|
Directed by: Alfonso Cuarón Starring: Clive Owen, Julianna Moore, Michael Cain I went into the film with a lot of worry. I worried that the story - in the dystopian future of 2027, where people are infertile, one woman becomes pregnant, and the alcoholic hero (Clive Owen) has to take her to "The Human Project", a mystical safe haven. The film is set in the UK, which suprised me, the rest of the world has fallen into anarchy, brief clips of news show the rest of the world burning. The UK is the last safe country, thanks to a facist government who have closed the borders and are rounding up every illegal immigrant and sticking them in a huge concentration camp. It begins with the news that the youngest person in the world - age 18 - has just been killed. The film does not let up the tension for a second, the sense of opression is perfect, the sets are beautiful, and the film flows seamlessly from scene to scene. The action scenes - and there are a lot of them - are varied and each one is beautiful in it's own right, from a band of terrorists chasing a car to tanks levelling buildings, each one capitalises completely on the tension. Clive Owen is fantastic, played perfectly, he is no action hero, he is not a hollywood-drunk, he plays a character who is still in love with his ex-wife, and is dumped with the only pregnant woman in the world - the last hope for all of humanity. His character development is subtle, but played perfectly. The pregnant woman - Kee - isn't as good, she switches between whiny and butch, which gets bit grating from time to time, but she serves her purpose as a counterpart for Clive Owen. Children of Men takes us from the muddy streets of London, through the countryside to a ghetto for illegal immigrants, each environment is perfectly crafted, from the graffitti on the walls (much of which has been used in the promotional materials - The last person to die, please turn out the lights) to the costumes. The police, in full riot gear and the illegal immigrants locked in cages are perfectly designed. You shouldn't read the rest of the thread, though some people will probably complain about the ending, you should just go out and pay the $10 to see it. From here, the film follows a somewhat reluctant Clive Owen as he comes to term with the fact that a woman is pregnant, and that he has to take care of her. RATING: 5 PROS: Facism, Fear, Hatred and Hope. CONS: Claire-Hope Ashitey - an unknown actress as the last hope for all humanity wasn't the best hope. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0206634/
|
| # ? Sep 22, 2006 21:49 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 00:28 |
|
|
I agree with basically everything you said, I went into this movie with a friend thinking "This will probably be good" and we both came out thinking "That was loving amazing". The Art direction for this film was perfect, not a single thing stood out of place and really helped create an incredibly depressing tone - Not that this is a bad thing, as it just feels right. In fact, the way a lot of the parts in this movie were directed, you could take out the storyline but leave in everything else and could just as easily have an excellent film on refugees trying to escape through a war torn country. Don't take that to mean that the storyline isn't great though, because it is, the storyline just makes the film all that much better. One more thing about the directing - the camera work. A large majority of the scenes in this film are filmed in one take with a single camera following the main character as he goes about dodging tank shells and the like. I found this to really help immerse me into the film. binary_hero posted:You shouldn't read the rest of the thread, though some people will probably complain about the ending, you should just go out and pay the $10 to see it. I remember thinking to myself as the film started to draw to a close that they better of nailed the ending and not left too many questions. But the way they ended it was perfect, they gave enough information to end the story that the film was based around (the characters trying to get somewhere), but left out enough detail to let you wonder about what happened to the big picture. I'm happy to say that it's probably the best drama film I've ever seen. RATING: 5 PROS: Excellent art direction, believable acting and immersive camerawork. CONS: Probably not the best film to see if you get depressed easily. Zylen fucked around with this message at Sep 24, 2006 around 20:07 |
| # ? Sep 24, 2006 20:05 |
|
|
