Ain't It Cool News: The best in movie, TV, DVD, and comic book news.

Quint has seen Alfonso Cuaron's CHILDREN OF MEN!!!!

First AGAIN by clintrockremix1969	Sep 25th, 2006 01:12:32 PM
and Alfonso Cuaron ROCKS TOO!!!! I can't WAIT to see this...
Sounds good, I love some intelligent Sci-Fi. by brycemonkey	Sep 25th, 2006 01:14:31 PM
And stop complaining about your travel. Boo-hoo, I travelled to Europe. Boo-hoo, I visited movie sets. Man up!
Sorry to spoil your fantasy clintrock... by brycemonkey	Sep 25th, 2006 01:17:38 PM
but you did get this one if it makes you feel better (and stop me from getting 3 in arow)
"the last vestige of civilization; big city America"??? by raw_bean	Sep 25th, 2006 01:25:05 PM
Did you see the right film, Quint? Great review overall (and the film is indeed top notch), but surely you meant Britain? ------ The film was largely about an extrapolation foward of the issues with asylum seekers and illegal immigration that the UK is currently facing, within the story of a world falling apart with the UK one of the few countries (sort of) holding together. Apart from a propaganda montage about how Britain stands alone in resisting the world-wide collapse of civilisation, there's very little mention of the rest of the world, and none that I remember of America.
Cuaron and Harry Potter by EddieBlake	Sep 25th, 2006 01:26:53 PM
Okay...I know I'm not the only person to think this, and not taking anything away from "Children of Men" because I think it looks great and am very much looking forward to it, but Cuaron on Harry Potter was an incredibly mixed bag. Sure, he brought a great visual style to the film and it certainly looked better than any other entry in the series up to that point, but as far as an adaptation of the book, it was a waste of time and effort. There were far too many crucial plot points left out and far too many things glossed over. It worked well as a movie, but it sucked horribly as an adaptation.
America and Adaptions by evacuee	Sep 25th, 2006 01:48:08 PM
raw_bean: Your point is true overall, but New York was mentioned and is where the Julianne Moore character hails from. EddieBlake: If a film succeeds as a film, what does it matter if it is flawed as an adaption? surely we watch films as films and read books as books? regarding one as an adaption of the other is totally futile, surely?
I Was excited to see this by Shivv	Sep 25th, 2006 01:59:57 PM
Until Quint dropped the fact that we never find out why this girl is pregnant. Sorry, but this falls into the category of The Night Listener for me, which I avoided because I was told you never find out whether or not the kid actually exists. Maybe its just me, but I don't feel like seeing a movie where they never pay off the central plot point.
Great review by BannedOnTheRun	Sep 25th, 2006 02:19:00 PM
of your flight. Ann Coulter's flight reviews suck.
Oh, I also find it humorous by Shivv	Sep 25th, 2006 02:23:00 PM
that anyone thinks that Britain could ever be the last bastion of civilization. Click the following link and tell me they're not committing cultural suicide. http://tinyurl.com/p6qr3
Um, maybe I'll rent it by DeCypher44	Sep 25th, 2006 02:32:39 PM
I was interested in seeing this when it releases, but now I know that we don't find out how she was able to become pregnant? That sucks.
Shivv by Quint	Sep 25th, 2006 02:33:56 PM
Trust me, when you watch the movie you don't care about why she's pregnant. They bring it up, but none of them have the magical answer to it all. The central plot element isn't why she's pregnant, it's getting her the fuck out of England before people (or the government) find out. The people she's running to are supposed to figure out that mystery, but that's not our story. Trust me, I'm usually a stickler about plot points being left open, but it didn't bother me in the least.
Shivv: What? by brycemonkey	Sep 25th, 2006 02:41:07 PM
So police communicating with muslim leaders so as not to incite religious anger isn't being civilized? What would you prefer they do? Burn mosques to the ground?
Ever since I saw Azkaban... by random dude	Sep 25th, 2006 03:01:24 PM
...I knew Cuaron's would be next big thing. Even not big, but gargantuan. This guy is fuckin' genius.
well brycemonkey... by clintrockremix1969	Sep 25th, 2006 03:07:27 PM
at least I got 2... not in a row tho... damn that was a first tho eh! hah we're a different breed us firstians!
