Children of Men (2006) User Reviews

Highlights of the movie

[anton_lak · 9/10 · 2 November 2006]

OK, I only got through the first 3 pages of comments but let me add my own.

1) Fantastic cinematography. Some like hand-held, some don't. It certainly worked very well here.

2) Related to (1), very long shots. There is one scene where the camera lens has blood splats on it for quite a few minutes. Hollywood would get rid of it, but for this movie it adds amazingly to the atmosphere that is being created.

3) Like "Code46" the technology is in the background. Just the way it should be, allowing us to focus on the story.

4) Theo as the central character NEVER picks up a gun, despite them being all over the place and easily available. As a viewer you are almost willing him to do so, to manage some of his challenges - but very deliberately the character does not.

5) I've read separately that yes this is a comment on current society. Being an Australian, with our controversial immigration laws and practices, that rings true.

6) Similar to (5), using the term "Homeland Security" in the movie is an obvious reference.

7) The revolutionaries/terrorists/fishes are shown to be just as political and militant as the government they oppose.

There are more, but that is enough. Overall a wonderful movie which leaves me thinking for a long time, which is all I ask.

Cheers!

Anton.

Exemplary direction lifts an offbeat futuristic thriller

[Leofwine_draca · 8/10 · 29 December 2015]

This futuristic thriller disposes of much of the sci-fi jargon we've come to expect from Hollywood films. There are no outlandish gadgets or chases through CGI-created landscapes; CHILDREN OF MEN, based on a novel by P. D. James, is a realistic thriller through and through. It's set in a recognisable dystopia (full of violence, poverty, disease, segregation and warfare) and the story follows a strict 'journey' template, following a group of characters as they travel through myriad locales, suffering death, defeat and adventure along the way. So far, so predictable. However, this film works because it's literate, it's intelligent and the focus is on storytelling over flashy special effects or action nonsense.

Mexican director Alfonso Cuaron (HARRY POTTER AND THE PRISONER OF AZKABAN) is a force to watch out for on the strength of his work here: this is the best direction I've seen in a long while and the film is chock-full of great tracking shots which really emphasise the excitement and danger around every corner. The view of a future UK is nightmarish and believable and the backgrounds and locations are as much a character as the protagonists themselves.

I also enjoyed the fact that the film remains as unconventional as possible as it moves along. Clive Owen, the heroic protagonist, never fires a gun and is definitely an everyman character rather than a hero: he's utterly believable and this is the best role I've seen the actor in yet. Supporting actors are good, but it's the older heavyweights who give the best turns: Julianne Moore, as likable as she's ever been, as a terrorist leader; Pam Ferris as an ally; Michael Caine as an aged John Lennon-type. Chiwetel Ejiofor is also very strong in a minor role. The film does have action, including a ferocious fire fight at the climax, but it's never an action film per se. It's just a great movie that avoids pigeon-holing and never left me bored or underwhelmed once.

"The future's a thing of the past." Tremendous from start to finish.

[Youkilledmypine · 9/10 · 23 September 2006]

The apocalypse arrives on film once again in a plot so simple it's horrifyingly believable. It's 2027 and the world is close to annihilation because no child has been born in 18 years. London office worker Theo (Clive Owen) is offered cash by a radical ex-girlfriend to escort a refugee (Claire-Hope Ashitey) to safety. Their lives are soon at risk from both government and revolutionaries.

Although the camera work and cinematography is nothing short of stunning the focus always with our protagonist, ensuring we're kept in the middle of the action throughout. It is also undoubtedly one of Owen's finest performances to date. Theo is never far from danger yet he struggles on with convincing dignity. Occasionally baffled but far from stupid - Theo is essentially a reckless, underplayed action hero that doesn't jump at every opportunity to arm himself with a gun. This works well with the international ensemble of incredible talent: Michael Caine's charming pot dealing hippie, feisty Julianne Moore, key role Claire-Hope Ashitey, the wonderful Pam Ferris, the increasingly busy, excellent Chiwetel Ejiofor, Danny Huston and writer/director/producer Peter Cullen (gloriously sadistic Syd) to name a few... This is surely a casting coup to be jealous of.

The episodic nature of the story makes Children of Men difficult to place into one genre alone. Briefly glimpsed futuristic sci-fi technology is grounded in reality and looks entirely achievable while grey, graffiti ridden concrete locations provide an excellent backdrop for the near satirical look of our current social and political climate. There's poignant drama interspersed amongst exhilarating action and yet enough twists to call it a thriller.

This is not to say it's flawless. Some exposition is handled better in places than others for instance. However Alfonso Cuarón has achieved a completely remarkable experience. Arguably the film could have been longer given how strong most of it is. The only really hard pill to swallow is the comedy juxtaposed with some stark imagery that looks all too familiar to anyone who has ever seen the News from the past few decades. Nice to see a Pink Floyd reference though (pigs might fly!), and someone finally found a use for Battersea Power Station.

Ideally an audience should see this film with no preconceptions and know as little about the plot as possible. This will be unlikely though due to a staggered box-office release schedule, word of mouth and a plethora of reviews and trailers that are eager to give much of the game away. Ironic then perhaps that it must be said - Children of Men is a cinematic milestone. Great special effects and an effective soundtrack accompany this heartfelt, moving and thought-provoking film. Easily one of the best films in recent memory.

