Cool News
Should CHILDREN OF MEN be FLUSHED AWAY? One spy has his opinion on these two kiddie flicks!
SPOILER ALERT !!
Ahoy, squirts! Quint here with two short reviews, both on kid-centric films. The first is Alfonso Cuaron's fucking great adult sci-fi flick CHILDREN OF MEN (CLICK HERE TO READ MY REVIEW!!!) and the other the new work from Aardman, their first fully CG animated feature, FLUSHED AWAY! The FLUSHED AWAY review is very small, but it apparently made our spy laugh his "ass out." That's good right? I don't know if I'd want to laugh my ass out, but I guess it's no worse than laughing it off. Anyway, enjoy the reviews!
Hi Harry!
Well, two weeks ago I had the opportunity to see these films. If you are interested here's what I think about them
CHILDREN OF MEN
I'm a great admirer of Alfonso Cuaron. Like his fellow country men Guillermo del Toro he has made Hollywood films (Harry Potter and the yada yada yada) and personal ones (Y tu Mama Tambien) and he has succeeded with both of them. "Children of Men" is based on a P.D James, unread by me, and is major depart from the style we are used to see in Cuaron's films. First, it's filmed in England with a gritty, hand-held camera work and also it's a science fiction movie. It's set in the year 2027 where all the population on Earth in sterile and the human race is dying. Clive Owen is a bureacract who runs into the first pregnant woman in several years that could be the renaissance of the species. That's the plot. Cuaron films these futuristic tale like Gondry filmed "Eternal Sunshine..". Dirty, like it's the present but with a few details that tell that we are in the future (massive LCD's, electric cars, and so on). Also he stages several scenes a la Brian de Palma without cutting particularly the assault on the car (shot from inside all the ride, like Spielberg in War of the World, but better) and the climax with a steadicam following Clive Owen entering a building and climbing the stairs (I'm being vague here because it's the end of the movie). He choreographs these sequences flawlessly, something we are not used seeing in his style of filmmaking. The third act it's like "Escape from London" but very realistic (I'm talking about an England city walled where the Government sends his scum there, in this case, illegal immigrants.)
There is a strong political point in this movie beginning with the deportation of immigrants, to the fascist cops and also there's a big "fuck you" to peace organizations who sometimes thwart their speech and turn to the dark side. Although billed second, Julianne Moore's character appears briefly. One of the main characters is the pregnant woman, here played by Clare-Hope Ashitey. It's a very tough role and she pulled it with great success.
I liked the movie. In some parts, it's very obvious on the political side and has a thin plot. But Cuaron has proven that he is one the greatest Latin American directors by focusing on the directorial part replacing holes on the story. I almost forgot, Michael Caine's role, a smoking pot fart-joker is a delight.
FLUSHED AWAY
Very very very funny movie. Well, you have seen the trailer. That's the first 5 minutes of the movie. They are OK. But once Hugh Jackman's character is in the sewer city everything improves. I read that Aardman decided to go on CGI because of the dificulties of doing water on claymation. It's a wise decision, because water is a major issue here. The city es crossed with rivers and there's Kate Winslet's character has a boat that plays a large role in the story. I love Ian McKellen's villain. His voice is deepened to portray Frog, a comical bad guy aided by two useless henchmen, Bill Nighy and Andy Serkis (both great). I also loved Jean Reno's character named Le Frog. Very funny. There's a scene where one the Le Frog's minions is a mime called Marcel (got it?) and mimicks a videophone call by Frog. Hilarious. I laughed my ass out. I gotta say that this movie hasn't got the subtlety of Nick Park's characters nor the sentimental side and instead focuses on slapstick and action scenes. And the movie does them great. Go Aardman!
Johann Hofzinser
-
+ Expand All
-
as the UK people that have seen it can tell you. You guys are gonna love it!
-
DAMN YOU Michael J. Fox !!!
-
I have to say I'm surprised you guys posted these. That has nothing to do with the opinions expressed, but...neither review says much of anything. And it's really poorly written. I'll remind myself to see CHILDREN OF MEN early so that you get a review that at least has its basis in intelligible thought.
-
Ever notice how a LOT of movie reviews (especially those here) LOVE to start out by saying something along the lines of... "this is based on a book by such-and-such, which I haven't read...." Where did they get this talking point? What's even more bizarre is how often the work it's based on is something obscure or less well known. I mean, I don't expect most film-guys to be well read, outside of scripts, Playboys, and comic books, but come on!
-
While I have not seen the movie, I can tell you that from just watching the trailer and hearing some of the reviews, this movie (While I am very much looking forward to it) has almost nothing to do with the book. Yes there are no more children being born, yes the main character's name is the same, but that is just about the jist of it. There are a few other similarities, but its very obvious that it branches far from the source material.
