What is Digg?368 Comments
- Somniis, on 10/12/2007, -1/+120To those of you who have not seen this movie (and want to), do not read prelude's comment. :)
- spankalee, on 10/12/2007, -11/+127prelude, you're a lame *****.
Thanks a lot, *****. - dankoleary, on 10/12/2007, -7/+121I saw it 2 weeks ago on a tip from a co-worker, and all I can say is "WOW" The cinematography is utterly amazing, some of the best I've seen. If you are a fan of the art of movies, see this film. If you want to escape the real world for 2 hours, go see "Happy Feet".
- cazoo, on 10/12/2007, -5/+85prelude wins ***** of the year award and its only January!
- Easty, on 10/12/2007, -14/+57I saw it a month or two ago.
Probably one of the best films I've ever seen.
It deserves an Oscar, in my opinion. - psbpv3o, on 10/12/2007, -3/+44(from http://www.rottentomatoes.com/click/author-9052/reviews.php?rid=1563932)
Q: Why have women become infertile in the film?
A: To be frank, I don't care about it because it's not true. It's just a premise. For me, what's important was the metaphor of the premise.
In the movie, nobody knows why. I didn't care, because the moment I start doing a movie about exploring why women are infertile -- and I know that frustrates some of the audience -- then I'm making a movie about infertility. It's the same with The Human Project [a mysterious group the protagonists attempt to rendezvous with]. The Human Project is nothing but a metaphor for the possibility of the evolution of the human spirit, the evolution of human understanding. The moment I explain who The Human Project is, it's a movie about these guys who don't exist. I don't care about them. I don't care anymore.
I despise movies that explain. I cannot stand exposition in movies. I start getting, like, a rash. It's like getting suffocated in the theater. Because I love cinema. And cinema is becoming something that is not cinema. Cinema is becoming a medium of illustrating stories. Cinema is becoming a medium in which you can close your eyes and you can watch the movie.
I really love films in which audiences partake with the whole thing. They have to fill up all the gaps in-between the moments that you create. And I'm not saying that as a filmmaker, but as an audience. I enjoy watching a movie where I have to make my own conclusions.
I think that cinema within the past few years has been a hostage to stories. And we have to make stories to dance with cinema, not to be just a hostage. Where story, and acting, and cinematography, and music are elements to create a cinematic narrative. I'm sorry; I'm going to rant because I don't understand the point of a movie that you can watch with your eyes closed.
And I'm not saying "no dialogue". Dialogue can be amazing. Look at Woody Allen, look at Eric Rohmer. They do films that are pure dialogue. But, I'm sorry, to watch the whole thing is fundamental. There is a subtlety of behavior, but that is lost because that behavior is explained. Drama has become cheap Freudianism. At least, in mainstream cinema, that's what I feel.
That's the long answer of why women are infertile. [laughs] Did you like the answer? - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+41@mirunit
I'm disappointed and saddened that I have to explain this to you guys. Really, I am.
-About the infertility thing:
1) Its a MacGuffin: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacGuffin
2) People in the movie don't know why either. They mention this in the movie. Could be a virus, chemicals, wrath of God, who knows.
-"However near the end when they run into the army nothing happens to them"
Sigh. It really pains me to have to explain this...
1) The soldiers probably didn't recognize them
2) They were shocked to see a baby (something few of them probably remember seeing)
-"The Human Project is really not explained at all, the viewers are left to just guess"
The characters in the movie don't know much about them either.
...
You know what, just read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men
And honestly, most of your questions are dealt with in the movie. Maybe not a thoroughly as you'd like but they're beyond the point of the movie. Next time just pay better attention. - gonzoblair, on 10/12/2007, -5/+39Yeah, if this film gets ignored and overlooked it will be a real loss for cinema.
- modernhumorist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+35So that everyone knows, he's dugg down because of a spoiler. Don't look if possible and you wanna see the movie.
- Roger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+39@5thfreedom
What plot holes are you talking about?
Sure they didn't explain why women can't reproduce, but that wasn't a plot hole nor was an explanation necessary given the point of the movie.
Remember when George Lucas tried to explain The Force in Episode I? What did he give us....
***** "Midichlorians". - DrDigg, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35Yet a real win for netflix.
- themastersb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+35I just saw this movie last night. It was pretty good. It's almost like you have a first person perspective and you're in the middle of all the action as an omnicient figure.