Thirding. A really fabulous film, with incredible background, and some marvellous moments. The scene when they're coming out of the building under siege could have been so corny, but wasn't. Perfectly judged and moving. If I had a criticism, it would be the often shaky camera work, which was clearly deliberate and subjective to the Clive Owen character, but which I found headachy; and I wasn't too impressed with Kee either. But those are quibbles. And all kudos to the way they transformed London - worked superbly. Powerful political comment, incredibly moving story. A really interesting, thought-provoking film. 5/5
|
| # ? Sep 26, 2006 16:24 |
|
|
I just got back from this with friends and it was great. Every aspect of the direction was perfect, most of the acting was spot on, it was consistently well-paced, and the dark comedy complemented the movie's action and drama very well. On that note, I've never seen a movie do blood-spraying this well before. Sid getting hit over the head could not have been done better. I do have to argue about the ending though. The movie has such a solid setting and story but never seems to go anywhere with it, so the fact that most of the audience's questions aren't answered is quite aggrevating. I wouldn't have minded seeing more of London, either, because I this kind of near-future setting. It's a minor complaint though. Very much recommended. 4.5/5
|
| # ? Sep 30, 2006 18:16 |
|
|
The best film I've seen this year, without a shadow of a doubt. The pacing is perfect, the characters are entirely believable and the violence is so real that even your average SA member might even squirm at some of the scenes. Lots of wonderfuly subtle touches like the main character wearing a "London 2012" sweater just help add to the lifelike atmosphere. Great ending too. 5/5
|
| # ? Oct 3, 2006 19:22 |
|
|
Saw this today. One of the best films I've seen for ages. The beginning was slightly slow, but did a good job of building up the atmosphere of the futuristic London. It picked up pace after about 20 minutes and from there was pretty relentless. One of the most beautiful films in a long while. It did for the gritty, dystopian UK what Collateral did with L.A. The combat scenes were done incredibly well and the realism of them meant they were especially potent. The premise was great - but as said above, the ending didn't tie up all of the loose ends which is mildly frustrating. The acting was top notch - Kee was the only character who could have been better. Great film. Beautiful cinematography. Really fluid and polished. 5/5 gee shuckz fucked around with this message at Oct 14, 2006 around 15:42 |
| # ? Oct 14, 2006 15:40 |
|
|
I saw this just today, and it has been a LONG time since I've seen a movie this good. I had no idea what this movie was about when I viewed it, which in retrospect made it so much better - as I had no idea why an 18 year old was the youngest person alive and why it was a tragedy he did die . I was seeing it with a mate who pointed out the cineamatography (hes a film student) and helped me respect and enjoy the movie all the more, to mention one scene, where he is in Bexhill camp and it has the ~5 minute action scene where the camera follows him around troops and tanks, just breathtakingly executed. I may even go as far as to say it might recieve the award for best cinematography. 4.5 / 5 Pros: Gives a nice 'I have no idea whats going on in this film until 30minutes in' feel (The good kind). Cons: Could've used a better ending, with more resolution.
|
| # ? Oct 21, 2006 13:41 |
|
|
I found the film extremely linear and predictable, yet still enjoyable. I would have preferred more coverage of the societal changes brought about by the end of procreation, ala White Plague-Frank Herbert. The tight shutter, hand held camera, shallow focus and long takes lend a guerilla documentary feel which suited the action well but can be hard to watch on a giant screen. Pros: Except for the ball, the visual effects were tight. Michael Caine's character was well written and acted, a loveable intellectual with a very cheeky side. I was saddened when he was executed The scene when leaving the building being shelled was fantastic, well paced and punctuated sharply when firing resumed, I really enjoyed it Cons : Kee was at best a poorly developed character and at worst annoying. Surely the fishes would be more interested in preserving mankind than pursuing a political agenda, ditto for Sid and his finances Being a linear story, there was little in the way of frivolities, so when one of the fishes mentioned the car needed jump starting I immediately knew it would hinder some sort of escape in the future 3/5 Question: When Clive Owen is running up the stairs of the building during the army confrontation, is that dreadlocked midwife chick dead on the stairs? was she a mole the entire time? I couldn't tell if it was actually her.