Bryce by Shivv	Sep 25th, 2006 03:14:17 PM
You miss the bigger point. The fact that arresting criminals within the Muslim community incites "religious anger" is a big indication that something is very very wrong.
Shivv- You're totally missing something by Lovecraftfan	Sep 25th, 2006 03:24:20 PM
How she got pregnant is not the main plot point in the slightest. Its sad you're going to skip a great film just becuase they don't answer one question that's not even a central concern to the story.
Jesus Quint, I know you're narky from travel but... by half vader	Sep 25th, 2006 03:34:34 PM
The opinion about the reason for her pregnancy is (judging by the reactions already) subjective and one that you made WHILE/AFTER seeing it, so maybe a spoiler warning on the link would have helped? Harry fucked up (and finally rectified it) with apocalypto, and you should do it here. Surely the AUDIENCE needs to come to that decision which was intended by the filmmakers. You even said "When you watch the movie" we won't care. But you've taken that away from us, haven't you? It's the whole thing of a film telling an audience vs. letting the audience decide for themselves. Anyway, sorry for the harsh-looking caps. If we could get some italics (or God forbid an edit function) on this joke of a talkback format I wouldn't have sounded quite so incensed. By all means though ignore that comment like every other AICNer for the last few years! ;)
United fucking suck by Mickey The Idiot	Sep 25th, 2006 03:56:20 PM
Always have - Always will.
Saw this today by King_Knut	Sep 25th, 2006 03:58:34 PM
Great film, slightly frustrating ending.
Also by King_Knut	Sep 25th, 2006 03:59:48 PM
didn't partilcularly buy Michael Caine as a pot-smoking old hippy into ardcore death/thrash/f*cked-up metal house Drum'n'bass
Come on, Quint! by ElDobermann	Sep 25th, 2006 04:22:09 PM
Can´t Believe you Quint!, you have been watching movies for all yer fkn life and you think the long sequences in this film were "edited"... We´re talking about master cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, you jackass... The extended shots were not tricked, some of them were up to 10 minutes long,this was revealed by Lubezki, and he also said that (surprise, surprise), the producers were against this idea, because "it was technically impossible", and "the audiences want flashy editing"... You ignorant fool.
They were clearly tricked by Blueberry	Sep 25th, 2006 05:00:47 PM
The blood spots disappearing from the camera at a certain point are a big giveaway. But you can tell even from the car sequence that a lot is digitally altered. On the Starbuck terrorist attack the cut is on the door.
It's really good by Babyshamble	Sep 25th, 2006 05:46:52 PM
I noticed the cgi character but it's done so well I'm sure others didn't. Michael Caine's wonderful in it and as for the pregnancy, Kee doesn't know why she's pregnant. She's an ordinary girl not a scientist, she has never even seen a pregnant women before. Her surprise at how painful her contractions are is really well acted.
No hoverboards? FUCK! by darthferris	Sep 25th, 2006 07:45:19 PM
NT
Viva Mexico Cabrones!!! by pelos_locos	Sep 25th, 2006 08:15:10 PM
For all the bunch of you ignorants that still believe that Mexico produces only lazy bum illegals, here is proof that Mexicans are as good, and many times better, as any American, French or Italian director out there. This message is not to put anybody down. This is just to show how proud I am of my Paisanos.
Pissed off at Mexico by pelos_locos	Sep 25th, 2006 08:20:38 PM
I feel really sad that Mexican directors receive more support in other countries than in their own. These directors are probably better recognized in the US than in Mexico, and that makes me feel sad....just a thought.
Anyone remember The Handmaid's Tale? by Zeke25:17	Sep 25th, 2006 08:54:54 PM
Terrific, underrated picture starring Natasha Richardson, Aidan Quinn and Robert Duvall. Children of Men will be great, I'm sure; but I can't help thinking Handmaid was more than a passing inspiration.
Chicago hates everyone by grosshair	Sep 25th, 2006 09:42:09 PM
Or at least the airport does. The city is great.
Awesome!! by erby_88	Sep 26th, 2006 02:41:11 AM
Sounds, though you were vague, like it should be an entertaining film. Can't wait until hit finally makes its way over here.
