| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| silly |
Posted - 01/20/2007 : 01:19:22
I saw this the other day, and loved it. But I'm wondering how other FWFR's felt about it, and if I was perhaps influenced by the numerous glowing reviews I read.
The more I think about the movie, the better I think it was. I can't wait to see it again.
Any thoughts?  |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| silly |
Posted - 10/26/2007 : 17:29:10
I think anytime you are dealing with childbirth questions, you cannot entirely remove the religious questions.
That's why this movie is so powerful, to me.
It's that "bigger question" stuff, you know, what's six times nine and all that.
Why do we humans exist if we can't create little humans to follow in our footsteps? Why not just blow everything up? What's stopping us from blowing everything up right now?
I love these types of ponderings.
Has anybody read White Plague, by Frank Herbert? (Dune, among other little books he wrote) Same questions, in a way, just approached differently (in Plague it was a deliberate act by a single rather pissed off man that put mankind on the brink of extinction) |
| Downtown |
Posted - 10/25/2007 : 15:33:28
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
My question is - if a loss of religion has been as equally destructive as religious fanatacism, with no middle ground seemingly possible - what can help these people here?
That was my point. All that "destruction" you see is here on Earth, and many of the most fanatic religious followers believe that's irrelevant, because it simply doesn't matter what happens on Earth. |
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/25/2007 : 12:51:22
I don't remember the rally, but it sounds as though a religious fanatic is saying that. The film presumably isn't agreeing. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/25/2007 : 07:25:34
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
Yet, if a lack of religion caused the procreation to end, but zealots are destroying civilization, and a middle ground will not appease anyone, then what is left?
I'm not sure what ChocolateLady is asking here, or from whose perspective she's asking it, but I don't believe the filmmakers buy into all the premises of the question, especially the first one. I don't think we're supposed to believe that lack of religion killed all the babies.
No, that's not what I meant. On the one hand there is a hint that religious fanatacism is behind the distruction that is causing people to flee their countries. On the other hand, we see people being told at a rally that the reason for the world's infertility is devine retribution for the world's loss of faith (and it seems people are beginning to believe this could be true, since there are all these cults popping up). My question is - if a loss of religion has been as equally destructive as religious fanatacism, with no middle ground seemingly possible - what can help these people here?
|
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 21:57:22
quote:
Yet, if a lack of religion caused the procreation to end, but zealots are destroying civilization, and a middle ground will not appease anyone, then what is left?
I'm not sure what ChocolateLady is asking here, or from whose perspective she's asking it, but I don't believe the filmmakers buy into all the premises of the question, especially the first one. I don't think we're supposed to believe that lack of religion killed all the babies. |
| Downtown |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 21:18:52
quote:
Originally posted by ChocolateLady
It also occurs to me that this is a very anti-religion movie. On the one hand, there are hints that religious fanatacism is what caused the wars, ruin and destruction. But the various cults that they refer to that are popping up are made to look like desparate people clutching at straws. Those same cults seem to be blaming the world's infertility on a lack of faith and that this medical situation is basically God's wrath. Yet, if a lack of religion caused the procreation to end, but zealots are destroying civilization, and a middle ground will not appease anyone, then what is left?
"My Kingdom is not of this Earth." |
| Downtown |
Posted - 10/24/2007 : 21:17:31
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
quote:
What bothered me about this film most was that we don't actually understand why the world is so filled with all these refugees - that is, until close to the end of the film.
I thought it was pretty obvious -- the rest of the world has gone to shit and Britain is the only place that's been able to keep some semblance of sanity. And I don't think it needs to be explained why the rest of the world has gone to shit; more of a question is how Britain was able to keep it together, albeit barely.
Actually, all we know is that PART of the world has gone to shit and that Britain has maintained some level of sanity. What parts? Well, the places where the refugees are coming from. We saw a government propaganda film on the bus that SAYS the entire rest of the world has fallen apart, but that doesn't mean it's true. |
| MisterBadIdea |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 18:43:54
quote:
What bothered me about this film most was that we don't actually understand why the world is so filled with all these refugees - that is, until close to the end of the film.
