Well, no wonder there's no repoduction going on. By the 2030s, the Master's been collecting brides for about 70 years. He probably has them all.
Posted on 01/08/2007 8:27:40 AM PST by No.6
With "Children of Men," Alfonso Cuaron, who directed the last Harry Potter movie, has liberated himself from the demands of children's fiction, serving up a forbidding futuristic drama that offers only the faintest glimmer of hope.
(Excerpt) Read more at courierpress.com ...
(Disclaimer: this post contains spoilers. If you intend to watch the film for some inexplicable reason, click away).
The original (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children_of_Men) apparently actually has a plot. There are no children, society has rearranged itself in a rather dystopian fashion, and the lead character is a former advisor to the head of state, his brother. There is considerable exploration of the whys and wherefores of the state of government and of society in the speculated future. Our protagonist comes into contact with a resistance movement; in the course of the plot it turns out one of the resistance leaders is also pregnant with humanity's first baby in X years. So much for the book.
The screenwriters of the movie decided that this SF plot could be dispensed with nearly in full in favor of rehashing nearly every moonbat-liberal cliche' in the book. The protagonist is now not a former advisor in government but a one-time activist and protestor, now in a drone government job. The resistance leader becomes the protagonist's former girlfriend and activist. The pregnant lady role is given to a welfare-mom type who has no idea who the baby-daddy is and doesn't care.
Any hint of background on the causes of the baby dearth is cut out. In its place are frequent references to, of all things, Bush (as in George W.). So, if you were hoping for a SF film, forget it; all the science- (or speculative-) fiction has been expunged from the film.
A gratuitous pot-dealing ex-hippie is inserted (who has the only vaguely amusing lines in the film); his wife is in a coma (unexplained) but she was an activist too, with a wall filled with clippings from today's news and anti-Bush slogans. The thuggish police force, whose modus operandi appears to be shooting anything that moves and deporting anything non-white-English, is named, of course, "Homeland Security" even though the film takes place in future England. One character remarks that 2003 (as in the start of the Iraq conflict) was the year when everyone was the most blind. The only characters who are in any way kind or helpful display Marxist pictures or symbols which are filmed prominently so that the dumb viewer can get the point. This sort of sophomoric-lefty-moralizing continues throughout the film's length.
Meanwhile, the action has one common thread; senseless murder. The protagonist's girlfriend dies. The pot dealer dies, and his wife and dog too. The "Fish" (rebels) die. Nearly all of this killing is done without cause; for instance, the police interrogate the pot dealer about the protagonist's whereabouts by shooting him. This is a helpful way of getting information from a suspect?
So the characters blunder from bad to worse for two hours leaving bodies galore in their wake, at the end of which nothing happens. Well, a happy ending is somewhat implied but . Sort of a $80 million _Waiting for Godot_ with the dropping of bodies as tempo.
The upshot is that if your politics are somewhere left of Cindy Sheehan you might enjoy this; if you actually expected a plot or some science-fiction, much less a "_Blade Runner_ for the new century" as one review gushed, stay home. Maybe the book has something to offer, as apparently it's quite different from this disaster of a film.
Frankly, _Manos - The Hands of Fate_ had a more believable story and better acting.
My wife and I are seeing it this week. I'll gladly post a review in this very thread.
Anyone waiting for a happy, fun-filled futuristic fantasy has a long wait ahead of them.
ping.
I was thinking about that and decided that futurism that insists on a 'happy time' ahead for all is probably what they got in Stalinist countries. Just wait till the new 5 year plan completes...
Slasher movies always seem to have a built in audience but the violence is probably not graphic enough to attract them. A bit from a review of the film:
The somber palette and relentlessly downbeat milieu may not be for every taste, though some may discern biblical parallels in the "miraculous" birth of the child. Pervasive rough and crude language and some mild profanity, crude expressions, heavy but not graphic violence including explosions and shootings, a childbirth sequence, brief partial nudity and drug use. L -- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.
Is this based on the novel written by P.D. James about 20 years ago?
I used to like her writing, especially the Inspector Dagleish series, until she wrote this dreck.
"A few moments ... are nearly laughable" -- Never a good sign.
Mankind has always looked BACK to the "Golden Age" as being the most perfect so it stands to reason that the future must be bleak.
The special effects and camera shot are supposed to be spectacular. Does the film really mention Bush by NAME??? That would make no sense at all.
Yes it is. This is basically the Nativity Story in the context of a dystopian future. Joseph and Mary in the war zone.
It was even better on MST3K
Bummer.