A gut-wrenching look at an all too possible future - but also an immensely entertaining thrill ride featuring some of the best cinematography you'll ever see

[gogoschka-1 · 10/10 · 11 January 2017]

I first saw 'Children of Men' when it came out, 10 years ago, and while I liked it a lot, I kind of forgot about it soon. At the time, it failed to resonate with me on a deeper level - which in hindsight I find astounding.

Last month, a decade later almost to the day, I suddenly felt the urge to revisit the film (because it was mentioned in an article about "long takes"), and upon re-watching it, it just blew my mind. This film is so, so, good!

It not only manages in many aspects to be the most prophetic - and most shockingly realistic - sci-fi film I have ever seen: it achieves that feat with a level of style and through such an abundance of fantastic creative choices and innovative camera techniques that I was simply left in awe.

I was forced to conclude that this film was a visionary piece of art (and how that fact had eluded me the first time around I couldn't - and still can't - explain). It's a cinéphile's dream come true; it's a masterpiece in the true sense of the word.

'Children of Men' is a gut-wrenching look at an all too possible future, but it also works as a heart-stopping, adrenaline-rush-inducing piece of entertainment featuring some of the most breathtaking camera work you'll ever see.

The performances are flawless. The artwork, the production design, the music; I could go on and on: this is one of those few real masterworks where everything just comes together right. And I believe the final 30 minutes of the film rank among the finest achievements in the history of Cinema. Period.

10 Stars out of 10.

Favorite films: IMDb.com/list/mkjOKvqlSBs/

Lesser-Known Masterpieces: imdb.com/list/ls070242495/

Favorite Low-Budget and B-Movies: imdb.com/list/ls054808375/

Favorite TV-Shows reviewed: imdb.com/list/ls075552387/

Utterly transfixed

[GregWolf · 10/10 · 22 September 2006]

I went to see this movie without catching any reviews, expecting something rather depressing and underfunded.

Let me stop there and start again.

This movie is a revelation from start to finish. A convincing future world, deftly conveyed with so many subtle signals that I'm sure it will benefit from further viewings. A completely "other" England which I was amazed to see realised in such detail. Clive Owen FINALLY has the heroic role we have been waiting for and is brilliant in it. Julianne Moore simply glows and I've never enjoyed Sir Michael Caine so much before. The soundtrack is beautifully eclectic. Aside from some excellent classical choices, there's an evocative and alternative Spanish take on "Ruby Tuesday" which is a signature on the film. Wait during the end titles to enjoy an excremental song from Jarvis Cocker.

The movie grabbed my attention right from the start, and never let go. Initially, it's the differences of this future world that intrigue. Then, when the action starts, what I found really surprising was the freshness of direction that made me react to bullets and violence as if I'd never seen them in a movie before. If the script wasn't so wonderfully leavened with wit, it would be a grim and scary movie at times.

Finally, the whole thing is lit brilliantly, from the authentic dim English days to the atmospheric ending.

One to watch alongside "The Handmaid's Tale" some time....

What a movie

[Zlatikevichius · 10/10 · 26 January 2021]

What a movie!!! Brilliant performances of the actors, especially Clive Owen, great photography, excellent storyline... One of the best apocalyptic movies of all time. Bloody and with wonderful message! A must watch!

Restored my faith in the art of cinema

[adamk-2 · 10/10 · 23 October 2006]

I've had a particularly bad film year, especially after having seen one particular over-hyped vacuous mess earlier in the year which all but killed my desire to see any films, no matter how interesting they looked or what the critics said about them. So, it was with a little trepidation that I went to see this, especially given that it starred Clive Owen (IMHO, the George Lazenby of British acting).

Well, I loved it and I'm not ashamed. It's unremittingly bleak and violent, but so beautifully filmed and realised that, at one point, I damn nearly burst into tears that someone could have created something so fresh and so moving, so provocative, so disturbing and so grimly beautiful. I thought it brought a real sense of imagination to the screen and that it was possessed of a fantastic visual flair. I felt that it ended on a note of hope, however uncertain and unclear, and certainly a note of redemption for the hero. I'll admit that Owen, while he still hasn't convinced me that he's a great actor, pulls off this role with a hangdog...um, doggedness that I found believable and often even moving.

I left the cinema strangely elated, relieved that cinema still has the power to move.

Powerful images, questionable screenplay

[sean-421 · 7/10 · 30 January 2011]

This movie actually reminds me a fair amount of Apocalypse Now. Obviously the premise is inverted; in this movie the protagonists are hunted rather than hunting (although they are hunting a boat, I suppose). But in both cases there is a ceaseless progression from one increasingly surreal episode to the next. The lack of exposition feeds the sense of uncertainty (and apparently leads to some great frustration in some of the other reviews). Where the movie succeeds is not in an overriding message or in the story as a whole, but in individually powerful scenes such as the birth of the child, the entrance into the refugee camp where people are being executed, the shooting of Julian. Where things break down completely into chaos I was also reminded of Full Metal Jacket.