- vegas77, on 10/12/2007, -4/+34@wm2010russ
You should probably look up "deus ex machina" before using it in public. Just b/c a phrase sounds cool doesn't mean you should shoe-horn it into a conversation to make yourself sound smart. - greekgoat91, on 10/12/2007, -7/+32don't be a dick
- bkemper, on 10/12/2007, -6/+29"Not explaining why women are unable to reproduce is not only a plot hole but also the biggest disappointment of the entire film"
Some people just don't get it. The movie was not about why women couldn't reproduce, or about the Human Project. It was about a world that had lost hope, and the woman who could restore hope by going outside of the mainstream society that had already shown they could not protect humanity well with their existing policies and structures. And for background it seems to imagine the type of distopia that would occur if the policies and abuses of the Bush administration and Republican Congress were allowed to go unchecked. It let's people see how life outside of the guarded walls is like, with people just trying to survive in spite of a rich government that only makes it harder for them, and how that leads to further "terrorism" and revolt. And how even groups that share a common enemy (in this case London and its anti-immigrant policies) waste their own lives and those of their loved ones by fighting each other. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+24I saw it yesterday too. I also have to say I was someone surprised by what the movie was. I stopped reading reviews on it once I determined I wanted to see it, so I didn't have a plot summary in my head.
As the movie was being billed as "Blade Runner for the 21st Century". It is reminiscent of Blade Runner for the first 5 minutes. After that, it's not anything like Blade Runner, if anything, it's more like Logan's Run, if that's possible without massively insulting this movie.
It's a very good movie. Some of the camera work is stunning, and combining that with the effects makes a style of movie you've rarely seen before and will hit hard. See, when they want to show a building blowing up, they use a novel technique, they blow a building up. When they want to show that there is a minor war going on right outside the window, they don't matte in some CG spaceships outside like Lucas would, they park a tank right there and pan between the characters past the window, showing the tank. The camera work during these scenes is reminiscent of war journalism and so really will connect with any viewer who has watched CNN or ITN or such.
And the best part is, that's not even the best part of the movie. It's more than just technically proficient.
So I highly recommend it. I only give one warning, don't go into this thinking your gonna see a light-hearted Sci-Fi movie. It's a gritty and dark future. I think you'll be happy with the movie though, if it's your kind of movie. - d17182, on 10/12/2007, -3/+25@prelude
There is a special kind of hell reserved for people who take pleasure in mutilating things innocent and pure, whether these things be puppies or the enjoyment others get from watching a movie unspoiled. I call this hell "Nobody likes you". - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+23You need more intelligent friends.
- yubpro, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21i believe the movie doesn't explain every petty detail on purpose;
it forces the viewer to use their imagination....
imagine that!
i'm sorry, but i'm sick of films that feed the movie to the audience, watering down the sweet subtleties that make a film good. enough with dumbing down movies already..... - ringworm, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15I saw it yesterday and loved it, although I can see why a lot of people wouldn't. It is dense and difficult. There is very little in the way of description, which is very frustrating for audiences that seem to crave exposition in their sci-fi. It is a picture of an extremely hopeless world, so hopeless it paralyzes most of the world and I think the director does an amazing job of making that palpable. The movie isn't about the infertility thing, or the world events that got them all to that point. It was about watching a man on the edge of despair find something to fight for again.
- tomboy501, on 10/12/2007, -6/+20I saw this movie last night too. Brilliant film. Incredible story, flawless execution. V for Vendetta-esque...but better.
Still can't get it off my mind. There's a scene towards the end that is probably the best 15 minutes of filmmaking I have seen in a long time. - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+16@mirunit
"The worst part of the story is that you don't even know the father of the one child"
WTF does that have to do with anything? I'm the father. Happy?
I think you'd better just wait for "3 Fast 3 Furious" or "Saw 4". - psbpv3o, on 10/12/2007, -4/+17"The direction and camera work are great, but the story is terse and forces you to accept things without explaining them."
The point of the movie wasn't to explain everything. But to allow the viewer to draw their own conclusions from the topics presented. The director says in an interview that it was supposed to be metaphor for modern conflicts in society and that making it too explanatory would take away the point. - deckard29, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14this movie reminded me a lot of half-life 2...especially the last quarter of the film
- marcus_r, on 10/12/2007, -5/+17The direction and camera work are great, but the story is terse and forces you to accept things without explaining them.
