OK people, let’s get technical here: What is it about this film’s special effects that make it so great? If anything, this was low budget stuff. They just found some old ruins and abandoned military bunkers out in the desert, got some fatigues at the Army surplus and started filming. AND THE STORY WAS BOOOORING! Of course, we can’t forget about that lame English hippy character played by Michael Caine. Hey everybody, pull my finger!
Technically speaking, it’s not the special effects themselves that blew me away. It was seamless integration of special effects into the scenario and into immaculately choreographed long-take (often hand-held) camerawork that blew me away.
The effects were never showy, always serving the purpose of the story and the action and permitting events in the story to continue in areal-time mode which provides its own unique sensation for an audience as they experience massive amounts of (sometimes) traumatizing information. Five years from now and beyond, technicians, fans, and academics will still be talking about the (7 minutes?) shot in the car.
Beyond effects, people on this thread seem to be really admiring the level of detail in production design.
But, hey, if it didn’t click with you, it didn’t click…
i think that the word “boring” as well as the word “genius” should be thrown out of the lexicon completely as nobody really has any sense what these adjectives, or their antithesis, actually mean. they are empty, hollow adjectives thrown around by those who can not even find the words to explain what is “not boring” to them.
Troy-I agree. Boring has nothing to do with good or bad. it just means that for one reason or another it didn’t engage that viewers attention.
but even that steve is a catch 22…as if a viewer takes a serious look at what exactly about a work disengaged them, the mere mental activity accompanying said film would render it not boring as it has spurred on at least some thinking.
no, it seems like the word boring is just a cop out, allowing the viewer to not engage as opposed to a describer of their engagement.
case and point…i don’t love any kubric film as they are a little too un-feeling for me, but the fact that i have spent time thinking about my responses to kubrick’s films, as opposed to dismissing them outright, points toward the fact that they are not “boring”
every film is like a conversation with the audience, whether one chooses to engage is up to the individual and generally says more about them than it does the film. to quote the harvey danger song flagpole sitter’ “if you’re bored, than you’re boring.”
But, guys, the adjective in question here is, “BOOOORING!”
Totally different.
Please, let’s try to remain accurate in our criticisms of criticisms.
…but, yeah, I agree, it’s usually just a special way of saying, “I hereby exclude myself from the conversation.”
It is also one of my favorite films of this decade.
I love the reference to Pink Floyd’s Animals album with the giant pig floating next to the tower in the beginning and the use of the song In the Court of the Crimson King by Crimson King.
Awesome that my favorite progressive rock music is used in a great film in a good way.
It’s a great science fiction film and I bet will be considered a classic. The story is absorbing, the action is intense, and the camera work is beautiful.
@Nate
Did you also notice that the factory the guy lives in is the one on the album cover?
Yeah, I noticed that… it is really a great movie.
I loved the film as well. I found it very relevant and exciting,certainly not boring, that scene in the car blew me away. I just wish the ending had been even more ambiguous then it was.
Yeah this was an awful film. I tried getting through it three times hoping it would redeem itself. It jut got worse.
To Troy Meyers: Your rationale is very boring to me. Here’s a definitaion of bored, straight out of Merriam Webster: uninterested because of frequent exposure or indulgence
Quit trying to sound like an intellectual!
My problem with the film has always been that it takes a sci-fi concept that has the potential for great inward investigation and human exploration (in the tradition of Tarkovsky’s use of the genre), but seems more interested in whizzing bullets and explosions than actual discovery.
And that’s fine. It’s a smart action film. But nothing more.
to joe nelson try spelling…and i was raised working class son, calling me an intellectual is an insult where i come from.
and if you are so uninterested, why are you writing about it.
rable rouser.
i think its pretty well said, ‘a smart action film’. however it still feels a little harsh.
probably not the strongest of stories, or intense acting, BUT its veerrrryyyy well directed. A strong hold of the films mood and scenes, by themselves and as a whole. Cauron really embraced the art on this one. Boring? Not at all.
AND LETS LEAVE THE MATRIX OUT OF THIS.
“A smart action film”
Yeah, almost.
“A smart film about action”
…That’s more like it, and I think that’s the crux of the matter…Some people appreciate THAT specifically about it. Some think that is specifically boring. But it’s an intelligently, honestly told, very ACTIVE visual narrative about a very active period of revolution, aka transformation and chaos in society. All that stuff Y TU MAMA TAMBIEN was a metaphor for.
Now I just have to get around to watching Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. I’m sure it’s brilliant.
@Troy: good use of “rabble rouser”
I don’t disdain the movie just the commentator on the DVD. Anybody ever see that extra on the DVD? Not only is listening to the guy grating but what he says is just a lot of intellectual pseudo-profundity that ads very little to the film.
Joe, are you serious? I suspect that Troy calling you out as a rabble rouser is pretty accurate.
I, like many of the other folks on this thread feel that this film was indeed very significant both in terms of the story it told and the methods it employed in the telling. It will be remembered, for sure.
Perhaps it would be easier for us to understand your perspective (that is if you are being straight with us) if you would impart an example or two of films that you feel did a better job than Children of Men of conveying a similar theme or story. I trust they will be artful and not boring.
My brother wanted me to watch it because he loves it. I thought it sucked ass! Sorry bro
To Troy Meyers: Jeesh! Here we go again! I gather from what you’re saying that you are of the opinion that just because I’m curious to know (and therefore not uninterested) why other people hype this movie so much and find it such a great work of science fiction, that I therefore cannot find the film itself boring? Call me a dummy, a rabble rouser or whatever, but your rationale is skewed, at least in my opinion. If this were the case, why the hell do public forums like The Auteurs exist?
