or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Children of Men - Page 6

post #151 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by flyersfan View Post

Does anyone else think this movie was robbed of the Best Cinematography award? I actually saw all 5 movies in the category and thought CoM was a lock. All of the other movies looked great, but a lot of that was set design and art direction. When dealing strictly with the cinematography, none of those movies had anything that surpassed the extended tracking shot in the car. And that is only one of many examples of wonderfully shot scenes.

As much as I enjoyed it, Pan's Labyrinth was the least deserving in this particular category.

I agree. Pan's Labyrinth did not deserve this award.
post #152 of 545
Haven't seen PL yet...

However, I did see CoM for the first time tonite.
WOW!
An adult movie (for once).
The cinematography was terrific, to say the least.

How the f*ck was LMS nominated over this????
LMS is a fine little film...but hardly has profundity...
A film nominated as "Picture of the Year" has to have some weight to it...some resonance.
CoM was robbed.
CoM and V for Vendetta were both light-years ahead of LMS (the Sideways of 2006).

This "feel good" shite has gotta end at the Academy.
post #153 of 545
^^^ Some people think it got snubbed, but like myself and others have mentioned the story was nothing "new" and the script and acting is a notch or two lower when comparing to LMS. It did get snubbed for cinematography, set-design (is there one for that?) - big time.

larry
post #154 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by oink View Post

CoM and V for Vendetta were both light-years ahead of LMS (the Sideways of 2006).

Sideways is light years ahead of Little Miss Sunshine as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

^^^ Some people think it got snubbed, but like myself and others have mentioned the story was nothing "new"

Exactly where have you seen another movie like this?

Quote:


and the script and acting is a notch or two lower when comparing to LMS.

I honestly think you may be mentally ill.
post #155 of 545
Come on, Josh, you're nit picking. There may not have been another movie with the exact same plot but the general premise (gloom and doom, end of man, etc) is nothing new. You may not have liked LMS as much and the acting wasn't award winning for all involved but the story, acting, and production as a unit was better (IMO of course) than CoM. I liked CoM, but more for the visual presense and realism than anything else. Take Michael Caine and his "trooper/guard" friend out of the movie and it's almost boring.

larry
post #156 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

Take Michael Caine

AND his performance here!
Just terrific IMO.
I thought he was better than Mr. Arkin in the Best Supporting Actor category.
post #157 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

Come on, Josh, you're nit picking. There may not have been another movie with the exact same plot but the general premise (gloom and doom, end of man, etc) is nothing new. You may not have liked LMS as much and the acting wasn't award winning for all involved but the story, acting, and production as a unit was better (IMO of course) than CoM.

If you're going to claim that Children of Men was "nothing new", how many dozens of "quirky dysfunctional family" indie comedies am I going to have to rattle off before you hide your head in shame?

Quote:


I liked CoM, but more for the visual presense and realism than anything else. Take Michael Caine and his "trooper/guard" friend out of the movie and it's almost boring.

Yup, like I thought, mentall ill.
post #158 of 545
Wow, haven't visited here in awhile.
Loved CoM.
I'm doing my best to not give away details while being descriptive.
Nice understated movie that didn't feel the need to explain everything to a dense audience. I saw earlier in the thread that some people were wondering the "why" of the plotline. Um, the people\\society in the story didn't know, that was one of the main points, no one knew the why. No one knowing why was pushing society into, well you know.
Also the interactions of "the group" were really well done and believeable.
Clive was great as usual. Michael Caine as well.
Was anyone else reminded of Stanley Kubrick when watching this? I was.
Anyway this will be a buy for sure on HD DVD.
To me, comparing this movie to LMS is moot. They couldn't be more different.
Isn't good for a change, to have a movie that generates real interest and real discussion.
I've watched it 3 times in 2 weeks.
There's more going on than one viewing can reveal.
post #159 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by PooperScooper View Post

the acting wasn't award winning for all involved but the story, acting, and production as a unit was better (IMO of course) than CoM. I liked CoM, but more for the visual presense and realism than anything else. Take Michael Caine and his "trooper/guard" friend out of the movie and it's almost boring.

LMS has a somewhat mundane plot, but because of the style isn't really meant to be taken at face value - you couldn't really see that happening, it's instead a caricature of life. Too many coincidences, too many wild things happening. COM is a film made in a "hyperreal" style, meant absolutely to be accepted as if we are there watching events unfold. This is odd because obviously the plot is much more far fetched than LMS.