The story as a whole has its weak points, and this is even if you accept the premise that hunting down a boat to give them a baby may somehow save humanity. I find it hard to believe that a large number of soldiers, seeing their first baby in 18 years, would allow themselves to be distracted by anything long enough to let it get away. I also found that the Fishes had an almost magical ability to track down the protagonists wherever they went. Jasper can hide his pot dealing apparatus from the authorities for years, but the Fishes sniff them out almost instantly. They disappear into a secure refugee camp where nobody knows who they are, but when chaos starts the Fishes show up. And for all the size of the Fish movement, it's the same three or four folks who keep bumping into Theo. I feel the story would have been more effective if the Fishes had simply not been seen again after Jasper's place (if they really even needed to be seen there). Fascist British troops and the denizens of the camp itself could surely have provided sufficient villainy for the dramatic tension towards the end, and it would have felt a bit less contrived that way.

Ultimately I ended up liking the idea of the movie better than the execution, due to these writing issues. Keeping things mysterious is a nice alternative to the exposition-laden alternative, but in this case doing so fails to obfuscate the internal inconsistencies that tend to drive some of us nuts.

This movie remains relevant to this day.

[foxyrabbit · 10/10 · 31 October 2021]

This is probably one of my favorite movies of all time. I have watched it countless times, and throughout the years, I am constantly reminded of it by current events. From the war in the middle east, to syrian refugee crisis, border camps in the us, and now covid, this film just continues to be relevant to this day.

It is masterfully shot and directed. The cinematography is amazing, and the viewer is immersed in an incredibly realistic depiction of the best and worst humanity has to offer when faced with hardship\. Everything is spot on, and I expect this movie to continue to be relevant and we will be reminded of it again in future events to come.

If you have not seen it yet, I highly recommend that you do. It is a story about hope and despair, faith and chance, humanity and inhumanity, with incredible ambient world-building and it somehow manages to to be timeless.

Not Deserving of its Present Rating

[mike-morgan · 6/10 · 6 January 2007]

After reading various reviews and seeing the previews, I was quite excited to see "Children of Men". Upon viewing the movie, however, I was unable to see why users were rating it so highly. I believe there is a predilection to highly rate any Futuristic Dystopia, as they graphically transport us to a time that we are ever so interested in -- our not-too-distant future. "Children of Men" does this better than most, since -- with the exception of the infertility theme -- it does not highly disconnect us from what our future is likely to be.

Other than that, however, the movie lacks what it was claimed to be; it is not "Bladerunner" Redux -- not even close. The movie does not operate on multiple philosophical levels, and those attempting to dissect it are having difficulty not because it is especially deep, but because it lacks much beyond its initial layer. As a futuristic thriller (and very graphically violent, at that) it works marginally well, as there were a couple of moments when I felt my heart pitter-patter in that movie-theater way. Outside of that, there is not much going on here, besides the obvious: the world is going to hell and there are too many guns. Get on with it.

Amazing Film. Truly fantastic! Mindblowing...

[green_fairy2 · 9/10 · 2 September 2006]

I've seen this film and let me tell everyone that it was one of the most pleasurable surprises I've ever had with a film. I hadn't heard about it before and it totally took me by surprise. It blew me away and left me speechless. The acting is excellent by most of the actors, but Michael Caine deserves to receive a special mention for his amazing portrait of the old hippie Jasper. His performance is fantastic and he totally stole the show in the scenes he was in. Claire Hope is also fantastic in the role of Kee. Her performance is quite impressive, especially considering this is one of her first films. Clive Owen is also great as the reluctant hero who sees his life turned upside down and is given a huge responsibility. I've seen him in some other films and he's at his best here. A very good performance, you could feel what he was going through. In the technical aspects the film was brilliant, particularly Alfonso Cuarón's strong and consistent direction that is one of the best things in the film, and contributes a lot to its quality. Also director of photography Emmanuel Lubezki does wonders with images and there are some extremely beautiful shots all done in a naturalistic way, natural lighting, etc. It's an extremely well crafted film that makes you go through the emotional struggle the characters go through and makes you feel that you're in the middle of it all. Besides, it's also an extremely touching story that certainly touched my heart. One of the best films I've ever seen without any doubt.

Embedded

[tedg · 8 January 2007]

I finished the year is despair, because though I've seen many good films this year, I've seen very few actually released in 2006. What a surprise to discover some late in the game.

This is one, and it really surprised me. That's because though I generally regard Hispanic filmmakers as the vanguard, he hasn't really impressed — not as a major talent. My how he impresses now. This isn't just an effective film, its effective in ways that show he really understands some of the theoretical mechanics.

Here's what I mean. I was greatly impressed by the opening scene of "Casino Royale." But if you look at it closely, you'll see that someone could have produced it by mere extrapolation. All they have to do is look at examples of things that are exciting in current movies and do the same, except a little more intensively.

But what Cuaron has done is go back to first principles. He knows how Welles redefined space. He knows how Tarkovsky created a whole new sort of eye by making the camera drift. He knows how Kirosawa invented the notion of layered planes. He's synthesized these in a new way, it seems to me. It isn't radical enough to not be readily digestible to a modern film-goer. But it also isn't much like what we had before, which I may typify with Ridly Scott's "Blackhawk Down." There's a scene toward the end which I imagine was where he started to imagine this project. Our escaping couple are detailed on the street by those who have been chasing them. This group is ambiguously evil, perhaps even the good guys. They prepare to kill Owen's character and perhaps do. From that point until near the end that seems to be one continuous shot. It isn't, but it seems to be, "Rope" -like.

He runs down the street and around a corner, being shot at. He runs into a bus and out. Then across the street in the middle of heavy combat where a building is under attack. All this is hand-held using a partially-stabilized camera, halfway between a documentarian's camera (at this point blood is spattered on the lens), and the other way toward stylized distance that surveys the planes of the spaces while they are animated with bullet hits.

