What is Digg?91 Comments
- Stealth1138, on 10/12/2007, -9/+44Hands down the best movie I've seen in the past 5 years. It needs to win everything it can possibly win.
- kavery, on 10/12/2007, -1/+18How does itchye still have an account here?
- PiratedTVPro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+20Study harder.
- anderton, on 10/12/2007, -6/+19This film literally rendered me speechless. Both a brilliant achievement technically and viscerally, the latter is an incredibly important aspect of filmmaking to me. The best film I've seen all year.
- PiratedTVPro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The longest running shot is a movie called Russian Ark. It is one continuous 96-minute shot.
- Roger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+15Better yet change your major. Its not too late.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10Just came back from watching this movie. Absolutely brilliant piece of film-making. One of the best films I've seen in years. My wife and teenage daughter saw it with me and agree. We all sat stunned as the credits rolled (we're all fans of film-making and always stay through the credits, but I actually needed a few moments to sit down and decompress before leaving the theater). And, I should note, we came to the film with very high expectations.
Anyone who is politically aware, has a conscience, knows film and art (there are brilliant references to underground film and art history - love the piece of wall with Banksy's kissing Bobbies - as well as many religious and literary symbols strewn about), AND cares about movie-making, will be moved by this movie. And anyone who is a Philip K. Dick fan will feel right at thome - Cuaron captured his sensibility to a T, whether deliberately or not (yes, I know it's based on a book by P.D. James, but it has a Bladerunner-esque sensibility to iy, and I know PKD would approve).
The cinemaography is first-rate (that final no-cut action scene is pure poetic genius in motion), the set-design deserved an Oscar, Clive Owen gives the performance of a lifetime, the casting is tone-perfect , and, as someone who has both lived in the middle of terrorist bombs going off, and served several years in the military in the Middle East, let me tell you, the visceral violence and danger were so realistically depicted I felt my fight-v-flight instincts activating, and had to remind myself this was a film. The script was impeccable, and the editing a marvel - thank goodness Cuaron threw a few moments of humor in there, otherwise it would have been just too hard to watch - no spoilers, but the scene with the car that won't start (folks who've seen the film will know) managed to get the audience laughing and gasping in anxiety literally at the same time.
Whew. Sorry for the brain dump, but that was one of the most satisfying bits of movie-viewing I've experienced in years and years. Bravo for a truly classic, iconic and innovative film, that will be studied for years to come. - ShadySpace, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9So anyone who praises a piece of art is obviously being paid to do so. Catcher in the Rye was a masterpiece and no, I'm not being paid by J.D. Salinger. I formed my own, individual opinion on something I felt was of high calibur, WHA?!
- myownsavior, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12Absolutely brilliant, in both cinematography and message.
- TheOtherGuy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I had read the book years ago and was all ready to pick holes in it when I saw it.. but I was blown away.
The long single-take shot of the battle in the ghetto was one of the most amazing pieces of cinema I have seen - Daedalus81, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11I couldn't agree more. I'm glad the SA goons are doing something worthwhile about it. Cuarón will be getting my money several times over.
- pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4One of the most interesting things about this movie is how it leaves many things to be discovered by the viewer. It doesn't go explaining everything to you. That's one of the greatest flaws of modern films, everything is dumbed down and explained so even a 5 year old can understand it.
I also liked how special effects are used in a subtle way. They are all around, but used in a non intrusive fashion. - themicah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Why "shaky cam"? They are using a steadycam through most of it, and there are no unintentional camera movements. The "shakes", "bumps" and rack focus techniques are just that - techniques. They're used to accentuate the physical acting, the setting and the mood of the film. Try a little experiment with your handycam - see if you can record a spontaneous conversation between family members. Play it back and look at when they say what they say. How do their eyes appear? Are their heads cocked at a certain angle and does your camera angle at that moment complement it? When someone barks a reply, does your camera twitch almost imperceptibly to register shock? If yes, go to film school and learn how to do that with a 20 pound varicam kit on your shoulder and you're in business. Otherwise, go back and watch the movie again with a new appreciation for the work that a good operator does.
- themicah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I think the difference of opinion comes from our expectations as an audience. Americans want everything pre-packaged and wrapped up nice. The films we tend to see are, for the most part, incredibly expensive, incredibly technical pieces of entertainment - and they are entertaining. What they are not is thoughtful or thought-provoking. Syriana was one great example of what can happen when the American movie machine is applied to making a real film. I think it's great that films like this are making inroads here - maybe one day we'll even stop paying for the latest piece of CG crap with dancing animals or Tom Cruise circle-jerk. For anyone who enjoyed this film, check out "Time of the Wolf" by Michael Haneke - http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0324197/
- phpkerouac, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6The movie was fantastic. Again one of the best i have seen in years. - Julianne Moore could have been better - i laughed at her dialogue on the roof scene - not a detractor, though.