So, I think this is a matter of taste - it sounds like you prefer dramatic acting/style rather than stark realism (combined with generally understated, rough, worn-down acting).
post #160 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milt99 View Post

Wow, haven't visited here in awhile.
Loved CoM.
I'm doing my best to not give away details while being descriptive.
Nice understated movie that didn't feel the need to explain everything to a dense audience. I saw earlier in the thread that some people were wondering the "why" of the plotline. Um, the people\\society in the story didn't know, that was one of the main points, no one knew the why. No one knowing why was pushing society into, well you know.
Also the interactions of "the group" were really well done and believeable.
Clive was great as usual. Michael Caine as well.
Was anyone else reminded of Stanley Kubrick when watching this? I was.
Anyway this will be a buy for sure on HD DVD.
To me, comparing this movie to LMS is moot. They couldn't be more different.
Isn't good for a change, to have a movie that generates real interest and real discussion.
I've watched it 3 times in 2 weeks.
There's more going on than one viewing can reveal.


I agree. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

BTW, you can always use spoiler tags, where you put "spoiler" between [] brackets at the front, then [ / spoiler ] (no spaces) at the end. This will hide any spoilers out of sight for people who don't want to see them.
post #161 of 545
cyberbri,
Yeah I know about spoilers but thought I'd just go the shorthand route.
post #162 of 545
Children of Men will be out on DVD and HD-DVD at the end of the month - March 27. I'll be picking up the HD-DVD.
post #163 of 545
I hope the DVD will have top-notch PQ/SQ.
The R2 version doesn't.

No BD...Dang!
post #164 of 545
Time to bump this thread...

I'll be making a midnight run to Redbox to pickup CoM tonight.

I'm really hoping this film is going to be something special. I haven't really seen any new releases for very long time that I would consider to be a great film.

Fingers crossed...

b2b
post #165 of 545
Will be buying this on my lunch break. I'm still pissed that it lost the Best Cinematography award. Pan's was great, but CoM blew everything out of the water.

Also, i'm dissapointed that they aren't going with the original artwork for the DVD cover.

This:



looks much cooler than this:

post #166 of 545
Renting for sure, then if I like it then....................................
post #167 of 545
I'm gonna be honest and say that reading the descriptions of CoM here really got me pumped up to finally view it, but after viewing it, I can't help but feeling like this movie is overhyped. I'll go even further and say I did not like the movie, even when removing the expecation of hype.

When they show the commercial on tv comparing it to Blade Runner, it makes me angry. Blade Runner is cool on various levels, but at the very least, the techo-futuristic imagery is solid. CoM is not even in the same ballpark, imo. Am I missing something with CoM?
post #168 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

I'm gonna be honest and say that reading the descriptions of CoM here really got me pumped up to finally view it, but after viewing it, I can't help but feeling like this movie is overhyped. I'll go even further and say I did not like the movie, even when removing the expecation of hype.

When they show the commercial on tv comparing it to Blade Runner, it makes me angry. Blade Runner is cool on various levels, but at the very least, the techo-futuristic imagery is solid. CoM is not even in the same ballpark, imo. Am I missing something with CoM?

In one of the special features CoM is described as "cinema as art". I really feel that CoR is art. It goes beyond what a normal Hollywood movie delivers and given the mediocrity of film for the past few years anything that breaks those bounds is a breath of fresh air.

Is CoM a stunning example of art ?? I can't answer that question, but I do feel it is something that is moving in the right direction...

b2b
post #169 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

I'm gonna be honest and say that reading the descriptions of CoM here really got me pumped up to finally view it, but after viewing it, I can't help but feeling like this movie is overhyped. I'll go even further and say I did not like the movie, even when removing the expecation of hype.

When they show the commercial on tv comparing it to Blade Runner, it makes me angry. Blade Runner is cool on various levels, but at the very least, the techo-futuristic imagery is solid. CoM is not even in the same ballpark, imo. Am I missing something with CoM?

I think your mental image of the movie prior to seeing it was incorrect. It's really not a "traditional" science fiction movie or techno-futuristic movie. I liked the movie first time but didn't go ga-ga over it like some. I've watched it again and I like it more. However, the reasons I liked it the first time were reinforced and I saw what a great job was done. IMO the great job was how the real story of what was happening in the "future" was told by what surrounded the main characters on their journey, i.e. the set (attention to detail, costumes, casting) cinematography, etc.
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
For example, in the tenament near the end of the movie. The old women with the little animal made out of an orange. Incredible!
The realism and attention to detail were top notch.

larry
post #170 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Hanky View Post

Am I missing something with CoM?

