Leader

Collapse

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Children of Men

Collapse

300x250 Mobile

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • beachcop05
    replied
    Originally posted by Gene L View Post
    I saw it this weekend on video, and pretty much agree that it did suck somwhat.

    However, it got great reviews. I would like to read the novel by P. D. James, my favorite crime writer, because I think the movie trampled all over her typical subtelty.

    What got me was I didn't understand most of the time who was doing what to whom. Why were refugees swarming to England, if they put them in cages? Who were the guys throwing rocks at the trains?

    The Fishes were trying to start "The Uprising" by assasinating on the thier own leaders, then using the child for political purposes because the mother was a refugee. The Government was corrupt and tortured people (for some unknown reason) and there seemed to be two themes in a one-theme movie. Immigration, and the lack of any children. I didn't like anyone in the movie except Theo and the mother.

    And the streets were basically filled with people, in a world that hadn't seen a live birth in 18 years. What's with that? In 18 years without a birth, the population would probably be about half of what it is now, if that many.

    Too many loose ends for me, but the critics raved. Good director, just a muddled screenplay that was inconclusive. They should have been looking for the father, since the problem was with male infertillity, and I can't see this as being an "Eve" story.

    Refugees were swarming to England because the rest of the world is falling apart. England seemed to be the only place left with a functioning government. They were put in cages because England was trying to control illegal immigration.

    The guys throwing rocks at trains are probably just homeless people, you see the same thing in downtown L.A.

    The streets were filled with people because it's London, did you notice none of the people were 18 years old or below? You can still have a lot of people with no births.

    Most of these questions were answered for you in the movie.

    Leave a comment:


  • beachcop05
    replied
    Originally posted by JMTX View Post
    But we don't REALLY know that the girl and child were saved. These people that "saved" her might not be as good as they've been led to believe.

    We still don't know why people are infertile. We still don't know why this one woman managed to concieve after all these years. I felt we should have been told all that. Just too many unanswered questions.

    What happens to the baby? Do they find a cure for infertility? Unless there is on heck of a sequel in the works, I'm really disappointed that these questions weren't answered.

    Not every movie answers your every question, some leave it to you and your imagination (and common sense) to figure out.

    And the people that saved her were the human project, they didn't have a cure but were working on one.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Originally posted by Gene L View Post
    The ending wasn't a problem for me, the girl and child were saved. My problem...I didn't know what questions to ask. It was a "non-participator" movie...I watched an event unfolding, but I didn't know what to make of the event.

    P.D. James is a wonderful writer. I'm sure she did not leave too many tracks on the screenplay.
    But we don't REALLY know that the girl and child were saved. These people that "saved" her might not be as good as they've been led to believe.

    We still don't know why people are infertile. We still don't know why this one woman managed to concieve after all these years. I felt we should have been told all that. Just too many unanswered questions.

    What happens to the baby? Do they find a cure for infertility? Unless there is on heck of a sequel in the works, I'm really disappointed that these questions weren't answered.

    Leave a comment:


  • zombo
    replied
    The Fishes were trying to start "The Uprising" by assasinating on the thier own leaders, then using the child for political purposes because the mother was a refugee. The Government was corrupt and tortured people (for some unknown reason) and there seemed to be two themes in a one-theme movie. Immigration, and the lack of any children. I didn't like anyone in the movie except Theo and the mother.
    I think it was a vehicle - A way to get our protagonist alone with the girl... He was originally doing this for his ex-wife, she's now dead - why is he going to help the girl? I think the movie is about his regaining humanity, and the fishies are just there to move things along (And allow for awesome action sequences).

    And the streets were basically filled with people, in a world that hadn't seen a live birth in 18 years. What's with that? In 18 years without a birth, the population would probably be about half of what it is now, if that many.
    The rest of the world has fallen apart, and thus people swarm to England. Doesn't matter if things are hopeless, desperation will spur one to do many things... Or perhaps as the population dwindles, the government consolidated the population?

    May have just been the look they wanted - perhaps it better set the scenes - multitudes of dirty humans packed together makes for a better dystopian future than less people, yeah?

    I think ultimately that Children of Men is the sort of science fiction that is less about the science and fiction, and more about using the exagerated elements inherent in the genre to highlight contemporary issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gene L
    replied
    Originally posted by JMTX View Post
    This movie had a lot of potential....and I suspect the book is probably better. I was very put off by the inconclusive ending and all the loose ends. I'm one of those who prefers that the ending be "wrapped up in a nice little package" with all my questions answered.