We then follow him into the building, up several flights and down hallways to retrieve his "family," then on out again. At this point he becomes "seen" by those around him. Before, he was more like us, there but disembodied, in a die hard sense. Now he becomes part of the texture and we later discover, wounded.

So on down and out of the building to be adored, as Joseph the partner of the Maddona and then a tank explodes and we are back into the space, leading to a tunnel, an expanse of water, and then something else.

Its so wonderfully choreographed, the camera, the narrator's stance, the dancing walls, the object that appear and vaporize, the shifting types of engagement among us, characters and place...

We know we are being set up. This is no Terry Gilliam who basically intuits. Before this scene we see all the bits from the other masters presented separately. The Tarkovsky bits were perhaps less meditative that I would have liked. One was a visit to an abandoned school where we see our mother outside through a hole in the window, and encounters happen that "break emotional walls." The other is the presence of a profoundly senile old woman, and how she is included.

You walk through other basic film vocabularies elsewhere until they all combine in this last sequence. A Kurosawa episode on a bus when the midwife is taken to meet her fate.

Quite apart from the visual vocabulary, he's done well with complementary notions of story. Its science fiction but without tedious explanations. The world just is. There's brutality as in the future of "Vendetta," but one can see it isn't religious wars or jingoism that fuels it, but a far deeper existential concern. Julianne's character is the grand motivator, though wonderfully (in terms of story mechanics) she disappears early, effectively launching the real story: our hero is a storymaker.

Noir. Regular readers know I define noir a bit different than ordinarily. It has to do with ordinary folks thrust into extraordinary situations as if the existence of the viewer motivates a capricious fate that weaves and frames a story for our eye. What we have here is ambiguous noir, and the first real action noir. Quite an achievement. Quite an experience.

Ted's Evaluation -- 3 of 3: Worth watching.

Overrated

[adi_hecht · 6/10 · 6 October 2007]

I've read so much hype and positive comments on this film before watching, and regretfully, it did not live up to the expectations.

The film starts with an interesting, original basic story point: a future where the human race has become sterile. This opening point has so much potential, but unfortunately doesn't take off anywhere from there.

The plot itself is pretty monotonic: Our 2 heroes running off together from one place to another. It's not always clear who they're running from or where they are going. The chase itself is not so action-packed, and directed rather slowly. The other characters in the movie are thin cardboard cutouts - no background, no reasonable motives. There's not much of a punchline or point to the story once it ends either.

The movie does present a convincing, depressing but realistic future reality, down to little details. It does have a strong political saying, warning and moral. But these are the only strongpoints. In all other aspects, the film is not bad - but just mediocre. From a storytelling perspective, the movie presents a thin story, loosely tied scenes, and not enough character development. It lacks momentum and is just not entertaining enough.

Disappointing Chase with Little Story - What were you watching anyway?

[magick-1 · 5/10 · 10 July 2007]

Very disappointing. After reading the positive reviews I was ready for a really good near future sci/fi fantasy, with amazing visuals, performance and of course a killer story line.

Children of Men unfortunately fails in almost all categories - primarily because the build up to the ending is HUGE and falls FLAT on its face. This is a chase movie (a fair one at that) with little storyline, lots of unanswered questions and wasted performances.

Spoilers: The one woman who can and has had a baby in 18 years, floats in a battered row boat through a dense fog, while a ship called Tomorrow arrives, the reluctant hero dies(?)unceremoniously and she announces to her newborn miracle... "we're safe now". An unsatisfying end to a messy production.

One of the worst endings to yet another aimlessly wandering apocalypse story that I've ever been subjected to. All of us who watched it kinda looked around with a that's it?!" expression, staring with wonder that we were led on an overly long chase scene with unsympathetic characters to a mindless ending. There was very little to like about this film.

We're all infertile until a promiscuous young girl called "Kee" is having a baby that a terrorist group wants to keep for their own purposes... and oh yeah, half the government army stands by and lets the baby walk right past them when they have the chance to take her and the wounded hero without firing a shot (most of the film is written THAT well!) :)

What was good? Visuals were wonderful, the look and atmosphere were thoroughly well done and the images of London in collapse were excellent. The opening scene packs a nice punch but then its all downhill from there. Some of the side characters were well imagined and usually the only thing worth watching, with the exception of the terrorists who were cardboard cookie cutter characterizations.

Julianne Moore is completely wasted in the film and mercifully has her brains blown out early on. Michael Caine is the only character we ever really care about and he also is relegated to being cannon fodder. Clive Owen delivers his usual just above average part as he is whisked through this story-less but visually interesting waste of time. There's just no one to care about and no depth of story to keep anything together.

Children of Men never develops into anything remotely interesting and is just another excuse for CGI, big buck sets and a chase scene masquerading as Sci/fi - fantasy.

I have no idea if the story this was based on resembles the film, I would hope it had more flesh to it. A definite must miss film.

Among my top 10 of the decade

[TheLittleSongbird · 10/10 · 9 December 2010]

I will be very honest, I wouldn't have said that about Children of Men four years ago. When I saw it for the very first time, I didn't like it very much, while I loved the cinematography, direction and soundtrack I found it rather dull and confusing. On rewatch some time ago, I was dumbfounded at how wrong I was initially, and since again it has very quickly become a favourite of mine.