Good taste, knowledge of cinema, and an attention span?
post #171 of 545
I get the impression there is a strong "artsy" component to this that is making people go ga-ga over it. This stuff just goes right over my head, so that is why the movie falls flat for me. It didn't hit my "sci-fi" nerve or my "adventure" nerve, at all (I was actually bored most of the time). The was an emotional highpoint, and I was even more impressed to find out later how CG made it possible. That was about it for me.

The disc extras were similarly grating, imo. It was like B-clip material that didn't make it onto the Inconvenient Truth disc.
post #172 of 545
Frankly I really hated the political underlining of this movie, it's the same type of "alarmist" crap that fills many of the movies today. Be feature or "documentary". However if one can overcome that feeling one can realise there is a really good movie beyond that. The story is rather simple and straight forward. This movie is no "artsy fartsy" as far it's story telling goes, but it does have a somewhat of an unusual look to it, but that's where the "sci-fi" element comes in. A different type of "futuristic" look.

The SD DVD looks pretty good, though I haven't seen this in the theaters, I saw plenty of trailers of this movie there. This DVD has the same look to it. Somewhat grainy, a bit muted colors, not terribly sharp either. Very good soundtrack all around.
Among the better movies this year.
post #173 of 545
I got the HD DVD tonight, checked out some scenes and some of the bonus extras. PQ, detail, is stunning, from what I've seen so far. Looks better than it did in the theater.
post #174 of 545
None of the acting was great. I thought it felt forced throughout, kind of like "Crash", but not as bad. Some of the mob scenes looked so choreographed, like where
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
his exwife (Julianne?) died, some of the mob was chanting happily as the mini-van was attacked by others.


Between the anti-globilization message, and the anti-nazi message, and the anti-war message, and the anti-zenophobia message, and the environmental message (all viewpoints I happen to agree with), the story just gets smothered with WAY TO MUCH symbolism. Is there one scene in this movie without a freaking societal message?

I didnt feel the military seige of the 'Fugee camp" was very realistic over alll. They dont mass that many soldiers in one street anymore Archi, they dont need to, its actually counter productive. They work in squads, and every squad needs its space. The anti-armour attacks were cool though.

Anyways, thats my initial opinion. I did enjoy the flick though.
post #175 of 545
Saw it last night, and must say I'm in Pooperscooper's camp on this one. Sci-Fi or not, this movie couldn't be any more depressing if it tried. Caine's character was like a needed pitstop for me. The only other aspect that resembled any sense of movie entertainment for me was how Clive Owens' character eluded certain death what 4000 times (I counted)
Wouldn't recommend this to anyone over 30 years old.
post #176 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Josh Z View Post

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
Spoiler  
Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)
The way the ship drifts in through the fog while the deck hands run around in slow motion had a very dreamlike feel to it that wasn't used elsewhere in the movie.

I'm not saying that it is a hallucination, but I definitely believe that it's meant to be ambiguous. Throughout the movie, characters question whether "The Human Project" actually exists or is just an urban legend. No one has ever had direct contact with them.

I think this is due to just poor set work and sloppy cinematography. Thats the shot they happened to have, so its the shot they used.

And the rowboat doesn't drift at all, its obviously on some stationary item below the waves.
post #177 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by markeetaux View Post

Sci-Fi or not, this movie couldn't be any more depressing if it tried.

Exactly. For all the good aspects of this movie, the overriding thought I had once it was over: What happened to optimism in movies? Perhaps optimism doesn't translate as well as a theme for movies, but it seems lately that, for the most part, everyone equates realism/artistic/etc. with depressing.
post #178 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnR_IN_LA View Post

I think this is due to just poor set work and sloppy cinematography. Thats the shot they happened to have, so its the shot they used.

Right, because the production values of this movie were otherwise so "poor" and "sloppy".
post #179 of 545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph View Post

Exactly. For all the good aspects of this movie, the overriding thought I had once it was over: What happened to optimism in movies? Perhaps optimism doesn't translate as well as a theme for movies, but it seems lately that, for the most part, everyone equates realism/artistic/etc. with depressing.

Spielberg pumps out plenty of feel-good pap on a regular basis. Go watch that.
post #180 of 545
Or go buy "The Secret".

larry
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home