Wow! Thank you for that detailed review.
PD James' book was not at all like that. It was very pro-life and religious (Christian). The hero, in fact, was a priest, and the society is a very Swedish socialist-style one in which people are all euthanized at a certain age (75, I think it may have been). In fact, the book begins with a chilling scene where an older woman is being "euthanized" with her age group and decides she doesn't want to go through with it.
There has been no normal childbirth for years, so women own dolls or small dogs and carry them around wrapped in blankets. And then a young woman shows up pregnant, and the society is completely thrown off by this and attempts to hunt down the woman and her protectors (the priest and some others).
I'm glad I didn't waste my time seeing this distortion of her book. I thought it was being suppressed in this country because it was pro-life, but maybe it just didn't do well in Europe (where it opened in October) and they're not going to distribute it heavily here.
My wife says the book is not bad and that the movie apparently bears only a passing resemblance to the book.
This movie is pro-life as well. The goal is to save the life of a child.
lol, that was one of my favorites!
"The special effects and camera shot are supposed to be spectacular."
If you attend films with an eye mostly for camera work, you may be happy in that regard. FR is a political board so I've focussed on that aspect of the film.
"Does the film really mention Bush by NAME??? That would make no sense at all."
The film references Bush by reference frequently; and you're right, it doesn't make sense.
Of course it's a dystopian topic (so is _Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep_) but there's a huge difference between a film drawing forth meaningful themes from a novel (as did _Blade Runner_) versus supplanting them with a gross propaganda message.
What is a telling comment on the Bush Derangement Syndrome is that these maroons actually think people will still be hating Bush in 2027 (or is it 2037?).
Thinking about it, they may be right. In the coming years, I look forward to causing strokes in geriatic hippie reprobates by suggesting to them that Nixon was a great President that got a raw deal for nothing.
The Ben Stiller flick, Happyness movie with Will Smith, and Freedom Writers with Hilary Swank killed this movie. The news even sounded disappointed that Children of Men was a dud. It is ashame that another decent movie is being ignored by conservatives. Typical!!! I hate to see threads that complain that Hollywood does not make good movies. It always makes me laugh and cry because conservatives are so unable to be satisfied. What do you want Hollywood to do????? You demand family movies and you ignore them!!!!! If I was Hollywood I would look at the bottom dollar and see only what makes a buck because the last few conservative type movies have not made anything.
Open your eyes and see what Hollywood is pushing on the family. Animated PG or PG-13 movies marketed toward very young children with adult content. It is truly sickening.
What conservative type movies are you referring to?
SAW III?
Yeah bad typo
"Yes it is. This is basically the Nativity Story in the context of a dystopian future. Joseph and Mary in the war zone."
Ah, I missed the part in the real Nativity story where Mary slept with a bevy of men and had no idea who the daddy was. Of course these screenwriters did try and make a poor joke about a virgin birth before revealing this (bit of racism there as well; why is the black momma written as a slut?) Thanks for reminding me of yet another of the ways in which an apparently pretty good SF novel was butchered on film.
When they carried the baby past the various onlookers it sure seemed that a lot of them muttered "Jesus" under their breath. Symbolism alert. Anyway, I haven't read the novel but on it's own this is pretty great filmmaking.
I think this is the movie I caught Michael Medved talking about on his radio show. He said that there are Bush Lied, People Died posters and other slogans in the background of numerous shots.
One of the clippings on the wall says she was tortured.
Nearly all of this killing is done without cause; for instance, the police interrogate the pot dealer about the protagonist's whereabouts by shooting him. This is a helpful way of getting information from a suspect?
Actually it's the Fishies who shoot Michael Caine, after he refuses to tell them where the protagonist has taken the girl.
Good review of the BOOK ('cuz it's not like the movie at all, from what I've read here).
The book is unashamedly Christian, and excellently written. (I read it this weekend.)
I read the book too! And the theme was what you don't value, life, even that of the elderly, you lose...
So sorry that the movie ain't anything like the book.
I will admit to being a huge Clive Owen fan and typically like dark, morose movies. However, I thought that this was an interesting take on what would happen in civilization if something as basic as procreation was taken away. I guess you could read some Bush-bashing into it, but given the nature of Hollywood today, it's going to happen.
I'd highly recommend the movie and hope that it gets several Oscar noms including best picture, director, actor and cinematography.
It's horrible when a movie gets hold of a book and complete changes it, particularly when it was a good and unusual book to begin with. I liked it very much and I think now I might have to go out and buy it and reread it!