The Hadmaid's tale by Babyshamble	Sep 26th, 2006 04:01:03 AM
is a fantastic book, but a shit film with a tacked on hollywood ending. There really aren't many similarities between the two films other than they are both set in the not too distant future.
Saw it on Sunday ! by barnaby jones	Sep 26th, 2006 05:19:28 AM
Its good, but a little to simplistic for my tastes. Quint's right when he says it descends into (just) a chase movie real quickly.
Damn you Michael Bay by MCMLXXVI	Sep 26th, 2006 07:19:55 AM
Damn you Michael Bay
I couldn't disagree more by fanaticalaboutfilm	Sep 26th, 2006 07:45:10 AM
I also saw Children of Men this pas weekend, however I'd have to respectfully disagree with Quint's assessment. I thought Children of Men was terrible. To me, the movie played out like an allegorical college essay describing how we will somehow be punished (by not being able to have children) for all the terrible things the human race has done. The other main problem as I saw it was that this was anchored entirely too firmly in the current day. This isn't set in 2027, its set now. The technology in portrayed in the movie was often more backward than what we have now, it displays a world with absolutely no technological advancement at all. It references contemporary events constantly (and often for no reason), which don't really relate in any way to the movie. Furthermore, the vast majority of characters are completely stereotyped. The only high point of the movie was Michael Caine, who put in fantastic performance. Clive Owen looked like he was just killing time most of the movie and the "chase" seen was more of a non-sensical ramble. It was a profound and utter disappointment.
Shivv: I think youy are turned around on the subject... by brycemonkey	Sep 26th, 2006 08:09:01 AM
The police have mishandled so many muslim arrests (remember when they arrested all those people in Scotland? And then, let them go because they had done nothing wrong.). It's stuff like that that incites religious hatred of 'authority'. If you keep on your present track people might mistake you for a racist...
Shivv: by raw_bean	Sep 26th, 2006 08:22:58 AM
Firstly, as Quint says, the lack of explanation regarding the pregnancy is not a problem the way the films plays out. In fact it adds to the feeling of reality that there isn't some magic dingus explanation or convenient Professor of Exposition to figure it out and explain it to the characters. Really, the film's better off the way it is, which is great. ------ Secondly, the 'Britain as last bastion of civilisation' thing is easily mis-understood out of context. As I said, the film barely deals with the rest of the world at all, everyone's focused on the problems in front of them, and it's open to some serious interpretation. On the one hand, the assertion that the rest of the world is in chaos while Britain holds firm is made in some VERY blatant propaganda from the rather fascist-seeming Government (think V For Vendetta for a lot of the feel of the film, but more gritty and less stylised, not being a graphic novel), and on the other hand, throughout the film it's clear that the UK isn't doing anywhere near as well as they'd like you to believe. ---------- Finally, on your point regarding the police seeking advice from select Muslims on terror intelligence before raids, what you're missing is the background on this. Since the July 7th bombings last year, there have been several high profile mistakes and bungles by the police in this country (starting with an innocent Brazillian electrician being shot seven times in the head on a tube train, and most recently featuring an innocent Muslim being non-fatally shot in his home during a raid looking for a bomb that didn't exist), attracting lots of negative press and stirring up resentment and feelings of unfair scapegoating and persecution in Muslim communities. In this context, perhaps you can see the reasoning a bit more clearly behind this decision, even if it amounts to no more than a reassuring PR measure.
fanaticalaboutfilm... by raw_bean	Sep 26th, 2006 08:32:29 AM
...while it's true the film set in 2027 didn't feature androids and flying cars, the last film I saw set in 1987 didn't feature the invention of steam-power and people firing muskets. Perhaps you overestimate the rate of change? I thought the level of believable technology was spot on, especially considering the dystopian descent of civilisation depicted in the film. I also disagree regarding the acting (except for Michael Caine, who WAS brilliant), but then I think Chewitel Ejiofor and Clive Owen are just generally excellent. I'd personally describe the 'chase' as a non-sensical SCramble, which is perfect for a grim and gritty film like this, as opposed to a slick Hollywood thriller.
