January 11, 2008
Children of Men (2006)
Should I see it?
No.
Short Review: In the future humans find they can no longer breed. Being diligent, NARAL keeps the abortion clinics open “just in case”.
Short Review #2: In the future, humans lose the ability to breed. The film doesn’t explain why but I think we can all assume its because this current generation of men have had their testicles snipped off.
Soon the world will be in ruins. Everything will be gray, the skies will be cloudy and you’re going to die a painful and unfair death. That’s the thing about filmmakers, they always see the future as a miserable hellhole where we suffer the inevitable consequences of today's sins. We never seem to improve ourselves and pull ourselves out of the horror that awaits us on the horizon.
This film shows a dismal future where humans have lost the ability to propagate. Civilization has fallen (or is in the middle of its death throes) and only Clive Owen, along with a gaggle of self-important leftists can save the day. By the way, what is the deal with Clive Owen? He talks like he has a mouth full of cotton balls and always looks like he just woke up. He’s a human lint trap that mumbles. Back to the film, Linty Mumbler spends his screen time trying to get Kee, the only known pregnant woman in the world, out of England. It’s never clearly explained where she’s being shuttled off to, but given that Britain is a crumbling war zone, it doesn’t really matter. The movie, at its heart, is little more than a chase film.
Western Civilization is of course the bad player in this future. Tedious cries of future fascism and police state policies litter this pompous pile of political mush. The film is a string of vibrant and well shot liberal fantasies brought to life. Jackboot thugs round up immigrants, seize control over human freedoms and allow the masses to kill each other. The interesting thing is that like most politically liberal thought, this film is loud with babble and silent in thought. Director Alfonso Cuarón is so distracted by his intent on saying something important he fails to say anything valuable. Yes, our civilization is becoming more and more stagnant and it often feels like we have peaked. Cuarón intends for the film to show the results of our generation. The story takes place in 2027, which means the dystopia shown on screen is one of our making. There are clear signs that Cuarón wants to assign blame to the Bush Administration (and by extension their supporters) for the snuffing out of all mankind. He then bemoans our endless conflicts and lack of civility. He clearly wants to criticize the noisy conflicts that seem to define today's society by making an incoherent and noisy film. Ultimately, this film is loaded with hollow charges and a narrative that fails to come alive. Given the lack of depth to this film, it simply becomes another confused pseudo-intellectual rambling that does little more than join the ranks of sub par muck that is smothering our culture to death.
To be fair, credit has to go out to production designers Jim Clay and Geoffrey Kirkland who managed to create a believable disintegrating world. You can see the rot of civilization in the environment as Linty Mumbler shuffles through the awkward plot. Also cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki deserves kudos for some technically masterful work throughout this piece. This film is an intellectually jumbled mess but it is an interesting mess to watch.
To put this film in context, if you thought V for Vendetta was a well conceived film, full of logic and truth, this film is right up your alley. If you see V for Vendetta for what it was, a hysterical and laughable load of diaper filler, you'll be best served by skipping this flick.
Even putting my opposition to this film based on political standing aside, this is simply a poorly constructed film. The scenes are without depth or tension. The main thrust of the film feels inserted and doesn’t flow with the remainder of the piece. The central character Theo (portrayed by Linty Mumbler) is a non-character. He retains no interesting qualities and doesn't evolve in response to his situation. He defines the word “vapid”. The characters surrounding him are equally as hollow. They belch out over heated dialog and never expand beyond their role of propelling the limping plot forward. Despite some technical marvels, by the time the film comes to a stuttering end there is little to take from the piece other than “Hey, how about those two, long, unedited scenes? Cool, eh?”
If you're looking for a smarter and more enjoyable film about the direction of this listless culture, check out Mike Judge's Idiocracy. Yes, I'm actually saying the creator of Beavis and Butthead has made a superior movie to this one. Judge's movie is coherent and isn't so wrapped up in its own arrogant need to be important that is fails to do its basic jobs - make a point and entertain.
Click on the image to view the trailer
Cautions: Violence abounds as does language. It's in context and for the most part is handled with some care. If you're sensitive to violence, that's yet another reason to skip this film.
Worldview: This is existential slop. We're condemned and there's no hope - boo-hoo. This is a typical view of the future by the learned elites, or at least what we've come to expect. While the base concept of the film is compelling in its own right, and seeing the fall of civilization is interesting, the overall tone of the piece is like listening to drunken undergraduate art students complain about how unfair the world is. Basically what we have here is an existentialist whine about the inevitable result of existentialist thought - life without God creates a vacuum of meaningful human achievement and advancement. When one denies God they deny purpose - no purpose = no civilization.
Related Reviews:
Linty Mumbler movies
The Croupier (1998)
Sin City (2005)
Other Critic's Reviews:
People who disagree with me on this one...
