Care to explain? I am sure many here will not agree that Children of Men is the greatest film of all time.
Hmm, I foresee a torrent of opposition to this claim, but despite that even though I liked the film it’s so derivitive of a plethora of narrative themes that I couldn’t with a clean conscience call it the greatest film. There’s also a healthy amount of plot holes, not to mention (and this is merely a pet peeve), but good god, there’s a ton of ‘product placement’ in an attempt for the audience to ‘relate’ to the characters instead of actually developing them.
But let me reiterate, I did like the film … a lot, but enjoyment does not a great film make. For instance, I’d say that the first time I saw Evil Dead 2 is probably the most fun I’ve ever had watching a film EVER, but I definitely wouldn’t call it the greatest film ever.
No guys, definitely the best film ever made.
Well, maybe action film, not sure about greatest ever.
Not sure how I see that CHILDREN OF MEN is particularly “derivitive of a plethora of narrative themes.” Can you elaborate?
I like the film a great deal, I’d say it is certainly one of the finest films of the decade, even if it does go a bit overboard with some sledgehammer symbolism in spots. But Cuaron remains one of the finest directors out there.
I will just assume John Smith meant that it was his favorite film. The use of the word “Greatest” is obviously just a way to spark conversation.
Children of Men is a great film, one of the best films of the decade, It is my favorite film, behind North by Northwest, and Slumdog Millionaire, and I agree with Rossoneri that it is the greatest action film, maybe, and Cuaron did a hell of a job, I just wanted to see how many people would think I’m crazy, don’t get me wrong it’s a great film, but the greatest film is… to be continued
Cuaron, quite simply, is genius. I cant seem to get over that car attack scene. Greatest film? Perhaps not. Classic? Absolutely!
I’m pretty sure he’s referencing Stephen Colbert’s perennial question: “George W. Bush; great president, or the greatest president?”
(for the record, great movie)
This film had a huge impact on me when I first saw it in the theater. I was so inspired by it that I immediately started writing a short script that would end up being one of my senior thesis films. It was such a visceral experience that I immediately felt it was the best film of 2006.
Since then, I’ve seen it a couple more times and it’s lost some of it’s impact on me. It’s still an interesting film and what Cuaron/Lebezki accomplished is a substantial cinematic achievement. But it’s style is what impressed me the most and I’ve noticed that films that effect me solely on the style tend to not do well over time. it’s weird because at the time, I was such a huge cheerleader for this film. But I don’t know. I still like it a lot. Though I might not say it’s the best film of 2006 anymore. And it’s definitely not Cuaron’s best film.
So John, you’re definitely not crazy for liking this film. But you are crazy for liking Slumdog! lol
Michael Bay’s “The Rock” was better than this film. Sorry. Pull my finger.
What’s great about The Rock is Sean Connery’s performance. He has that patented look of his which tells the audience, “I’m getting paid for THIS”.
He gave a similar performance in Highlander.
He’s always fun to watch.
also Meteor.
and The Wind and the Lion.
and Entrapment.
The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen
The Avengers
Highlander II: The Quickening
ummm…
I did like Children of Men… although I don’t seem to like it as much as everyone else does. I feel it’s incredibly well made and interesting, however, it still just isn’t very memorable for me…
.
@Fredo Again, it’s just one of those films that make me smile, I love it, because it’s just a happy go-lucky film to me.
@Lester Burnam You, Are Fucking Insane, my friend
Children of Men, is still a great film, and should have got something at the Oscars, if I ever get an Oscar, I’m going to go up their, and say three words, Fuck The Academy, a silence falls over the crowd, I calmly walk back to my seat, and Jon Stewart says some punny shit, everybody laughs, and role clipshow.
Children of Men is one of my favourites of the decade, maybe it will even make my top 10. I find it so powerful and it’s undeniably well made from a technical perspective. Has anyone seen Cuaron’s film that has a criterion release? I haven’t (and can’t remember the title) but I’m curious about whether it is worth a blind buy.
I’ve heard Solo Con Tu Paraja is not that good. I haven’t seen it but a friend of mine, who is from Mexico and a huge fan of Cuaron, didn’t particularly recommend it when I asked him if it was worth seeing.
Entrapment needs a CRITERION treatment.
Wow, i dont even think Children of Men was a good film let alone a great one. Do i need to see it again? Because i was not on any kind of drug when i saw it.
not a bad film. 3 or 3.5 out of 5 stars, not in my top 200.
One of my favs from the last few years easily…… even with Caine’s turn as John Lennon!
@Fredo – “Solo Con Tu Paraja” is pretty funny in a sort of early Almadovar way. It’s not great, but…
I didn’t even like “Children of Men”. It seemed more like a giant chase movie with some half baked Orwellian/Huxlian ideas about the future that didn’t really speak to me about our world today. The look of the film was entirely murky. It’s not even remotely close to being the best movie of all time.
Thanks Nathan on the heads up about Solo Con Tu Paraja. I’m not a big fan of Almadovar’s earlier work so that’s even more reason for me to stay away. But eventually I do want to see it just because it’s Cuaron and I’m interested to see his debut and compare it to how far he’s grown as a filmmaker.
I’d have to say I didn’t like Michael Caine’s overuse of the word ‘amigo.’
He did that for a Mexican director.
Not even Michael Caine’s presence made me enjoy “Children of Men” as much as I felt I was going to. I bought into the hype, and I got bit by it.
Sure, the action scenes were fine. But the movie really had just a plot outline for a story, as opposed to an actual plot, which really diminished the appeal and the possible impact of the “future without a future” storyline.Because of this lack of plot, and an especially sharp lack of characterization, I had close to zero emotional investment in any of the characters, even as they were herded around ominously by “tha authorities.” Oooooooo, ominous…..(oooommmmmmm).
AND, as for that car chase scene, unlike some of the other action scenes, I felt that one was very much staged, with the driver even looking right into the camera at least once. Poor use of Julianne Moore as well. She’s there for like, three lines, and then poof her character is gone.
It seemed “Children of Men” aspired to be like “The Battle of Algiers” in some sense for the 2000s, but I just felt incredibly underwhelmed and under served by it. And that’s not even really comparing it film-to-film with Pontecorvo’s, or any other action classic. “Children of Men” was just plain flat, like three-months-old ginger ale.
Fredo, Solo Con Tu Pareja is awesome. You should see it before concluding.
@ T.J, just because Julianne Moore is ‘Hollywood Material" doesn’t mean she’ll endure till the end of the movie. People die unexpectedly in mayhem, and her character was no exception. Alfonso Cuaron, to me, deserves far more accolades than he receives.
That was a Ballsy move to kill Bowen at the end, doesn’t happen as much, because of asshole producers, I didn’t mean to offend anyone, unless your Jerry Bruckheimer, then Fuck You.
John Smith
The Greatest Film, it was the first film that I actually got addicted to, it’s like crack, you have to have more.