Children of Men

I watched it, great film but I found the scene where you saw different photos in michael caines house abit tacky when it had newspaper cuttings about Tony Blair, the film was based in 2020+ so felt that was a bit out of place.
 
As I live near Bexhill the reference to this town raised unintentional chuckles. If you dont know Bexhill has a reputation round here as the "graveyard with lights" where 90% of the population are over 70! So the use of this town in Children Of Men was quite amusing.
 
Is it just me then - I was a bit disappointed in the film as a whole - felt it obviously skipped over important points that may be in the book - also it ended so quickly!
Overall a 6/10 for me.
 
Having read the book before I saw this film I was a bit conflicted when it came to watching it, but I always find that when I've read the book before seeing the film.
I did actually like the movie, and the big differences between the novel and the movie were a nice suprise
For example: Julian getting killed (in the book she's actually the pregnant character)

The book had more of a clarity to it though and to be honest, I felt the story in the book would have suited a movie much better and the complicated (yet very thought provoking and well handled) story of the movie would have been better explored in the novel.

The book was a lot more straight forward, a lot more fluid. The "Fishes" were only a small group of five or six If i remember correctly and the Syd character had much more of an embroiled past with Theo that was interesting to observe. The infertility also seemed a lot more believable in the book too, with men sterile instead of women.

Still, great film though,
 
a book is a book, a film is a film. Why do these people who always say 'the book is better' even bother going to see the movie? Is it so they can come up with their boring catchphrase?
 
I'd have to agree with you. It was a superb example of cinema and a credit to all involved.
For any of those who really enjoyed the movie and it's themes, I strong recommend you read the book. It's a little slow moving for the first half (the novel is split it into two books) but this is by no means a bad thing. The character of Theo is an extremely intriguing character and characters in the movie such as Jasper and Miriam are handled very differently in the book, not to say they weren't in the movie,but they take on a whole new dimension in the book.

Added to that, the writing itself is top notch stuff. I read the book when I was going through something of a reading marathon and any book I read after paled in comparison.
 
Although I enjoyed the book, it really didn't leave a big impression on me, I think the characters had much more presence in their short time on screen than they had on the page, although it's quite difficult to compare when the only similarities between them are their names.
The one thing I find really interesting is how both the book and film tackle the premise of a barren society. Whilst it is the cause of all that is happening in both scenarios the reason why is never really touched upon or investigated, it's just a given.
All in all I found the film to be a better experience than the book, I preffered the parrallels drawn with todays society and the issues it touched upon. The fact that in the film it was the females of the population which suddenly stopped being able to concieve and bare children as opposed the the infertility of males made a much more provoking point. As a society we read of the ever decreasing sperm count and as such it's something that we could partially predict in our future and perhaps make provision for it, so for nature to suddenly turn on us further by removing females ability to concieve makes for a much more desperate situation.
When the oscar nomminations were announced I was disgusted to see that Children of Men had not been nominated for best cinematography, some of the shots were technically and visually mindblowing, it's a crime!!!
 
I just watched this film last night and to me it just felt like a pointless, desolate fantasy. Absolutely nothing in the film is plausible, but it's OK because they don't try to explain it anyway.

I'm assuming the book has more...purpose.
 
Hmmm, I thought this was a good film. Wasn't sure what to expect, but it wasn't bad.

I did think it was quite 'political' and because of that I didn't like the ending.

I think having all the people kill the baby would have made more of a statement - they'd have turned round and effectively killed a miracle, making them beyond help. And Clive Owen is hot and just shouldn't die
:p
 
Well they could have handled the ending like that, but in my opinion, the movie is so relentless throughout (especially the final stretch) that their really needed to be something of a payoff, they needed that hopeful ending to the proceedings.
I was suprised that the baby was born a fair stretch before the end, but I think it actually worked. There were numerous moments when the baby was put in jepordy that allowed for some great, edge of the seat stuff.
I understand what you mean about how it would have been interesting to see what would have happened if these desperate, futureless individuals were actually responsible for destroying a miracle, but I think the baby needed to survive. However, I would have liked a less decisive ending. I personally think that the arrival of the human project was a little too happy an ending. I would have much rather have seen Theo dying, happy that he's done as much as he can and is passing something on witht he baby being named after his dead son, and that be it. It would have made a much better ending (IMO) if Kee and the baby were just left adrift in the boat, so the audience could contemplate whether or not they actually were rescued.
 
Yeah I agree with most of that. I think the decision to have women infertile as opposed to men was a very good idea, it certainly made Kee being presented pregnant a much bigger deal. One of the few things I wasn't so keen on in the book was how once it was revealed that there had been a fertile man about, it sort of suggested that, there's probably a lot more out there then, sort of removed the whole dilemma aspect
 
If you bought the 'Special Edition' of Children of Men and it lacked anything special, as in extras, you can trade it in for the new version.

According to Empire, you can send your copy along with a Self-Addressed Jiffy Bag to the value of 70p to

Children of Men Amnesty,
PO Box 188,
Woodford Green,
Essex,
IG8 7RW

and you have until 30th June to do so.
 
Back
Top