Just finished watching on 360 addon and the PQ qas very good, overall dark film, but very good PQ.

AQ was very good also, even with the known 360 addon problems.

Overall great HDDVD, I can't believe this movie had such a short stint at the box office.... while movies like wild hogs do great............

I watched this on Sky HD last Saturday and for me it was a major disapointment, I had high expectations after reading this forum but the film was not my cup of tea.
It felt like the film was a made for TV number :(

It had the same depressing feel about it like 28 days which I also had the misfortune of seeing, I can fully understand why it didnt make good money at the box office....its crap!!

I watched this on Sky HD last Saturday and for me it was a major disapointment, I had high expectations after reading this forum but the film was not my cup of tea.
It felt like the film was a made for TV number :(

It had the same depressing feel about it like 28 days which I also had the misfortune of seeing, I can fully understand why it didnt make good money at the box office....its crap!!
Wow,so movies like "28 days later" and "Children of men" are ...crap??The only thing that is crap is your taste.

I watched this on Sky HD last Saturday and for me it was a major disapointment, I had high expectations after reading this forum but the film was not my cup of tea.
It felt like the film was a made for TV number :(

It had the same depressing feel about it like 28 days which I also had the misfortune of seeing, I can fully understand why it didnt make good money at the box office....its crap!!


Not everything can be a cheery happy ending Disney movie :(

I thought it looked and sounded fantastic. The blacks were spot on and the HD pic had a very "film" feel to it... (Not the most 3D HD, but a very accurate rendition of what I saw in the theatre). And it was one of my three favorite movies from last year (along with "Brick" and "Casino Royale"). I have an A1 connected to a 1080i CRT via HDMI. I would have liked a True HD soundtrack... but the DD+ sounded pretty damn good.

I can't wait to watch the IME tomorrow... And I have to say: I LOVE THAT IT IS A COMBO DISC. I happily plunk down the extra 5 bucks so that I can rip the DVD side to my iPod and phone and loan the movie to my friend that doesn't have an HD DVD player.

I just finished watching this film tonight for the first time, and I must say I was extremely impressed with not only the PQ but the unique visual style as a whole. It was in 16:9 so it filled up the entire screen with HD goodness! The movie itself has a few shortcomings but is easily outweighed by many memorable scenes. Without giving anything away, there is one particular scene that looks and feels like a virtual ride from Universal Studios....that experience may vary depending on screen size, tho...

It felt like the film was a made for TV number :(

ROTFL

Please show me one made for TV movie that features cinematography and editing even half as good as that of Children of Men. Children of Men looked nothing like TV.

I watched this on Sky HD last Saturday and for me it was a major disapointment, I had high expectations after reading this forum but the film was not my cup of tea.
It felt like the film was a made for TV number :(

It had the same depressing feel about it like 28 days which I also had the misfortune of seeing, I can fully understand why it didnt make good money at the box office....its crap!!


Actually, the fact that you tell me that this movie was not a blockbuster, makes me think that only for that reason the movie might be better than what I thought.

Whnever you are going to express that a movie is crap, you need to be more informative and explain yourself better. Try to defend your point of view with arguments ...and not with poor adjectives.
By saying that a movie is crap you are only affecting the way people are going to see you.

The year is 2007 and some people still think that all blockbusters are good movies.

Just my opinion, I saw 300 the day before and was blown away by that film.
Its all about personnel preference.

I was absolutely blown away by the two scenes in the film that were apparently done in one long take. (The car and the slums.) They were both unbelievably well-executed.

I only had enough time to view the first 20 mins or so, but I was very impressed with the PQ thus far. It has a very smooth, filmlike quality with much less grain than I had expected. It's looking better than I remembered in theatres. It was too late in the evening to turn up the volume, but judging from the opening scene, I can tell it'll perform well in the AQ dept. Can't wait to watch the whole flick tomorrow, all the extras, and the IME. This is one movie I am very, very happy isn't bare bones. HD-DVD delivers awesome features on all the films that really matter, Batman Begins, V for Vendetta, CoM, and soon, the Matrix Trilogy.

Just finished watching on 360 addon and the PQ qas very good, overall dark film, but very good PQ.

AQ was very good also, even with the known 360 addon problems.

Overall great HDDVD, I can't believe this movie had such a short stint at the box office.... while movies like wild hogs do great............

How are the eatra features, worth buying it for those?

Its all about personnel preference.

What do employees have to do with it?

I enjoyed this film, its a sobering, Saving Private Ryan like experience I think.

28 Days Later was complete and utter garbage though, please don't associate this film with that hive of trash

I enjoyed this film, its a sobering, Saving Private Ryan like experience I think.

28 Days Later was complete and utter garbage though, please don't associate this film with that hive of trash

Actually, "28 Days" and "28 Days Later" are two different films. I myself like "28 Days."

I thought it was a great movie. Got the last copy BB had last night. I have been looking forward to this movie for a while and it did not disappoint. The car scene in the woods was fantastic.

Just my opinion, I saw 300 the day before and was blown away by that film.
Its all about personnel preference.

I'll have to give Children of Men a try. I hated 300 - I am really starting to detest GCI especially when there is no acting and no story (IMO).

Cheers,

Grant

Great movie.. the cinematography was great... I allready knew all of that though.

Im pretty pleased with the HDDVD as well. The sound is decent.. but Ive got a 360 so Im never going to get the best sound quality.. the PQ is very good. its not very 3d, but its exactly what I remember seeing in the theater. Gritty, dark and muted hues.

The interactive features are GREAT. The PIP we allready knew about.. the interviews are great in there (though some of the stuff overlaps the special features.. i.e. the same clips). I enjoyed that they had stuff not only from the filmmakers and actors but from critics/sociologists.

The ability to watch the commercials from the future (the gap for dog adds is hilarious) and to read the newspaper headlines (and some of the full stories) is great.

I watched this on Sky HD last Saturday and for me it was a major disapointment, I had high expectations after reading this forum but the film was not my cup of tea.



I agree with your comments. I too was expecting a better movie. I think for me the hype was built up and it didn't live up to it. I was hoping for more. I would rate it 6-7 out of 10.

PQ and SQ in HD were 9 out of 10. I have the XA2

I enjoyed this film, its a sobering, Saving Private Ryan like experience I think.

28 Days Later was complete and utter garbage though, please don't associate this film with that hive of trash



I agree, I didn't care for 28 Days Later myself. I prefer "True Zombie Movies" by the master himself: George Romero.

Though I did like Shaun of the Dead. Quite amusing.

Wow,so movies like "28 days later" and "Children of men" are ...crap??The only thing that is crap is your taste.

LOL!!! Amen to that!

I only had enough time to view the first 20 mins or so, but I was very impressed with the PQ thus far. It has a very smooth, filmlike quality with much less grain than I had expected. It's looking better than I remembered in theatres. ...This is one movie I am very, very happy isn't bare bones. HD-DVD delivers awesome features on all the films that really matter...

I saw this film twice in theaters and I would swear that it had a grittier, washed out look that added to the rather depressing atmosphere of the film. The HD DVD features little film grain and definitely sports that HD DVD "pop." I'm not sure what the director's intent was but I remember wanting to take a shower after watching this film the first time. The cleaner image may have been produced to appease the home viewer.

I disagreed with someone in another thread who doubted Blu-ray's ability to deliver that same "wow" factor. After a quick check of a few titles, I now want to apologize. I had been viewing a number of Blu-ray titles on my PS3 lately and though I am generally quite happy with my purchases, I believe that there is definitely a difference between the two formats in terms of PQ. Most of the HD DVD titles seem to have much greater depth than the Blu-ray titles I have been watching. I sure wish all the studios were neutral so that the two formats could duke it out fairly.

Once again, it is good to be neutral.

Just reserving this spot for my thoughts later tonight. My disc just arrived!

It felt like the film was a made for TV number :(
This film has been universally acclaimed for it's fantastic filmography.

I can't subscribe to your thoughts at all...

EDIT: On the suspicion that you potentially were knocking it from a BD perspective, I checked checked a few of your other posts. I think I understand where you are coming from now. ;)

Liked the first Matrix.....all the others films went down hill there after...a no buy for me :o

I get the feeling Sony could have shifted 900,000 PS3,s at launch and it would still hve been deemed a disaster by some on this forum :rolleyes:

I agree , Jaws and Gladiator get a release....I buy a hd-dvd player!

Exactly what relevance does the Wii have in the High Def Forum???
Can it play High Def movies??? No! So why the **** is it brought up in every thread where the PS3 is concerned.

Be interesting to see what the journos hear later on from BDA, after hearing mostly drivel from hd-dvd side?

I bought 5 copys of casino royale, to make sure I can see the film sometime this year instead of waiting for Sony to ship the freebie, that way I get to see CR as soon as the ps3s turn up :)

i loved the movie and cant wait to pick it up later. I gotta give 28 days later some love, I thought it was a excellent flick

I would have liked the movie much more if it left out the political jabs.

I was absolutely blown away by the two scenes in the film that were apparently done in one long take. (The car and the slums.) They were both unbelievably well-executed.
Holy crap those were done in one take?! Thats amazing, best scenes in the movie to!

crap, not a happy ending feel fuzzy and warm all over movie?

damn, guess i just have to send it back unopened :rolleyes:

shoot, I really liked 28 days later...

I liked the movie. The scene near the end in the building where the camera is so close to where the explosions are happening....wow. Very good stuff indeed.

You guys are killing me. The movie studios love people like you because you like everything even the bad movies. COM and 28 Days Later both suck and I am watching COM right now. Both plots are crazy and you can do so much better with both of these movies. Good movies try Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter. Not these two.

You guys are killing me. The movie studios love people like you because you like everything even the bad movies. COM and 28 Days Later both suck and I am watching COM right now. Both plots are crazy and you can do so much better with both of these movies. Good movies try Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter. Not these two.


If CoM sucks so bad why even watch then? I'll take this film over clusters like Harry Potter. And all 157 of its sequels.

You guys are killing me. The movie studios love people like you because you like everything even the bad movies. COM and 28 Days Later both suck and I am watching COM right now. Both plots are crazy and you can do so much better with both of these movies. Good movies try Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter. Not these two.


Maybe if Frodo made a cameo in Children of Men you would have liked it better? :D

I feel asleep during Harry Potter.... :p

Although I'll have to buy it on hd dvd because my wife liked it. :rolleyes:

That guy is just causing trouble. CoM kicks the crap out of Star Wars. CoM and 300 to me are the best movies I saw in a very long time.

I loved the trailer. I was really expecting this movie. But I watched it last night and it just didn't click for me. And I'm taking about the movie, the story. I'm an Alfonso Cuaron fan, I like his art, some of it is shown here. I like Clive Owen, I like his acting in most of his movies. But Children of Men was a disappointment for me. Maybe I had higher expectations, I don't know. I was expecting something bigger.

I only have a question about the subtiles, in the HD DVD side is available spanish or only in the SD side??

Thx

That guy is just causing trouble. CoM kicks the crap out of Star Wars. CoM and 300 to me are the best movies I saw in a very long time.


Easy big boy. Gettin' a little carried away with the Star Wars remark. The original Star Wars are timeless classics. Children of Men is a good average film that will be forgotten in a few weeks.

I loved the trailer. I was really expecting this movie. But I watched it last night and it just didn't click for me. And I'm taking about the movie, the story. I'm an Alfonso Cuaron fan, I like his art, some of it is shown here. I like Clive Owen, I like his acting in most of his movies. But Children of Men was a disappointment for me. Maybe I had higher expectations, I don't know. I was expecting something bigger.


Same here, Average Movie, Not epic or great.

I was expecting something bigger.Maybe 2.40:1 rather than 1.85:1? ;)
Good movies try Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter.Wow thanks for the insider tip :rolleyes:
I must be getting old cause some of these posts seem like 6th grade.
To each his own, but comparing COM to Stars Wars, Harry Potter or LOTR really misses the mark by a mile don't you think?
I've watched COM 3 times in the last month(nonHD) and like it better each time.
I picked up the HD yesterday and will watch tonight :D
For me it is really a fine piece of filmmaking. Immpeccibly cast and acted as well.
I for one, won't be forgetting about it anytime soon, a bona fide keeper.
Now if we could only get Blood Diamond :mad:

A movie like Children of Men with a very disturbing and kind of depressing feel of an movie....and one that comes with extremely high critical praise & word of mouth is bound to disappoint some.

Even for me, my first theatrical viewing, I came away a bit let down. Not much...but a little. Most of that was due to different expectations I had thinking I knew what to expect.

The second time was OUTSTANDING. And to me the best film of 2006.

Very few films can meet the expectations like this when time has even made them to be the next best thing.

Give it a chance...My copy will arrive 2moro.

I'm viewing COM on a 360, hooked up via VGA to a 720P monitor, and the film isn't filling the entire screen space. There are tiny 2/3 inch black bars on the top and bottom. Does anyone else experience this?

I'm viewing COM on a 360, hooked up via VGA to a 720P monitor, and the film isn't filling the entire screen space. There are tiny 2/3 inch black bars on the top and bottom. Does anyone else experience this?
Thats completely normal and how it should be. your actually getting the entire picture. With VGA there is no overscan. and seeing as how films like COM are shot at a 1.85 ratio and TVs are 1.78. COM's picture will be just a little bit wider than your TVs ratio.

So, dont worry. Its a good thing.

I liked this movie. First and foremost, like veryone has already said, the cinematography is stunning. The story was very good too, but I honestly can't recommend it to everyone.

Rent it, borrow it, or watch the SD-DVD first, then decide if it's worth the HD-DVD buy.

It's staying in my collection, though.

You guys are killing me. The movie studios love people like you because you like everything even the bad movies. COM and 28 Days Later both suck and I am watching COM right now. Both plots are crazy and you can do so much better with both of these movies. Good movies try Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter. Not these two.
You do know its based on a book right.

