Children of Men (Spoilers!)

Way overhyped.

The only thing that satisfied me was the shootout scene's cinematography and Michael Caine's character. I just watched this merely hours after reading the book. Honestly, I don't even know how people could get some of the characters without reading the book. The movie was rushed. If all they wanted to do was flash a dystopian future they could've done it without dragging P.D. James work through the mud. It broke my heart when I found out Theo's child was merely taken by the flu and the lack of religious undertones and the whole changing of characters. I'm torn about Julian because I found the coincidental occurance that she was pregnant to be a bit eyebrow raising but while reading the book all of that was subsided through the dramatic conflict of who the father was. So that being left out was a big disappointment.

Best movie of 2006 my ***. It was all right.
 
Planet-man said:
My problem with it was it just wasn't as epic a story as it could've been. I could've used another 1/2 hour to an hour.
Click to expand...

Well if they didn't rush into the whole "Look! A pregnant woman!" and built it up like James did. I mean they didn't even know a girl was carrying until the final chapters of the book. It was all about the helplessness and the apathy of Theo's character while discovering the politics and mechanics of how the world worked. Here it was just pregnant girl run and that was the movie.
 
MWoF,

I have friends who can't stand the Lord of the Rings films because they don't think they are as good as the novels. They complain it deviates too much or some other crap. I try to explain to them that they are two entirely seperate peices of art, in two entirely different mediums so they shouldn't be compaired but they don't get it. Some things that work in print don't in film.

I'm not saying you are stupid like my friends. It seems that you gave the film a fair shake based on the film alone, but do you think you'd feel the same way if you hadn't read the book?


The cinematography on this film is amazing. The extremely long takes are beautiful. Especially the car chase when Julian Moores character dies and the war shot in the apartement building.

I like films about the near future that have believable future technology. The rubiks cube-like game the kid plays that is directly connected to his hand nerves. Another film that does this well is Minority Report. All of the computer displays in that film are something that I could see myself using before I die.

It's still my favorite film of 2006
 
Last edited:
Frapalino said:
MWoF,

I have friends who can't stand the Lord of the Rings films because they don't think they are as good as the novels. They complain it deviates too much or some other crap. I try to explain to them that they are two entirely seperate peices of art, in two entirely different mediums so they shouldn't be compaired but they don't get it. Some things that work in print don't in film.

I'm not saying you are stupid like my friends. It seems that you gave the film a fair shake based on the film alone, but do you think you'd feel the same way if you hadn't read the book?


The cinematography on this film is amazing. The extremely long takes are beautiful. Especially the car chase when Julian Moores character dies and the war shot in the apartement building.

I like films about the near future that have believable future technology. The rubiks cube-like game the kid plays that is directly connected to his hand nerves. Another film that does this well is Minority Report. All of the computer displays in that film are something that I could see myself using before I die.

It's still my favorite film of 2006
Click to expand...
There's a guy I talk to who comes into Ruby Tuesday's a lot. He reads a lot of books and we discussed this because he saw the movie first and read it after. I have no doubt in my mind that I would have enjoyed the movie more if I saw it first but still would have felt betrayed by the film when I got done with the book. I don't complain about LotR because those books are huge and packed with things that would already make a movie that takes up half of your day and expand on it. I thought LotR for the most part was one of the most accurate literature to films a fan could ask for. CoM, however, was not.
 
Holy ****, this movie is amazing. I was both amazed and terrified while watching it. The whole atmosphere of the world was brilliant.
 
And the ending is hauntingly optimistic and hopelessly cynical at the same time.
 
I saw this film last night while I played Scrabble (50 point word for QAID on the triple point word bonus while spelling IS and AS as well). The car scene, where they get ambushed was brillantly done. The people running at the car, the gunshot, the motorcycle, very realistic.

The scene where the child is crying, and everyone stops fighting to allow the child to escape. I loved that scene, where they are just qalking, and people stand in the way of bullets for them, and whatnot. Great moving scene.

Now, I have never read the book, and in my experience, when a book is made into film, they dropped things in the book to give the film a better flow. Looks like here they sacrificed the whole religious undertones and political undertones to make way for the baby being born part of the film, which I feel was not badly done. Clive Owen does a great job in this film, as well as Micheal Cain. I enjoyed it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Back
Top