Who really cares if it wins an oscar or not? They are a sham anyway - the fact you have to build a campaign around it to sway favor really proves that the oscars are not awarded based on merit.
Sure in the past its a great way to learn about what movies are out there, and sure movies that win oscars typically have a bump in viewership afterwards - but it doesnt reduce the fact that I saw a fantastic movie, and I, the viewer, appreciate the work that went into it. I will continue to recommend it to people.
so - great movie - tell your friends / family / co-workers.
the oscar board is irrelevant. they lack relevance. - psbpv3o, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Is everyone joking about the plot thing? How could they make the plot any better?
It has a main character.
A journey.
Conflicts along that journey.
A strong climax.
And a resolution.
Usually when a movie has a bad plot, it lacks one of the above features. So please tell me. What does this movie lack? - slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I don't understand your point. Cancer? Aids? You know that we know how both of these things work, right?
Not knowing why no one can get pregnant is as lazy as writing a time travel movie and then saying "the flux capacitor is what makes time travel possible."
Don't get me wrong, the flux capacitor is amazing, but this is a serious movie here, and for me, I didn't believe that no one has figured out why people can't have babies, which hurt my overall enjoyment of the film.
You may differ, but I want my sci-fi more believable. That's just me.
Like I said before, the fact that the movie had ***** in it, well, that really makes up for all of this, and since the oscars don't really mean ***** to me, I don't really care one way or the other. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Ability to suspend belief is required for all movies. I don't know why people have such difficulty with it. Sci-fi is all about setting an amazing premise, and working within the confines of that premise. For this movie the premise is that all women are infertile. The craft is telling a story that coherently within that amazing premise, which Children of Men does amazingly well IMHO.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I always wonder how many fans, who push for a certain movie to win awards, have seen the other nominees (or prospective nominees). My guess? Very few. This was certainly the case last year when every fan of Brokeback Mountain demanded that that movie win the Oscar, despite the fact that those same fans haven't seen most of the other Best Picture nominees. This was the only reason Ang Lee won the Best Director Oscar, despite his movie not breaking any new ground in terms of direction or visual style, especially when faced with the other powerhouse directors nominated along side (Steven Spielberg's "Munich" is a directorial masterpiece, despite of what you may think of that movie's content or message).
Instead of pushing for a specific movie to win, regardless of how under-exposed you think it is, how about you watch ALL the good movies that have come out in the last weeks of December (and indeed the rest of the year) and then pick the one most deserving of the awards, not the one that was the underdog.
Just because you saw THIS movie and thought it was worthy of an Oscar doesn't mean there isn't at least one other movie that even you might agree deserves it more.
I guess all I'm trying to say is: KEEP AN OPEN MIND. - themicah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Fantastic film - I just walked out of the theater, and had to walk home to think it through. One thing - did anyone notice that the song at the end in the US release was not Jarvis Cocker's "Running the World"? What's the story with that?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Listen to what you just said - "reality show"
The whole point of the movie is its portrayal of reality. Still shots would only take away from the visceral feeling of its reality. What makes the movie so effective is that you feel like youre right there the entire time.
People judge movies anymore based on what they wanted or expected of the film. Instead, watch a movie for what it is and has to offer, and you will probably walk away with a different impression entirely. What makes most of the movies produced today so terrible is the very fact that theyre put together trying to appease the audience and give them what they want, as opposed to doing what is going to depict a story most effectively. - themicah, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5Samy, COM had some of the best acting I've seen in ages. Long takes pulled off by amazing camera-work, incredibly symbolism in almost every detail. EVERYTHING was tight, from set dressing to delivery to the bits of comedy and lightness that made the story and characters so human. This was an amazing piece of cinema, and if you can't see that, you really should study harder. Don't be put off because you "didn't get it" - life is like that sometimes. most of the time, in fact, unless you're living in a bubble. The best directors give us that little chimera to look at in ways that surprise and sometimes shock us - that's what makes them memorable, from Vertov and Tarkovsky to Oliver Stone and George Lucas.
- Progression, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4"pull my finger"
- psbpv3o, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5The ending was amazing. I almost cried...
