best movie you've ever seen? I honestly find that sentiment baffling.
Then again it's probably more of a reflection of the sad, sad state of film in the new millennium.
Children of Men may very well be the best movie I've seen in 20 years. All the comparisons to Blade Runner aren't hyperbole. History will be the judge, though, I suppose.
If women are infertile, then you can't clone.
You need a fertile egg to clone.
However much I love this film, and other film's by Cuarón, I was sad to find out my favorite scene wasn't a long cut at all, but a series of very, very successful edits (re, walking through the bus; blood on the lens.)
Still a good film.
I really don't understand all the hype about Children of Men. I thought it was terrible, and I walked out of the theater toward the end of the film, when the nihilistic violence was just too much to bear. It had an interesting premise, but it was impossible for me to care about any of the characters, and the police-state imagery was painfully trite, e.g., Abu Grahib hoods on detainees. I guess it can be admired from a technical standpoint, but as an artistic statement, the film failed completely. I thoroughly enjoyed Y tu mamá también, so this was a real disappointment for me.
I really don't understand all the hype about Children of Men. I thought it was terrible, and I walked out of the theater toward the end of the film, when the nihilistic violence was just too much to bear. It had an interesting premise, but it was impossible for me to care about any of the characters, and the police-state imagery was painfully trite, e.g., Abu Grahib hoods on detainees. I guess it can be admired from a technical standpoint, but as an artistic statement, the film failed completely. I thoroughly enjoyed Y tu mamá también, so this was a real disappointment for me.
"I walked out of the theater toward the end of the film, when the nihilistic violence was just too much to bear."
Why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it’s gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Oh, I mean, it’s not relevant. So why should we waste our beautiful mind on something like that?
/Sarcasm and Barbara Bush quotes off
In any case, the violence in the film was the antithesis of nihilism. Indeed, of any depiction of film violence over the past several years (and off the top of my head), the depictions in the film were the least nihilistic. You think Cuaran really had no point in depicting it? Seriously?
Indeed, if his purpose was to show the pointlessness of violence, that, in fact, would undermine the claim that it was nihilistic.
It sounds like you chose a word that you thought sounded snappy to rationalize your delicate sensibilities.
"it was impossible for me to care about any of the characters"
Really? The last pregnant woman in the world and you couldn't care about her welfare or the person trying to protect her? Impossible to care?
"the police-state imagery was painfully trite, e.g., Abu Grahib hoods on detainees."
That's not what trite means. You don't support your conclusion by citing actual events. For example, "all those bullets and blown up Humvees were painfully trite, e.g., War in Iraq."
Cite ten movies using the hoods, then you might have a point. But citing actual events helps to establish how it's a realistic depiction of prisoner treatment, and not trite.
So, you admit to having delicate sensibilities when it comes to (relatively) realistic depictions of violence and find it impossible to "care" about a two people that may lead to the salvation of humanity.
Given your biases, I'm going to say that your opinion that "as an artistic statement, the film failed completely" (emphasis added) is somewhat questionable, particularly in light of the fact that it was one of the best reviewed films of 2006.
Metracritic 84: tinyurl.com/yk4r2u
Rottentomatoes 91%: tinyurl.com/y79z3u