I thought CoM was great and the premise was good but two things set me off. First if I knew Julian Moore was in it I wouldn't have purchased it. It just seems like every movie she is in outside boogey nights has some Greenpeace crap thrown in like it was part of her agreement to do the films. True this was one movie where some of that belonged. But half that board with all the articles was filled with Bush and Iraq articles. It just pulled me up because A.) I am probably the only person who thinks that we should have gone and stills thinks we should stay. B) In this story line it happened 20 years ago but all of the articles looked fresh and you would think that the last 20 years would be ten times more important then us having some troops in a hostile area where they get hit by car bombs that times have shown would go off anyways.C.) it didn't seem to really apply to the plot that much.

With the Hatred I have for her and the bashing us over the head in the beginning basically saying that we are f'ing up right now, while none of it plays any part to what is happening now, just really took me out of the movie. How many people would celebrate her death scene in the movie. I did. But it wasn't supposed ot be a death to celebrate. I even rewound it to see it again. It really took me almost another hour really get back into the story and to care about the characters and 10 minutes later it was over.

I will keep my HD-DVD but its not one I would rewatch sometime soon, where another character based movie, Babel will be re-watched on a regular basis.

I only have a question about the subtiles, in the HD DVD side is available spanish or only in the SD side??

Thx

Anyone can help me???

wake me up when it's over.

First, Topweasel, you might want to edit your post with spoiler warnings.

Second, there are only French and English subs on the HD DVD side.

Third, this movie is a truly great film that gets better upon repeat viewings. I think this is one that will be remembered for a long time to come.

There is so much to take in upon first viewing that it's almost too much to digest. The cinematography is excellent. Not only are the documentary-like long shots truly engaging, but the mise en scène tells layer upon layer of story not explicitly told in the narrative. And while the setting is necessarily bleak and depressing, the movie is undoubtedly hopeful. And I have to say that the special effects are superb. And by that, I mean that I never even knew that some effects were cgi until this HD DVD; they were integrated so well.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. Beautiful in more ways than one.

I think the HD DVD itself is pretty good too. The transfer is excellent PQ and AQ wise. There are some cool extras, not fluff, except they're in 480. Although the U-Control stuff is really cool. My only complaint is that there are long passages with no U-Control features near the end. Also, when you access U-Control features or scene selections, the main video gets resized slightly to make room for the other stuff. I've never noticed that with other U-control movies. I think it may be new.

Anyways, thumbs up from me.

First, Topweasel, you might want to edit your post with spoiler warnings.

Second, there are only French and English subs on the HD DVD side.

Third, this movie is a truly great film that gets better upon repeat viewings. I think this is one that will be remembered for a long time to come.

There is so much to take in upon first viewing that it's almost too much to digest. The cinematography is excellent. Not only are the documentary-like long shots truly engaging, but the mise en scène tells layer upon layer of story not explicitly told in the narrative. And while the setting is necessarily bleak and depressing, the movie is undoubtedly hopeful. And I have to say that the special effects are superb. And by that, I mean that I never even knew that some effects were cgi until this HD DVD; they were integrated so well.

I cannot recommend this movie highly enough. Beautiful in more ways than one.

I think the HD DVD itself is pretty good too. The transfer is excellent PQ and AQ wise. There are some cool extras, not fluff, except they're in 480. Although the U-Control stuff is really cool. My only complaint is that there are long passages with no U-Control features near the end. Also, when you access U-Control features or scene selections, the main video gets resized slightly to make room for the other stuff. I've never noticed that with other U-control movies. I think it may be new.

Anyways, thumbs up from me.

Actually I beat you to it. I was fired up on my hatred of Juliane Moore. I am sorry for all who read it that have not seen the movie yet. I am usually good about avoiding spoilers on recent movies.

I think it would have been a great movie, one I would have loved, if they hadn't chosen her and had stuck to maybe one or two articles referring to the Iraq thing. I hate unrelated politics being forced down our throats no matter what wing it came from. But those two things really ate at me for awhile and made it hard for me to focus on the movie. I probably tried to pay more attention for those signs then I normally would.

Another movie that did the same thing to this extent was Assassins and it belonged there even less. It came clear (obnoxiously) when she painted the fur coat then after that I noticed PETA related signs almost every corner they took.

That guy is just causing trouble. CoM kicks the crap out of Star Wars. CoM and 300 to me are the best movies I saw in a very long time.

Dont mess with Star Wars. COM IS awsome for what it is. :cool:

Anyone can help me???
U.S. Release
HD DVD Side English and French Subtitles.
DVD Side English,French, and Spanish Subtitles.

U.K. HD DVD Release English SDH, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese subtitles.

You guys are killing me. The movie studios love people like you because you like everything even the bad movies. COM and 28 Days Later both suck and I am watching COM right now. Both plots are crazy and you can do so much better with both of these movies. Good movies try Star Wars, LOTR, Harry Potter. Not these two.


Everything you've stated here is "in your own opinion" and obviously that differs from 95% of the other posters here.Too bad you didn't rent the movie or wait for a review because you probably just spent between $25-$35 on a flick you can't stand.

delete double post

Holy crap those were done in one take?! Thats amazing, best scenes in the movie to!

Yes, there are quite a number of scenes that were done in one take. To me, the car scene is one of the most breath-taking and most memorable movie sequences of all time. You're really there when the sh!t goes down.

The war scene at the end was also a single take. Considering how it's like 9 minutes long and there's bullets and explosions everywhere, this is simply an unbelievable feat.

They had to shoot it multiple times of course, and something always went wrong. In the end, they only had one try left, and this time everything worked. Everything but some blood hitting the camera lens and staying there for the rest of the sequence.

So they ended up removing the blood digitally because it would have gotten too distracting after a while. I don't envy the poor guy who had to go through this sequence frame by frame and remove the blood, but I applaud him and everybody else involved in filming this masterpiece.

Yeah I cannot stand Julianne Moore either. She just bugs me to no end. Luckily she isn't in the film that long.

I think she's a good actress.
I've seen her in very convincing roles in other films but I felt rather uncomfortable watching her in this film. She just didn't seem right for this character in my opinion. I think someone less known for the role might have been less distracting considering its a rather short part.

I would have liked the movie much more if it left out the political jabs.

Uh, oh. Big red flag for me. I hate those when they're inserted into a movie where they really don't belong. For example, in Team America they belonged (obviously).

This is still playing at the discount movie theaters around here. I've been trying to get time to see it to make sure I'd want to buy it. I'm sure it is worth the $1.50 admission price at least ;).

A.) I am probably the only person who thinks that we should have gone and stills thinks we should stay.


Nope. You're not.

shoot, I really liked 28 days later...

Another red flag was this being compared to 28 Days Later which I hated. I thought 28 Days Later was terminally boring. I kept waiting for a movie to break out but it never did.

I guess I'm just full of controversial opinions. For example, I liked Matrix Reloaded and Matrix Revolutions and don't think the series is complete without ALL three.

Oh, and CoM can't be better than Star Wars-- jeez.

Second, there are only French and English subs on the HD DVD side.


U.S. Release
HD DVD Side English and French Subtitles.
DVD Side English,French, and Spanish Subtitles.

U.K. HD DVD Release English SDH, French, Italian, German, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese subtitles.


Thanks for the answers, if someone know where can i find the U.K. version pleas let me know :( .

Thanks for the answers, if someone know where can i find the U.K. version pleas let me know :( .
You can purchase the UK version at Amazon UK (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Children-Men-DVD-Clive-Owen/dp/B000O78ES4/). And according to DVD Times (http://www.dvdtimes.co.uk/content.php?contentid=64433) it will include both a Spanish track and subs. But it doesn't come out til May 7.

mine just came in the mail today and i was all set to sit down and enjoy it but my 360 add on won't read the hd side. i'm guessing its just my disc and not the player since a few of you have mentioned the add on and not said anything bad about it in this thread.

i guess i'll be heading to wal-mart to pick up another one since i'm too impatient to wait for amazon to ship one back.

Edit: so, i just got back with another copy and it still gives me the cant read disk error. every other movie i have works fine. i noticed it came with a little card that said you may have to updated the firmware on your player, but i couldn't find any way to do that.

anyone have a suggestion for me since i've been patiently waiting for months to see this movie and now i have not one but two copies sitting in front of me that aren't working.

any help from you tech experts?

That guy is just causing trouble. CoM kicks the crap out of Star Wars. CoM and 300 to me are the best movies I saw in a very long time.

Ok, i usually stay out of these, after all everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but better than star wars? the original trilogy? give me a break. or to quote

"I find your lack of taste disturbing."

Don't mess with star wars, unless you want to pick on the new ones, there is plenty of fodder there. :o

Jeez, they're all movies guys. Let it go. Not a big Star Wars fan myself but I can see why people like the movies. It's all about enjoying what you like. Everyone has an opinion so just leave it at that.

To the people seeking help with the Children of Men HDDVD, I'm in the same boat. I have an HD-A1 and the movie is completely unstable on that machine. I only watched the first 20 minutes but counted about 5-6 freezes/stutters that couldn't be resolved unless I rewound a few seconds, pauses for about 5, then resumed. It became annoying.

Hopefully it's a bad author or something becuase this is unnacceptable for a disc that costs way too much.

-Brad

i really wana get this on a blind buy, but the 28 days later comparisons are scaring me. i absolutely hated that movie

i really wana get this on a blind buy, but the 28 days later comparisons are scaring me. i absolutely hated that movie

I didn't know 28 days later was out.

I didn't know 28 days later was out.

Oh, believe me, the DVD is out. I have a copy of that festering turd sitting on my DVD shelf right now.

The only saving grace being that it was only $4.00 new at BB (bundled with another movie for $4.00 more that is).

i really wana get this on a blind buy, but the 28 days later comparisons are scaring me. i absolutely hated that movie

Both take place in England and both have somewhat bleak overall look, otherwise I see no similarity whatsoever between COM and 28 days later. I have watched it twice now and honestly don't see any reference to the current Iraq situation.

The Brit govt. as depicted in the film, has adopted a stringent anti-muslim stance. Apparently when the infertility problem arose the govt. decided to make them a scapegoat in their propaganda, then later expanded their hatred toward all immigrants regardless of race or creed. There is reference to mosques being closed by govt. decree, for example, but I saw it as in response to the infertility crisis and not having anything to do with Iraq. Repressive governments from time immemorial have used propaganda spin to justify repression. Labelling some scapegoat group as "terrorists" is nothing new and predated the Iraq conflict by many years.

The burning of the Riechstag was used as an excuse by the Nazis to crush their political opposition--a "terrorist act" that justified the gestapo. In the movie the govt. is depicted as flailing around looking for a scapegoat to blame for the infertility crisis in hopes of distracting the masses from the problem.

So we see screens everywhere spewing this govt. spin just as we did in 1984 and more recently V for Vendetta.

Oh, believe me, the DVD is out. I have a copy of that festering turd sitting on my DVD shelf right now.

The only saving grace being that it was only $4.00 new at BB (bundled with another movie for $4.00 more that is).

Oh woops. I was thinking of 28 weeks later.

Ok, i usually stay out of these, after all everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but better than star wars? the original trilogy? give me a break. or to quote

"I find your lack of taste disturbing."

Don't mess with star wars, unless you want to pick on the new ones, there is plenty of fodder there. :o

I didn't like starwars, i think its overrated, give me back to the future or the alien trilogy anyday.

Criminey, CoM was NOT good. On any level. I just wasted $27 bucks and 1.5 hours of my life... I was sure I was going to like it, I like Clive Owen and Michael Caine, but damn, that was weak... your mileage may vary...

MEC2

... your mileage may vary...

Indeed it may...this was a terrific flick with amazing cinematography...I was also very impressed with the DD+ soundtrack...this one will see multiple viewings in my setup and I'm looking forward to the IME when I have more time to devote to it.

Both take place in England and both have somewhat bleak overall look, otherwise I see no similarity whatsoever between COM and 28 days later. I have watched it twice now and honestly don't see any reference to the current Iraq situation.

The Brit govt. as depicted in the film, has adopted a stringent anti-muslim stance. Apparently when the infertility problem arose the govt. decided to make them a scapegoat in their propaganda, then later expanded their hatred toward all immigrants regardless of race or creed. There is reference to mosques being closed by govt. decree, for example, but I saw it as in response to the infertility crisis and not having anything to do with Iraq. Repressive governments from time immemorial have used propaganda spin to justify repression. Labelling some scapegoat group as "terrorists" is nothing new and predated the Iraq conflict by many years.

The burning of the Riechstag was used as an excuse by the Nazis to crush their political opposition--a "terrorist act" that justified the gestapo. In the movie the govt. is depicted as flailing around looking for a scapegoat to blame for the infertility crisis in hopes of distracting the masses from the problem.

So we see screens everywhere spewing this govt. spin just as we did in 1984 and more recently V for Vendetta.

There is a lot of references if you watch for them specially early. Their was also some in the Deleted scenes. The one scene that bothered me the most was when they were at Jaspers place, they had like a wall of news articles. They focused on the Iraq ones for awhile, and they took up half the wall even though you would think the world falling apart and the lack of children be more important and the Iraq thing would be nearly 20 years old. There is also also the disdain and comments made when referencing America.

Its the fact that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story outside using the story of the movie as a basis for comparison. It isn't even the messages that bother me but the fact that it didn't seem to belong there. I probably wouldn't have noticed them if I hadn't been so surprised that Julianne Moore was in it. I didn't pay attention to the box till after her first scene. I find her responsible for trying to ruin two of my favorite movies. JPII and Assassins where the same things happened in them.

I was going to blind buy this, but I'm glad I didn't. This is definitely a one watch only type of movie. Very forgettable.

Criminey, CoM was NOT good. On any level. I just wasted $27 bucks and 1.5 hours of my life... I was sure I was going to like it, I like Clive Owen and Michael Caine, but damn, that was weak... your mileage may vary...

MEC2

I shut it off after twenty minutes. It appears it doesn't get any better after that. So I only wasted twenty minutes of my life on this.

Easy big boy. Gettin' a little carried away with the Star Wars remark. The original Star Wars are timeless classics.

Yes anyone saying any negative comments about Star Wars here will be beaten by an angry mob.

