Children of Men

Scarlett Johannsen is gorgeous but The Island isn't remotely in the same class of film as Children of Men. I see what you're saying about Logan's Run Warbie but I feel like COM was a real accomplishment of a sort, whereas The Island was just another mediocre but entertaining blockbuster that didn't try to do much outside of that.
 
Tbh I pirated this movie some time ago and thought it was shit. There was slight cues of a pig floating (think it was a PETA thing), and the Abu-Graib thing, and Britain being really good in the crisis. America though looks like something from Escape from LA. Where was this crappy B movie based? Britain. ;) *In fact I agree entirely with that review.
 
No, the floating pig was in refrence to the Pink Floyd album ''Animals''. Google that and you'll also see the same building they are in, too. (Battersea Power Station)

EDIT: In fact, I'm really not sure what you are talking about. :| B-movie? Eh?
 
TheAntipop said:
No, the floating pig was in refrence to the Pink Floyd album ''Animals''. Google that and you'll also see the same building they are in, too. (Battersea Power Station)

EDIT: In fact, I'm really not sure what you are talking about. :| B-movie? Eh?
Click to expand...
It was. You can tell the quality is the same with 11 days later. Both shit films but teh concept was good.
 
Ennui said:
I see what you're saying about Logan's Run Warbie but I feel like COM was a real accomplishment of a sort, whereas The Island was just another mediocre but entertaining blockbuster that didn't try to do much outside of that.
Click to expand...

I meant Logan's Run was better than The island. We're in agreement when it comes to COM :)
 
hool10 said:
It was. You can tell the quality is the same with 11 days later. Both shit films but teh concept was good.
Click to expand...

What are you smoking? The quality of CoM was fantastic. :| Maybe you're use to flashy, glossy expensive stuff with lots of bright lights, mindless explosions and other such acts of general rubbish, but for the atmosphere the film makers were trying to capture it was spot on. Dark, gritty, downtrodden, dirty...

Loved it.
 
TheAntipop said:
What are you smoking? The quality of CoM was fantastic. :| Maybe you're use to flashy, glossy expensive stuff with lots of bright lights, mindless explosions and other such acts of general rubbish, but for the atmosphere the film makers were trying to capture it was spot on. Dark, gritty, downtrodden, dirty...

Loved it.
Click to expand...
The camera work was shit with the jiggily cam. I didn't like anything in the movie. Except for the part when he goes in to rescue the baby.
 
hool10 said:
It was. You can tell the quality is the same with 11 days later. Both shit films but teh concept was good.
Click to expand...
Do you mean 28 Days Later? If so I must disagree with you. Both films have a good concept and are brilliant.
 
Calling CoM a B-movie makes you a dumbass even if you didn't like it.
 
There's so much going on underneath there, it would take months to pull out everything. I find new things in the movie every time I watch it.
 
I liked the movie, it's an OK film with great cinematography. The uprising that took place in the immigrant sector of Britain was fantastic, with those long shots and all.

Was anyone else really amazed when Theo and Kee were walking out of the building and the soldiers just stopped, some of them knelt and made the sign of the cross, when they realized it was a baby Kee was carrying? It was so awesome how that miraculous moment of the baby representing peace and harmony was suddenly broken by a violent firefight by rebels shooting from the building, reminding them terrible war they were in...
 
hool10 said:
It was. You can tell the quality is the same with 11 days later. Both shit films but teh concept was good.
Click to expand...

It had an 80 million dollar budget, how the fuck is that a low budget movie? And 11 Days Later? Get your facts straight.

Children of Men is an amazing movie, a powerful theme, a near perfect depiction of a post-apocalyptic world, visceral, brutal action (none of the stylized bullshit you're looking for apparently) which pretty much requires "jiggly cams" to do right (and the camera work in CoM is very impressive).
 
28 days later is a ****cked up movie. i totally wasted my time watching it. even children of men had some essence and substance to it.
 
So did 28 Days Later.

I think you're just cinematically challenged.
 
Lol you can so tell who is an American who only watches hollywood films and who is not. This is hilarious =)
 
Yorick said:
Yeah really. Once again I'm embarrassed to live here.
Click to expand...
Me to but I bet your gonna **** over MA and move to NH and call us "Massholes". Then still use MA for jobs and create a huge traffic jams around the border. A movie can have tons of money but still fail as seen by the 2nd and 3rd Matrx films. The jiggily cam as seen in both 28 days later and the sequel:)dozey:) is more of a cover-up for other things such as acting abilities (Clive is'nt made for the role because he is'nt meant for an action movie), stuntman, or just plain bad camera work. I knew that everybody was going to die because it didn't seem that anyone was going to make it with all the death. As I said before, the only scene they nailed was the house scene firefight. The Bourne series is not the best with the camera either but it doesn't feel like a a person with their handy cam recording the film (i.e the Blair Witch Project or a B movie).
 