|
| # ? Oct 22, 2006 15:32 |
|
|
The movie managed to make itself believe that humans would react like this if this was what happened in the future, such as the fatalist sense of humour by the protagonists, the politics behind a world gone this way, and the imagery. The tone and use of single shots really managed to get me immersed in the movie. Scenes such as the awkward car chase scene and unrelenting imagery made the movie an intense watch, with its use of not going over the top, managing to keep the view objective and truthful, and above all realistic, even with such an otherwordly premise. The message of hope in this movie really made it for me. The scene where the Clive owen and Claire-Hope Ashitey exit the building really shut the hating dystopian world up, and restore faith and hope into the world, and give a glimpse at the even further possible future. The was also underlying message of faith and chance being in this movie, with many scenes/scenarios revolving around one or the other. Although linear, I honestly wouldn't have liked as much if the movie went in another direction than it did, which was an epic realistic depiction of what could happen if the world went the way it does in the movie. PROS Intense action, Realistic (especially with little details strewn across the movie), excellent acting and atmospheric as hell. All of the scenes that had cars involved. CONS Kee seemed to bark out her lines Michael Caines wife seemed a bit unnecessary, but who cares 4.5/5
|
| # ? Oct 24, 2006 15:46 |
|
|
This was a excellent movie. As others have mentioned, this movie looks really nice and presents us a pretty believable portrayable of the future as far as setting goes. The terrorism bits were kind of scary and the bits that linked back to our time definitely hit home. This movie does a lot of things really well-- I was pretty much blown away by the last scene with the street conflicts.. loving intense and well done. This movie had me going with the whole "oh god what the fucks going to happen next" type of head games, not really all too predictable. Acting was all around pretty good, I was glad his Ex died quickly, we don't need any of that corny rekindering of relations under zany situations bullshit. The moment where they all realize she has a baby was pretty good, maybe a bit long. Humanity just pauses the brutal conflict with complete awe. Pros Clive Owen Depressingly realistic future setting Good action, and not corny at all Cons Kee was kind of annoying, minor quip. Depressing bits 4.5/5 This may top the departed as my favorite movie this year.
|
| # ? Nov 5, 2006 21:33 |
|
|
For me, this is an instant classic. It deserves to be mentioned alongside other films that create a believable, detailed, immersive future world like Blade Runner, 2001: A Space Odyssey and Alien. It manages to be bleak, thrilling, moving, hopeful and sad, all in pretty much equal measure. The actors manage to do an excellent job at selling the world they inhabit, and are helped immensely by production design that packs every corner of the frame with interesing detail. The story manages to stave off any threat of degenerating into cliche at every turn, and despite the fact that I guessed fairly well what was going to ultimately happen, it kept me riveted. While some will probably hate the lack of explanation in the ending, I thought it struck just the right balance. Any more runs the risk of stalling the film's climax with cheesy resolution and exposition, and muting the impact of what came before. Any less would just be depressing for the sake of it. Technically, the film is hard to fault. The much-vaunted one take shots (especially the final breathless run through a war-torn city) will probably mentioned by later generations with the same reverance as, say, the opening of A Touch Of Evil or the nightclub entrance in GoodFellas. This will most likely be the first film in some years that I will go back and see a second time. 5/5 easily.
|
| # ? Nov 10, 2006 01:08 |
|
|
Top movie! Excellent action scenes, believable plot and characters that I actually care about. I have been telling people that this is the best movie I have seen all year and I mean it. I recommend that everyone go to their local cinema and watch this work of art. 5/5
|
| # ? Nov 12, 2006 12:38 |
|
|
This movie was seriously the best cinematography I've ever seen. So much so that even during the movie, I just kept saying, "Wow, the cinematography is loving excellent," over and over. Add to that the fact that the storyline is engaging, this movie easily gets a 5. I would have given a 5.5, but it could have had a few more twists that would have made it better.
|
| # ? Nov 24, 2006 01:30 |
|
|
5/5 Holy poo poo the camp scenes at the end and the countryside.