Well, I really liked CoM, it sorta reminded me of The Omega Man, which is one of my favorite cult classics. I really liked how the world in CoM was very realistic, the violence wasn't glorified, and Clive Owen was just as frightened as other characters when things went down. I also like how a pretty major star in a minor role was killed early and was surprised when Peter Mullan (an incredibly fine actor) showed up.

After watching CoM, I realized I shouldn't have bought the languid Happy Feet.

I received the HD-DVD from Amazon yesterday and was dismayed that it would not play in my HD-A2. Kept coming up as not DVD or not able to read. This morning I tried it again and it started to play once, then I stopped and reloaded it and it would not play.
I watched it in my OPPO last nite. Great movie, found the urban fighting especially frightening. We need more films like this to show us the real future that is coming, not the Dubai, glossy, "Thousand points of light" scenarios. Watch out, it's coming here. Those of you that don't think so, hole up in your gated communities. Hopefully the "police" will keep the riff-raff out.

I received the HD-DVD from Amazon yesterday and was dismayed that it would not play in my HD-A2. Kept coming up as not DVD or not able to read. This morning I tried it again and it started to play once, then I stopped and reloaded it and it would not play.
Have you updated your A2's firmware? It's up to ver 1.3 now: http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=799337

Yes anyone saying any negative comments about Star Wars here will be beaten by an angry mob.


And your point is?

Yes anyone saying any negative comments about Star Wars here will be beaten by an angry mob.


yes..the first trilogy are timeless classics, but the last 3 are star turds. And that is the truth!

And your point is?


That there are alot of hardcore Star Wars fans on this forum (i'm not one). All you have to do is look at some of the 'pictures of you set up' threads.

I shut it off after twenty minutes. It appears it doesn't get any better after that. So I only wasted twenty minutes of my life on this.


it does get better, I didnt care for the first 10-15 minutes but it gets excellent after that. I ended up loving the movie and gets better every time

Best film I've seen in the last 5 years (Donnie Darko was the last one)

I liked this movie a lot, it was very thought provoking.


Any attempt at a comparison with Star Wars is just plain silly.

I liked this movie a lot, it was very thought provoking.


Any attempt at a comparison with Star Wars is just plain silly.are you saying that SW isn't thought provoking? cause I will :p

Finally saw this at the second run theater. I only lost $1.50.

I didn't really notice any overt political references crammed down your throat, but the comparisons to 28 Days Later are somewhat accurate, IMO.

What I mean is, at the end of the movie I felt like essentially nothing had happened. Pretty boring affair overall. The whole time I was watching 28 Days Later I kept thinking a movie was going to break out any minute, but it never did. While I didn't hate it as much as 28 Days Later, I didn't care for it very much. Definitely a one time watch for me.

Obviously a lot of people did like this and I'm not trying to knock those opinions in any way.

it does get better, I didnt care for the first 10-15 minutes but it gets excellent after that. I ended up loving the movie and gets better every time

Well, maybe I'll give it another try tonight.

What I mean is, at the end of the movie I felt like essentially nothing had happened. Pretty boring affair overall.

What the hell drugs are you people on? :confused:

What the hell drugs are you people on? :confused:
No kidding! :confused:

****ing amazing movie. Just absolutely amazing. There's not one criticism I could make, stellar all the way through. I just finished watching it, and I'm left kind of speechless to be honest. But I'll definitely get repeat viewings out of this movie, though I don't think I'll be able to watch it again for several weeks. I found it to be very powerful. And of course it doesn't hurt that it is an excellent looking disk.

COM is not playing on my xbox 360. Just says can't read disc...Need help?

thanks

This has happened to a few people, I don't have the movie yet. But when my 360 HD DVD player acted up I unplugged it from the wall and 360 then reconnected it and it worked.

What the hell were you guys watching? The plot was simplistic and stupid with many Grand Canyon size holes. Jumping the Pacific Ocean is a shorter distance than the logical leaps you have to do to enjoy this movie. The cinematography was excellent though.

Read the original novel by P.D. James when it first came out (long before the current Iraq conflict and war on terror) sometime in the early to mid 90s ISTR - as I love her writing (her mainstays are the Adam Dalgliesh murder mysteries based around a British police detective)

Haven't seen the movie theatrically, and was considering buying the HD-DVD to play on my 360, but will hang off that until the issues are resolved (if they are resolved)

The trailers look amazing - and for a Brit who lives and works in London - the cultural resonance of seeing places I know well modified for a "possible future" are probably more of a reason to watch than some of you guys in the US.

However I seem to remember reading that the film and the novel are quite different - so am wondering if the movie diverges too much from the original for me to enjoy. Having said that, I DID enjoy 28 Days Later - again for the "altered Britain" - particularly the empty London streets - so maybe I'll enjoy this too, if I consider it separately to the book...

You do know its based on a book right.

Though only slightly apparently...

Again I thought COM was excellent and am a bit confused over the Iraq references some are making in regards to the movie.
Please post at least a chapter where there was a reference to Iraq.
I've watched it several times and don't remember seeing any.
BTW you do know the movie is set in 2027, I think George will not longer be in office by then. ;)

SyHD what plot holes gave you trouble.

I watched this on Sky HD last Saturday and for me it was a major disapointment, I had high expectations after reading this forum but the film was not my cup of tea.
It felt like the film was a made for TV number :(

It had the same depressing feel about it like 28 days which I also had the misfortune of seeing, I can fully understand why it didnt make good money at the box office....its crap!!

I know its all good to have different opinions but i would not say a movie is crap just because you dont like it.
I happen to think 28 days later was one of the best movies i have seen in the past 10 years.
Awesome film.
As for Children Of Men im about to watch it but if its anything as good as 28 Days later then im in for a treat

I haven't had any issues playing this title (A1, FW2.0), I've watched it three times since I got it at the beginning of the week.

If you don't like "gloom-and-doom-think-about-it-trippy" kind of movies, don't waste your time. It isn't a feel-good, happy movie. It's dark and bleak.

And for that kind of movie, it's actually quite good. The 28 Days Later comparison is a decent one, but CoM is much more violent. Also, 28 Days Later was definitely more zombie-ish by design.

I don't want to spoil any of the cool U-Control content, but there was an interesting biblical comparison that the director made. I guess it could be a very loose interpretation, at best, but I still found it interesting.

Watch this when you want to think and be engaged. If you want happy and smiley, watch Happy Feet (if your copy doesn't cough at 28:49)

COM is $54.99 Canadian at futureshop before 14% taxes. Man, what a rip.

This movie kicks ass! I can't believe some of you didn't like it. Well I can believe it but I'm just suprised. This one had me from the opening scene.

PQ and AQ are both top Tier 1. Wish it was TrueHD though....

Just finished watching it on my xbox360. After it was over my wife turned to me and said "Don't tell me you liked that". I said "No". After waiting 4 days for Fry's to finally get it in the store...well...maybe I would have been better off if they never did.

Also, this is not the kind of movie I would put in tier0. It's just not 'eye candy'.

add me to the list of 360 addon owners who can't play this movie. at least it gives me an error, saying "can't read disk". happy feet won't even do that for me.

Please post at least a chapter where there was a reference to Iraq.

Let me preface by saying I don't get wrapped up in political stuff. Seems boring and monotonous to me. I did pick up a referense to Iraq though, but I wasn't looking for it and didn't think much of it. I think it's the 2nd or 3rd chapter when the camera is panning across Jasper's achievements, etc. One of the letters/editorials in the background says something with IRAQ in big words. I don't know what it says, but it's there.

Amazing movie, though. Really enjoyed it and those one-take scenes were amazing!

-Brad

What the hell were you guys watching? The plot was simplistic and stupid with many Grand Canyon size holes. Jumping the Pacific Ocean is a shorter distance than the logical leaps you have to do to enjoy this movie. The cinematography was excellent though.

That's why this film was so highly received, right?

91% rating on rottentomatoes, nominated for 3 Academy Awards, on 21 major reviewers' Top 10 lists, and chosen as #1 movie of 2006 by 5 publications including Washington Post and San Francisco Chronicle

This film was fantastic! I watched it last night, and the story was mesmerizing! The performances were excellent all around, especially Michael Caine.

PQ and audio were also top-notch. The cinematography was phenomenal, especially the dramatic contrast between the beautiful forest scenes & the harrowing war scenes. A fantastic, thought-provoking, bleak film worthy of all the praise it received.

And, for the record, why don't Blu-Ray trolls stay on their own forum rather than thread-crapping constantly when discussing a film or disc? If you have absolutely no taste in films, that's fine...keep it on your own forum where you can discuss the merits of Ghost Rider and Armegeddon. :rolleyes:

Bob Black - I totally agree. Film was terrific, easily one of the best of 2006. Easily.

And, for the record, why don't Blu-Ray trolls stay on their own forum rather than thread-crapping constantly when discussing a film or disc? If you have absolutely no taste in films, that's fine...keep it on your own forum where you can discuss the merits of Ghost Rider and Armegeddon. :rolleyes:

Whoa there, big fella! There are plenty of HD-DVD owners with no taste, don't blame all the CoM bashing on Blu-Ray owners. :)

Well, maybe I'll give it another try tonight.

I watched an additional 40 minutes last night. It did get somewhat better, but not enough to make me want to watch it to the end. Perhaps I'll force myself to watch the rest tonight. The forest scenes really are beautiful, though.

At the risk of being attacked, and called names by the children here, I watched COM last night, and thought it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

The picture quality was good, but I found the movie to be completely random, boring, and just down right annoying. I was really quite shocked at how bad it was.

I am really regretting having purchased this and would be willing to send it to anyone who wants it, as long as they are nice, and don't call me childish names, for expressing my opinion. :)

Whoa there, big fella! There are plenty of HD-DVD owners with no taste, don't blame all the CoM bashing on Blu-Ray owners. :)

Movie tastes are subjective, I'll give you that. But when a film is highly acclaimed & someone calls it trash, terrible, stupid, etc, these people should be open to understanding that, just maybe, it's their own personal tastes that belong under a microscope and not the scores of others who find the film excellent, worthwhile, important, thought-provoking, and such.

What the hell drugs are you people on? :confused:

I have to agree! I think awmurray, who clearly has not much taste in film, needs to lay off all the bashing of 28 Days Later. It was an excellent film by most accounts. Also please lay off the political comments they really have no merrit here either. We don't want this board turning into another rant and rave about Bush's war.

If you have absolutely no taste in films, that's fine...keep it on your own forum where you can discuss the merits of Ghost Rider and Armegeddon. :rolleyes:


I haven't seen Ghost Rider yet, but I do like both Children of Men AND Armegeddon. What does that say about my taste? :D

As far as content goes, this was the worse movie I have ever seen. While watching the movie I was thinking I would feel less depressed watching a documentary on cancer wards. I will say the photography looked good and the forest scenes looked great. I was wishing I was in the forest instead of wasting my time watching the movie. I believe this thread was titled "Impressions", so that is mine.

Just so no one else contacts me about it, I am sending my copy to flyersfan. :)

I think, the main problem I had with the movie, was that I did not care one bit for any of the characters. I had absolutely no interest in what happened to them, so the whole thing was kind of pointless for me. Towards the end, I just wanted an atomic bomb to go off, and end it all. :(

It now makes alot of sense why peeps that liked "28 days", liked this movie. It's the same Euro depressing, whats the point, humanity is in the toilet, movie.

For one, anyone who buys this movie to watch over and over needs to check themselves into drug rehab or an anti depression program. If your a teen or just a little older, don't worry you will get through, it's only a phase. If your an adult, all I can say is "whoa".

For two, The movie was interesting for the first 15 minutes. Then it just went into surreal mode. Makes me wonder if peeps really wish this movie would happen for real. That's pretty sick in itself.

And finally, the lamest ending in show business. The story could've been told in an hour, easy. There IS a reason why you didn't hear about this movie when it was in theaters. The movie was made in a weekend or so it looks like.

Easily my favorite movie of 2006 behind Pan's labryinth. The PQ was quite good I thought. However I'm having playback issues. Stop error at chapter 14 so hoping a replacement fixes it :(

I tried to order this on Amazon today and it gives an estimate ship date of June 4th. Does this indicate some kind of replacement coming because of the playback issues? Or are there simply not enough pressings?

At the risk of being attacked, and called names by the children here, I watched COM last night, and thought it was one of the worst movies I have ever seen.

The picture quality was good, but I found the movie to be completely random, boring, and just down right annoying. I was really quite shocked at how bad it was.

I am really regretting having purchased this and would be willing to send it to anyone who wants it, as long as they are nice, and don't call me childish names, for expressing my opinion. :)

Well heck, if you're willing just to give it away, I'll be your new best friend!

:D

I tried to order this on Amazon today and it gives an estimate ship date of June 4th. Does this indicate some kind of replacement coming because of the playback issues? Or are there simply not enough pressings?
Those estimates are often very inaccurate. In my experience when they slap a late shipping date on an item, it's just because they don't have a correct date to go with, and so use a generic long term date.

And finally, the lamest ending in show business. The story could've been told in an hour, easy. There IS a reason why you didn't hear about this movie when it was in theaters. The movie was made in a weekend or so it looks like.

Is there another movie out there with a title that sounds kind of like "Children of Men" that people are confusing this with? "Children of Hen" or something?

There is literally nothing about this movie that fits the description you're giving it.

Well since we did see the same movie, everything I said does exactly describe it.
Now, I know I'm not from the planet "melange", so my disconnect from reality must be vast, but what didn't you like about my summation?

I'de hate to point out things that will destroy other peoples enjoyment of the film, but to post that this film is even an average film, is a stretch.

Look, there where what, 5 locations that were used to shoot the film? The forest, the car, the Larkhill prison, an old station, and hmmm let me see.... and an office.

The parts with julie ann moore, was probably 15 minutes of film. The rest was just a few actors and a handful of extras.

The editing was acclaimed to be good, well it had to be! They only had so much footage of the 6 main actors, and they had to get very creative to make it feel like a full motion picture.

