And the possibility of all humans actually living in some made up world created by robots to control us completely makes sense (The Matrix). It’s called Science Fiction (emphasis: Fiction) for a reason.
“Anyone that passed high school science/biology should realize that the basic premise underlying the movie (humans can’t reproduce becuz of some virus) doesn’t make any sense.”
I must’ve skipped the class that discussed “how viruses do not affect human reproduction,” perhaps it was only taught in American private schools.
@Glemaud: I’ll provide Sean’s comeback for him: “It’s called Science Fiction for Idiots!”
This topic is hilarious.
Correction: …there was 1 interesting actor in the movie: an old man who played too small a role, smoked pot, listened to a strange cover version of “Ruby Tuesday” and THEN got killed after 2 scenes.
Some people liked it, some people didn’t. Get over it.
Sean – I’ve got your next bunch of thread titles ready:
Anyone Who Thinks Citizen Kane Is the Best Movie Ever Made Is a Cretin
Wizard of Oz Is Just a Dull Exercise in Stylistics
Casablanca Is a Mishmash of Sentimental Drivel
Rules of the Game Is a Borefest of Monumental Proportions
All Copies of Stalker Should Be Put in a Time Capsule and Kept There Forever
“Akira Kurosawa was a pretentious hack”
“Breathless is a yawn-inducing coagulation of pseudo-fun”
“Why Fanny and Alexander is mindless pomp”
“The greatest film of all time … if you lack a brain”
Just to be contrarian: I did not like Children of Men.
I don’t remember much about it so I can’t justify why. I just remember really not liking it.
why is a children of men board being compared to a kurasowa or godard board even in jest
at best it was an okay recent film
If thats all you got from the film then you didn’t get the film.
Thanks for calling me a sentimental idiot. Although, I wasn’t crazy about Children of Men. I think it is hard to deny that film was photographed extremely well.
-Anyone that passed high school science/biology should realize that the basic premise underlying the movie (humans can’t reproduce becuz of some virus) doesn’t make any sense-
I’m guessing this is just trolling, so this probably isn’t worth it, but . . .
Are we talking about the film? The film specifically avoids attributing a cause to the infertility. Perhaps you’re confusing the cause of the infertilty with the flu pandemic that killed Theo and Julian’s son?
-Just to be contrarian: I did not like Children of Men-
How is that being a contrarian when the OP is saying that it’s a movie for “sentimental idiots?”
I was going to join in on this discussion, because I very much so disagree. Then I realized it was initiated by the same guy who created the “2001 stupid garbage” or whatever thread, and I decided not to bother.
Yet you did Roger, oh , the irony
“Anyone that passed high school science/biology should realize that the basic premise underlying the movie doesn’t make any sense.”
I am not a huge fan of the film.
But I have no problem at all with the So-called “basic premise” about the virus. It is not entirely “scientifically/biologically” impossible and so many Science Fiction plots (arguably the great dystopian films/novels which might have been some sort of inspiration for Children of men like e.g. Soylent Green, 1984, Brazil, Brave New World, Akira,…) need to have a little “faith” put in the basic premise of “problem” which will arise in the depicted future.
But there are many other arguably corny parts about the story which are much more hard to swallow up easily. And why hasn’t anyone yet spoken about the other “faith” someone has been putting in the movie CHILDREN OF MEN?
“Science/Biology” or not, the main storyline of CHILDREN OF MEN seems to be quite accurately taken from one older, not so scientifically advanced but sure quite popular source…
One baby born to save mankind?
To a “virgin” mother?
People kneeling down as soon as they see the newborn?
Talking about references…
Am I the only one who sees CHILDREN OF MEN as a Sci-Fi (re-)interpretation of the Nativity of Jesus aka. Christmas Story?
Really bad basic premise for a Sci-Fi movie? Hell :-) no!
Great movie? I think not.
A generally interesting attempt to revive the classic dystopian movies? I like to think so.
A film suitable for sentimental idiots? I can absolutely agree with that.
Again, you missed the entire point of the film.
‘I heard some people praising it for having a 5 minute shot or something, but as I remember there was nothing spectacular about that shot.’
Really? Are you sure about that? Is it possible you have no idea what you’re talking about?
Of course not. PD James, the author of the novel on which the film is based, is a devout Anglican, and has described the novel as a “Christian fable.” While Cuaron’s film perserves a good deal of the source work, it also introduces a lot of other thematic elements and complexities to it.
Again, though, the film never says it was a virus that caused the mass infertility. Also, I don’t recall it every stating that Kee is a virgin.
It is almost obvious the OP hasn’t watched or understood the film.
Haha… your topic made me laugh, Sean. For all the professional proficiency involved in the film, I must admit I lean towards your view. It impressed me… but I find myself with no desire to watch it again.
All you are saying is that you don’t like apples because they don’t taste like oranges.
Did anyone see Solaris? What a dumb movie!! Planets can’t read minds! Idiots.
Matt: Not to mention it would take WAY more than like, 3 hours for all that to go down. How unrealistic.
Also, the “5 minuet shot” that was mentioned was actually a 9 minuet shot that follows the protagonist through a war torn, riotous city as he avoids gunfire, explosions, and attacks. Even better: Curon tried to call cut on the scene because some fake blood drops get on the camera at one point, but no one heard him so they finished it. That one detail ended up topping off the whole scene. It happens to be one of the most mind blowing and beautifully shot scenes I have ever seen.. if you can’t tell, I rather like the movie.
I’ve seen it dozen of times, haven’t shad one tear for it’s characters haha
but it’s so well written and directed that there are a number of scenes that are just unforgettable.
“…saving an ugly whore’s baby from the ghetto…”
Wait, page 2 of the thread, and no one has yet to mention that the OP is clearly a some crazy racist?
She had sex with someone. Oh, and she’s black. DEAL. As far as whether you find her attractive or not, that’s your business.
“Wait, page 2 of the thread, and no one has yet to mention that the OP is clearly a some crazy racist?
She had sex with someone. Oh, and she’s black. DEAL. As far as whether you find her attractive or not, that’s your business."
She said in the movie that she wasn’t even sure who the father was because there were so many possibilities. She also did mention that she wanted a better life for her child. So I mean… he is semi right.
hahaha you’re hilarious man
dont ever argue with an idiot…
“Did anyone else enjoy it? I certainly didn’t. "
Good thing you clarified that for us, Sean, since the title of this thread was very unclear.