- Dhalgren, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3FTA: "Never mind that Cuaron saved the Harry Potter franchise"
What is this guy smoking? Prisoner of Azkaban was the worst Harry Potter movie to date. This was the ass-tard that decided to feature a fake looking CGI rat instead of using a real one. I'm not saying that this new movie isn't worth watching, but why don't you stick to the merits of said film instead of making dumbass claims like this. - themicah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This question got buried up above, so excuse my asking again, but did Jarvis Cocker's "Running the World" play at the credits when you saw it? It's no big deal, and probably just some music rights issue, but people I know in London said that it had a real impact. I'm curious why it would have been changed for American release...
- 022A, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Usually when a movie has a bad plot, it lacks one of the above features. So please tell me. What does this movie lack?"
Twists and turns.
It's a perfectly straight line with great scenery. There was rarely a doubt in mind about where it was going or how we were going to get there. The one major twist that did take place was all but ruined by an overcomplicated, implausible execution. One that will leave anyone who thinks about saying "Why did they bother with all that?".
I felt like I'd seen this story before. If you've seen enough Anime, read enough Sci-Fi and caught a few good WWII films there isn't an original idea to be found.
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed the movie but the specifics of the plot had absolutely nothing to do with it. - Cybie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Look... bottom line.. Science Fiction does not win Oscars and Emmys for anything else other than the technical awards (visual effects, costumes, make-up, etc.). This is why BSG doesn't win anything. This is why Children of Men won't win anything. It might win People's Choice or Golden Globes, something voted on by fans... but never anything voted on by critics or industry folks.
- Bara, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Loved the movie when I saw it, and the couple scenes that had no cuts whatsoever... simply amazing. Reminded me a lot of Half Life.
- D43PAN, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1So what you're saying is that you don't enjoy this particular piece of fiction because it contains fiction and that usually you like movies which have a premise which requires you to suspend your disbelief as long as the premise is still believable.
I want to party with you. I'm being serious. I'm also an aspiring writer. - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5George Clooney was once asked if there were any movies that made him cry.
He replied 'Yeah! - Batman and Robin!' - iprod, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Best movie in years
- Tonydev, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6I can't agree more. I was pretty blown away by The Departed, but Children of Men really takes the cake. Ironically, this movie may challenge the throne for the best (and longest) uninterrupted shot of all time -- Scorsese's "night club" entrance sequence in Goodfellas.
Pure genius. - Humptydank, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Universal isn't ignoring it in at least one major market -- here in New York I can't change a channel without seeing an ad for it.
Haven't seen it yet, but will soon for sure. - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Fair enough, but if its on so few screens it must be doing stellar "per screen" business to make $10 million. I live in a town with 3 cinemas and its showing here (on the biggest screen in our best cinema), so I didn't realise it was so rare.
- slothlovechunk, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Is there a way to ignore useless users like this? (itchye)
(as far as the movie goes, it was alright, the scene with the baby crying was excellent, and the camerawork and cinematography all-around were pretty amazing in some of those shots, but the movie didn't do too much for me. We do need more oscar nominated movies with *****, so.... yeah.... by all means...) - Tonydev, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4Care to elaborate on why?
- tanveer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Just came back from watching this movie. Absolutely brilliant piece of film-making. One of the best films I've seen in years. My wife and teenage daughter saw it with me and agree. We all sat stunned as the credits rolled (we're all fans of film-making and always stay through the credits, but I actually needed a few moments to sit down and decompress before leaving the theater). And, I should note, we came to the film with very high expectations.
Anyone who is politically aware, has a conscience, knows film and art (there are brilliant references to underground film and art history - love the piece of wall with Banksy's kissing Bobbies - as well as many religious and literary symbols strewn about), AND cares about movie-making, will be moved by this movie. And anyone who is a Philip K. Dick fan will feel right at thome - Cuaron captured his sensibility to a T, whether deliberately or not (yes, I know it's based on a book by P.D. James, but it has a Bladerunner-esque sensibility to iy, and I know PKD would approve).
The cinemaography is first-rate (that final no-cut action scene is pure poetic genius in motion), the set-design deserved an Oscar, Clive Owen gives the performance of a lifetime, the casting is tone-perfect , and, as someone who has both lived in the middle of terrorist bombs going off, and served several years in the military in the Middle East, let me tell you, the visceral violence and danger were so realistically depicted I felt my fight-v-flight instincts activating, and had to remind myself this was a film. The script was impeccable, and the editing a marvel - thank goodness Cuaron threw a few moments of humor in there, otherwise it would have been just too hard to watch - no spoilers, but the scene with the car that won't start (folks who've seen the film will know) managed to get the audience laughing and gasping in anxiety literally at the same time.
Whew. Sorry for the brain dump, but that was one of the most satisfying bits of movie-viewing I've experienced in years and years. Bravo for a truly classic, iconic and innovative film, that will be studied for years to come."