Look, indy is all well and good. Edgy apocolyptic films have always had their audiences (goths, outcast teens, anyone with mono..) but this film was a bad day in hell, and didn't even have a proper ending. 3 acts, thats the rule. Even Tarantino knows this, but does that mean I can just hit stop on my Hd dvd player before the final scene and say it was cool movie? Negative.

IS it a morality tale? Is it a science fiction romp? is it a drama set in the future? A political drama? An escape from reality? It didn't know what it was trying to be, so what, am I suppose guess? Negative. Even traffic knew what it was, and what it wasn't, and was able to pull it off. Look I gave the film my interest and a chance for about 20 min, after that it was down hill. Some movies are like that, sometimes the 2nd act is better than the first, and sometimes the 3rd act is the best act, this one unloaded it all with julie ann's death. Shame. :D

Wow, what a depressing view of the future.

Wow, what a depressing view of the future.
What's really depressing is seeing how many people's tastes have atrophied to the point that they can't even begin to perceive the greatness of this film.

And what exactly is depressing about a story in which, in a completely insane world:
A drunk and a member of the walking dead can find a cause worth dieing for. The journey the main character takes could not possibly be any more innately redeeming than it is, and what exactly is depressing about that?

I find the view of the future depressing (macro level). It looks like an awful time to be alive, which could be why they offered ways out to the populas.

It may be redeeming but he died and his parents died. Was it worth it? Who knows... it could be that all of it was for nothing and no one else ever had a child. Theo seemed to think it was before he died, so I guess it was to him.

To me the central theme of the movie was that human life, not just existence but the qualities that separate man from the rest of the life on this planet, can survive even the harshest of environments. And that that struggle can not only redeem an individual (Theo), but the entire species (as represented by the people in the hallway scene).

Personally I found it to be an extremely inspiring movie.

I took it a little differently. The hallway scene, to me, showed that even though they were fighting and on opposite sides, they really were not all that different and had a 'human' side.

I took it a little differently. The hallway scene, to me, showed that even though they were fighting and on opposite sides, they really were not all that different and had a 'human' side.
Exactly. It showed that redemption, for both the world and the people, was possible, because all it took for the perceived differences that were the cause of the figthing to be burned away was the appearance hope, represented by the child.

If anything the movie could be accused of being hopelessly optimistic. But depressing? No way.

I watched an additional 40 minutes last night. It did get somewhat better, but not enough to make me want to watch it to the end. Perhaps I'll force myself to watch the rest tonight. The forest scenes really are beautiful, though.

Forced myself to watch the rest, most of the time with the sound off. I will not be watching this one again.

Gotta back javdog on this one - while I don't take anything away from those who enjoyed the movie, this movie to me was an absolute mess. Perhaps on the heels of V for Vendetta, I have exhausted my Britain-as-the-lone-holdout-nation-but-fascist-police-state-illogical-fear-all-caused-by-Iraq budget...

Perhaps on the heels of V for Vendetta, I have exhausted my Britain-as-the-lone-holdout-nation-but-fascist-police-state-illogical-fear-all-caused-by-Iraq budget...

HaHa! Funny, I know exactly exactly what you mean. It can get a little nauseating. I did enjoy this movie though.

I have exhausted my Britain-as-the-lone-holdout-nation-but-fascist-police-state-illogical-fear-all-caused-by-Iraq budget... Seems to me that many are totally missing what this movie is about. Maybe Happy Feet would be more appropriate.

I have to say this is the best looking HD DVD i have seen yet.
The downside i hated the movie.
28 Days later is light years ahead of this movie.
I know tons of people that love COM but not me

I was disappointed with Children of Men. I expected more from the reviews I'd heard. It was very slow and somewhat anticlimactic. It's not that I didn't enjoy it as much as a lot of average serious movies, but I don't think I could offer more positive thoughts than that. I've got $35 worth of buyers remorse on this one.

I'd say the picture quality was fine for a stylized, muted color presentation.

Wow, just saw it last night. Great movie!
I had not had the privilege of hearing much about the direction or the technique, so it was quite a pleasure to have that first "WHOA...!" moment during a particularly long camera shot.

Then, in the car when they were attacked in the woods, all i could say was "no WAY! HOW did he do that?" Amazing!

I personally like speculative "Future reality" movies, either pessimistic or optimistic. Its a great mental exercise, re-winding from the unseen years prior to the movie's start back to "now" and contemplating the plausibility.

It what made Orwell's "1984" such a hit - it didn't seem that outlandish when written.

Another thing that I enjoyed was watching the individuals who rose above the Dystopian society that had developed in the wake of the "big problem" they had discovered. It's personally inspiring to me to see someone choose to live for something other than him/her self. This movie had several of those individuals, each beautifully acted.

And for the idio...the "individual" who complained about few actors and few locations... that's part of the art. Minimimalism is a tremendously difficult convention in which to work, whether its visual art or aural (music). It makes the small nuance SO important, the layers of meaning and subtext absolutely vital.

I can understand how many miss these layers, these subtexts. You have to work to see them, then you have to work to understand and appreciate them. Its like a fine wine - it takes years of practice to recognize a good one and know "why" its good, but the reward is huge.

BUt, I know...some people will always be "sutter home" type folks.

I was disappointed with Children of Men. I expected more from the reviews I'd heard. It was very slow and somewhat anticlimactic. It's not that I didn't enjoy it as much as a lot of average serious movies, but I don't think I could offer more positive thoughts than that. I've got buyers $35 worth of buyers remorse on this one.

I'd say the picture quality was fine for a stylized, muted color presentation.


My feelings exactly. I will put mine up for sale on ebay.

I was disappointed with Children of Men. I expected more from the reviews I'd heard. It was very slow and somewhat anticlimactic. It's not that I didn't enjoy it as much as a lot of average serious movies, but I don't think I could offer more positive thoughts than that. I've got buyers $35 worth of buyers remorse on this one.

I'd say the picture quality was fine for a stylized, muted color presentation.


:eek: :eek: :eek: :o

Just finished watching the movie in its entirety on HD DVD tonight, and it was FANTASTIC!!! :) :) :)

PQ and AQ were wonderful! You can tell how great PQ is when you can see each individual leaf on the road.

If you haven't seen or bought this movie...get off of your a$$es and go get it. :)

spoilers, folks!
Just read one on the last page about Juilanne's character with no warning or announcement that a spoiler was coming.

I love the mixed reviews! :D (mine was bad by the way)

Just try to be more creative with the people that disagree, calling people that didn't like the movie BD lovers, to go watch Happy Feet, etc. doesn't looks like a good way to have a conversation.

And I still can't believe that people is comparing this with 28 Days Later (Boyle). 28 Days Later is zombie movie!!!

And I still can't believe that people is comparing this with 28 Days Later (Boyle). 28 Days Later is zombie movie!!!
28 Days Later is a "infected plague" movie. No undead in the film.

Watched Children of Men...Poor film, duller than dull.

I liked the book much better, but the movie was good. Worth a watch. I loved the long, continuous shots, amazing how they add to the tension of the scene! Not for the average, short-attention-span, spoon-fed movie-goer. I guess it is somewhat anticlimactic, if you're used to standard Hollywood climaxes.

I thought it was great.

Through out the movie you felt like you were actually there. The car scene and the 9 minute scene near the end stand out to me.

I watched the movie Saturday night and just read through this thread (Monday morning).

I was very surprised that I didn't like this movie very much. Listening to people talk about it you would think it was going to be the best movie ever. I even read a quote calling it the "Blade Runner of the 21st century" or something crazy like that. More surprising yet is that while I fully expected to read how "great" this movie is here, I found many people not liking for some of the same reasons I found it lacking. CoM certainly doesn't suck but I didn't like it as much as some. It's a little above average, but way too much time was spent rubbing my nose in the world's poop.

Look, there where what, 5 locations that were used to shoot the film? The forest, the car, the Larkhill prison, an old station, and hmmm let me see.... and an office.

The parts with julie ann moore, was probably 15 minutes of film. The rest was just a few actors and a handful of extras.

The editing was acclaimed to be good, well it had to be! They only had so much footage of the 6 main actors, and they had to get very creative to make it feel like a full motion picture.

So it's your contention that the production of the movie went something like this?

"Hey fellas, let's get together this weekend and put on a show in the old barn! Jimmy, you've got a bunch of tanks, right? Tommy, you have a full arsenal of heavy assault weapons? Sally, can you whip up several hundred military uniforms? Swell! Now let's get everyone together and completely destroy several city blocks. With a little bit of pluck and determination, we can get this thing going in no time flat. Golly gee willikers, this is gonna be a fun weekend!"

http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/images/reviews/116/1175444988_1.jpg

:rolleyes:

It's one thing to not like the movie. It's quite another to make up nonsensical complaints about it.

I guess the unwashed masses didn't get it either:


Production Budget: $76 million
Worldwide Gross: $68,997,726


Those stupid slack jawed yokels.

The masses may not have gotten it. But most of the people who saw it got it.
It's in the Top 150 on Imdb.

Opposed to that, this thread seems to contain an unusually large amount of people who not only not liked Children of Men, but who outright hated it.

So I really wonder how many of the people who come into this thread and tell us how much Children of Men sucked and how it was the worst movie they ever saw are just trying to knock down the movie because it's an HD DVD exclusive.

I liked the book much better, but the movie was good. Worth a watch. I loved the long, continuous shots, amazing how they add to the tension of the scene! Not for the average, short-attention-span, spoon-fed movie-goer. I guess it is somewhat anticlimactic, if you're used to standard Hollywood climaxes.

How is this possible, I read the book right before watching the movie and was outraged by the changes.

This movie shares 3 things with the book - Character Names, Location, Tagline.

They changed everything, and while I like the prison colony part (that wasn't in the book) it didn't make up for all the stuff they dropped, or changed for no apparent reason.

The book is much more timeless, it isn't tied to our current political situation.

This movie reminds me of Kevin Smith talking about the proposed Superman movie with the giant spider, that was later featured in Wild Wild West. It is like they wanted to do the Clive Owen running around in an urban warzone scene, and they added it to a film they had the option on.

One other complaint - Sound design should add to your immersion, if it pulls you out of the experience then it is bad sound design.

So I really wonder how many of the people who come into this thread and tell us how much Children of Men sucked and how it was the worst movie they ever saw are just trying to knock down the movie because it's an HD DVD exclusive.

I am a movie fan first, and happen to own a BD player.

I was really excited about the movie and read the book to enhance my experience and that turned out to be a horrible mistake.

I am a big fan of Clive Owen and Julianne Moore, and Curaon as well, this film was a complete departure from an excellent book.

What makes this worse is the fact that every review of it talks about it like its the second coming of christ, but if any of them had read the book then they would know what amazing things were dropped and what kind of stupid **** was added.

If you want you can go look at my comments on imdb about the movie, and you will find similar ones from others.

Just because someone doesn't like a movie doesn't mean they are attacking your purchasing decision, don't be so defensive and realize that this thread is about the movie, not a personal attack on you.

Just because someone doesn't like a movie doesn't mean they are attacking your purchasing decision, don't be so defensive and realize that this thread is about the movie, not a personal attack on you.

A personal attack on me? I certainly don't feel attacked, no worries.

I also have no problem with people who didn't like the movie, not even with people who hated it.
I merely wondered why there are so many people in this thread who think it absolutely sucked while average opinions on Imdb are considerably more positive.

Oh, and I'm not sure why you thought it would be a good idea to read the book first. Whenever someone reads a book and afterwards sees the movie they will hate the movie (except for me it seems).

I'm not sure why this is, but apparently everybody expects the movie to be exactly like the book and that any deviation is a bad thing. I see books and movies as separate entities, and even if the movie is completely different from the book I don't mind as long as it's good.

You base your entire opinion of Children of Men on the fact that it's different than the book.
(...) complete departure from an excellent book.
(...) if any of them had read the book (...)

Is it really so difficult to judge both separately?

How is this possible, I read the book right before watching the movie and was outraged by the changes.

How is what possible? To think the movie was ok after reading the book? Like I said, the book was better (in the ways you point out), but I don't get "outraged" by such things and I watched the movie for what it was.

Oh, and I'm not sure why you thought it would be a good idea to read the book first. Whenever someone reads a book and afterwards sees the movie they will hate the movie (except for me it seems).
Heh...yeah, I think you're right. It's just that the talk of the DVD reminded me that I already had the book on a shelf somewhere, so I went and found it.

I liked the movie, but I did think it was over hyped. Reviews seemed to compare it to Blade Runner. Well, it ain't no Blade Runner, but it was a good film. My biggest gripe, is that we were never told what was the cause of the inability to breed. Dogs, cats and chickens could, but not people?
Anywho, its a decent Saturday night movie.
J

Is it really so difficult to judge both separately?

The problem with this movie in particular is that if they had changed one or two more things then they could have made the movie without claiming it was based on the book.

It may have reminded people of the book due to the general theme, but that is all.

Stories are normally edited for time, but the reason you make a movie based on a book is to tell the story that is in the book.

For example - I have read all of the Harry Potter books before watching the films, and even though the movies don't follow the books, and they leave tons of stuff out, they are still enjoyable because they cover the main points and you end up with a similar but summarized experience.

The changes in CoM were not to improve the running time, they completely changed the story.

The main problems I have with CoM the movie v. CoM the book are below, don't read if you plan to read the book, or if you haven't seen the movie


1 - Imagine how much better it would have been, if Julianne Moore's character had been in the whole movie, and if she had been the mother of the child. That is what happened in the book.
2 - The main character is supposed to be a true anti-hero, not because he mopes and drinks a little, but because he accidentally killed his infant, and he never liked the child, and because he is a huge ******* who only cares about himself. The though of Michael Caine's character moving to the city to live in his huge apartment horrifies him. He wouldn't even take in his only friend at the end of the world.
3 - The main character goes through a huge transformation, he goes from self preservation to taking responsibility for the birth of the worlds first child in 20 years, and the leadership of the nation.
4 - Quietus - the quietus is supposed to be a voluntary suicide ritual, where old people ride out in barges that are then sunk. Turns out they are apparently less than voluntary, this is the reason that the main character decides to help the rebel group.
5 - What is an Omega? Why are there bands of crazed young people running around in the country side?
6 - Missing out on the dolls and animals that are true child replacements takes away a lot from the story in general. Seeing kittens getting christened, and having a woman have a complete breakdown over a broken doll.
7 - The main character is the cousin of the leader of the UK, which is why the rebel group approaches him.
8 - The reason it is possible for the man and woman to conceive is that there is something wrong with both of them, so they were excluded from the fertility testing.
9 - There is a prison colony, and it harbors criminals (any criminal). The immigrants are brought into work, then deported to their own country.