|
| # ? Nov 28, 2006 12:19 |
|
|
I cried. Everyone stopping to view the baby and then resuming firing was amazing and I think is meant to kind of say that humanity doomed itself anyway, but then with hope at the end. It's loaded with a poo poo ton of philosphical not-so-nuances. Cons: Italians in the ghetto. 5/5
|
| # ? Nov 29, 2006 05:17 |
|
|
I was severely disappointed with this movie. The basic concept was very promising, the actors were all competent, but the plot was ultimately aimless, lacked depth, and failed to make the movie into a cohesive whole. The movie consists of three major sections, and all three failed to measure up, as far as I'm concerned. The exposition establishes the "Big Brother" ambience fairly well, and has some interesting scenes, but fails to follow up on anything properly. Who were reponsible for the bombs? It is suggested that it was the government, but this is never mentioned again, nor do we ever hear anything about the government again. This is symptomatic of the exposition, and the entire movie in general. It feels like the movie wanted me to accept a "paint-by-numbers" Orwellian scenario without actually putting any time and effort into depicting it. The second section of the movie is one long and fairly tiresome chase scene. Scenes that are supposed to horrify don't; scenes that are supposed to amuse fall flat. The scene where the car refuses to start vastly overstays its welcome, and had me chuckling, which I'm pretty sure was not the intent. One scene in particular bothered me: when the hippy guy encourages the ONLY PREGNANT WOMAN IN THE WORLD to toke up, after all, she had done it before. I feel that the movie tried to establish that character as a fun-loving but responsible person, and the aforementioned scene completely eroded that image, in my opinion. The last section of the movie is, to put it simply, a first-person shooter video where the protagonist has no weapons. The scenes looked almost exactly like what I'd expect from a "realistic" war-based FPS, right down to the "ducking from cover to cover" bits, and the camera effect with the flecks of blood on the screen. I daresay it would have made a good game. It made for a crappy, mindless section in the movie, though. The ending resolves literally nothing. This sort of conclusion can work. In this case, however, it felt more like lazyness than a conscious stylistic decision. 2/5. This movie was not worth my time, and it was not worth my money. (Please note that I'm not trolling, nor am I voting the movie a 2 to "balance out" all the 5's. This is my honest impression of the movie, and if someone makes a discussion thread for it, I'll gladly argue my case further.)
|
| # ? Dec 12, 2006 12:11 |
|
|
I really enjoyed this movie. The way they set up the aesthetic was terrific; I really believed I was watching events unfold in a fascist, dystopian future (unlike, say, in V for Vendetta). There were a lot of great small touches, such as the trash bags all over the place. I saw that and thought, "yep, if humanity were doomed, I don't think I'd give a poo poo about the trash either." Some of the action was over the top, but it was still compelling and I thoroughly enjoyed the ending. The film has a potent Christian theme, so it made sense that it was, essentially, depicting an ordeal. Had they gone further it would have become sappy and I think Theo deserved a good death more than a mundane future. I agree with the earlier poster that the Fishes' motivations were kind of out of whack in that they placed the child in such danger, but I can understand where they're coming from to an extent. They had good reason to be suspicious about the human project since no one had ever had direct contact with them. The only beef I have is that Theo's relationship with Julien was kind of dumb. If they hadn't seen each other for 20 years, I don't think they'd interact in that way upon meeting again. There are a couple loose ends in the beginning (what's with Theo's cousin?), but they're mostly nitpicks. This is the best new movie I've seen this year. 4.5/5
|
| # ? Dec 15, 2006 01:05 |
|
|
A fairly average film with a very shallow plot and not much character depth. Still it kept me reasonably entertained for the hour and thirty odd minutes that it lasted. I normaly can't stand Michael Caine but I rather liked his character in this and he added feeling to a film otherwise lacking in that commodity. If you want to see a good post apocalyptic film watch 28 days later instead it's alot better. Pros Michael Caine the cheeky pot smoking hippy. All round solid performances. Good cinematography. Cons Shallow plot. Lack of character depth. Dull action scenes. 3.5/5 Gave it an extra half mark for at least trying something abit different.
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2006 16:14 |
|
|
Excellent film. Takes the dystopian future and makes it scarily realistic. I loved the story and the fact that it felt like it didn't have to explain itself to us. We are thrust into the middle of the experience, much like Theo, and just ride it out. Hence when Theo dies, our experience is over and the movie ends abruptly. Very interesting device. Performances were pretty spot on. Nothing that will get an academy award, but very very solid. The cinematography and battle sequences are simply jaw dropping. Extremely tense and violent...the camera never really looks away. It almost feels too real. The only thing I didn't like, which most people seem to love, is the scene where she's walking out of the building with the baby at the end. But not the whole thing, I just don't like the soldier part for some reason. Almost felt too forced. But that's it. That's pretty much all I didn't like. This is one of the best movies of the past few years and is an absolute must see.