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+13prelude walking out of The Empire Strikes Back: Who would have guess Darth Vader was Luke Skywalker's father?
I saw Children of Men about a week ago. It was indeed nicely shot and pretty tense throughout. The ending was a bit weak, though. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -7/+19Yeah. It's a great movie. Watch it off torrent, thus ensuring the people who made get no money for it. Then, when movies like this making nothing and crap like "Superman Returns" haul in a lot of cash, you can be sure of getting a whole lot more crap like "Superman Returns" to watch in the future and less of this.
- spartyms2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12The whole train station thing in the beginning was oddly reminiscent of the beginning of HL2.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17@FS,
You are human garbage and I sincerely wish you and your family get your wish for extinction so you can take your elitist and racist crap to the grave with you. - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13@5thfreedom
Are you kidding? Superman Returns was crap.
Children of Men is at least 5x better. - Skab, on 10/12/2007, -3/+13Wow you guys that hated this must really hate good scripts. Or thought fast and the furious was a 8-10.
- tdhurst, on 10/12/2007, -6/+15Hey, prelude...***** you, you rotten piece of *****.
- huggkruka, on 10/12/2007, -5/+13Quite possibly the best movie of 2006. Technically, it's stunning on a level we haven't seen since Kubrick. The "invisible visual effects" are the first I've seen to be totally realistic. Emotionally, it's also very effective with perfect acting performances. I've seen it twice and it was just as amazing both times. Needs all the attention it can get.
- geniusNOTatWORK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8If Dreamgirls gets more Oscar nods than Children of Men this year, Hollywood has really gone to hell
- Easty, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Also, wm2010russ:
It wasn't a Deus Ex Machina. They were expecting it - it didn't come out of the blue.
(I'm trying really hard not to do a prelude here) :) - brundlefly76, on 10/12/2007, -2/+10Non-existant advertising campaign?
I've seen 6 trailers for it in the last 2 days on TV! - teheyes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8Leaving the theater, I overheard a couple:
Woman: "So... what's the moral of the story?"
Man: "Well.. that we should procreate as much as possible.." - TheXeno, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Yes, I'll go on record echoing the statement that Children of Men "is one of the most poignant and creative films of the past decade" and I don't put that lightly. There is a sequence near the end, that as I was watching it, I realized I hadn't seen a cut--in awhile. Simply put, you owe it to yourself to pay to see *just* that sequence. The movie is technically brilliant, visually stunning, and arresting in its own way. Do yourself a favor and see it on the big screen, that bittorrent cannot give the movie the justice it deserves.
- Nar1117, on 10/12/2007, -4/+12*****. Damnit prelude... Being the curious human being I am, I read his dugg-down comment, and got one of the main points of the movie spoiled for me. Thankfully I only read the first 2 sentences... but I wasnt smart enough to read the comments below his. *****. Why does this always happen to me?
Sorry for this spam... digg me down if you care. - HappyScrappy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I think that's a good comment at the end, but I think it goes even beyond that.
It isn't only about just one man. And it isn't (and I know you indicated this, but I'm going to add it in to my argument anyway) about whether he does make a difference in the end.
It's really about one man who once thought he could make a difference, but then stopped fighting and became like everyone else. And "like everyone else" is different than in our world, because this world has no future itself. No person in the entire world can make a difference. There are no children being born, and without them, the world is dying.
So when this man determines that maybe it is worth fighting and begins fighting, he is transformed. He is somehow immune to all the petty fighting. While others are killing each other squabbling over a patch of land or an object of value, he is running with impunity and with purpose through hails of gunfire. A man who once had resigned himself to frittering away his time with earthly vices gives up his cigarettes for a room for the night and his whisky for, well I can't say without giving things away, but it's for the cause.
In this world rules by different factions who are engaged in killing each other for what each claims is a noble cause, there is one man who is fighting for a real reason. He's doing it for the hope of the world, and he's doing it for himself too. - cryonix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8i felt like a horrible bastard for downloading it last week. so after i watched it. i deleted it and patiently waited for its general release to buy my ticket. i also brought 5 other people who would have never went to see it, and am also going to take another fresh group of people later.
after the movie they all seriously thanked me for taking them, and we went out for drinks because i don't think they were expecting that intense of a movie. Now spam for this link, because it doesn't even approach the proper reasoning needed to explain why the movie is good. a few dozen quotes from magazines saying nearly the exact same thing isn't a reason. please use logic and proper debate composition to explain "Why 'Children of Men' is the Best Picture of the Year" because i didn't get that from this clip. if i have never seen the movie i wouldn't be convinced unless im someone who does follow every magazine review to heart. instead of evidence. - Roger, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11@mirunit
OMFG
-"I did not go and watch a movie so that it could employ some obscure narrative technique."