These thoughts are in no particular order and all over the place, they are also only a small part of things that were changed that hurt the story.

Anyway, there will always be people who don't like a given movie. But anyone who read this book is very likely to see it as a travesty.

I liked the movie, but I did think it was over hyped. Reviews seemed to compare it to Blade Runner. Well, it ain't no Blade Runner, but it was a good film. My biggest gripe, is that we were never told what was the cause of the inability to breed. Dogs, cats and chickens could, but not people?
Anywho, its a decent Saturday night movie.
J

I agree, the reviewers should just tell us that they like a movie and why. Not that it is the best movie of a generation, because how many films can actually live up to that?

The reason was never really given in the book, but the reason why the two people were able to breed and had not been discovered was given.

This was a blind buy for me and I enjoyed it and liked the style and dilapidated environment of the future.


Now, pull my finger.

My biggest gripe, is that we were never told what was the cause of the inability to breed. Dogs, cats and chickens could, but not people?


It's called ambiguity. The reason for the mass sterility is never given because it doesn't matter. What matters is how people react to it. Was it the environment, pollution, disease, genetic engineering, a natural consequence of evolution, or punishment from God? The characters can never know what caused the problem, so neither can the audience. These are questions you're supposed to ask yourself, not wait for the movie to tell you the answer.

The movie is an allegory, not science fiction.

The problem with this movie in particular is that if they had changed one or two more things then they could have made the movie without claiming it was based on the book.

It may have reminded people of the book due to the general theme, but that is all.

Stories are normally edited for time, but the reason you make a movie based on a book is to tell the story that is in the book.

For example - I have read all of the Harry Potter books before watching the films, and even though the movies don't follow the books, and they leave tons of stuff out, they are still enjoyable because they cover the main points and you end up with a similar but summarized experience.

The changes in CoM were not to improve the running time, they completely changed the story.

The main problems I have with CoM the movie v. CoM the book are below, don't read if you plan to read the book, or if you haven't seen the movie


1 - Imagine how much better it would have been, if Julianne Moore's character had been in the whole movie, and if she had been the mother of the child. That is what happened in the book.
2 - The main character is supposed to be a true anti-hero, not because he mopes and drinks a little, but because he accidentally killed his infant, and he never liked the child, and because he is a huge ******* who only cares about himself. The though of Michael Caine's character moving to the city to live in his huge apartment horrifies him. He wouldn't even take in his only friend at the end of the world.
3 - The main character goes through a huge transformation, he goes from self preservation to taking responsibility for the birth of the worlds first child in 20 years, and the leadership of the nation.
4 - Quietus - the quietus is supposed to be a voluntary suicide ritual, where old people ride out in barges that are then sunk. Turns out they are apparently less than voluntary, this is the reason that the main character decides to help the rebel group.
5 - What is an Omega? Why are there bands of crazed young people running around in the country side?
6 - Missing out on the dolls and animals that are true child replacements takes away a lot from the story in general. Seeing kittens getting christened, and having a woman have a complete breakdown over a broken doll.
7 - The main character is the cousin of the leader of the UK, which is why the rebel group approaches him.
8 - The reason it is possible for the man and woman to conceive is that there is something wrong with both of them, so they were excluded from the fertility testing.
9 - There is a prison colony, and it harbors criminals (any criminal). The immigrants are brought into work, then deported to their own country.

These thoughts are in no particular order and all over the place, they are also only a small part of things that were changed that hurt the story.

Anyway, there will always be people who don't like a given movie. But anyone who read this book is very likely to see it as a travesty.

I don't disagree with your points, not at all, but I think a movie needs to be judged on its own merits, rather than on its faithfulness to the book. It seems many changes were to make it more of an action-filled chase movie. Also, I don't think people want to think too much...I mean, they think this movie is "deep" as it is...

Anyway, since it's not possible to unread a book, I suppose it's inevitable to judge a movie in this way once having read it (as I did to an extent initially, especially the Quietus cop-out). How would you feel about the movie if it had been called something else? ;)

The problem with this movie in particular is that if they had changed one or two more things then they could have made the movie without claiming it was based on the book.
Then doesn't that make judging book and movie separately even easier? Your only gripe is that it's almost completely different from the book? I just don't get this.


1 - Imagine how much better it would have been, if Julianne Moore's character had been in the whole movie, and if she had been the mother of the child. That is what happened in the book.
See? That right there shows how much you are focused on the book.
I saw the movie, watched the incredible car scene and then BOOM. My mouth was open and I even though it's been half a year since I saw it I still remember it clearly.
To me, it's one of the most memorable movie scenes of all time. It was an incredibly disturbing moment.

And now you tell me that they should have done this differently, just because it wasn't in the book? I say screw the book as long as the movie works on its own.

It's called ambiguity. The reason for the mass sterility is never given because it doesn't matter. What matters is how people react to it. Was it the environment, pollution, disease, genetic engineering, a natural consequence of evolution, or punishment from God? The characters can never know what caused the problem, so neither can the audience. These are questions you're supposed to ask yourself, not wait for the movie to tell you the answer.

The movie is an allegory, not science fiction.
Yea I know, it still bothered me that humans couldn't, but other mammals could. Like I said, that was my only gripe.
J

The movie is an allegory, not science fiction.

Al Gore-y? I guess I can see that...

I aldreay said I loved the movie and finally picked up the HD-DVD and fantastic picture quality. Looks terrefic on my 92" screen.

Watched Children of Men...Poor film, duller than dull.
Sure. :rolleyes:

Only available in HD DVD though. :p

Al Gore-y? I guess I can see that...

lol

Both Day the Earth Stood Still and The Thing from Another World differed greatly from their written inspirations, Farewell to the Master and Who Goes There?. Day the Earth Stood Still was considerably better (even though the short story won the vote from other sci-fi writers of the time as the best short story), and, though The Thing was not, it was a great deal of fun.

Philip Kaufman's wonderful film The Wanderers was adapted from several short stories by Richard Price that were acknowledged to be a whole lot different from the film by the author; still, Price said he really liked the film.

Sometimes changes to the source material work out.

I don't disagree with your points, not at all, but I think a movie needs to be judged on its own merits, rather than on its faithfulness to the book. It seems many changes were to make it more of an action-filled chase movie. Also, I don't think people want to think too much...I mean, they think this movie is "deep" as it is...

Anyway, since it's not possible to unread a book, I suppose it's inevitable to judge a movie in this way once having read it (as I did to an extent initially, especially the Quietus cop-out). How would you feel about the movie if it had been called something else? ;)

If it had been called something else I would have enjoyed it more.

It was so different it was distracting, and made it very difficult to enjoy it for what it was, a generic action movie with an interesting plot.

Then doesn't that make judging book and movie separately even easier? Your only gripe is that it's almost completely different from the book? I just don't get this.



See? That right there shows how much you are focused on the book.
I saw the movie, watched the incredible car scene and then BOOM. My mouth was open and I even though it's been half a year since I saw it I still remember it clearly.
To me, it's one of the most memorable movie scenes of all time. It was an incredibly disturbing moment.

And now you tell me that they should have done this differently, just because it wasn't in the book? I say screw the book as long as the movie works on its own.

Disturbing moment?

How about running over your own baby in a car, being unable to get out, having people screaming at you. Then later knowing that your wife resents you because she knows that you didn't even really like the child.

Random violence is no where near as disturbing.

I believe she was killed off early because she was only on set for a few days. Using her to add credence to what is generally an unspectacular movie. Michael Caine as well, on set for a day or two, then off to the bank.

i liked the idea of the movie and the Picture Quality was good.

Both Day the Earth Stood Still and The Thing from Another World differed greatly from their written inspirations, Farewell to the Master and Who Goes There?. Day the Earth Stood Still was considerably better (even though the short story won the vote from other sci-fi writers of the time as the best short story), and, though The Thing was not, it was a great deal of fun.

Philip Kaufman's wonderful film The Wanderers was adapted from several short stories by Richard Price that were acknowledged to be a whole lot different from the film by the author; still, Price said he really liked the film.

Sometimes changes to the source material work out.

Absolutely agree, but in this case the changes were made to make the movie more appealing to the mass market, and it did not become a blockbuster.

They could have been more faithful to the book and still made $70 million or whatever, and they would have made a better movie that would have been timeless, more likely to acheive cult status on dvd (and HD DVD in this case).

I read the book and loved the movie.

I was blown away by the film. I loved everything about this film, best movie I've seen in awhile.

Disturbing moment?


Wow. Everything Jiffylush has posted about the book makes me want to read it. I hated the movie, though. Jiffylush's posts are more entertaining than the movie. I'll have to check out the book.

Disturbing moment?

How about running over your own baby in a car, being unable to get out, having people screaming at you. Then later knowing that your wife resents you because she knows that you didn't even really like the child.

Random violence is no where near as disturbing.

I believe she was killed off early because she was only on set for a few days. Using her to add credence to what is generally an unspectacular movie. Michael Caine as well, on set for a day or two, then off to the bank.

Questions for you inside.
Is that because they had tight scheduling and the director just had to throw them in to make the movie stand out like you imply (which they failed had I known Juliane Moore was in it I would never have watched it)? Or because the their parts in the scripts where smaller and therefore they were not needed for more then a couple days.

I am not saying that I liked the movie infact I didn't like the movie and haven't read the book. But I do think that people tend to compare the movies to their books way to many times. Some things that work in the books suck in the movies. In two hours could a movie theater full of people forgive a guy for running over the kid he didn't really love accident or not ?

I didn't really notice any overt political references crammed down your throat, but the comparisons to 28 Days Later are somewhat accurate, IMO.



Nether did I, but I don't go through life looking for every small bit of political references "that I disagree with" in every song, movie or TV show. Really enjoyed CoM, last night I just sat there for a few minutes after it was over saying to myself.............wow

I was blown away by the film. I loved everything about this film, best movie I've seen in awhile.
Me too. Loved every single second of the film. I'm still perplexed that Little Miss Sunshine and friggin' Babel both get Best Picture nominations instead of Children of Men. :confused:

Questions for you inside.
Is that because they had tight scheduling and the director just had to throw them in to make the movie stand out like you imply (which they failed had I known Juliane Moore was in it I would never have watched it)? Or because the their parts in the scripts where smaller and therefore they were not needed for more then a couple days.

I am not saying that I liked the movie infact I didn't like the movie and haven't read the book. But I do think that people tend to compare the movies to their books way to many times. Some things that work in the books suck in the movies. In two hours could a movie theater full of people forgive a guy for running over the kid he didn't really love accident or not ?

1 - I say they were only available for a few days due to cost or more important projects, but what the hell do I know ;)

2 - The point is that he is an anti-hero, he is someone that you aren't supposed to like. You should not be identifying with him because he only cares about himself. Then you watch him transform into the person who basically saves the world, or at least the UK.

I heard that there were two disturbing and upsetting scenes in the movie, and I was suprised when Julianne's character died, but I wasn't upset in the slightest, because I had only seen her for a total of like 4 minutes. Now, if the scene I described had been in the movie I would have been upset, like I was when I read the book, because it actually is disturbing and that single moment defines the character.


Side note: The book is light sci-fi written by an older english woman who normally writes mysteries. It is very enjoyable at least partly because of her approach. Given the subject matter, time period and setting it feels very 'orwellian'.

Also, don't protect the consumer from their emotions. How can a movie be uplifting if it never challenges or upsets? All movies don't have to be easy, and this one could have been very challenging.

I like movies that are merely entertaining, in fact I love them. But they don't all have to be that way. This story has very dark moments and ends on a high note, it would have been nice if the movie had reflected that better.

Basically if you haven't seen the movie, don't read the book first. The movie is obviously enjoyable on its own merits, if you want to read the book read it second.

Count me in as also surprised by the vocal minority here that hated this film. Also interesting in the comments of people who loved the cinematography but hated the film. Umm, the cinematography is part of the film, and was a wonder part of the film, the continuous shots, the handheld shots, the beautiful shots in the forest. The brutal shootings shown throughout were also quite shocking in their delivery, and the war scenes also had quite a impact considering how close the explosions appeared to be to the main actors.

My only complaint was that my player froze near the end and I had to finish the movie on the SD-DVD side. I rented it from Netflix, and I would definitely purchase this disc if I thought I wouldn't have any playback problems with it, but as it stands I'll hold off for now.

My HTF review is up here:
http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htf/showthread.php?t=254826

Count me in as also surprised by the vocal minority here that hated this film.I'm never surprised by poor taste and lack of insight. This truly was an amazing accomplishment. It was one of those films with a bunch of moments when I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I found myself sitting forward and barely moving for the length of the film. The level of tension reminded me of some scenes in The Godfather. The best movie of the year, for me. Criminal that it didn't get a Best Picture nomination. Felony that it didn't make any money.

An interesting sidelight is that my wife and I happened to be in London last year and went down to the East Side theater district. By chance that was the night of the premiere of Children of Men. Clive Owen and Michael Caine showed up in limousines and there were other celebrities there. A cool experience.

Incidentally, I tried playing Children of Men on my HD-A1, and after the studio logo, got a persistent blank screen. Sent it back to Netflix and the same thing happened with the replacement disk. Ended up playing the SD DVD side. Anyone else have this problem?

I'm never surprised by poor taste and lack of insight. This truly was an amazing accomplishment. It was one of those films with a bunch of moments when I couldn't believe what I was seeing. I found myself sitting forward and barely moving for the length of the film. The level of tension reminded me of some scenes in The Godfather. The best movie of the year, for me. Criminal that it didn't get a Best Picture nomination. Felony that it didn't make any money.