-
...as in from Spain. People need to learn the difference.
-
dukrous he was born in Mexico City so that would make him a Mexican not a Mexican`t
-
No more CGI animal movies. I thought Ardman was the alternative.
-
Pieces of shit like Mr. Hankey or what? I figured if they're in the sewer maybe that was the case. Just goes to show how the studios are trying anything now to make a buck.
-
I disagree that Children of Men is a departure for Cuaron. I saw Y tu mama tambien after Children of Men and the fantastic camera work in both flicks is instantly recognisable. He's just working on a bigger scale now. Can't wait to see what he tackles next
-
Damn you MCMLXXVI
-
Children of men is great my second fave of the year just below the departed.
-
"also there's a big "fuck you" to peace organizations who sometimes thwart their speech and turn to the dark side."
What does that even MEAN? 'Thwart their speech'? Thwart whose speech? WTF...?? I could eat alphabet soup and...well, you know the rest. -
Cuaron's direction is soooooo powerful.
One of this year's best. -
it was MEH. There is a great scene which was already described on this site by a young british muslim. The end of the is utterly unsatisfactory, in that it is sign posted all the way through but the end when it comes very abrupt. it is very strong visually but the plot is very thin as to be non existent.
-
Naw, just kidding. I'll probably see them both.
-
Damn you Michael Bay
-
aardman in cg is one of the signs of the apocalypse. i don't care if they 'wanted to do the water,' they should have found another frakking story so they WOULDN'T have had to do cg. TRAITORS!! is it coz they were bent when all their maquettes burned in that fire? i woulda helped make more!
-
...even in CGI, it can't possibly be but SO bad. The Aardman know how to tell a story and set up some brilliant jokes - I'd rather have it watered down in CG form than not have it at all. Plus, working with plasticine over all these years have given them a good idea on how to work with characters in a three-dimensional environment - it's essentially what they've been doing all along, only this time it's in a computer instead of on a set.
-
leave Michael J. Fox outta this...feel so damn sorry for old marty mcfly as it is...have you seen those ads? nobody in that condition could make a movie, which is weird coz just a while back, Mikey was talking about doing BTTF 4...hmmm
-
I really loved the movie as did everyone else I know. It's real strength is in the acting. I don't think I've ever seen a sci-fi with as much gravitas. If you can't connect with the characters in this film and if the final third doesn't leave you choked, then you must be part of an android invasion. Go back to Mars you soulless automatons!
-
True, something like "Y Tu Mama Tambien" is light on action, but he stages some very long takes where there's so much work in the performances.
"Children of Men", while being full of action had very much that same documentary style to it. -
Totally agree with your post on the film-making styles of "Y Tu Mama Tambien" and "Children of Men".
-
But it is a great cinematic, kinetic experience. The film puts you in the middle of the events, and that "un-Hollywood" feel is why I think "Children of Men" has a, for me, a lot of visceral power. It isn't a piece of exposition being narrated - it's something that unfolds right before your eyes.
-
It is best shot film for years. The real break-through for hollywood majors, who decided to work with such masters as Del Toro or Cuaron. Cuaron is one of the greatedt director's of our time and i can't wait to see his next film
-
My English is not perfect, sorry. At least I try to write in another language, something I can't say of a lot of people who can't write in their own!
-
no comment
-
How can one of the best studios out there in the name of stop motion wimp out when it comes to animating water, and not pioneer some fantastic way of animating water like I expected them to? For shame.
-
second favourite film of the year for me after the Departed.
"Cuaron has proven that he is one the greatest Latin American directors" - try "one of the greatest directors". He is as far as I'm concerned having seen this. Why the Potter Producers haven't asked him back is a mystery to me ... unless Cauron said 'No'. -
Two trips in a week, twas that good. 'The Departed' and 'Children of Men' easily two best films of the year. Clive Owen is the man.
-
Even though he is not the product of a “normal”
sexual union between a man and woman, the monster’s
creation has sexual overtones. Furthermore, in the body of
the monster, sexuality and death are inextricably linked. The
monster’s murderous acts themselves have a certain sexual
charge. When the monster kills William, his urge to “seize
him” is a violent impulse based nonetheless on a desire to
connect with another living being (122). After he kills
William, the monster’s attention is drawn to the miniature
portrait of Caroline Beaufort around the child’s neck:
-
Desire for the woman in the portrait is transformed into
rage as he reflects on his own sexual deprivation and imagines
the rejection that would result if she were to return his
gaze. Looking for a hiding place, the monster encounters
Justine Moritz sleeping in a barn. His rage is awakened,
once more by imagining the gaze of a woman. Anticipating
her reaction “if her darkened eyes opened and she beheld
[him]” the same rage that filled him at the thought of
Caroline Beaufort “regarding [him]” overtakes the monster
once again (122-3). The monster leans over Justine in a
seductive posture, whispering in her ear “Awake, fairest, thy
lover is nearhe who would give his life but to obtain one
look of affection from thine eyes; my beloved awake!”