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2006 17:01 |
|
|
5, Excellent Film! BonoMan's explanation of the ending makes a lot more sense to me now. Great movie from start to finish! I'll definitely be buying this on DVD and I'll be seeing it in theaters, since I downloaded it the first time and this movie would feel a lot better on a big screen.
|
| # ? Dec 16, 2006 23:28 |
|
|
I recently saw this film with a friend, and we both thought it was pretty crappy. This comes after a high goon recomendation. Seriously, the movie is slow as gently caress, and then alternates in scenes where some of the most important poo poo happens in 30 seconds only to jump back to incredibly slow scenes which I guess were supposed to be exposition. The ending while yes it obviously means "hope" and whatever is a huge crapfest, wherein you have no idea what actually loving happens. I'm not saying it can't be open ended, but you don't learn anything. I might as well have not watched the entire movie. The characters are never really built up and fleshed out. Theo's motives (and everyone else's from the good guys to the bad guys) are never really explained. Everyone just follows along as if on rails. I felt like it was a bad video game, where it was just one stupid level after another (escape from here in a car, get to safety here, escape from these guys, get to the camp, etc). I'm not lying when I say that I don't actually care what happened to any of the characters, since they were either obviously expendable or completely loving useless. I would maybe, maybe, MAYBE stretch and call this an average movie, but I think it's being touted way too highly here. I haven't read the book, but from the summaries I have read the movie completely bastardizes the book, to a point almost as bad as Starship Troopers, making up entire characters and plots, and removing almost all motivations. 2/5 xie fucked around with this message at Dec 20, 2006 around 06:38 |
| # ? Dec 20, 2006 06:35 |
|
|
I found this movie to provide some of the most amazing settings and set-ups, upon which nothing seemed to actually happen. My imagination ran wild during the beginning of the film, with high hopes for storyline, but I felt I was tricked. In every case, the setting trumped the action on screen. A general lack of character development and an amorphous plot made it difficult to like this movie. The symbolism was interesting with references to baby Jesus and/or Moses but all-in-all I was quite underwhelmed by everything happening on screen, and overwhelmed by all the set-up by the arts department. Honestly, the whole motif of "these people are moving from location to location" made me wonder if they hired any writers. Verdict: 2/5 Critically-acclaimed sloth-like crapfest, misses the buck on crucial elements of screenplay. zyce fucked around with this message at Dec 24, 2006 around 12:19 |
| # ? Dec 24, 2006 12:11 |
|
|
Only having read a brief synopsis of this film and not knowing who was in it or directed it, I can honestly say I went in having no expectations. I loved the first thirty minutes, and then spent an hour wondering where they were going with it. It went nowhere, in my opinion. I wouldn't have been so upset with the film if it hadn't set itself up early on as a thriller. There were multiple plotlines that were obvious enough to me that went nowhere. If it hadn't been so ambitious early on, I would have enjoyed it for what it was. An action flick with a gimmick. Take any Arnold/Sly flick from the 80s or early 90s, add some touchy effects and CGI and you have Children of Men. 2/5
|
| # ? Dec 24, 2006 12:23 |
|
|
Just got back from seeing this down at the AMC on 42nd Street, the token Catholic boy in my Christmas finery, having recovered from a nasty bout of food poisoning, amongst the various participants in the War on Christmas (   ).I'm not spoiling anything by saying this since it's in the trailer, but within the opening minute of this film a woman runs screaming from a bombing carrying her own arm, and you're off on two loving gripping, gut-wrenchingly good hours of cinema. Holy christ. What a film. Many other reviewers have said it here, but I never once didn't believe the setting - and the characters fell into it so beautifully that I couldn't let go of the plot. The cinematography is jaw-dropping from shot to shot - it's neither the cloying frenetic work of a "post-modern" action flick trying to be "edgy" or a "somber feature film," but a number of beautiful long shots that, as the New York Times's review noted, initially start out focused on the world around Theo (Clive Owen's character) rather than Theo himself (as if he was just some drunk lurching in and out of things happening) and then slowly starts to follow him more and more until he is the action and it's the world that can't keep up. To those that feel the film is "slow" or doesn't "go into enough detail," I might agree with you on the "slow" part. Since the individual scenes were often long (and they spend too long at Michael Caine's house the second time ), topped off with the fact that the long shots really added to the length of any one "thread," the movie felt longer than it actually was, and the pacing of simply leaving the Fishes, finding Sid, etc. did seem a little jerky. But I think that's part of