An interesting sidelight is that my wife and I happened to be in London last year and went down to the East Side theater district. By chance that was the night of the premiere of Children of Men. Clive Owen and Michael Caine showed up in limousines and there were other celebrities there. A cool experience.

Incidentally, I tried playing Children of Men on my HD-A1, and after the studio logo, got a persistent blank screen. Sent it back to Netflix and the same thing happened with the replacement disk. Ended up playing the SD DVD side. Anyone else have this problem?

An apparently blanket statement that anyone who dislikes this film has "poor taste" is not the best way to have a productive exchange of views.

I watched the movie for the first time last night. I think it is a terrific movie, but I like "Orwellian" type dystopian movies, anyways.

Some might not like the gloominess of it and perhaps some might perceive an anti-Bush message in there. But, I don't think the movie is left or right wing, necessarily.

I do think it was very well made and exciting. There were some scary scenes that had my wife grabbing me (never a bad thing!).

Really no "good guys" in the movie except Clive Owen's character, who I was really rooting for by the end.

The ending is ambiguous, but has hope withough being a truely "happy" ending.

just watched CoM last night. much better than 28 days later(which i hated), but the comparisons are definately warranted. both films follow a man's quest for survival in an apocalyptic england. the storyline in CoM is a million times better. 28 days later was a complete stinker.

i dont think this film is worthy of $30 unless you are a huge fan. to me, this isnt the type of movie that can be watched more than once or twice

just watched CoM last night. much better than 28 days later(which i hated), but the comparisons are definately warranted. both films follow a man's quest for survival in an apocalyptic england. the storyline in CoM is a million times better. 28 days later was a complete stinker.

i dont think this film is worthy of $30 unless you are a huge fan. to me, this isnt the type of movie that can be watched more than once or twiceMy sub says it is :D

CoM is a top tier PQ and looked very detailed, sharp and good contrast. Granted, it's a darker movie since it's about a bleak period and environment. As for MQ, I like the movie a lot. I loved the visual style and long takes. The scene filmed inside the car was unique and well done. I liked the work of the production/art department, etc.

I agree with an earlier poster outraged that Babel and Little Miss Sunshine got nominations over CoM. Both of these other films were over-rated. CoM was better than either (but not better than the Departed). And while on the subject, how did Alan Arkin win the Oscar over the other nominees? His performance was probably 4th best. :(

I did not read the book, but don't think that's an issue. There are a ton of movies that are great in their own right that don't stick to the book on which they're based. It's impossible to fit a novel into a two hour movie. I think that a movie can stand on it's own while still using the same title in a loose adaptation. It happens all the time.

Loved the movie from a cinematography stand point... kind of had a middle feel after they got to the refugee camp like saving private ryan. I dont know if anyonelse got the feeling or the want, but I kind of wanted Theo to pick up one of the many guns laying on the ground and atleast carry it for protection.

My biggest gripe, is that we were never told what was the cause of the inability to breed. Dogs, cats and chickens could, but not people?

There's a hint, if I remember correctly. The child of Clive and Julianna died during a ?flu pandemic of 2004 (approximately), which precipitated their breakup. Pandemic means that a large percentage of the population were infected. Maybe literally everyone got the virus and that was the cause of the sterility.

But as someone else said, explaining the cause was of little importance to the movie.

Another thing. Several people here have alluded to the "messages" of this film - apparently global warming, pollution, maybe political themes and so on. I doubt very much that the producer or director have any such agenda - they simply created a great story and a nightmare world of the future with no intention of having it represent a cautionary tale.

There's a hint, if I remember correctly. The child of Clive and Julianna died during a ?flu pandemic of 2004 (approximately), which precipitated their breakup. Pandemic means that a large percentage of the population were infected. Maybe literally everyone got the virus and that was the cause of the sterility.

But as someone else said, explaining the cause was of little importance to the movie.

Another thing. Several people here have alluded to the "messages" of this film - apparently global warming, pollution, maybe political themes and so on. I doubt very much that the producer or director have any such agenda - they simply created a great story and a nightmare world of the future with no intention of having it represent a cautionary tale.


movies like this usually have a hidden agenda. CoM is no different

Loved the movie from a cinematography stand point... kind of had a middle feel after they got to the refugee camp like saving private ryan. I dont know if anyonelse got the feeling or the want, but I kind of wanted Theo to pick up one of the many guns laying on the ground and atleast carry it for protection.
For protection? You see some connection between shooting at people and protecting yourself? Because it would seem to me that all that would do would be to cause people to start shooting at you.

Come on, if you're in a war zone, in the middle of two fighting armies, the safest thing to do is to seem harmless, and run your ass off. And if you're running around with a gun, nobody is going to think you're harmless. They're gonna think you're an enemy and blow your head off.

There's a hint, if I remember correctly. The child of Clive and Julianna died during a ?flu pandemic of 2004 (approximately), which precipitated their breakup. Pandemic means that a large percentage of the population were infected. Maybe literally everyone got the virus and that was the cause of the sterility.

But as someone else said, explaining the cause was of little importance to the movie.

Another thing. Several people here have alluded to the "messages" of this film - apparently global warming, pollution, maybe political themes and so on. I doubt very much that the producer or director have any such agenda - they simply created a great story and a nightmare world of the future with no intention of having it represent a cautionary tale.

I dont think the director was trying to allude to what Al Gore is referencing, I think that might be a popular sentiment because its fresh on our minds and playing 24/7 on HBO. I think COM was conveying a clear point about hope, and how children are the main cause of it, and at the same time an extension of it. I look at this flick as a window that the director has turned inward on our current society, and how he thinks our society today isnt putting children first as well as painting us a picture of why they are important. Just look at Clive Owens Character before he knew of the baby, he cared less for the youngest kid on earth's death while others adorred him because he was a symbol of hope, Theo was only in it for the money, as spoken by julian, and he was a drunk as well. After he witnessed a miracle of the girl being pregnant his drive for why he was doing it changed, this is all evident and is supported when Jasper spoke on what used to drive Theo before his baby caught the flu in his "chance" speech.

For protection? You see some connection between shooting at people and protecting yourself? Because it would seem to me that all that would do would be to cause people to start shooting at you.

Come on, if you're in a war zone, in the middle of two fighting armies, the safest thing to do is to seem harmless, and run your ass off. And if you're running around with a gun, nobody is going to think you're harmless. They're gonna think you're an enemy and blow your head off.


You have no argument, they were shooting @ unarmed people aswell; infact, they gunned down a bunch of unarmed people that fled the hospital with their hands up.

I dont think the director was trying to allude to what Al Gore is referencing, I think that might be a popular sentiment because its fresh on our minds and playing 24/7 on HBO. I think COM was conveying a clear point about hope, and how children are the main cause of it, and at the same time an extension of it. I look at this flick as a window that the director has turned inward on our current society, and how he thinks our society today isnt putting children first as well as painting us a picture of why they are important. Just look at Clive Owens Character before he knew of the baby, he cared less for the youngest kid on earth's death while others adorred him because he was a symbol of hope, Theo was only in it for the money, as spoken by julian, and he was a drunk as well. After he witnessed a miracle of the girl being pregnant his drive for why he was doing it changed, this is all evident and is supported when Jasper spoke on what used to drive Theo before his baby caught the flu in his "chance" speech.Well, the sterility was going to cause the end of humankind, which is a little bigger issue than whether children were being treated properly in 2007. They were "important" because without them, the species would go extinct. What you wrote is an example of trying to find a "moral" in an amazing narrative. The idea of mankind dying off is quite big enough for me without trying to sniff out some subtle message of what we're doing wrong. Since nobody knew what had caused the sterility, the movie doesn't even suggest what we should be doing differently.

Well, the sterility was going to cause the end of humankind, which is a little bigger issue than whether children were being treated properly in 2007. They were "important" because without them, the species would go extinct. What you wrote is an example of trying to find a "moral" in an amazing narrative. The idea of mankind dying off is quite big enough for me without trying to sniff out some subtle message of what we're doing wrong. Since nobody knew what had caused the sterility, the movie doesn't even suggest what we should be doing differently.

I think youre EXACTLY right, thats why people have had mixed feelings about the flick cause they are used to a happy ending and dotted lines pointing to what the director was trying to say.

movies like this usually have a hidden agenda. CoM is no different What does that mean?
It really kills me that people are seeing Bush, Iraq and even Al Gore in this movie. It says a hell of a lot more about the viewer than the movie.
I also have to disagree with the notion that Theo didn't get involved until: Dylan was born. C'mon, it all changed when he heard Luke say they were going to whack him and take the baby. duh.

Why can't a movie just be enjoyed(or not) for what it is without wild extrapolations based on personal\political bias.

Tonight we're going to re-watch CoM and then A Scanner Darkly.
Yikes! :D

i thought this was just a fantastic movie, and the three long(!) takes were simply astonishing. i'm glad scorsese finally got a best director oscar (he did, didn't he?), but cuaron was in a league of his own this year with CoM.

btw, am i the only one who noticed them recreating the cover of pink floyd's animals LP when they visited the rich(?) cousin? and with the king crimson on the soundtrack, was there some kind of prog rock undercurrent to all this?

You have no argument, they were shooting @ unarmed people aswell; infact, they gunned down a bunch of unarmed people that fled the hospital with their hands up.
Oh ya, and if all those people had had guns, they would have made it out just fine. LOL!

Though you're right about one of us having no argument.

recreating the cover of pink floyd's animals LP when they visited the rich(?) cousin? I don't want to spoil anything but the 2nd time I watched CoM, I picked up on the fact that Theo's cousin is curator of the "Art Ark".
Notice the statue of David, Picasso's Guernica, The Ark it seems is the powerplant from the cover of Animals pink pig and all.
One of the many nuances in this brilliant imo, film.

What does that mean?
It really kills me that people are seeing Bush, Iraq and even Al Gore in this movie. It says a hell of a lot more about the viewer than the movie.
I also have to disagree with the notion that Theo didn't get involved until: Dylan was born. C'mon, it all changed when he heard Luke say they were going to whack him and take the baby. duh.

Why can't a movie just be enjoyed(or not) for what it is without wild extrapolations based on personal\political bias.

Tonight we're going to re-watch CoM and then A Scanner Darkly.
Yikes! :D


nobody is imagining the bush/iraq references. did you not happen to notice all the newspaper clippings on the wall in the earlier part of the movie?? those weren't there by accident.

many movies have underlying political agendas. even the wizard of oz and godzilla were social commentaries.

nobody is imagining the bush/iraq references. did you not happen to notice all the newspaper clippings on the wall in the earlier part of the movie?? those weren't there by accident.

many movies have underlying political agendas. even the wizard of oz and godzilla were social commentaries.
But saying works of art in general or movies in particular have "agendas", as if the movie itself spends every free moment it has scheming in some smoky room in some dark basement, writing its manifesto and planning a coup d'état, makes it sound like you have a closet full of tin foil hats that you chose between depending on the delusion that's gripping you at the moment. :)

In seriousness, to me at least is seems like a silly was to personify an object and give it some kind of volitional power that it just doesn't have.

Movies, like all works of art have parallels with certain aspects of the culture in which they were created, and draw references from that culture, but that's necessary to ground them in a reality that is recognizable to the people that will see the film. Creating those references out of thin air tends to lend a movie an arbitrary quality, which is obviously not a good thing.

And if you've read anything or watched some of the behind the scene extras, the directors intent was to create a very realistic, gritty film that was immediately recognizable to the viewer, and not a "Blade Runner" type film set in some fantastical future world. That core inspiration informed the locations he decided to go with; the props, like cars; the long takes he worked so hard to create; the overall production design the film; and of course the references the film makes to our world, including the newspaper clippings.

And for me the film was not preachy in the least. Its understated quality was actually one of its strongest points in my opinion. So to get to the point (finally :) ), I don't think saying this movie has an agenda is a critique that can be made to stick.

Yeah, in the first scene at Jasper's house when the camera panned over his memorabilia there was a partially hidden anti Iraq war sticker.
And later when Jasper was recounting to Kee and Miriam how Theo and Julian met, he referred to their "wanting to change the world".
If you're going to seize on those glaring hidden agendas go ahead.
It's good to keep things in perspective and not blow them out of proportion in relation to 99.999999% of the rest of the story.
Perhaps, just perhaps it was done to illustrate in a subtle way where Theo came from, where he was now and to help the viewer in retrospect see that Theo wasn't just a burned-out civil servant but a man who when faced with the prospect of fanatics that would snuff him and anyone else who got in their way and use the first baby born in a generation as a tool for their own agenda, put his life on the line to do what he felt was right.

But as someone else said, explaining the cause was of little importance to the movie.

Another thing. Several people here have alluded to the "messages" of this film - apparently global warming, pollution, maybe political themes and so on. I doubt very much that the producer or director have any such agenda - they simply created a great story and a nightmare world of the future with no intention of having it represent a cautionary tale.

I agree, the movie tries to stay coy about the "why", but if you delve into the dvd extras (I don't know if these are available on the hdvd vers), the agenda and politics are definitely right in your face. Depending on your own worldviews, you will be left with either a "sing it to me, brother" or a "wtf?!"

Easily one of the most fascinating movies i've ever seen.

nobody is imagining the bush/iraq references. did you not happen to notice all the newspaper clippings on the wall in the earlier part of the movie?? those weren't there by accident.

many movies have underlying political agendas. even the wizard of oz and godzilla were social commentaries.
i don't really disagree with your conclusion (especially after watching the extra where all the philosopher/professor types give all their social commentary). however, i never felt that he was making any obviously directed social statements, other than the general tendency these days to spread fear to provide legitimacy. it all seemed like a believable extrapolation given the circumstances in the film, and our current world.

well, there was one thing. when he was in that room with all the newspapers on the windows, one headline talked about kazakhstan being obliterated. i'm pretty sure that was a reference to borat being released by a blu-ray studio :p

There is a lot of references if you watch for them specially early. Their was also some in the Deleted scenes. The one scene that bothered me the most was when they were at Jaspers place, they had like a wall of news articles. They focused on the Iraq ones for awhile, and they took up half the wall even though you would think the world falling apart and the lack of children be more important and the Iraq thing would be nearly 20 years old. There is also also the disdain and comments made when referencing America.