(123). This sexual play-acting demonstrates once again that
the gaze is a function of desire. He decides to hunt down
his creator and demand that Victor create a being that
“would not deny herself to [him]” (123). The monster
states that he is “consumed by a burning passion which
[Victor] alone can gratify” (122). The catalyst for this burning
passion, described in unmistakably erotic language, is the
murder of the child William, and the transformation that, in
the monster’s own words, occurs “as I fixed my eyes on the
child” (122). Gazing at the portrait of the beautiful Caroline
Beaufort, the monster revises his account of why he murdered
Williamnot “to silence him” or to exact “eternal
revenge,” but because he was “deprived the delights” of
erotic love (122). The monster clearly associates his violent,
murderous acts with sexual deprivation. Pretending to be
Justine’s lover as he plots to frame her for murder and
knowing that under “the sanguinary laws of man” she will
almost certainly die, the monster experiences “a thrill of terror”
akin to sexual excitement (123).
-
Clerval and Elizabeth also die as a result of this externalization
of the monster’s instinctual, internal death drive, which,
“forced away from the ego…enters the service of the sexual
function” (Freud 621). According to Freud, sadism is a
result of this “ambivalence of love and hate in erotic life”
(621). Even Victor identifies passion as the source of the
monster’s violent tendencies. Fearing for the lives of his
family and friends, Victor worries that the monster might
use them to “satisfy his sanguinary and merciless passions”
(150). Victor also identifies Clerval’s strangulation as a repetition
of William’s death: “when the mark of the fingers
was mentioned I remembered the murder of my brother
and felt myself extremely agitated” (153). What Victor
identifies as “strange coincidences,” a Freudian reading
reveals to be a manifestation of the compulsion to repeat
(153). The sexualization of the monster’s violent acts is
especially evident in Elizabeth’s death scene. Abandoned by
her husband, Elizabeth is completely helpless when the
monster comes to ravish her. Her wedding night is replete
with sexual imagery, but the consummation that occurs is
deadly rather than life-producing. The wedding night brings
not a sexual union of husband and wife with its promise of
procreation, but a bloody death scene. Victor discovers
Elizabeth “lifeless and inanimate, thrown across the bed”
(239). Her “relaxed form” lies in a sexual posture “on its
bridal bier” (239). The sexual congress of the “bridal bier”
should signal the beginning of a new procreative union. Instead, Victor’s murderous double destroys the possibility of marriage, family and domestic tranquility for Victor and
Elizabeth.
-
The monster asserts that death will be the consummation of
his passionin death his “unsatisfied and unquenched”
feelings will finally achieve release. Bersani explicates
Freud’s theory of the death drive by arguing that “if sexuality
is constituted as masochism, the immobilization of fantasmic
structures can only have a violent denouement…
masochism is both relieved and fulfilled by death” (46).
This explains the monster’s suicidal tendencies, the reason
why he kills Elizabeth even though he realizes that in so
doing he is “preparing for [him]self a deadly torture” (195).
This masochistic self-torture can only find resolution in suicide.
Imagining his death, the monster says, “I shall ascend
my funeral pile triumphantly and exult in the agony of the
torturing flames” (198). The “explosive end” of the monster’s
masochistic tendencies is his exultation in his own
agony provided through suicide by fire.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 171 total posts 169 posts
- AVENGERS enemy revealed as pink boardgame pieces... You might suffer some form of elation... SPOILERS!!! -- 157 total posts 111 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 138 total posts 75 posts
- Here's The Red Band Trailer For Drafthouse Films' THE FP! -- 67 total posts 67 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 479 total posts 62 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 59 total posts 59 posts
- Does ‘SNL’ Rhyme With ‘Deschanel’?? Learn Which SATURDAY NIGHT LIVE Vet Hosts After Sexy Zooey!! -- 62 total posts 59 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 48 total posts 45 posts
- Friday Brings SWEEPS DAY NINE!! Gab Here About Tonight’s FRINGE!! Plus Einstein on TIM, Wiig On PORTLANDIA, MAHER, CLONE, GIFTED, GRIMM, SPARTACUS, SUPERNATURAL, GOLD RUSH And More!! -- 116 total posts 32 posts
- SPACE 2099!! -- 181 total posts 30 posts