the film's charm. This is not a Japanese role-playing game wherein they tediously explain the backstory of every village you visit but then make you fight dragons or something. I can recommend you Japanese role-playing games in that vein, I've played a few and know many more who love that sense of being immersed in a world of minutia that never manages to tell a coherent story. The story here is more than coherent. Too coherent, perhaps, since it is Theo's story start-to-finish and we simply never learn more about characters like his cousin or Julian or those whom we wish we'd've had a closer relationship. It may feel like it's a world at the expense of a story since we never get much about the players in that world we can easily see, but that makes them, and the film itself, all the more believable. And what more do you need to know about a world where masked crusaders carry a dead woman through muddy streets, drawing converts to their cause with cries of "Allahu Akhbar!" or a brutal and inhumane booking process labelled "homeland security?" It's one hell of a film. Breathtaking for its cinematography, for the world it creates, and the story it decides to tell, through the eyes of that one character. There are some minor flaws in pacing, but that's a nitpicking complaint, and after the finale you'll be hard-pressed to remember them. It's not a thriller, though there are thrills, and it's not a moral "GIVE ME AN OSCAR FOR THIS FILM" movie since it doesn't beat you about the head with its TOUCHING MESSAGE like "A Beautiful Mind." 5/5. Better than "12 Monkeys," the film it's getting a lot of comparisons to. Go see it. It'll make you feel a little less safe, and a lot more thoughtful.
|
| # ? Dec 26, 2006 00:41 |
|
|
A powerful and amazing film and definitely one of the year's best. As a thriller it's pretty much a creepy ride through the haunted house of 21st century political culture. What makes it so effective and spellbinding is that they never have to explain how the world came to this point, most of it is all too obvious. Terrific performances, jaw-dropping cinematography, but most effective is the frightening near future it so vividly paints. In a rare move for a film of this nature, the director wisely eschews all lengthy exposition and dodges any moral certainties. The viewer is left to decide in their own mind what to make of the violent tomorrow. This film will be a cult masterpiece for literate film goers looking for an intense cinema experience with both intelligence and passion, long after Universal has quietly ignored and dumped it from theaters. PROS: A truly rewarding cinema experience for intelligent viewers. CONS: Not so intelligent viewers might expect some sort of action film instead find the story depressing/boring/confusing. 5/5 edit: I loved this film so much I started a thread to encourage a grassroots oscar buzz around it: http://forums.somethingawful.com/sh...hreadid=2267066 blairerickson fucked around with this message at Jan 7, 2007 around 12:43 |
| # ? Dec 26, 2006 12:52 |
|
|
I read the book in the past two days and saw the movie today. I loved both, although the movie is only very loosely based upon the book. Both tell very different stories, but I enjoyed both stories very much. The movie, as people have said, has excellent cinematography and is put together extremely well. Lots of fun, and the best movie of its kind in a long while. 5/5
|
| # ? Dec 27, 2006 23:10 |
|
|
Pros: The film was like a FPS, visually it was very cool. The 'long shot' was very impressive, and I like it even more now hearing the story behind it (the NPR thing linked in the GBS thread) Cons: The film was like a FPS on rails. Meaning the whole plot was to get from point A to point B with no exploration of characters, history, or the rest of the world. There's no need to care for any of the characters other than the pregnant woman, since it's made perfectly clear that the movie is in the style of a videogame, in which all supporting characters' lives are meaningless. The pacing of the movie was also reminiscent of a game... you could almost imagine which scenes were the 'cut scenes' between the battles. It's also very obvious that everything will work out in the end. The final scene may have been MORE interesting if it had ended before the ship was spotted. Have the movie end with her squinting off into the distance. The audience would have then been left with the thought that maybe the Human Project didn't even exist. Was the whole journey for nothing? Or did she get picked up immediately after the closing credits? Maybe it would spark some discussion Instead, you get just what you expect, which to me, was disappointing. Summary: Don't count on any fleshed out characters or surprises in the story. Visuals were very well done, as were the little set design details like future advertisements and technology. I think SA has been over praising this movie in general. 2.5/5 = Just Average Edit: (Added a bunch after thinking about it some more) Gambl0r fucked around with this message at Dec 31, 2006 around 07:48 |
| # ? Dec 31, 2006 06:26 |
|
|
Movies this good come along once a lifetime. If you rate this anything under 4/5 then you seriously need to stop rating movies because your opinion is worthless. 5/5 for one of the best movies ever made.