Its the fact that it doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story outside using the story of the movie as a basis for comparison. It isn't even the messages that bother me but the fact that it didn't seem to belong there. I probably wouldn't have noticed them if I hadn't been so surprised that Julianne Moore was in it. I didn't pay attention to the box till after her first scene. I find her responsible for trying to ruin two of my favorite movies. JPII and Assassins where the same things happened in them.

Reminding you that Jasper was a award winning political cartoonist so yes, the Iraq articles might have a passing relevance on his wall. And as far as it not having any importance in 20yrs? C'mon, it was a war of aggression - in the past 60 yrs the only other wars of aggression by a major power was Vietnam and the German Nazi invasion of Poland

What the hell drugs are you people on? :confused:

exactly what I'm wondering. you know, nothing happened in the Departed until the last 45min, it was just a long boring expository sequence - but it's still a pretty decent film. CoM is a masterpiece of cinema both technically and thematically

What the hell were you guys watching? The plot was simplistic and stupid with many Grand Canyon size holes. Jumping the Pacific Ocean is a shorter distance than the logical leaps you have to do to enjoy this movie. The cinematography was excellent though.


And this is posted in the same meandering thread which claims the almighty Star Wars as impregnable and incomparable in all aspects. Mind explaining the 'techmology' behind the light saber?

The problem with this movie in particular is that if they had changed one or two more things then they could have made the movie without claiming it was based on the book.

It may have reminded people of the book due to the general theme, but that is all.

Stories are normally edited for time, but the reason you make a movie based on a book is to tell the story that is in the book.

For example - I have read all of the Harry Potter books before watching the films, and even though the movies don't follow the books, and they leave tons of stuff out, they are still enjoyable because they cover the main points and you end up with a similar but summarized experience.

The changes in CoM were not to improve the running time, they completely changed the story.

The main problems I have with CoM the movie v. CoM the book are below, don't read if you plan to read the book, or if you haven't seen the movie


1 - Imagine how much better it would have been, if Julianne Moore's character had been in the whole movie, and if she had been the mother of the child. That is what happened in the book.
2 - The main character is supposed to be a true anti-hero, not because he mopes and drinks a little, but because he accidentally killed his infant, and he never liked the child, and because he is a huge ******* who only cares about himself. The though of Michael Caine's character moving to the city to live in his huge apartment horrifies him. He wouldn't even take in his only friend at the end of the world.
3 - The main character goes through a huge transformation, he goes from self preservation to taking responsibility for the birth of the worlds first child in 20 years, and the leadership of the nation.
4 - Quietus - the quietus is supposed to be a voluntary suicide ritual, where old people ride out in barges that are then sunk. Turns out they are apparently less than voluntary, this is the reason that the main character decides to help the rebel group.
5 - What is an Omega? Why are there bands of crazed young people running around in the country side?
6 - Missing out on the dolls and animals that are true child replacements takes away a lot from the story in general. Seeing kittens getting christened, and having a woman have a complete breakdown over a broken doll.
7 - The main character is the cousin of the leader of the UK, which is why the rebel group approaches him.
8 - The reason it is possible for the man and woman to conceive is that there is something wrong with both of them, so they were excluded from the fertility testing.
9 - There is a prison colony, and it harbors criminals (any criminal). The immigrants are brought into work, then deported to their own country.

These thoughts are in no particular order and all over the place, they are also only a small part of things that were changed that hurt the story.

Anyway, there will always be people who don't like a given movie. But anyone who read this book is very likely to see it as a travesty.

I guess you're the only one posting actual criticism and not just knee-jerk reactions. Anyway, I recall that Cuaron stated it was inspired by the book - loosely based or a loose adaptation. Hey, I'm still pretty pissed at Spielberg for fudging up The Color Purple but I still recognize that it's a pretty good movie on its own. I still have many gripes about To Kill a Mockingbird, A Clockwork Orange.... the list goes on; but they're still cinematic gems

movies like this usually have a hidden agenda. CoM is no different

And you don't think films like Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor and Saving Private Ryan have a political agenda? Hero worship maybe? I mean, I would make a sure bet you won't see Hollywood churning out any films on the Trail of Tears or My Lai; just an example

Most films have agendas, if not political then commercial.

I guess you're the only one posting actual criticism and not just knee-jerk reactions. Anyway, I recall that Cuaron stated it was inspired by the book - loosely based or a loose adaptation. Hey, I'm still pretty pissed at Spielberg for fudging up The Color Purple but I still recognize that it's a pretty good movie on its own. I still have many gripes about To Kill a Mockingbird, A Clockwork Orange.... the list goes on; but they're still cinematic gemsA little off topic, but A Clockwork Orange used a majority of the dialog from the book verbatim. Maybe there were plot turns that deviated.

A little off topic, but A Clockwork Orange used a majority of the dialog from the book verbatim. Maybe there were plot turns that deviated.

The issue that fans of the book have with the movie is that Kubrick chose to drop the last chapter, which provides a safe and happy cop-out ending for the main character and implies that everything that happened earlier was just a phase of youthful indiscretion that he would eventually grow out of. Kubrick's ending is much more nihilistic, and IMO much more effective. Fans of the book see it differently, of course.

While the film looked good, and the use of surrounds were excellent, I didn't care for the movie overall. Don't get me wrong, there were some great scenes in the first half which grabbed my attention, but the second half went downhill.

And these "types" of movies are the ones I usually like. Oh well, can't like 'em all.

And you don't think films like Black Hawk Down, Pearl Harbor and Saving Private Ryan have a political agenda? Hero worship maybe? I mean, I would make a sure bet you won't see Hollywood churning out any films on the Trail of Tears or My Lai; just an example

Most films have agendas, if not political then commercial.

nobody said those movies dont have any agendas. the difference between CoM and those movies is that the underlying themes are very subtle and almost hidden in CoM, whereas they are overt in other films. im not knocking CoM at all, its a very intellectual movie, and i applaud it as such. im just pointing out that those newspaper headlines in the background weren't there by accident.

Forced myself to watch the rest, most of the time with the sound off. I will not be watching this one again.

Wow. :rolleyes:

Watched Children of Men...Poor film, duller than dull.

Kind of like your "critique".

Well since we did see the same movie, everything I said does exactly describe it.
Now, I know I'm not from the planet "melange", so my disconnect from reality must be vast, but what didn't you like about my summation?

I'de hate to point out things that will destroy other peoples enjoyment of the film, but to post that this film is even an average film, is a stretch.

Look, there where what, 5 locations that were used to shoot the film? The forest, the car, the Larkhill prison, an old station, and hmmm let me see.... and an office.

The parts with julie ann moore, was probably 15 minutes of film. The rest was just a few actors and a handful of extras.

The editing was acclaimed to be good, well it had to be! They only had so much footage of the 6 main actors, and they had to get very creative to make it feel like a full motion picture.

Look, indy is all well and good. Edgy apocolyptic films have always had their audiences (goths, outcast teens, anyone with mono..) but this film was a bad day in hell, and didn't even have a proper ending. 3 acts, thats the rule. Even Tarantino knows this, but does that mean I can just hit stop on my Hd dvd player before the final scene and say it was cool movie? Negative.

IS it a morality tale? Is it a science fiction romp? is it a drama set in the future? A political drama? An escape from reality? It didn't know what it was trying to be, so what, am I suppose guess? Negative. Even traffic knew what it was, and what it wasn't, and was able to pull it off. Look I gave the film my interest and a chance for about 20 min, after that it was down hill. Some movies are like that, sometimes the 2nd act is better than the first, and sometimes the 3rd act is the best act, this one unloaded it all with julie ann's death. Shame. :D

For someone who tries to sound like they know what they are talking about, you really have no understanding whatsoever of filmmaking or even storytelling.

Reminding you that Jasper was a award winning political cartoonist so yes, the Iraq articles might have a passing relevance on his wall. And as far as it not having any importance in 20yrs? C'mon, it was a war of aggression - in the past 60 yrs the only other wars of aggression by a major power was Vietnam and the German Nazi invasion of Poland

My Point within 3 year Kids are not being born, The world has completely fallen apart and everybody found someone to destroy while someone was destroying them. Iraq started a war of aggression. It is past that and has been for 3 years. We are now there assisting the local government. Taking into account the short period of time and the much much larger issue that has grown since then, its 1/3rd to half of the board it takes up seems out of whack. Add in the fact that most are anti-bush commentaries and not Tony Blair commentaries just add to its out of place ness. Now if someone could explain how this lead to the sickness that stopped kids from being born I am all ears.

1 - I say they were only available for a few days due to cost or more important projects, but what the hell do I know ;)

2 - The point is that he is an anti-hero, he is someone that you aren't supposed to like. You should not be identifying with him because he only cares about himself. Then you watch him transform into the person who basically saves the world, or at least the UK.

I heard that there were two disturbing and upsetting scenes in the movie, and I was suprised when Julianne's character died, but I wasn't upset in the slightest, because I had only seen her for a total of like 4 minutes. Now, if the scene I described had been in the movie I would have been upset, like I was when I read the book, because it actually is disturbing and that single moment defines the character.


Side note: The book is light sci-fi written by an older english woman who normally writes mysteries. It is very enjoyable at least partly because of her approach. Given the subject matter, time period and setting it feels very 'orwellian'.

Also, don't protect the consumer from their emotions. How can a movie be uplifting if it never challenges or upsets? All movies don't have to be easy, and this one could have been very challenging.

I like movies that are merely entertaining, in fact I love them. But they don't all have to be that way. This story has very dark moments and ends on a high note, it would have been nice if the movie had reflected that better.

Basically if you haven't seen the movie, don't read the book first. The movie is obviously enjoyable on its own merits, if you want to read the book read it second.

The thing is in 2 hours, we get the idea he is low-life scum who doesn't care about and become the savior of the world. But if the thing you mention would have happened in a movie it would have been almost impossible to even semi repair his image without making a series out of it.

Trust me I have seen enough Anti-Hero movies to see how this should go, and while I might be able to get over it, I really don't think many would. I would go on further and suggest people would walk out. That said it would be powerful and probably one of the single most memorable scenes if they included it.

My Point within 3 year Kids are not being born, The world has completely fallen apart and everybody found someone to destroy while someone was destroying them. Iraq started a war of aggression. It is past that and has been for 3 years. We are now there assisting the local government. Taking into account the short period of time and the much much larger issue that has grown since then, its 1/3rd to half of the board it takes up seems out of whack. Add in the fact that most are anti-bush commentaries and not Tony Blair commentaries just add to its out of place ness. Now if someone could explain how this lead to the sickness that stopped kids from being born I am all ears.

I'm just saying that it's not uncommon for conflicts especially wars to be remembered for decades. The Brits are still talking about the Fauklands, Israel about the Yom Kippur war etc. The War in Iraq percieved outside of the US is very different from public and media opinion within. I think it will be remembered b/c it's the 1st war in history that saw massive (millions) protest before the invasion started.

The reason for infertility was perfectly fine to me being ambiguous in the way it was. To delve into it would imo have taken away from the larger message of the film which didn't really hinge on any specific disaster. The suggestion of worldwide infertility just adds a larger and more universal degree of hopelessness - but there is enough hopelessness to go around in any disaster such as hurricanes, earthquakes, war, famine etc.

It's obvious that Cuaron is "warning" the audience that we could find ourselves in similiar situations. I don't see this as having an agenda though, or as liberal or conservative. Global warming may come back to haunt us in the next few decades but the most imminent crisis and danger today is nuclear holocaust

This thread is interesting. There are many folks who can offer well thought-out and well-explained reasons for why they like/dislike the movie. And sometimes the reasons are the same on both "sides".

And then there are the odd few who have one-liner statements, and offer no value to their post other than to say "me too" (on either side). And one particularly short review by the Bland, from whom I expected at least a brief explanation of why he dislikes the film (based on his "staff-review" position he should be able to enunciate his reasonings), but alas, we just get a drive-by slamming.

I do feel that folks who disagree with others' opinions should avoid insults, even if you are dead certain that they truly are wrong or have poor taste. I like some music that I completely understand other folks find to be "noise" or "garbage", and I dislike other music that I would describe in equally harsh terms to a friend over beer, but I would not post such words in a public forum/thread dedicated to the genre.

Most people who watched this movie did so because they were at least mildly interested. Therefore, unless it is a complete travesty in execution, I expect most people posting here will like it, or at least appreciate what it was trying to do. Those who did not have any interest in the film aren't visiting this thread.

For what it is worth, I really liked the film. I have not read the book.

I felt the story was interesting, and the lack of explanation for what are large factors in the fictional world (e.g. cause of sterility) forces the viewer to be as much bewildered by events as the main characters. It is literally like we are tagging along with Theo throughout the whole movie, and therefore only know as much as he does.

The cinematography was stunning, and I felt the whole film was very consistent in the depiction of that world - there was nothing that made me say "hey, wait, that doesn't quite fit". As I've mentioned elsewhere, I like these end-of-the-world movies that don't involve aliens or super-happy endings ("ah, I see, we just need to reverse the flux-transducer." "Great! Thanks Wesley Crusher for saving the day once again!").

As someone else described it: Orwellian-dystopian is what I like.

shinksma

I did not read all the threads here, but I wanted to say that the action sequences are very good. I have experienced combat several times and this came the closest I have ever seen to the real thing, in a movie. From the sound of rounds hitting the walls to the dull thud they make when they hit bone or a body cavity.

I like the movie a lot by the way.

I like the movie a lot by the way. Good man :)
I've posted too much in this thread already but lastly, I feel fortunate to have this movie in hi-def.

have to say that I really enjoy this movie,no happy fairy tale ending. Sure allot of things where not explained ,but as other, members stated it adds to the story line. To me making it believable. I for one see this as a warning of an inevitable future that has already started with hate,and the need for chaos. A very important ingredients in this film, evident in the reaction seen here on this post. Sometime when people don't understand they quick dismiss it as being silly,dull or what ever else non witty comment it's been said.
I think it has provoke enough people to know That the Aurthur,and Director has done their job.

