So we finally got out to see a good movie! I've been looking forward to seeing this one since the I first saw the trailers last fall, and I was really glad to see the predominantly positive reviews for it once it opened.
I liked Children of Men on a lot of levels (and ultimately, I think I liked it better than Dani did). The performances were almost universally great, but what else do you expect from a cast like this one has? I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Clive Owen's that I haven't liked, no matter what I may have thought of any particular Owen film. Same can probably be said for Julianne Moore and Chiwetel Ejiofor. And Michael Caine was blissfully batty and nearly stole the film.
Even more than the performances, I liked the story they were telling. This is science fiction of a type you don't see much in movies any more, thanks to the success of Star Wars, Star Trek and countless other Sci-Fi epics of the past 30+ years. The difference here boils down to Sci-Fi as the pop-culture version of the stuff the hardcore SF writers have been doing for years. Star Wars, especially the (chronologically) first three films, was almost pure Space Opera (a phrase similar to the phrase "horse opera", used in reference to westerns). The "big ideas" in A New Hope (you know, the FIRST Star Wars film) were basic hero stuff… join the rebellion, save the princess, defeat the evil warlord. Children of Men asks the question, what happens to a society when faced with slow, but ultimate, demise? And then what happens when that society gets (potentially) a reprieve? Heady stuff, and far deeper than most Hollywood Sci-Fi.
Thankfully, the movie kept me engaged throughout, and threw enough plot-twists and surprises my way to keep me guessing as to what was really going to happen next. The real triumph here is that most of those surprises and plot-twists, when viewed from the end of the film, are inevitable and, arguably, shouldn't surprise anyone. But therein lies a portion of this film's power… it's ability to engage and surprise, even when treading such a predictable dystopian landscape.
Even more gratifying is that it was still possible to be surprised, due to the fact that the trailers gave away very little of the films twists and surprises. I read an article about movie trailers recently in Premier, discussing the annoying tendency for movie trailers to tell the whole story, or give away the biggest plot twists or funniest moments in any given film. (A potential candidate for the most plot-revealing trailer of all time may have to go to The Astronaut Farmer. After seeing a trailer for this one a couple of months ago, I feel like I've seen all of the film I need to and have no inclination to check it out and see the final resolution, about the only thing they left out of the trailer.)
They interviewed a guy from one of the movie trailer companies who (predictably) defended the practice, saying that their research shows that's what people want… that if they're going out, ready to spend $50 or more to go see a movie, they want some assurance that it's a movie that they're going to like. The disconnect here is the assumption that, in order to "reassure" that poor, trepidatious movie-goer, you've got to tell them the whole f'ing story in three minutes. (It's the 21st century equivalent of the Shakespearean era "dumb show", only with the emphasis these days on that other meaning for dumb.)
But Children was one of the lucky ones, spared the revelation of important plot-twists to help reassure people that they wanted to see the movie. Maybe it was an assumption on the studio's and the trailer production team that this wasn't the kind of film that was going to be drawing huge crowds anyway, so what's the point in spoiling it for the few who ARE going to go. (Sadly, the movie's $31+ million to-date probably bears out that assumption.) Whatever the case, I'm simply glad that I was able to enjoy the film, without having it ruined by some suit's decision to "show it all" in the trailer.
Sadly, it only got Oscar nominations in a couple of technical categories and a screenplay nod, but it's a movie well worth checking out, even if it's only to see SF done right.
I liked Children of Men on a lot of levels (and ultimately, I think I liked it better than Dani did). The performances were almost universally great, but what else do you expect from a cast like this one has? I don't think I've ever seen a performance of Clive Owen's that I haven't liked, no matter what I may have thought of any particular Owen film. Same can probably be said for Julianne Moore and Chiwetel Ejiofor. And Michael Caine was blissfully batty and nearly stole the film.
Even more than the performances, I liked the story they were telling. This is science fiction of a type you don't see much in movies any more, thanks to the success of Star Wars, Star Trek and countless other Sci-Fi epics of the past 30+ years. The difference here boils down to Sci-Fi as the pop-culture version of the stuff the hardcore SF writers have been doing for years. Star Wars, especially the (chronologically) first three films, was almost pure Space Opera (a phrase similar to the phrase "horse opera", used in reference to westerns). The "big ideas" in A New Hope (you know, the FIRST Star Wars film) were basic hero stuff… join the rebellion, save the princess, defeat the evil warlord. Children of Men asks the question, what happens to a society when faced with slow, but ultimate, demise? And then what happens when that society gets (potentially) a reprieve? Heady stuff, and far deeper than most Hollywood Sci-Fi.
Thankfully, the movie kept me engaged throughout, and threw enough plot-twists and surprises my way to keep me guessing as to what was really going to happen next. The real triumph here is that most of those surprises and plot-twists, when viewed from the end of the film, are inevitable and, arguably, shouldn't surprise anyone. But therein lies a portion of this film's power… it's ability to engage and surprise, even when treading such a predictable dystopian landscape.
Even more gratifying is that it was still possible to be surprised, due to the fact that the trailers gave away very little of the films twists and surprises. I read an article about movie trailers recently in Premier, discussing the annoying tendency for movie trailers to tell the whole story, or give away the biggest plot twists or funniest moments in any given film. (A potential candidate for the most plot-revealing trailer of all time may have to go to The Astronaut Farmer. After seeing a trailer for this one a couple of months ago, I feel like I've seen all of the film I need to and have no inclination to check it out and see the final resolution, about the only thing they left out of the trailer.)
They interviewed a guy from one of the movie trailer companies who (predictably) defended the practice, saying that their research shows that's what people want… that if they're going out, ready to spend $50 or more to go see a movie, they want some assurance that it's a movie that they're going to like. The disconnect here is the assumption that, in order to "reassure" that poor, trepidatious movie-goer, you've got to tell them the whole f'ing story in three minutes. (It's the 21st century equivalent of the Shakespearean era "dumb show", only with the emphasis these days on that other meaning for dumb.)
But Children was one of the lucky ones, spared the revelation of important plot-twists to help reassure people that they wanted to see the movie. Maybe it was an assumption on the studio's and the trailer production team that this wasn't the kind of film that was going to be drawing huge crowds anyway, so what's the point in spoiling it for the few who ARE going to go. (Sadly, the movie's $31+ million to-date probably bears out that assumption.) Whatever the case, I'm simply glad that I was able to enjoy the film, without having it ruined by some suit's decision to "show it all" in the trailer.
Sadly, it only got Oscar nominations in a couple of technical categories and a screenplay nod, but it's a movie well worth checking out, even if it's only to see SF done right.
Comments
Like you said - it's serious SF. It's also serious philosophy/psychology/sociology. How would the human race react to such a predicament? Sadly, this film may have it right.
2 scenes blow me away every time: the burning car scene and the walk through the troops scene. You know them.
This movie is my #2 of the year only behind Pan's Labyrinth. Both masterpieces in my opinion.