I thought it was pretty obvious -- the rest of the world has gone to shit and Britain is the only place that's been able to keep some semblance of sanity. And I don't think it needs to be explained why the rest of the world has gone to shit; more of a question is how Britain was able to keep it together, albeit barely. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 12:54:36
It also occurs to me that this is a very anti-religion movie. On the one hand, there are hints that religious fanatacism is what caused the wars, ruin and destruction. But the various cults that they refer to that are popping up are made to look like desparate people clutching at straws. Those same cults seem to be blaming the world's infertility on a lack of faith and that this medical situation is basically God's wrath. Yet, if a lack of religion caused the procreation to end, but zealots are destroying civilization, and a middle ground will not appease anyone, then what is left?
|
| Demisemicenturian |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 11:20:09
Interesting point - I had only thought of the problems as coming from the lack of younger generations coming along to continue the species/look after the old/take over etc. However, we know how frustrated individuals can be who are unable to have children - that frustration multiplied by billions would indeed be devastating. |
| ChocolateLady |
Posted - 10/16/2007 : 10:56:01
Finally got to see this last night and was basically blown away. Yes, there are some spots that lagged a bit, but on the whole, I think it was a very powerful movie. What got me was the attention to details and matching that they used. The artistry was masterful, and the feel of the film, perfectly dark and foreboding.
As for things being confusing, I think that was the whole point of the movie. Chaos insues and everyone is fighting everyone else and no one seems to really know who they are fighting or why, except that this is all they can be passionate about. In essence, the anger, fighting and passionate hatred has become a replacement for the type of uncontrollable, instinctual love that is reserved for children. This makes sense given that when the youngest person on the planet is killed, people are overwhelmed by their feelings of loss, as if it had been their own flesh and blood - despite the fact that the "baby" was an asshole. Plus, this sparks more insurgency since no one knows who killed him or why. Rather than find out the truth (since it is apparent that no one is telling anyone the truth about anything anymore), the reaction is 'we might as well kill some more of the people who stand for what we hate'. Oh, and forget about transferring our affections to the girl who is a couple of days older than the "baby" and is now the youngest person on the planet (although I'm not sure why about that either).
What bothered me about this film most was that we don't actually understand why the world is so filled with all these refugees - that is, until close to the end of the film. And even then, it is never said out loud, and feeds on the post-9/11 generalized prejudice "all immigrants are potential terrorists". Yes, cracking down on immigrants is put forward from the start of the film, but who is to blame for all these immigrants is left mostly to our immagination for most of the film, and then gets a bit of direction only near the end. And the direction they give us wasn't where I was going towards, which made it a far more sinister film for me. This is probably because that direction they give us is totally disconnected with the theme of world infertility, and we never find out what caused this.
Of course, others have already praised the acting in this movie, so I won't repeat it here. The biggest surprise for me was finding out that this was a P.D. James novel. In all my Dalgliesh viewing years I would never have believed she could come up with such a complex psychological dystopia. I had her pegged as a better than average murder mystery writer, and never bothered reading any of her books. I guess I was wrong and now I've got some hunting to do - bookwise, that is.
Fascinating! |
| Yukon |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 22:16:31
Amazing film. I gave it 6/5.
To me, the technical work is what makes the film so good - the stunning no-cut, one shot scenes.
It's one thing to have the camera rolling for five minutes without a cut as two people walk and talk in a restaurant or mall, but Children of Men has five-minute action scenes with car chases, explosions and hundreds of people with out a single cut!
In a movie with hardly any special effects, I spent most of the film thinking "How the heck did they do this?"
|
| Montgomery |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 18:16:47
SPOILERS
I liked this movie quite a bit. I thought it had some cool futuristic details. And, I liked the idea of the world mourning the death of the youngest person, who Clive, or someone said, was really an "asshole". And that they still called him "baby" when he was over 20, or something like that. (Sorry. I saw it awhile ago, so my memory's soft.)
I did find it weird that the "uprising" would turn against themselves. But, there were some really great parts. And I bought it, throughout.
I love looks into our possible future, even if it is dismal and depressing.
I love Clive. And, although I was in the camp of having him be the next Bond, I think Craig is very good, too. And, you're right, Clive is now more open to continue playing all kinds of different parts.
More Clive, please!
EM :) |
| Montgomery |
Posted - 06/19/2007 : 18:06:10
quote:
Originally posted by silly
See, we're both infertile  so it's a bit of a sore subject.
I'm sorry to learn that.
EM |
| Downtown |
Posted - 06/16/2007 : 17:30:01
Cool. Fight the power, or something. |
|
|