And I’m not quite sure what you meant when you said “try spelling,” but for your information, there are two bs in “rabble,” and the first letter of the first word of a sentence is always capitalized. And you’re absolutely right, you’re no intellectual, thank God for that, just a boob.
And to CLOVENHOOF: Thank you! (Then again, you’re commenting on it on The Auteurs, so, according to Troy, you therefore must not think it REALLY sucked ass)!
I give it one thumb up. Of course, I lost the other thumb in a banjo accident, so who knows if it could ever achieve true greatness. The film that is, my lost thumb was awesome while I had it. And did someone say it was too far fetched? Must’ve missed the whole SCIENCE FICTION angle there.
I found the lack of special effects to be one of the films many charms. A plot-driven Sci-Fi film that doesn’t rely on gadgets or cgi I found rather refreshing. I appreciate the comparisons to Blade Runner, but I think more importantly it is reminiscent of PKD’s work as a whole.
@joe, even though reasoning is obviously not your strong suit,…why don’t you look at my last name and try spelling it correctly…at least show me that respect.
and its like i tell my 7th grade english students…don’t make assertions, don’t tell me that gatsby sucks or that gatsby is boring unless you are going to offer up some kind of opinion as to why. but then again i forgot this is the internet…where mono-syllabic morons have co-opted the otherwise fine art of criticism and reduced it to nothing but a string of “this sucks” and “that’s boring”…super articulate, and very in depth criticisms that you offer there. maybe next time put as much thought into your one word review as you do into my postings so that we at least have something interesting to read in these forums. what a joke…not to mention a complete waste of time.
Good morning Troy! First off, you’re absolutely right about me mispelling your name. I give you that one. Apologies (see, I’m a man who can accept his oversights and criticisms). We can get into a pissing match and drag this on all you want, but I really think you do have some nerve to criticize me for my spelling oversights when you yourself mispell words like “rabble” and don’t use proper punctuation – and you’re an English teacher for Christ sakes! I guess that speaks volumes as to why our kids are practically illiterate, with seventh graders reading and writing at kindergarten and first grade levels.
As far as me going into any depth as to why I think Children of Men is a “boring” film, I think I made that pretty clear in my previous comments, but I’ll reiterate in case you missed them: The recurring praise I’m hearing from people about this film is its astounding camerawork and choreography – long-take shots with handheld cameras and a compelling storyline. My problem isn’t so much with the storyline as much is how the story is delivered. As far as the long-take steadycam shots and choreography, it is nothing I haven’t seen already in Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket or Spielberg’s Saving Private Ryan, and those are just two films that come to mind. I assure you I can find more. The pacing of the film is slow, and the history of Owen’s and Moore’s characters, the child they had together, left me feeling cheated. It teases you, but you never really know where their relationship went wrong, what happened to their kid (we’re left to guess or deduce that the child died). I think that relationship could have been fleshed out more and the loose ends tied up better, but they weren’t, at least not in my opinion. There was one noteworthy action scene, the car/motorcycle chase.
On the positive side I will say this: A story set in a dystopian world in which two decades of global human infertility has left humanity with less than a century to survive sounds delicious, and I know the film was hailed by critics for its screenwriting, cinematography, art direction and so-called “innovative single-shot action sequences” (from my previous statement, you know I disagree with this). But, the central theme of the picture: hope and faith in the face of overwhelming futility and despair, and that hope depends on our future generations, is just plain cliche.
Lastly Troy, I just want to say “I love ya, man!” You’re a feisty one, just like myself. I know I come off as an ornery cuss, it’s just my nature. I think we both got a little insulting, so let’s let that die. But I do read through every one of these postings with 100 percent objectivity, and if someone makes a good argument, I will weigh it heavily, and if I’m wrong, will admit it. I will watch this film again, and perhaps even a third time if I feel it’s warranted. Sometimes revisiting a film a second time around you see things you didn’t see the first time. I still haven’t heard an in-depth critique of the film from you, by the way.
Hopefully this meets your criteria for a more in-depth critique. I can, of course, go on, but as a journalist, I believe in getting to the point briefly, before people’s 2-second attention spans move on to the next thread.
As the late great Samuel Fuller said, “If it doesn’t grab you by the balls in the first 10 minutes, throw the thing out the goddamn window.”
Personally, I felt it was a great idea, technically sound, but just a little flat overall. Weak points in both story and acting lead me to feel a bit uninterested when all was said and done. I do admit, the attention to detail was a nice touch, and the action sequences grabbed attention, but maybe they could have put that effort into the plot first.
Admittedly, I need to rewatch this to fully evaluate, but this was my impression after seeing it once.
Children of Men Who Can Be More Pretentious Forum.
Keagan – Diddo. I too have vowed to give this one another look. One of my biggest gripes with this film is its lack of obvious distinction from other great films, the operative word here being “obvious.” I believe that only film critics with an in-depth working knowledge of film will see these subleties. There was something distinct in Blade Runner, something distinct in Alien, something distinct in Minority Report, but Children of Men? You get a slow-paced story with cliche themse, soliders with guns, crumbling ruins and a foggy ocean. That just doesn’t do it for me when it comes to memorable science fiction. The really good science fiction films I want to watch over and over, as I have Blade Runner, Alien, Minority Report and Aliens. Children of Men was more like a war movie than compelling science fiction. It was a good premise that ultimately fell flat, and I appear to be in the minority on this one.
Jake Howell
Amazing film! Best of 2006!