Rationalist, I posted your comment again here just to show that I feel the exact same way, and agree with every single thing you've mentioned ((I thought i was the only one who caught the brilliantly subtle reference of london underground art pieces, the piece of wall with Banksy's kissing Bobbies, that was on one the of the recent Wired issues.) and then some. I also just got back from watching the film ( i actually was watching the SA youtube video "Why Children of Men should be nominated" and only 50 secs in the video, I got up and decided to only watch the rest of the clip after watching the film and So i did. I came home and press the play button again to finish the rest of the video...
So, as you see, I, myself went in with an immensely high level of curiosity/ expectation, and boy did it delivered! What an achievement in so many levels of film making, and cinema as a pure form of art. Next on my list is to watch the Charlie Rose's interview with the director Alfonso Cuaron, (along w/ his other highly talented buddies, the directors of "Pan's Labyrinth" & "Babel" - I can personally attest for Pan's Labyrinth which is another one that leaves you with no choice but to sit thru the entire credit roll, not cause you're force too but cause that's the only thing you can do after watching films like these - which are incredibly rare these days.) - drlha, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I went in with sky high expectations based on the hype. Those expectations were more than met.
The one thing about great movies is that there are always a lot of people who think they're *****. Seems that COM is no stranger to this on digg. - bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Good riddance. The movie was average at best. The 'filmmaking was spectacular' filmmaker wannabees need to give it a rest and get off their high horse.
- pozzoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Maybe you should search about the opinion J. K. Rowling has about Azkaban (and about COM)...
Ok... "saved the Harry Potter franchise" is maybe a little too much, since all the movies are nice. But Azkaban was a real adaptation, and a good one, instead of a "lets us not infuriate the fans" transcription from the book to the film (like the last one, that is almost an intelligible mess, at least you have actually read the book) - bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Are you kidding me???
What's so special about this movie? Everyone is talking so highly of it...I think it's just VERY fashionable to talk so highly about the movie because of the content, but the ending was SUCH A LET DOWN.
Such a dark movie, I don't see what's so special about it.
Quit drinking the kool aid and SHOW us WHY this movie is so special instead of TELLING us it's so special. It's time to end the BLABBERING FOR PETE'S SAKE! - 022A, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Otherwise, go back and watch the movie again with a new appreciation for the work that a good operator does."
This is exactly the problem with so many of the people gushing about this movie.
-Just because something is *technically* great or even brilliant does not make it amazing or even desirable as entertainment.-
You're like a guitarist who just can't comprehend that someone prefers the sound of a technically unimpressive solo in their favorite song over some Yngwie Malmsteen super-shredding.
I didn't like it, it didn't immerse me. A jittery shot of Clive Owen'ss socked feet as he lounges nearly perfectly still makes no sense and was the visual equivalent of a gnat buzzing in my ear. Those little movements aren't barely perceptible to me, they're as glaringly obvious and off putting as a laugh track would have been. - Trigonometron, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4it was a metaphor, dummy.
- bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Oh, you're too fashionable and cool! Can you show me the ways of coolness please?
/sarcasm - riknik, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This concept of a grassroots effect for the Oscars is kind of dumb... The Academy is not going to avoid nominating this movie simply on the fact that it's not getting a wide American release. Small, independent, unknown movies get Academy nods all the time. At least half of the nominations for best movie will go to movies that the standard movie-goer never saw or never even heard of. With the internet, more and more people find out about these movies, but the fact remains that a movie's popularity with the general public has very little to do with whether it's going to get a nomination.
All that said, Children of Men is a great movie, and while it probably won't win the award for Best Picture, it's got a very good chance of getting a nomination. - bariswheel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1A resolution???
So do you also like to watch paint dry because it's a resolution to the paint job?
Average at best, it's just very fashionable to call this movie great, that's why all the 'watch me be artistic and metaphorical therefore I feel better about myself being artistic' people are up and arms digging the hell out of this movie.
I'm outnumbered here clearly, but sure, the cinematography is great, but this reminds me of a videogame that has no playability, terrible story with excellent graphics, hence a bad 'game'
The ending of the movie completely blowed, don't be afraid to say it, this movie was average of best folks. Average at best. - ILL_Robinson, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Here's one way its being denied visibility. If you log onto MovieTickets.com, Children of Men is nowhere to be found in the drop-down menu for current releases. Not that MovieTickets.com is the definitive destination for film tix purchasing, but why is it not included with all of the other current releases?
http://www.movietickets.com/ - Alisic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How about this - who gives a ***** about the oscars?
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Julianne Moore can always be better. The sole exception is the Big Lebowski. Her and Heather Graham cant act for *****.
-
Show 51 - 89 of 89 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is