Children of Men
We saw Children of Men on Tuesday (after a super yummy dinner at Thai Me Up.) I somewhat liked it, Chris REALLY liked it. It's an interesting picture - dark, moody, and with some surprising acting performances. Michael Caine was...subtle. Not a word I would normally associate with him. Julianne Moore's character surprised me for reasons I can't explain without making it a spoiler. Clive Owen...well he sorta reminds me of Gabriel Byrne at times. I could have seen either of them playing that role.It's kind of interesting playing the "did you notice" game with this movie, including "Quietus" the suicide kit that gets advertised in the movie, some background headlines, and things like the whole movie is shot from the viewpoint of Clive Owen's character. It gives the whole thing a tunnel vision type of feel. The other thing we were talking about is that there were a LOT of dogs in the movie. No Rin Tin Tin or Lassie hero types. It's just that everyone had a pet.
My only complaint with the movie was that there were a few references to current events in the movie, which I find distracting. This is a movie supposedly set in the future (20 years in the future, but the future nontheless), I hate being distracted by the references to now. It just felt like a bad product placement to me. But it's definitely worth the watch!
Labels: Movies
posted by MyHusbandRules @ 2:48 PM
5 Comments:
*That's* what bugged you? Not the *clear* Abu Ghraib reference? That was BS. And the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced the whole final act takes place in "Fallujah".
Still, amazing movie. I think it might the only movie I've seen with that cinematic perspective.
In talking with Dave at Garfield Ridge (and reading the comments) everyone said "of course it's liberal". Dunno, is the director known for that or something>?
Well I would count Abu Ghraib as a current event, wouldn't you?
I'm saying the references to current events didn't bother me. It only takes place a few years in the future. And the Iraq mentions were largely on the wall of the hippy who was a political cartoonist. Presumably during his heyday.
What I am saying is the Iraq stuff was completely gratouitous and didn't have a point.
Have you read the book? I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the book. From what I can tell from the previews and the reviews, they have changed the feel and the plot dramatically. In the book, it is the men who are infertile. The immigrants are almost never seen. The point of the book is the getting and keeping of power in a totalitarian state -- the abolishing of religion -- what happens when women can't have babies and what it does to the psyche of a people who know they are dying as a race. I get the idea that the movie is trying to make a completely different point.
I think the movie is more of a science fiction exploration of what life would be like w/o children. It does sound like they've changed quite a few things.
I do think it works really well though as a meditation on that point. There's a scene near the end that is one of the best moments I've ever seen in a film regarding that point.
Post a Comment
<< Home