ReThink
We Are the Movies
Labels: Clive Owen, film, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, movie review
posted by Michelle Obama's Left Nut at 7:00 AM
Share
Previous Posts
Friends & Reads
Christian & Culture
Film Resources
Christian Sites
Faithcom
Featured On
Good News Film Reviews LLC 2004-2010 - used with permission
Images, video and titles are the property of their respective copyright holders. Good News Film Reviews LLC claims no ownership or connection to them.
The views expressed on this site are not the opinion of any advertiser or external entity.
While we take care to only link to responsible entities, Good News Film Reviews LLC takes no responsibility for the content linked from this site. There are sharks in the waters. Surf at your own risk.
The Template is generated via PsycHo and is Licensed.
8 Comments:
Here's what I don't get: a world without children is supposed to be destabilizing and make people violent? Japan now has more pets than children, and I don't see Tokyo in flames.
I liked Children of Men, but I also enjoyed your description of Clive Owens.
I haven't seen the movie, but I have read the book, which the trailers led me to believe was very unlike the movie (except in that little detail of humankind suddenly having no more children).
Have you read the book?
No, I haven't read the book but from what I understand what you've said is correct. The original work and this film are not deeply connected
Wow. Big mistake. Totally surprising that someone professing an interest in film could so thoroughly miss the depth, value, and unique calibre of this movie. Get a clue, and that goes for anybody else appalled by violence and bad language but happy to protest against abortion while supporting invasions and the planet's increasingly unified secret police force.
This film is not at all a big stick waved at George Bush. It's a parable of where we are now, in terms of many global power relations, and it's a warning of where we are headed. ZPG may not be a part of that obviously, but since when is artistic license cause to sneer? V For Vendetta has some colourful and even well-written moments, but it is a toffee apple adaptation of comic frippery and really bares little parallel to Children of Men, except perhaps for somebody so disengaged from the latter that they felt compelled to lob it in the same basket as the former.
Xavier,
I give you credit for one of the more colorful comments I've gotten in a awhile.
I am fully aware of the idea that this film wishes to portray the infertile direction of our civilization - i get it. The fact is that this film simply doesn't have the intellectual muscle to pull it off. It is a droll mess and doesn't live up to the hype that's been heaped upon it.
We disagree on the potency of the flick. You see it as a thoughtful and well crafted film - I see it as yet another whine fest from the international left. That's the great thing about free speech - we get to disagree. This is why, despite the polar opposite views we hold, I still, not only included you, but put you at the top of the Carnival of Cinema.
While we appear to agree that V for Vendetta is a wholly useless piece, I believe it has everything to do with this film. Both are coming from the same political mindset, both warn of dystopian futures where those terrible conservatives will lock everyone up (even though history shows its the left who's most prone to do such things), and both films fail to deliver the goods.
I hope to see you back.
Thanks for the comment
hmmmmmmmmmm, nah. I don't buy it. V for Vendetta is candy-coated pap-entertainment leading to a climactic pop-feelgood moment of the sort which would never pan out that way. Children of Men, on the other hand, has thoroughly accepted parallels in reality. For example, scientific consensus increasingly includes recognition of the fact that unpredictability is increasingly certain.
This may sound like contradictory or useless information, but it absolutely isn't. Increasingly, a number of forecasts regarding ecological shifts and changing processes that were painted as hysteric or pessimistic between 3 and 15 years ago have been overshot. Reality has reframed these predictions as optimistic. Similarly, environmental processes which were not anticipated have kicked in. So to create a humanscape where unlikely or extreme elements are included is a perfectly valid, rather than vapid, technique from Cuaron.
This myth of the international left really adds nothing other than a tone of panic to what you're saying here Scott. And the passive aggressive reference to the Carnival is kind of freaky. Thinkin you've got some agenda-mud blotting your perspectacles dude.
Creepy - how nice. I brought up the carnival to show you I meant no harm and that I invite argument. I've read your site and I know you're prone to hyperbole and sensitivity so I thought I'd show you that regardless of your opinion I was still hospitable.
"Thinkin you've got some agenda-mud blotting your perspectacles dude." Pointing out the speck of sawdust in my eye and paying no attention to the log in your own. The myth of the international left? You honestly believe there is a planetary "unified secret police force" but fail to knowledge a movement that has enslaved/killed millions over the course of the last century - again, a movement which actually thrives on the development of real police states like the one the film warns us about.
Of course its perfectly valid to create a "humanscape" where unlikely and extreme elements are included, its call fiction.
Regarding your bit on unpredictability - its unneeded. I'm sure I didn't attack the premise of the film regarding people's lack to have babies - its a compelling idea and it does work. Where the piece falls apart is in its structure and character development. It is a boring movie. It doesn't have any steam. Adding on top of this the sophomoric political ax it wishes to grind and the piece becomes insufferable. There are some technical gems, like I mentioned, but there's no "there, there".
I look forward to your response.
Post a Comment
<< Home