January 5, 2007
In all the end-of-the-year must-see movies I watched over the holidays ... Amen! I finally (finally!) found a movie that I actually liked, maybe even want to see again: Children of Men. Okay, I'll admit that I was drawn by Julianne Moore and Clive Owen, and director Alfonse Cuaron (Y Tu Mama, Tambien is genius). But Ms. Moore is barely in the movie and Clive Owen is miserably-grumpy-scrangly looking most of the time. But the story that is winning, well, actually it's super-losing, sad, dysptopic, the future-is-grim and not at all "winning". This film is upsetting in the best possible way. I mean, I walked out of the theater and saw a construction site and shook in my sneakers; thought that it was a future-terror-shock scene from the movie ... in my neighborhood. Now that's how I judge a good movie. It crawls under my skin and changes the way I view the world. --Aaron K.
Comments
Janet wrote:
I saw this over the weekend with my husband. It was a very good movie and the direction was superb. We felt like we were there and didnt want to be. But we talked about it for hours. Five stars from us.
posted on January 9, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Jill wrote:
Completely amazing. I'm not one for watching a movie twice on the big screen but i feel it's absolutely a must with Children of Men. The hand-held long shots (which are typically nauseating) were stunning and realistic. It made you feel like you were right there. This is one of those films that is so beautifully miserable you can't help but tell everyone you know they MUST go see it for themselves.
posted on January 12, 2007 at 9:09 PM
ursula wrote:
LOVED this film! Alfonso Cuaron is an amazing director, and only he could make such a grim film so touching. Yes, it is dark and challening, but that's what so damn good about it. And big props go out to Michael Cain and the actress who plays "Kee". Amazing performances. Cuaron says this film is less about the future and more about the present. Let's make sure that we take a good look around the present to active shape the future we would be proud of.
Please pass the "Strawberry Cough"!
posted on January 16, 2007 at 2:37 PM
Michele wrote:
Interesting - I found this movie to be poorly done. I liked the concept of the infertile world and one pregnant woman who needed to get to safety, but I felt the violence was over done. Near the end they were moving the camera around as if you were there, this was not done well at all. They put "blood" splash on the camera lens and left it there which draws the attention to the wrong thing. You were suddenly focused on the fact that you were looking through a camera lens. We walked out of that movie dizzy from the moving camera and wishing we hadn't wasted our money on it. Some parts were well done, just not over all.
posted on January 23, 2007 at 12:58 PM
Ben wrote:
It’s interesting to see American reactions to this film, which in England, was unfortunatly poorly received. Children of Men made a lasting impression on me for the bleak portrayal of rural and suburban England. I live in Bexhill (where the pseudo-concentration camp was established) and was amazed at the level of detail producers went to, so as to capture such higely identifiable aspects of the British landscape. Although I felt the violence to detract away from the film’s more important message, Children of Men was one of the most original films I’ve seen in years (especially in terms of cinematography) and I only wish it had earned more British acclaim.
posted on January 27, 2007 at 3:54 PM
Nettie wrote:
I am in my mid 50's and was dragged to this movie by my husband and son. I was surprised I liked it. The acting was excellent. It was truly a thought provoking film that stayed with me long after I left the theater. I would go see it again.
posted on February 5, 2007 at 3:38 PM