    The ending wasn't a problem for me, the girl and child were saved. My problem...I didn't know what questions to ask. It was a "non-participator" movie...I watched an event unfolding, but I didn't know what to make of the event.

    P.D. James is a wonderful writer. I'm sure she did not leave too many tracks on the screenplay.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    This movie had a lot of potential....and I suspect the book is probably better. I was very put off by the inconclusive ending and all the loose ends. I'm one of those who prefers that the ending be "wrapped up in a nice little package" with all my questions answered.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gene L
    replied
    I saw it this weekend on video, and pretty much agree that it did suck somwhat.

    However, it got great reviews. I would like to read the novel by P. D. James, my favorite crime writer, because I think the movie trampled all over her typical subtelty.

    What got me was I didn't understand most of the time who was doing what to whom. Why were refugees swarming to England, if they put them in cages? Who were the guys throwing rocks at the trains?

    The Fishes were trying to start "The Uprising" by assasinating on the thier own leaders, then using the child for political purposes because the mother was a refugee. The Government was corrupt and tortured people (for some unknown reason) and there seemed to be two themes in a one-theme movie. Immigration, and the lack of any children. I didn't like anyone in the movie except Theo and the mother.

    And the streets were basically filled with people, in a world that hadn't seen a live birth in 18 years. What's with that? In 18 years without a birth, the population would probably be about half of what it is now, if that many.

    Too many loose ends for me, but the critics raved. Good director, just a muddled screenplay that was inconclusive. They should have been looking for the father, since the problem was with male infertillity, and I can't see this as being an "Eve" story.

    Leave a comment:


  • FirstStrike
    replied
    The movie sucked. It could have been so much better but they relied entirely of cinematography "specials" to make it appealing. Too much of the "global warming killed us" and too much of the "see, if we treat Muslims like this the whities are gonna put us in ghettos." I hated the movie, not because I think it was some liberal propaganda piece (I'm moderate) but because the whole theme has been overplayed.

    Check out Infernal Affairs, it's what The Departed was based on nearly word for word.

    Leave a comment:


  • beachcop05
    replied
    Conner, you should watch 28 weeks later, freaking amazing! very very good

    Leave a comment:


  • concon02
    replied
    Originally posted by jwise View Post
    Haven't seen it, but your reviews are interesting.

    For those who liked/loved it::: did you see, and did you enjoy, 28 Days Later?

    I hated 28 Days Later.
    28 Days Later or the newer 28 "Weeks" later?

    I didn't see Weeks, but I really enjoyed 28 Days Later. I own that DVD as well. One of the few horror/zombie (I know they aren't technically zombies :P ) movies that I enjoyed.

    But you should check out "Children of Men" if you get the chance.

    Leave a comment:


  • jwise
    replied
    Haven't seen it, but your reviews are interesting.

    For those who liked/loved it::: did you see, and did you enjoy, 28 Days Later?

    I hated 28 Days Later.

    Leave a comment:


  • concon02
    replied
    Or his main jam are movies like Saturday Night Fever and he's having a hard time breaking out of the box.
    Last edited by concon02; 07-22-2007, 01:34 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • beachcop05
    replied
    Originally posted by Narco944 View Post
    this was a terrible, god awful, horrible, waste of time, worthless movie. it was hands down the worst movie i've ever seen in my life. i'd rather watch paint dry than to watch 5 more minutes of that crap.

    Well you obviously have no interest in other countries or international issues (or in the future of international issues).

    Leave a comment:


  • Narco
    replied
    this was a terrible, god awful, horrible, waste of time, worthless movie. it was hands down the worst movie i've ever seen in my life. i'd rather watch paint dry than to watch 5 more minutes of that crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • concon02
    replied
    Originally posted by Gene L View Post
    Not unless a sequel is in the works. Some movies don't resolve all the issues but the ones that blatently disregard them are usually very bad movies. There is a level of tolerance for this I think everyone has.

    But I would like to hear the title of a movie where leaving loose ends and being vague makes the movie better. Could happen, but I missed it.
    Well, it's not that it makes it better I guess, but it leaves you wondering and making your own speculations. I can appreciate that depending on the movie. I didn't mind how Children of Men ended. I'm pretty sure they left it really open ended because there will be a sequel. I hope there is if it doesn't suck.

    Leave a comment:

MR300x250 Tablet

Collapse

What's Going On

Collapse

There are currently 5334 users online. 281 members and 5053 guests.

Most users ever online was 158,966 at 04:57 AM on 01-16-2021.

Welcome Ad

Collapse
Working...
X