Zeke25:17 by raw_bean	Sep 26th, 2006 08:35:13 AM
Regarding inspiration, Children of Men is based on a book, according to the credits. Not having seen The Handmaid's Tale or read the Children of Men book (can't remember the name of the author, either), I couldn't say what influaenced the film. Anyway, enough hijacking the TB. :^)
It really is by Fried Gold	Sep 26th, 2006 09:32:12 AM
quite, quite brilliant.
REGARDING CUARON'S POTTER EFFORT by Sepulchrave	Sep 26th, 2006 10:11:43 AM
Please. It was a great adaptation of a book that, like all the Potter books, really REALLY need an editor with a fucking ax to go through them. I like reading HP on my hols, but man they are turgid and overlong.
fanatical... by Sepulchrave	Sep 26th, 2006 10:15:35 AM
'This isn't set in 2027, its set now. The technology in portrayed in the movie was often more backward than what we have now, it displays a world with absolutely no technological advancement at all. ' I thinkwe have a hover-car junkie who wants his fix of ridiculous Minority Report techno-garbage. Believe me; the chance that the consumerist world will be in a BETTER state in thirty years than it is now is HIGHLY UNLIKELY. This is the zenith; it's all down hill from here; sorry to let down all you guys who thought you'd live forever in virtual reality; you'll probably die buying water for $20 a quart in a bomb crater.
Thank you for proving my long running point, Sepulchrve by ExcaliburFfolkes	Sep 26th, 2006 12:16:38 PM
As I've been saying around here for several years, the only people who liked Cuaron's adaptation of POA were people who didn't particularly like the Harry Potter books in the first place. Cuaron's crapfest of a movie served as some kind of artist coup d'etat for your type. You didn't enjoy Harry Potter, but at least you could relish watching the movie series crash and burn and morph into a terrible farce of itself.
Technology by fanaticalaboutfilm	Sep 26th, 2006 04:49:34 PM
I'm not talking about hover cars, or robots or anything fancy. But if you look back to the difference in technology between the 1980 and now, the difference is huge. The difference between now and 2027 will also be huge. The buses in London in the film don't even run anymore. There is nothing futuristic about this film, its not set in 2027 it is set now, and they shouldn't have pretended otherwise. Futuristic is a misnomer. That wasn't even my main problem with the film, my problem was that it was rambling and non-sensical.
Thankyou for proving my longrunning suspicion Excalibur by half vader	Sep 26th, 2006 07:08:46 PM
That fans of the books don'y actually understand what makes a film a film. They're not the same thing (the best differing mediums example being Kubrick's Shining and then the 'more faithful' tv movie) and storytelling in one doesn't necessarily translate to the other. The most insidious thing about the first two (well mainly the first) movies is that after the books actually managed the incredible feat of getting kids to read again or their parents to read to them, we had a 'movie' that was a slave to the book but took away the best thing about reading them - using your imagination! Which basically renders the film nothing more as an advertisement for the book and has no standalone value whatsoever. Worse still the book fans were generally HAPPY to be lazy (I've been on the net for years too)! "Hey it's the book on screen but this time all the work's done FOR me!" Not to even mention redundant sequences, awful pacing and shots that only worked because the part of the audience that had read the book were already enjoying and laughing at a scene when it had barely begun. THAT's why the first film (and to a lesser extent the second) is a lousy film. Stop being so bitter and superior about your painfully subjective opinion. I like the books AND I like the third film, and my points about adaptation aren't quite so personal. You talk about OTHER people having a vendetta! Actually, if you can't discuss the film on its own merit why don't you hop over to the Apocalypto thread. They'll readily agree with you over there. Sorry for this all sounding harsh with the caps but GEEZ, y'know? Don't tar us all with the same brush.
don't by half vader	Sep 26th, 2006 07:32:49 PM
Damn this stupid talkback and the lack of an edit function that others have had for years. Of course the one saving grace to all this ineptitude is that first posters now look like even bigger tools.
ZPG/Handmaids Tale by Wyrdy the Gerbil	Sep 26th, 2006 11:48:34 PM
Children Of Men has much more in common with ZPG than Handmaids http://us.imdb.com/title/tt006 9530/
So I'm a racist? by Shivv	Sep 27th, 2006 12:38:58 AM
I must be, because I don't support clearing police raids with community leaders who have done next to nothing to root out extremism in their community.