I do agree that there is the occasional surfeit of plot exposition and that it is slow. However, the story with its wonderful concept left me transfixed throughout. As for it being slow, I got the impression it was meant to be slow to add to its haunting atmosphere. Also Children of Men is one of those movies I think that you need to see more than once to truly appreciate it.

The soundtrack is very well chosen and beautifully incorporated into the story. The two John Tavener songs were very beautiful and haunting, and brilliantly performed. Jarvis Cocker's Running the World was okay, while the Shostakovich was a real treat. Same with Ruby Tuesday. My favourite was Mahler's amazing Kindertotenleider, sublimely sung by the king of Leider(for me anyway) Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau.

The acting is very good. Clive Owen is really quite excellent in the lead, with a brooding and charismatic presence this is the best I have seen him act. Julianne Moore is lovely and very believable. Michael Caine is the real star of the cast though, his turn here is simply glorious.

The best assets of Children of Men are the visuals and direction. Children of Men is a triumph when it comes to visuals. The decision for the use of hand-held camera was a risk but it worked so well with the dark and affecting atmosphere. The scenery is also miraculous and the colours are wonderful. But for me, this is Alfonso Cuaron's movie, a very underrated film-maker Cuaron's direction is absolutely superb.

Overall, maybe not completely flawless but amazing. I also disagree with the naysayers that it is overrated, in my opinion it is the other way around. This film is very well made, has a great soundtrack, an interesting concept and story, exhilarating action sequences, fine acting and I seriously think Cuaron should have more credit for his direction here. Maybe not for everyone, but I loved it, something that I almost definitely wouldn't have said four years ago. 10/10 Bethany Cox

A thinking person's thriller

[Philby-3 · 9/10 · 6 November 2006]

Alfonso Cuaron has given us a very clever rendering of a very English dystopian novel. P D James, the "Baroness of Bad" is famous for her well-written and absorbing police procedural novels ("Inspector Dalgliesh") but in the early 90s she produced a vision of a world only 20 years into the future in which for unspecified reasons all the women on earth have become infertile and no babies have been born for the last 18 years.

The rest of the world has lapsed into chaos but the British, stoically, have put the remainder of their civil liberties into the fire and have settled down under an oppressive dictatorship to ward off foreign boarders and await inevitable extinction, though there are some violent dissidents called the fish.

Theo (Clive Owen), a journalist with connections to the top, is "persuaded" by his ex-wife and fish member Julian (Julianne Moore) to obtain some exit papers for Kee (Claire Hope Ashity) a young black woman, who, it turns out, is pregnant. Theo is swept up in Kee's escape across a grim decaying landscape. Not only are there the security forces to contend with, but some equally ruthless insurgents. Cuaron builds the tension exquisitely, interspersing the adrenaline fueled bits with quieter bits.

Kee' projected saviors are a mysterious group called the Human Project who conveniently sail their well-maintained Greenpeace style ex-North Sea fishing trawler past offshore light buoys in the hope of rescuing the human race. But the improbability of this doesn't matter much because by the end of the movie Cuaron has effectively demonstrated what the world would be like if humankind suddenly stopped reproducing. Having children is our way of cheating death, without them there is nothing but death, and in this future there are none about but the living dead.

The casting is pretty well perfect. Clive Owen as Theo puts his haunted good looks to good use as he turns from cynical reporter to a hunted enemy of the state. The motley characters he meets along the way – his ex-wife, the fish rebels, the refugees who help him, the "fascist pig" border guard and above all Michael Caine's aging hippie are all wonderfully realized.

It has been suggested that Cuaron has really made a film about today, not 20 years into the future. The rampaging security forces we see might as well be in Bosnia or Iraq, or even Northern Ireland. In an age of terrorism, order without law very quickly becomes tyranny, which has never been the answer to terrorism. What he and PD James do demonstrate is just how fragile our civil society is.

As a film this is a very fine piece of work. The sets exude grimy Britain, the battles are hair-raising, the quieter moments intense. Cuaron would do a great James Bond movie. He has turned a rather rarefied novel into an exiting and engrossing thriller without obscuring the original message. He is a very versatile and enterprising film-maker and I'm sure he's going to do lots more good stuff.

Electrifying thriller may be best of 2006

[darth_random · 10/10 · 28 October 2006]

Of all the visions of the future movie audiences have been treated to over the past few years, the world of Children of Men may be the most frightening and allegorically effective yet.

Directed by Alfonso Cauron (Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban), and set in 2027 London, the film takes place at a time when the planet is in the grip of an infertility crisis. Societies worldwide have collapsed after no children have been born in almost two decades, and the survivors of the ensuing wars, atrocities and civil breakdowns flee to Britain, which still functions under a harsh regime.

Clive Owen (Closer, Sin City) plays Theo, a former activist now working as a paper-pusher in the Ministry of Energy and downing a large amount of Scotch to get him through the day. He walks to work past terrorist bombings, cages filled with illegal immigrants rounded up by riot police, and piles of garbage littering the London streets. When an old flame and revolutionary, played by Julianne Moore, appears with a request that he use his governmental connections to help her move a refugee girl across the country, he agrees on the basis he be compensated. When he discovers that the girl (Kee, played by Claire-Hope Ashitey) is pregnant, his mission takes on new dimensions.