No, the second and third Matrix films just generally failed for reasons other than the amount of money put into them.

I watched 28 Days Later last night and the shakey cam didn't put me off at all. :| I think it's perfectly fitting for this type of movie. Now that I think back to it, when was there an overuse of shakey cam in Children of Men? Theres only like... 3 'action scenes', if that, and I could see perfectly what was going on through the camera. :\

EDIT: And if you watched Children of Men thinking it was an action film then theres your problem. It had some scenes involving 'actiony' things, but it's so much more than that. They are insignificant compared to the rest of the film. Sort've.
 
hool10 said:
Me to but I bet your gonna **** over MA and move to NH and call us "Massholes". Then still use MA for jobs and create a huge traffic jams around the border.
Click to expand...

It's not my fault Massachusetts cost of living is so high.

I'm actually planning to leave New England. But the New Hampshire / Massachusetts commute was a plan for some months.

Also I meant I was embarrassed to live in America. I don't have any real problems with this state.

TheAntipop said:
No, the second and third Matrix films just generally failed for reasons other than the amount of money put into them.
Click to expand...

That's what he said.

hool10 said:
A movie can have tons of money but still fail as seen by the 2nd and 3rd Matrx films.
Click to expand...
 
The shakey cam is not inherently evil. It's just far overused. In other words, it crops up in films it should have no business being in.

Children of Men was an odyssey. It's meant to be a view into the world following one man's experience. It's up close, personal, and persistent. Shakey cam makes sense in it because it's the most effective way of capturing the turbulence considering the entire narrative paradigm. The impact would be heavily diminished if it was nothing but static scenes and crane shots. If it's ever disorienting... well, that's because it's meant to be.

And if you went into the movie thinking it was an action film, then the problem seems to be with expectations on your end.
 
Yorick said:
That's what he said.
Click to expand...

I worded that wrong. What I meant was it doesn't matter, and in the second and third Matrix's case, if they still did the same thing with the plot, actors, script, blah blah on whatever account of money, if all that was still there, it would of still sucked.
 
maybe i just hate brit films.. and maybe cos at 17 years old, i cant appreciate such boring movies..
 
hool10 said:
It was. You can tell the quality is the same with 11 days later. Both shit films but teh concept was good.
Click to expand...

I think your opinion is just stumbling around like a drunken old fool, really.

On AVP:
hool10 said:
After the "ok-ish" first movie
Click to expand...

On Resident Evil: Apocalypse and that crock fest Resi 3 trailer:
hool10 said:
The first one was meh, the second was a little bit better, this one looks pretty good.
Click to expand...

soulslicer said:
maybe i just hate brit films.. and maybe cos at 17 years old, i cant appreciate such boring movies..
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with your age. I'm 17. :|
 
18.jpg
 
:LOL:

I enjoyed 28 Days Later when I was 15.
 
British people got that accent too and they call each others wankers, etc. :p I only saw the Resident Evil films on pay-per-view and AVP on warez. It's good for a Saturday night in which you know the movie is'nt worth the money but your curious to see it. In other words, the movies are good for tv and warez. They got people specializing in setting up camera angles and it's an art form if you will. Sometimes the jiggily cam can be used for good such as Gears of War. In a movie though I like to see whats going on instead of watching an earthquake movie or something. Completely agree with you Yorick though but not America. We always get bashed on this forum because we live here. Stand up for being an American citizen! I'm not going around waving the rebel flag and saying America is the best country though.
 
America itself isn't half bad, but it's embarrassing in the international community to say that you're from the USA because of our idiot government.
 
Ennui said:
America itself isn't half bad, but it's embarrassing in the international community to say that you're from the USA because of our idiot government.
Click to expand...
Well our idotic government isn't entirely us either. I'm pretty sure other countries have sleeper cells, private torture camps, and wire tapping as well. ;) We get a lot of flack because of the yahoo's and Bush. You need to go and experiance the place first hand and then say your thoughts. Regardless, this is not the politics forum and it's about Children of Men.
 
I'm basing my opinion on our government on 18 years of residence in this country and knowledge of what we do both overtly and subtly when it comes to foreign policy especially. Period.

Children of Men is a great film, and shakycam is completely deserved.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

MFL
Fascinating look at the ongoing psychological evolution of flat hieirarchies.
Replies
2
Views
2K
Tollbooth Willie
Tollbooth Willie
B
Marc Laidlaw releases Half-Life 2: Episode Three's plot
Replies
32
Views
39K
BabyHeadCrab
BabyHeadCrab
B
Community Interviews: Tony Newton, co-creator of Redemption
Replies
0
Views
5K
Barnz
B
B
Hostile Takeover, the lost Half-Life expansion pack
Replies
6
Views
16K
Ennui
Ennui
-smash-
HalfMapper: A Tool for Capturing Unique Views of Black Mesa
Replies
7
Views
6K
Red Slug
Red Slug
Back
Top