I've never seen a SciFi movie that didn't use a MacGuffin in one form or another. Its hardly obscure and even if it was, that'd be a good thing. Every movie can't be the same...
-"How would the soldiers no recognize them"
Yes, at this point they would have recognized them, but they were awed at the sight of the baby. They had their orders, but they were too shocked to follow them. Did you not see the soldiers who started praying?
-"The Human Project represented the end goal for the main character"
We don't even know if the Human Project was real or not. It represented hope. We don't know if they ended up saving humanity, just like we don't know if everything thats happening in the world today will wipe us all out.
I'm kinda getting tired of spelling everything out for you man. Read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men - warriorscot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7@FinalSolution
That was the reason she was Black it was intentional to stick it to folks like yourself, you are racist even if you're joking it was a poor joke.
I thought it was a great film, although why we brits always get stuck with the big brother style future governments and concentration camps(which are about as likely as the queen ***** on Buckingham palace lawn), but it was done well at least feasible, thought provoking yet still entertaining and brutal in its own way. - Shirokun, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Warning! Do not read prelude's comment. Contains major spoilers!
- KyjL, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8The only negative about this ***** AWESOME MOVIE is that all the insanely detailed work put into it will likely fly right over a whole mess of peoples' heads. Which according to about 40% of the comments in this, I'm pretty sure I'm right about that. Usually happens with such movies like this.
I'm not going to explain WHY I loved it so much, I'm not going to explain WHY I completely agree with the OP. Guessing what I've read already I'd likely be wasting my breath over deaf ears (like I said before). Just go watch it and see for yourself.
PS: OK I'll throw in some bias... It currently has 93% at Rotten Tomatoes. Higher than a whole lot of movies released in the past few years. Is that a good enough reason to watch it? - CrashKC, on 08/25/2008, -2/+9Some people just need everything spoon fed to them. When it doesn't happen, they have to think for themselves, and this is where their problems start. "It didn't explain everything to me! Bad movie!"
This isn't a movie that allows you to turn your brain off and shovel popcorn into your face. - ogden, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9I disagree. The action sequences in this film are incredible. However, everything else about the film falls flat. The symbolism of the movie is cliche and tired and added nothing to the genre of dystopian fiction.
- psbpv3o, on 10/12/2007, -9/+15This movie was absolutely amazing. Go see it RIGHT NOW!! This film can't be overlooked.
- mxpx5678, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8This film is not being ignored. It got a limited release in December so it could qualify for the 2006 awards. It has expanded now and will come in 3rd this weekend. I saw it last night, very powerful film. It is shot in a very unique way, kind of like a documentary. Has a pretty interesting view of the future too. I agree with the posts that say you dont need to explain everything. I hate filmakers that think you need to explain every detail. He focuses on what was important to him in the film. Please go see it in the theater to support the film.
- TheXeno, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7"1. Why did all the women become infertile all at once all over the world? This is an implausible scenario at best the unrest doesn't follow necessarily."
Do you really need to know the exposition of the science of it all to help you connect with what the movie is really about, as was stated above "It was about watching a man on the edge of despair find something to fight for again." Do you really need the story pandered to you? What's great about what Cuaron has crafted is he shows you, instead of tells you. Great writing follows the same rule. Cuaron has simply given you the premise, and allows you to fill in your own blanks. Screw exposition, it clutters up the story.
"2. What is the connection between the immigration problem and the infertility? The immigration problem is the only real driving force behind the movie and we were never explained why the immigration was such a problem."
This was explained via a short newscast, almost in the background. The world crumbled under the hopelessness that infertility brought, and Britain remained as the last bastion of civilization, and even then it was clutching on to dear life and was crumbling itself. It was the only place anyone in the whole world could hope to live out their last little bit of existence in relative peace. The movie *illustrates* a very poignant message about the danger that immigration can bring to a society.
"3. Why is Kee running from the authorities? It doesn't add up."
Because she was smuggled in due to her condition. Didn't you catch the many scenes depicting how "fugies" were treated? It was plainly clear to me. -
Show 51 - 100 of 364 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is