Cauron and his team of production designers have created what is, perhaps, the most believable vision of the future seen in quite some time. Advanced technology exists side by side with squalor, and is never allowed to steal the audiences attention away from the proceedings for too long. As far as being a realistic portrayal of Britain in twenty years time, the film is light years ahead of last year's disappointing V for Vendetta, which stripped away British iconography and culture and essentially kept London as a rather two-dimensional metaphor for the United States.

As a thriller, the film is blisteringly intense and incredibly effective. From the bomb blast that caps off the opening credits to the frenzied urban warfare sequences that dominate the film's closing thirty minutes, Cauron never lets the film lag. Though it slows down enough to deal with character development and exposition, the film maintains a running intensity as Theo and Kee try to stay one step ahead of terrorists, the police, the army and random opportunists. Several action scenes are shot in continuous takes, and make for compelling and electrifying viewing.

However, the film works as a socio-political drama as well. Though Cauron's two central messages (that immigrants enrich, rather than threaten, Western society, and that the outlook for human survival is dim when operatives on all sides let ideology displace compassion and good judgment) are strongly put, he is never so heavy-handed that they dominate or displace the actual storyline. Similarly, while the film makes numerous metaphorical references to present-day events, they are never so contrived as to derail the narrative.

The film features solid performances from Clive Owen, who is at his rugged, rumpled best, and Julianne Moore. Supporting players also do well: Michael Caine is terrific as Theo's pot-growing hippie friend, the versatile Chiwitel Ejiofor is again in fine form as a revolutionary cell leader, and Pam Ferris is also good as another of Kee's protectors. It is, however, Claire-Hope Ashitey who stands out as the illegal immigrant who may well be humanity's hope for the future.

Children of Men is packed with explosive action, incendiary social commentary and some white-hot performances. As a result, it may well be the best film of the year.

Carefully crafted piece of work

[jflet · 9/10 · 12 September 2006]

This year I attended for the first time the Venice Film Festival in Italy. I was of course quite excited and bought tickets to some screenings of a few different films I found interesting. Initially Children of Men wasn't in my plans but I was convinced by a friend who was very enthusiastic about it. Now I say I'm glad I bought the tickets! What an amazing film this is. The science fiction genre is just a coat to project into the future the horrors and problems of our current days and many films attempt that ending up, in most cases, failing. This one however succeeds. Succeeds indeed but not only in this... The film blew away nearly everyone in the audience as one of the best action movies we have seen lately, with extremely exciting and brutal chases, gun fights, etc. Don't be put off by this though, the film is as good as it is not because of the action sequences but its amazingly emotional and touching story. The performances of the cast is impressive especially Clive Owen and the newcomer Claire Hope Ashitey who throughout the film develop the relationship between their characters and it's such a joy to see the development. I'm not very good at writing reviews so I think I'll stop know, but I had at least to transmit something to everyone who might be interested in watching this film. Don't pass this one, you won't regret it. In my view one of the few excellent films released this year.

I can't see what all the fuss is about

[p_jones92 · 6/10 · 24 December 2007]

I see this movie has got a very high score and I understand it's a good movie, but compared to all the other movies with an 8 average on IMDb, this doesn't stack up to them.

A story of a dystopian future where infertility has brought the world to it's knees and anarchy reigns is engaging, and there are certain set pieces (such as the car being attacked by a mob and Julianne Moore's character being killed) that are quite thrilling, and the moments certainly catch you by surprise, but overall I didn't find the story very engaging, it didn't strike a chord with me.

I applaud the direction of Curaon, but the acting let the film down. Clive Owen and Chiwetel Ejiofor were great, but everyone else seemed to be overacting to me, Julianne Moore's, Clare- Hope Ashitey (as the character of Kee, and for all intense and purposes the virgin Mary), Michael Caine, and Pam Ferris's characters feeling particularly forced, and annoyingly so.

It was also trying too hard to make some deep, intellectual comments about our world today and the religious and cultural divides we are currently living in, hinting at the current political environment, and what consequences it could have, especially the last third of the film set in Bexhill.

I had read the other reviews on here before seeing this movie, but now I've seen it, I'm quite under awed by it all, and the ending does leave you hanging and several plot holes unresolved, leaving me with a sense of not seeing what all the fuss is about, so if you haven't seen it, I personally wouldn't get your hopes up of being blown away by it.

Well made...there's no doubt about it. But you might want to think twice before watching it.

[planktonrules · 8/10 · 16 December 2020]

The story begins in 2027. The human race is completely screwed, as fertility has completely disappeared and the last child was born over 18 years ago. Why this is the case, no one seems to know. There also was a worldwide flu pandemic in 2008 that apparently killed millions. As a result of all this, people react as they often do...with panic, confusion and self-destruction. The planet is now a mess...with widespread terrorism, reactionary governments and fear. Nuclear detonations, terror bombings and depression are the norm. As for the UK where the film is set, it's better off than most of the world...and so there's been a huge influx of illegal aliens AND the government has responded with draconian measures.

The main character in this story is Theo (Clive Owen), a bureaucrat whose wife, Julian (Julianne Moore) left him long ago following the death of their son in the pandemic. She has taken up with a domestic terrorist organization and he hasn't seen her for many years. Out of the blue, she approaches him asking for his help sneaking someone out of the country. Who this is and why...you can learn this when you see the film. Just understand...what happens are some things you just won't expect!