"When they carried the baby past the various onlookers it sure seemed that a lot of them muttered "Jesus" under their breath. Symbolism alert"
Wow, now that's deep!
Yeah, I figured as much as when the liberal newspapers gave it 4 stars.
Gosh where to begin. Ok here is a small portion of the millions of conservative movies out there. The Nativity, Apocalypto, Flica, Happily n' ever after, Charlotts web, and many more. All were ignored at the box office by conservatives of you look at the bottom line.
Nativity is one.
Apocalypto is not a conservative movie also there was a lot of baggage with the director
Charlotte's web is a cheap remake of a classic - It has nothing to do with conservatism being the reason it is getting bad reviews. Remakes are almost always produced with the only intent to make a cheap buck.
Happily n'ever after is a PG movie with adult themes targeted @ kids...exactly what I'm talking about.
lol. I am not sure I can win this one. I think the best thing to do is keep seeing family movies and perhaps not see some of the sleezier movies that seem to make quite a buck at the box office.
OK, I saw it by accident. Sorry they got my money.
While it was an incredibly well filmed movie it is probably the most illogical pile of garbage I’ve ever seen. The leaps of logic….a….. There was no logic, to stupid to waste time commenting on except I think a lot of pot was smoked in the scripting, filming and editing and then by any critics who liked it or apologized for it.
I read some reviews after seeing it and saw it explained as a movie “packed with symbolism”. Yes, it was a senseless collage’ of ridiculous symbolism.
It reminds me of the genius who can’t tie his shoes.
While the director may be a genius at cinematography he’s bankrupt after that.
It’s almost worth seeing to witness these Hollywood types trying to espouse their supposed political wisdom on the world when their ideas can’t even make sense through a 2 hour movie.
You demand family movies and you ignore them!!!!! If I was Hollywood I would look at the bottom dollar and see only what makes a buck because the last few conservative type movies have not made anything.
This was a conservative book hijacked into a leftist movie. Not good. I went out and saw the three movies, me who never leave the nest, that were recommended as conservative:
The Nativity
Happyness
and this pile of poop. I read and loved the book. I respect all of Dame James works. This was a hijacking, not the Children of Men story.
Apocalypto is not a conservative movie
I saw it a couple days ago and liked it, but didn't love it. The lefty political overtones were too irritating -- the Homeland Security sign over the entrance to the immigrant ghetto/prison for instance -- and I thought the performances by the supporting cast were weak, especially, and unfortunately, since they were central characters, the chubby midwife lady and the pregnant girl (I forget their names). But gosh, what a beautiful portrayal of distopian raggediness. I'm a fellow fan of dark movies and this one scratches that itch brilliantly. The realism is incredible. Incredible attention to detail. Speaking of dark movies, if you liked Children of Men, you'd probably also like Pan's Labyrinth. Saw it yesterday evening. Whew, it's good stuff -- dark, poignant, realistic, and beautifully acted all around.
I was disappointed too that the film did not more closely follow the book, which had themes I found to be more interesting and universal. I find it interesting that the film took the infertility problem from men to women--seems kind of misogynistic to me (in the parlance of the film's politics) but I guess that comes from the novel being written by a women and the screenplay by a man.
I found the novel's decline in violence to be far more believable than the chaotic police state in the film. I also found it odd that so many refugees were living in England but so few of them seemed to be able to communicate in English. They were jabbering away to the guards in the native languages like they expected to be understood.
I missed the more personal social explorations that the book took with women pretending dolls and dogs were the children and attempting to have the dogs baptized. It was implied in the film that dogs were filling the role of children to the refugees, but the religious aspect was not touched on.
I also did not understand the shift away from the main character being in the ivory tower of academia to one where he is a former radical who seems to have "sold out" and become an office drone.
And they totally missed James's message about the pregnancy by making an immigrant the pregnant woman and not Julian. The whole reason in the novel that Julian slipped through the fertility tests was because she was deformed and it never crossed the minds of those in charge that she or anyone else with health issues (like the father of the baby who was epileptic) ought to be tested.
They basically sold out a really good story for giving a Cindy Sheehan type message that will not be relevant in another twenty years. The novel will continue to be appreciated long after the film has been relegated to the vaults.
Well filmed, horribly written, symbolism with a sledgehammer, if you think this is deep you swim in the intellectual kiddie pool.
You MUST see the documentary in the extras, (The singularly most hysterical left wing anti-capitalist, doomsday scenario, global warming hysteria lade n thing I have EVER seen. Nothing tops this documentary, NOTHING!!!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.