|
| # ? Dec 31, 2006 07:14 |
|
|
An extremely well-made movie that nonetheless failed to entertain me. The premise of it was very interesting, the setting superbly realized, and most of the performances were excellent, aside from Kee, who I found mildly irritating. The film has all these wonderful elements, and doesn't do anything with them. The entire second half of the movie is basically an extended chase scene that I had no emotional interest in, and ends without giving us any idea as to whether anything was accomplished. It was worth seeing once just for how technically impressive it is, but I have no desire to see it again. 2.5/5
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2007 03:05 |
|
|
The movie was very well shot, casted, and acted, but alot was left unsaid. Maybe I just missed a few parts, but I realized there were many 'holes' in the storyline. One such hole was- Why did humanity become infertile in the first place? A second was- How did Kee manage to get pregnant, what made her different? And the third one would be- What is this 'Humanity Project', what do they do, and who was the 'mole' and such? This movie was very entertaining, and held my attention the entire time, but parts of it were mushy and garbled, and hard to pick facts from. 3/5 PS- I cried near the end when Kee and Theo walk down the steps and everyone stops cowering to look at the baby, and there is a momentary cease fire and all the soldiers stare in awe.Dunno, but something about that stuck a chord.
|
| # ? Jan 1, 2007 03:32 |
|
|
There are always going to be a lot of people angry with this type of movie... one that doesn't resolve the "Big Picture" (see: Signs) because it instead focuses on one person or group. Theo was the character in this movie, and if you go back and watch it, I'm almost positive that there isn't a single scene in the movie where he isn't the focus. Scenes like Theo finding out that the Uprising killed his ex-wife so that they could keep the baby could have easily been shot from the point of view of the people having the conversation, but instead we're given Theo as the main point-of-view. Don't get me wrong, I'd absolutely LOVE to know more about the world and all the Big Picture items in the movie, but when you have a movie shot with the intent that all of that stuff is just a backdrop for the main character to traverse through, you just have to roll with it and take it for what it is. And what is it? It's a fantastic loving story about a man trying to protect hope for humanity. It's not perfect by any means, but it is very well done in most aspects. I just hope more people don't write it off or come away disappointed because instead of getting the Big Picture they only got to see the hero in action. 4.5/5 Also, as others have said, the cinematography in the movie is just incredible. If anything, just see it for the environment and atmosphere they've created for the movie. Edit: Just watched it again and am bumping my score up to a full 5.  Edit again: God dammit, I just watched it again and I really don't see how this can be anything less than a 5.5. 
LonelyKing fucked around with this message at Apr 7, 2007 around 18:05 |
| # ? Jan 1, 2007 06:09 |
|
|
I loved this movie. The scene where Clive escapes with Kee and the baby, and the British soldiers cease fire... I've never seen a more moving scene in my life. I shed a SINGLE TEAR. Honestly. And the part where Caine puts down his wife and dog to save them from being shot, and puts himself in the danger was so sweet. Absolutely 5/5.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2007 05:35 |
|
|
5/5 The movie never let go of the tension the entire time, I felt like I was watching 28 Days Later. My stomach was in a knot. Great movie, best one I've seen in ages.