Before I talk about whether or not I liked the movie, it's VERY important to talk about how depressing the story is. Considering the recent COVID outbreak, the panic and chaos in the story seem even more terrifying. If you are depressed or scared about COVID, this is probably a film you best see another time or not at all. Again, I am NOT saying it's a bad film...it's just one that might be tough now for some viewers. With all the death, suicide and the like, this is NOT an upbeat film despite there being some hope as the film progresses.

The story is depressing and interesting at the same time. The standout in this film, however, is the cinematography and the long composite shots. And, even if the story is off-putting to many, you can't deny it took a lot of skill to make the movie. Worth seeing and a one-of-a-kind story from start to finish, it's hard to rate this one as the film clearly is not for everyone. If you want to be entertained or left happy, this sure ain't a film for you! I certainly DON'T want to see more films like it! But if you can take the overall tone of the movie and want something original, then it's clearly a film to watch.

Engaging and exciting sci-fi that is interesting and technically impressive in its delivery

[bob the moo · 30 April 2007]

It is the year 2027. For some reason mankind has gradually ceased being able to reproduce, with the last human born being "baby" Diego in 2009. When he is murdered in a brutal attack it stuns the world, only further sapping the hope in a world where the aging population has given up, economies have collapsed, terrorism is rife and Governments are focused on control rather than improving anything for anyone. In the middle of this former activist Theo is approached to help transport a woman across checkpoints to the coast where the mysterious "human project" is working to save mankind.

Interesting to look back on some groups of films and see what they tell us about the times they were made in. The sci-fi's of the 1950's point to an external threat that is different from us and must be feared an conquered for example. It will be interesting to look back on Children of Men and other recent sci-fis such as V for Vendetta because already they seem so attuned with the world we now live in. Children of Men jumps just into the future to a world crumbling with no real hope for anyone other than those clinging to what little privilege power offers them. This is the strength of the film as it builds a futuristic world that is so palatable – remote from our own but yet so easy to believe. There are problems with the narrative in regards pitching it to a mass audience though. Many (including myself at times) will struggle with not understanding and knowing everything about this world.

This did bother me at times but mostly the central story was exciting and interesting enough to engage – so what if the story doesn't fill in the whole history of where we are now, or if the film finishes where it does rather than giving us a firm conclusion? That is not the nature of the story and it is part of the telling. For something so downbeat and with these open aspects, the film does a great job of gripping. The background detail of this future makes for a strong foundation for Theo and Kee to move through, producing some interesting plot points but also a surprising amount of action. The ambush on Julian's car is exciting but it doesn't compare to the final scenes where Theo attempts to rescue Kee; not only is that scene gripping but it is technically very impressive as it is delivered in long, complex takes where you feel you get no respite. The script is not perfect though and some of it is clunky and not as intelligent as it thinks it is (lest we forget that this is script that calls the character holding the future of mankind "Kee") but mostly it is very strong.

Owen holds the film together with a central character that is hardly off the screen but yet we never tire of him. There are a lot of stars alongside him but he owns the film by far. Moore has a small turn that is effective albeit more because of her surprise fate rather than her amazing turn. Caine is amusing but is wisely kept to the sidelines while Ejiofor, Mullan, Huston and others all fill in the smaller characters. Ashitey is OK but not as strong as I would have liked; she didn't convince me in her skin and it was too easy to see her character as a plot device rather than a character. As director, Cuarón delivers the goods with an impressive group effort that makes this future so convincing and gritty. The sets are well done and London etc locations are subverted just in the right way to keep them real as well as different. Lubezki's cinematography is impressive throughout and personally, having seen both now, I think he should have had the Oscar that instead went to Pan's Labyrinth.

Overall an intelligent and interest sci-fi that says a lot about the times we live now in how it views the future. Despite some issues with the script and total pot, the film is engaging and exciting, producing a credible and depressing future-view but also being a technically impressive film in regards the design and delivery.

Again a Clive Owen disappointment...

[ardenners · 6/10 · 14 March 2010]

Having read a lot of the reviews of this film, which were fairly glowing in their content,I decided,against my usual judgement, to watch it. The look of the film is good as is some of the plot and music, however the acting of the main characters and a lot of the script is weak. You could tell it was a British film because of the times the f word was uttered...I counted 20 times in about 5 minutes at one point, this is just sloppy,lazy directing and for me detracted from the story. There are many more adjectives in the English language.

In essence this film could have been great but alas it's just OK with the second half being more accomplished than the first.

A modern masterpiece

[tirziueric · 10/10 · 6 February 2022]

There's not much wrong with this movie. Cinematography and the camera direction is on point making one of the best directed films ever made, being made up of a bunch of long one take scenes, some of them lasting even over 5 minutes, and some making me wonder how to it was possible to achieve them. Another thing that stands out is of course the story. It's a very interesting premise, being executed very well, with a potential being reached almost to the maximum, presenting a dark post-apocalyptic world, built very well, with an end that you can somewhat predict, but you can't know how the story will unfold until that moment, being surprised of some interesting twists, incredibly choreographed action and a very well crafted script. Children of Men is not only a modern classic, but also an almost perfect movie making it one of the best of the century, but arguably one of the best movies ever made and I would recommend anyone to watch it.