Too bad the HD version which looks amazing went slow motion on me,and no sound. A first on my HD A1..I wonder if the new firmware would help this issue out ?
A white card inside the Hd DVD state something about upgrading to some new firmware would be needed.That's how I found my self on this thread...Looking for answers.

Daniel

I enjoyed it. Good Movie with a good story. Not faking a happy ending was a wise decision too.

I'm just saying that it's not uncommon for conflicts especially wars to be remembered for decades. The Brits are still talking about the Fauklands, Israel about the Yom Kippur war etc. The War in Iraq percieved outside of the US is very different from public and media opinion within. I think it will be remembered b/c it's the 1st war in history that saw massive (millions) protest before the invasion started.

The reason for infertility was perfectly fine to me being ambiguous in the way it was. To delve into it would imo have taken away from the larger message of the film which didn't really hinge on any specific disaster. The suggestion of worldwide infertility just adds a larger and more universal degree of hopelessness - but there is enough hopelessness to go around in any disaster such as hurricanes, earthquakes, war, famine etc.

It's obvious that Cuaron is "warning" the audience that we could find ourselves in similiar situations. I don't see this as having an agenda though, or as liberal or conservative. Global warming may come back to haunt us in the next few decades but the most imminent crisis and danger today is nuclear holocaust

As much as I detest the Global Warming "scam" I would understand the use of it in the movie. But the Iraqi war seemed to not fit and I half expected to find out how it related to the movie but I never got the answer even though America was brought up a couple times. Instead I am forced to connect believe that by the relatively small battle in Iraq is directly related to a disease that has infected the whole world and stopped them from having kids, just so I can accept that we are killing ourselves by freeing a state and helping patrol it for stability sake.

It's obvious that Cuaron is "warning" the audience that we could find ourselves in similiar situations. I don't see this as having an agenda though, or as liberal or conservative. Global warming may come back to haunt us in the next few decades but the most imminent crisis and danger today is nuclear holocaustFuzzy thinking. Cuaron is warning us, but it isn't clear what he's warning us against? Not a very effective warning, then. Most movies simply tell their stories and don't have delusions of grandeur that they can change the behavior of the world. This is a brilliant film that has a fascinating premise, sets a mood and keeps it, and does everything right. I think it's human nature, when presented with a frightening vision of the future, to believe that the producer and director are trying to help us prevent it - to warn us to change our ways. Since no one knows what caused the sterility, it's obvious that this wan't their motive. Don't overthink. You'll hurt yourself.

Well, I think the question is now- how should we take the extras material that is on the disc? Does the extras material taint the intentional ambiguity of the film (such that we are better off keeping the contexts apart), or is it supposed to be taken as supplemental to the director's vision for the film?

I kept on think during the movie,well this is a great time to start cloning people...I didn't hear it mention in the movie.Maybe that's what the whole mystery with The People Project was all about.

I don't think even the religious Yahoos would object on a little cloning in desperate times.

DJoel

Anyone have problems with this disk? every couple of minutes it would go into slo mo with no audio...i'd have to hit rewind on the remote for a second, then play, and it would then play normally again for a couple of minutes. very annoying. even still, i enjoyed the movie.

Anyone have problems with this disk? every couple of minutes it would go into slo mo with no audio...i'd have to hit rewind on the remote for a second, then play, and it would then play normally again for a couple of minutes. very annoying. even still, i enjoyed the movie.

mine is doing that too. When I get the chance gonna exchange it for another copy at best buy

No problems playing disk on my A2 with the lastest firmware. No freeze ups or any other issues.

As much as I detest the Global Warming "scam" I would understand the use of it in the movie. But the Iraqi war seemed to not fit and I half expected to find out how it related to the movie but I never got the answer even though America was brought up a couple times. Instead I am forced to connect believe that by the relatively small battle in Iraq is directly related to a disease that has infected the whole world and stopped them from having kids, just so I can accept that we are killing ourselves by freeing a state and helping patrol it for stability sake.

The movie never attempts to connect these two events. Any connection you think you've found is one you've invented yourself.

Why do people have a problem with "one-liners"? If they did or did not like the film, why do they have to give the exact reason(s) for how they feel?

Also, just because someone does or does not like a particular film, that doesn't mean they have "no taste" in films. Honestly, I can't really explain why I didn't like it, I just didn't. As I mentioned before, the first half really dug the hooks in, but the second half just didn't do it for me.

I'm glad I watched it, so I could at least form an opinion on it, which is better than not watching it at all. I just won't be watching it again.

Now if someone wants to say I have no taste in films, so be it. But believe you me, I'm pretty damn sure I like a lot of films that you do. So what does that say about your taste?

Notice, this isn't directed to anyone in particular, more to a group of folks in this thread.

The movie never attempts to connect these two events. Any connection you think you've found is one you've invented yourself.

Maybe your right but it is my right as a viewer to come up with my interpretations of any anything shown in the movie. I am told by you that I shouldn't be making this connection, but then I am supposed to connect all these other dots shown in the same way to understand the movie better. Why is it wrong for me to connect these dots, if connecting these types of dots is what makes this movie great in other peoples eyes.

Anyone have problems with this disk? every couple of minutes it would go into slo mo with no audio...i'd have to hit rewind on the remote for a second, then play, and it would then play normally again for a couple of minutes. very annoying. even still, i enjoyed the movie.
Yes. After the opening logo, blank screen on my HD-A1. Returned to Netflix for a replacement - same thing. Ended up watching it in SD. I think one or two others in this thread had a problem as well. Suggestion is to upgrade to latest firmware but I have no idea if that would correct it.

IS it a morality tale? Is it a science fiction romp? is it a drama set in the future? A political drama? An escape from reality? It didn't know what it was trying to be, so what, am I suppose guess?
Why is it important to categorize it? And does not being able to diminish enjoyment?

The disc arrived in the mail from Toshiba, so I upgraded my A2 firmare to the latest. Same lockup when paused more than briefly, though.

I thought the sterility was caused by a virus? They mentioned a flu-like illness while they were in the school.

FWIW, I had two discs not play in my 360 (got the "disc can't be read" error). I tried running it under hot water for 30 seconds, to no avail. Then I unplugged the USB and power cables from the add-on (disc in the drive). Plugged them back in and played the movie without logging back into Live.

IT WORKED! I was able to jump around freely, pause the movie, pull up U-control PIP features, and load the first extra without any problems. I have yet to watch the entire film in HD-DVD, but I'll try that when I can. I'll also see it it will play tonight after connecting to Live. I wonder if this disc is on the outer edge of some physical size specification and the HD-DVD drive needs to be reset somehow to read it. Or maybe there is some memory cache that needs to be cleared in order to load the film properly. This makes me wonder if it is a combination of marginal players and a marginal disc rather than purely a bad disc or bad drive.

IS it a morality tale? Is it a science fiction romp? is it a drama set in the future? A political drama? An escape from reality? It didn't know what it was trying to be, so what, am I suppose guess? Science fiction romp? What are you? Larry King? :D

ya....i didnt like the movie that much either. i bought it off the reviews it got on here and imdb, but i wish i would have rented it. its wierd because usually with me explosions equal good movie, but it seemed dry at times. good concept, but horrible execution. its not horrible, just not great.

v for vendetta tho was the ****, i thought everyone loved that movie?

I thought the sterility was caused by a virus? They mentioned a flu-like illness while they were in the school.

A virus pandemic killed Theo's son, but it was never established that it was responsible for the sterility. It was one of several things that could have been the cause.

Works fine for me.

HD-A1 fw 2.1
> HDMI >
Denon AVR-2807
> HDMI >
Toshiba 72HM195

Also, just because someone does or does not like a particular film, that doesn't mean they have "no taste" in films. Honestly, I can't really explain why I didn't like it, I just didn't. As I mentioned before, the first half really dug the hooks in, but the second half just didn't do it for me.
It's an interesting issue. In an absolute sense, one person's taste is exactly as valid as another's, as far as provability goes. But there are people who only enjoy movies with a lot of action, violence, car chases, and explosions - and writing, plotting, and acting are secondary. In fact, that almost seems to be the majority in America and the rest of the world, because so many of that kind of movie are made, and many do well at the box office. I just can't bring myself to think the tastes of those people are as good as mine. From my perspective, good taste does vary in quality from person to person. But even thoughtful people - including critics - can disagree on the merits of a film. This one, though, was universally praised by the critics, for what that's worth.

When I watch a movie like Children of Men, and feel the strong emotions I'm sure the director was shooting for, and appreciate the concept, writing, acting, photography, and pacing - when I detect false notes in almost every film I see, but none here - I become convinced that this is a true work of art.

When I read somebody's post saying that the movie wasn't bad, that he or she just didn't like it for some reason, that's not a big deal, and could be the result of the mood and circumstances. But if somebody says that this was a boring movie, a waste of time, poorly done - I can't help but feel that that viewer simply didn't have the taste and film watching chops necessary to have an opinion I could respect.

It's an interesting issue. In an absolute sense, one person's taste is exactly as valid as another's, as far as provability goes. But there are people who only enjoy movies with a lot of action, violence, car chases, and explosions - and writing, plotting, and acting are secondary. In fact, that almost seems to be the majority in America and the rest of the world, because so many of that kind of movie are made, and many do well at the box office. I just can't bring myself to think the tastes of those people are as good as mine. From my perspective, good taste does vary in quality from person to person. But even thoughtful people - including critics - can disagree on the merits of a film. This one, though, was universally praised by the critics, for what that's worth.

When I watch a movie like Children of Men, and feel the strong emotions I'm sure the director was shooting for, and appreciate the concept, writing, acting, photography, and pacing - when I detect false notes in almost every film I see, but none here - I become convinced that this is a true work of art.

When I read somebody's post saying that the movie wasn't bad, that he or she just didn't like it for some reason, that's not a big deal, and could be the result of the mood and circumstances. But if somebody says that this was a boring movie, a waste of time, poorly done - I can't help but feel that that viewer simply didn't have the taste and film watching chops necessary to have an opinion I could respect.Very well said.

^Oh get off your knees.

Please, this isn't film school. This argument is where everybody runs to when the reasoning runs out, The "sorry u didn't get it" plea. Trust me, I got it, and I don't ever want to go back there.

This isn't "an incovienant truth", it's suppose to entertain. Ooo the long take in the woods rocked! -yeah but.....

Go watch Serenity, the beginning few minutes are 1 LONG TAKE! But I'm not creaming my pants just because of a long take.

I have seen worse movies, I'm not saying this movie shouldn't have been made, but I don't EVER want to hear another "this is the second coming of Blade Runner" again on these boards. You want art, there's your art.

This movie sucked.
My first HD DVD purchase regret.

Please Jose, enlighten us as to why it 'sucked'.

^Oh get off your knees.

Please, this isn't film school. This argument is where everybody runs to when the reasoning runs out, The "sorry u didn't get it" plea. Trust me, I got it, and I don't ever want to go back there.

The "smug" episode of South Park comes to mind, when I picture the film school weenies you describe...as they cup their own flatulence and bring it to their nose for a good sniff, and anybody who looks at them funny for doing this must not "get it". ;)

^Oh get off your knees.

Please, this isn't film school. This argument is where everybody runs to when the reasoning runs out, The "sorry u didn't get it" plea. Trust me, I got it, and I don't ever want to go back there.





So true. This same argument took place when Matrix: Reloaded was released.

So true. This same argument took place when Matrix: Reloaded was released.

I think you mean revolutions. but your right. Reloaded was good foundation for a really good closer, but when they ruined revolutions they also ruined reloaded for me. It has nothing to do with whether you got it it or not. The problem is if you get it and you don't like it, then thats that. A person can "get it" with out liking it, and that was was my opinion. Not the worst movie ever, maybe that I have seen this year, but I have been picky about what I have watched so far and the year is young.

I'll have to give Children of Men a try. I hated 300 - I am really starting to detest GCI especially when there is no acting and no story (IMO).

Cheers,

Grant

Gee! I didn't think plot, characterization, and acting mattered if the CGI and chase scenes were top notch. Are you sure you're not confused?

Please Jose, enlighten us as to why it 'sucked'.

I didn't think it sucked.....just boring. I fell asleep a couple times...

Children of Men is "Battlefield Earth" aweful but not as boring. Atleast you can make fun of the Actors on that movie.

Why was Julianne Moore even in this movie? There were no twist, turns or suprises.
I could of gotten more out of watching one episode of Battlestar Gallactica.
If not I can just bust out Babylon 5 Season One-Five.

Who cares about Children of Men. $35.00 down the drain.
I rather watch Mission to Mars.

Oh and I get the movie. It got nothing on Blade Runner. Shoot. It got nothing on the Road Runner.

Anyone wanna trade? Ill take anything HD DVD.

<small voice> I kind of liked it...

The "smug" episode of South Park comes to mind, when I picture the film school weenies you describe...as they cup their own flatulence and bring it to their nose for a good sniff, and anybody who looks at them funny for doing this must not "get it". ;)Well, I haven't been to film school, but I think there are indeed brilliant non-formulaic movies that a lot of people just don't get, to coin a phrase. Use a little ambiguity, don't follow the usual rules for the genre, be somewhat experimental, don't go for easy resolutions, and you lose a lot of your audience. By the way, there's not the least bit of pretentiousness about Children of Men. The director is simply trying to tell a great story in the most moving way possible.

Here's an example of a film that not everybody got: Bonnie and Clyde. When it came out, Time magazine had a review that slammed everything about it. Then people started recognizing it for the tremendous achievement it was. The following week, Time magazine had Bonnie and Clyde on the cover, and a hugely postive review. Safe to say that the original reviewer didn't get it.

Don't you think that there are some movies that are different enough and complicated enough that there are a lot of people who just don't have the capacity to appreciate them?

I do.