Uh Excalibut...you proved my point too by Sepulchrave	Sep 27th, 2006 02:00:55 AM
that any fanboy who is still rampant;ly defensive of Rowling universe, which started out fitfully, with an inventive and lopsided first novel, then gew more competent, then started lasping into overstuffed whodunit-territory, is probably a bit undiscerning and immature. There are serious problems with the Potter books, not least that they have never really been well structured at all, which causes problem for the movies. They are nonetheless fine entertainments. How OLD are you? If you're over 20, you should be past your Potter stage, past Tolkien, past Orwell and Salinger, past Huxley, Burgess and Chuck Palaniuk. It's all very well to creep into your childhood space with a nice book. But you can't live there, and, though the child in me loves HP, the adult in me says that most of the books are lopsided and slapdash, thematically repetitive, derivcative of other rite-of-passage tales, and that PoA was the only stylistically adult film of the lot, rather than a filmed kiddie-pleaser.
Oh and this Thread is for Chgildren of Men by Sepulchrave	Sep 27th, 2006 02:07:28 AM
a grown up film from a noevl by a grown up author; PD James. I believe that's telling. Does being a fanboy basically mean that you have a licence to engage only with children's art and entertainment for the rest of your life? And to be wide-eyed and undiscriminating? Man, no wonder Mc Donalds sell so mnay Happy Meals; you guys must be collecting the little toys.
Well at least you can admit it Shivv. by brycemonkey	Sep 27th, 2006 07:46:44 AM
You would actually be a racist because you think it's OK for a minority to be treated very badly in the UK. I know it's difficult but you should try and put yourself in other people's shoes. And I didn't call you a racist, but if you stick to narrow minded and dogmatic viewpoints people might mistake you for one.
a world without children by TheBaxter	Sep 27th, 2006 03:09:01 PM
sounds like a dream come true. i could finally go to a movie theater without suffering through a bunch of crying babies and loudmouth teenagers. and what's the deal with the CG character? does the chick give birth to jar-jar?
a world without children by TheBaxter	Sep 27th, 2006 03:15:37 PM
sounds like a dream come true. i could finally go to the theater without having to suffer through a bunch of screaming babies and loudmouthed teenagers. and what's the deal with the cg character? does the chick give birth to jar-jar?
Fantastic - one of the films of 2006 by Barney_Tabasco	Sep 28th, 2006 04:53:40 AM
This is a GREAT film. One of the best of the year. Very gritty, thrilling yet daunting. It really does show a realistic future for the world and that is truly terrifying. photoman - don't give up on this film. It is NOT a chase movie in that very obvious and cliched sense of the word. I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised. True sci-fi fans (i.e. dystopian vision of the future types, not shiny spaceships and laser guns) will love this. It follows in the tradition of Blade Runner, Minority Report and Clockwork Orange.
Cuaron & potter.. by MaulRat	Oct 27th, 2006 06:42:14 PM
"There were far too many crucial plot points left out and far too many things glossed over" - you just described EVERY POTTER MOVIE IN THE SERIES.. you can't shovel that much detail into a 2 1/2 hour movie. The Azkaban movies story was engaging, the direction was superb, the acting was more or less spot on, the children grew in that film and it is still my favourite potter film to date, even though The first is the best adaptation, and Goblet of Fire is the better book. Right on about Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth too it's one of the best fantasy movies ever made IMO, granted the Fantasy genre over the years has been more or less geared toward the more impressionable children to teens demographic, the ones more open to fantastic ideas, but this one is adult in nature. I think the last fantasy film for adults that I can recall was Ridley Scotts Legend and Pans Labyrinth beats that hands down.. The Latin Filmakers have a unique cinematic flavour to them and its something that American filmmakers cannot emulate (Cameron Crowe proved that when he tried to "Gus Van Sant" Alejandro Amenabar's Abre Los Ojos), I just hope that english speaking audiences can look past the language barriers and subtitles and embrace the films on thier merits and give these films the audience they deserve without resorting to remaking the film in English.

Talkbacks

Quint has seen Alfonso Cuaron's CHILDREN OF MEN!!!!

User login

Quick Talkback

Talkbacks