|
| # ? Jan 2, 2007 09:49 |
|
|
Pros: Extremely well-made, amazing visuals, unique "feel" or tone to the movie, doesn't attempt to explain things Cons: Doesn't attempt to explain things, not much character development, movie just kinda stops Overall: I haven't seen a movie as good as this in recent years. 4/5 windsor fucked around with this message at Jan 2, 2007 around 22:57 |
| # ? Jan 2, 2007 19:08 |
|
|
RaVE posted:I loved this movie. The scene where Clive escapes with Kee and the baby, and the British soldiers cease fire... I've never seen a more moving scene in my life. I shed a SINGLE TEAR. Honestly. Agreed, I cried during that scene. Probably should spoiler it though. Easily the best movie of the year. 5/5
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2007 02:13 |
|
|
This is the best movie that I've seen in a long time. Almost every moment was incredibly intense and really visually compelling. I admit that I choked up when Jasper greeted the Fishes and I couldn't help but be reminded of Little Miss Sunshine during one particular scene. Pros: Clive Owen is my friend's uncle, there are lots of great moments, a totally immersive setting Cons: It will make you sad. 5.5/5
|
| # ? Jan 3, 2007 05:10 |
|
|
Wholy poo poo, that was amazing. This is possibly the most beautifuly shot movie I have ever seen. The review on IMDB sums it up nicely, "A cross between 'Brazil', 'A Clockwork Orange' and HalfLife2". I agree the ending could have resolved more and that chick was kinda anoying but still one of the best movies of the year. 5/5
|
| # ? Jan 5, 2007 07:15 |
|
|
AlexJ posted:I just got back from this with friends and it was great. Every aspect of the direction was perfect, most of the acting was spot on, it was consistently well-paced, and the dark comedy complemented the movie's action and drama very well. On that note, I've never seen a movie do blood-spraying this well before. Sid getting hit over the head could not have been done better. Agreed 100% My only other complaint is that they got a no-name actress for the fertile women, but maybe they wanted to do that on purpose...
|
| # ? Jan 5, 2007 23:54 |
|
|
ConneryAtLaw posted:The movie was very well shot, casted, and acted, but alot was left unsaid. Maybe I just missed a few parts, but I realized there were many 'holes' in the storyline. The cinematography is incredible, and the settings are very well designed. The visuals are brutal and so real they're unreal. The first time I really jumped at the action sequences was when Theo opens the car door on the biker and you see the bike and the guy on it hit the hood and flip on it. It happens like you would expect it to in real life. And the movie gave us plenty more of those types of sequences. Oh, and I shed a few tears during the staircase cease-fire scene. It really makes you feel the sadness and humanity of these people who are devoid of all hope. 5/5 By far one of the best I've seen in a while. I loves me some good dystopian!
|
| # ? Jan 6, 2007 03:12 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 22, 2013 00:28 |
|
|
Zyste posted:The cinematography is incredible, and the settings are very well designed. The visuals are brutal and so real they're unreal. The first time I really jumped at the action sequences was when Theo opens the car door on the biker and you see the bike and the guy on it hit the hood and flip on it. It happens like you would expect it to in real life. And the movie gave us plenty more of those types of sequences. Exactly. Maybe I've been watching the wrong movies, but I'm completely used to unattached, distant action scenes full of explosions and cool stunts. The action scenes in this movie felt real. You felt like you were there. Great example is the first major action scene: you felt the confusion with them when you saw the red dot in the distance grow and become a flaming shell of a car, you felt the panic with them when the people come swarming out of the forest towards the car. I think a lot of the intensity due to the action scenes is them all being done (or appearing to be done) in just one take. The first one has an especially significant impact because [spoiler] it comes out of loving nowhere. They're talking and joking around as they drive down the road, and without the camera angle changing once, they're suddenly in an absolutely horrifying situation. It really forces the stars to act and act well, to convey that emotion of boredness turning to confusion turning to fear. Which reminds me: pretty much the entire cast was fantastic. As were the special effects, cinematography, writing, and pretty much everything else. I went into it not knowing barely anything, having not seen a single trailer or commercial for it, and it's probably too late if you're reading this thread but I recommend everyone else see it that way, too.  And holy poo poo, was it just me or did anyone else get the strongest Half-Life 2 vibe out of this movie? At any rate, despite the fact that it was completely deliberate, I still felt a little cheated by all the questions left unanswered. The hook of this movie is supposed to be that humanity is suddenly infertile, and the question that logically follows that is WHY? It's not quite fair to leave that unanswered. But that's really my only complaint. 5/5
|
| # ? Jan 6, 2007 20:20 |
|