Despite Its Strengths And Awards And Critical Praise This Is An Often Mediocre Movie

[Theo Robertson · 6/10 · 7 April 2009]

I was really looking forward to this movie . I do like British dystopian / apocalyptic movies which have been in vogue for the last few years , think 28 DAYS/WEEKS LATER , V FOR VENDETTA etc and CHILDREN OF MEN was very well regarded by the critics even picking up a couple of Bafta awards and three Oscar nominations . Three Oscar nominations for a dystopian apocalyptic movie ! This means it's gotta be a great movie right ? Unfortunately it's not

It did have the potential to be a great movie but what ruins it is the lack of any type of internal or external logic . The human race has been sterile for 20 years so humanity will become extinct . Don't you think the sharpest minds in the world will go out of their way to find a cure for sterility ? They've even found a cure for this in real life and have done so for many years , it's called IVF treatment , something that is conveniently forgotten in this vision of the future

Even worse is the confusing idea that because we're dying out the British government has become fascist and they're stamping down on illegal immigrants . I'm sorry but if Britain is an island why don't the government just block the channel tunnel and search every boat docking in the country ? Surely that's a much better sensible idea than allowing the scenario seen here ? Not allowing illegal immigrants on to an island ( Whilst allowing immigrants with much needed skils to stay ) merely takes some political will combined with some common sense and would be a vote winner with the indigenous electorate regardless of voters ethnicity so why the need of fascism when you can have populist democratic government ?

There's also something else wrong with this premise - why does the slow extinction of mankind lead to so much nihilism ? Put it like this: you've been diagnosed with a terminal illness meaning you have a few years to live so how would you live out your time ? Would you face the future with dignity and calm going about your life as you always have or would you become entirely apathetic about life or would you use the time you have embarking on hedonism ? I think most people would choose one of these options but very few people would genuinely become violent apocalyptic nihilists as seen here

It's been said that Alfonso Cuaron doesn't like to explain narrative turns similar to Michelangelo Antonio and it shows . The characters are often underdeveloped and their motives are often unclear. Like the government we never find out what motivates the terrorists and apart from casting Julianne Moore and Michael Caine in a rather cynical attempt to bump up the box office is their any reason for their characters to exist in the screenplay ? Neither Julian or Jasper contribute anything to the confused plot

Having said all this Cuaron excels in the visuals . The grimy London of the future is certainly memorable while the battle scene towards the end is right there with SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BLACK HAWK DOWN . Also well done is the ambush in the countryside with the burning car and it's those scenes that will linger long in the memory long after you've forgotten the often risible screenplay

All in all CHILDREN OF MEN is a very frustrating , flawed film . It's by no means the masterpiece many claim it is . It's interesting how many American critics enjoyed it . Could it be that America is more religious in its outlook and recognised an ecclesiastical subtext to the story such as having the protagonist called Theodore who sacrifices his life for the future of mankind ? Perhaps , but this screenplay won an Oscar nomination and if anyone thinks is a great screenplay then gawd help us all

This has to be a joke....(a 5 user resume)

[TzoTang · 1/10 · 5 July 2007]

Unbelievable what I read about this movie! I don't have one single positive comment to make about it since during the entire movie I only contemplated whether to leave or see it through hoping to see it turn for the better and at least get my money's worth.

What a bore. What a lack of suspense. What an inane script. What a poor plot, it leads nowhere. The story totally fails to unravel, it is poorly acted, especially by Clair Hope Ashity who puts in an abysmal amateur performance and Julianne Moore who is just an add on to attract some viewers but more than clearly fails to impress during her way too brief appearance. The Human Project is mentioned continuously during the movie and comes up as a boat named Tomorrow? Please! Give us a break!

You would think that somewhere in the process of writing, directing, and producing this unmitigated disaster of a film, someone would have paused and said "eh...guys....what 'TF' are we doing here exactly?". The characters have absolutely zero depth, the setting is more artificial than a Borg cube, and the storyline....well, I'm still trying to figure out what the storyline WAS, exactly.

Things not explained in this movie include: the title, The Human Project, the infertility, the reason for the treatment of the immigrants, what happened to the rest of the world, why Julianne Moore is offed by the Fishes, what the Fishes actually DO to help immigrants (other than kill every native they encounter???), how the Fishes believe that having the baby will save THEM (not just provide hope for humanity), why the army wouldn't immediately take the mother and child into custody rather than letting them stroll through a gun battle, why they wouldn't have gone worldwide public with the news of a pregnancy or birth to begin with, given the celebrity of the youngest person on earth, and I could go on and on and on. If this is the thought-provoking side of this film everyone is talking about then I think I just wet my pants. That's not thought provoking, it's…plain stupidity?

And the lack of logic in the movie is just stupendous.Starting with their "silent" escape from the farm, when they were opening and closing car doors and trunks with enormous noise 5 meters from their captors. And ending with the unreasonably hopeful mood of the terrible 'ending', despite the absolute uselessness of having one accidental baby for the restoration of the world. Sweet lord, some of you reviewers are seriously disparate for a hopeful state of mind, aren't you.

This is the third movie I recently saw based on high ratings and claims of superb acting, story, directing and cinematography and have been utterly disappointed with. We all know that there will be film companies out there writing their own rave reviews, but I'm beginning to question if there are not now rave review factories fixing the movie ratings on IMDb. Just as is done with internet search engines. I simply don't believe that a movie can get such great reviews and then turn out to be so blatantly poor.