Children of Men
Movie Review
"Children of Men"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: A-
Rating: R
Released: Monday, December 25, 2006
Directed by:
Cast:
One of the most technically brilliant and thematically layered films of the year, "Children of Men" is a stark, gray vision of a future without hope. How does a society respond when its outlook is irrefutably grim? And how quickly does joy return when hope re-emerges?
Based on the P.D. James novel, the film is set in the fall of 2027, when the world is in utter chaos. News reports refer to day 1,000 in "the siege of Seattle." Governments have toppled. Anarchy reigns supreme. Only the United Kingdom has maintained some semblance of order, and that only shakily and dubiously, as the government relies on fascist tactics and a steady diet of misinformation to maintain even the slight control it has.
The cause of all this confusion? It has been 18 years since any woman on Earth has had a baby. For reasons unknown, humans have become universally infertile. First birthrates declined, then plummeted, and then, in 2009, ceased altogether. There is literally not a single child anywhere in the world. The youngest person is 18.
The link between this and the world's chaos may seem tenuous, and the film never says specifically that the flatlined birthrate is what caused the breakdown in civilization. But the point is compellingly made nonetheless. Imagine a world without children. In the short-term, it means no schools, no playgrounds, no chance to hear the sound of children's laughter or to watch their delight on Christmas morning. In the long-term, it means no no potential for growth, no chance for the next generation to make the world a better place. There's truly no reason to care much about what you do when you know there will be no humans left on Earth in another 80 years anyway.
It is in this bleak situation that we meet Theo Faron (Clive Owen), an employee in the U.K.'s Ministry of Energy who is dragged into activism by Julian Taylor (Julianne Moore), his former lover and the mother of his now-deceased child. Julian disappeared years ago and now reappears as part of a radical group called the Fishes. The government has branded them as violent terrorists, and to prove the point, the government occasionally blows something up and blames it on the Fishes.
The group is actually non-violent and seeks to expose the British government's appalling treatment of immigrants, among other things. With most other countries gone haywire, England has been flooded with refugees, but anti-immigration laws render them less than human. Illegals are hunted down aggressively and detained in Guantanamo-style barracks.
The Fishes need Theo's help getting transport papers for a woman who needs to be taken someplace safe. Her name is Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey). She is in her late teens. And she is pregnant.
I wish I could leave that detail unmentioned, but it would impossible to describe the urgency of the film's second half without discussing it. (The movie's trailer and all its advertising mention the pregnancy, as does the back cover of the book it's based on.) Even knowing in advance that the girl is pregnant, however, it's hard not to share in the stunned surprise when Theo discovers it. All the ramifications instantly become apparent. This girl and her baby must be protected at all costs. This birth could be the most pivotal event in mankind's history since a certain other miraculous birth 2,027 years earlier.
The screenplay, adapted by director Alfonso Cuaron and Timothy J. Sexton, is packed with fascinating details and nuances of the dystopian future. The government encourages suicide (to keep the population down) and even provides kits to help people, yet marijuana remains illegal. Religious zealotry is on the rise. People no longer have any regard for artistic works, since the world is ending anyway.
That last point means "Children of Men" the movie would be of little interest to the people of 2027, because it's an artistic marvel. There are at least three very complicated scenes that would take a normal director days to shoot, with multiple camera angles and careful editing; Cuaron shoots them each in one long, unbroken take. The most stunning is a lengthy sequence in which Theo rushes through several blocks of a war-torn neighborhood, dodging bullets and explosions as he goes. Blood gets spattered on the camera near the end, and you can imagine Cuaron saying, "We're not re-doing the whole thing just for that." The logistics of filming such a long, action-packed scene in one shot are mind-boggling.
"Children of Men" deserves praise for reasons other than technical ones, though. Clive Owen's performance is stoic and steady, and Michael Caine is a breath of fresh air as a pothead friend of Theo's. It's a film full of imagination, ideas, and intelligence, completely riveting from start to finish.
Grade: A-
Rated R, abundant harsh profanity, some strong violence
1 hr., 49 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 22 comments
December 22, 2006 at 9:42 am
Maybe the content of the movie wasn't amazing to me, but i was completely FLOORED by the fact that this movie is pretty much flawless. The political and scifi themes, motifs, plot lines, acting, effects, cinematography, and little scene details all come together perfectly. I can't think of a single criticism for this movie other than "well maybe it's not for me" which isn't really a criticism. I would give this a huge A on Eric's scale, what's with the minus?
December 23, 2006 at 3:03 am
I thought the politics were heavy-handed & the characters hastily-drawn, and the movie's plot seemed to have been constructed using a template for such stories (which may have been the case, since P.D. James is otherwise exclusively a mystery writer).
BUT!! The level of filmmaking here is astonishing. My jaw dropped more times than I can remember, particularly during the movie's final act. So I can't not recommend it. Meaning I recommend it.
January 5, 2007 at 12:13 pm
Seriously, Eric, A-?! What did you say, anywhere in the review, to justify giving this film anything less than an A? How can any movie about which both of the following things are said:
"... it's an artistic marvel."
"It's a film full of imagination, ideas, and intelligence, completely riveting from start to finish."
... not be deserving of your highest letter grade? Especially when the second of those two things is the last line of the review, and hence its strongest point of emphasis.
January 8, 2007 at 12:37 pm
I would have to agree with Ian's post, because I wasn't very attached to any of the characters for whatever reason. ***Spoiler*** When Julianne Moore's character was shot, for example, I didn't really care too much. Is that because I'm an unsympathetic freak? Maybe. But it was almost like watching Vin Diesel get shot in Saving Private Ryan. I just didn't care. (In the latter case I think I actually breathed, "Thank God he's gone.")
Was the scene incredibly amazing during that sequence? You betcha. The movie was entertaining and thought provoking, and I enjoyed it thoroughly. Maybe flesh out the characters a bit more somehow, and shoot a better (or extended) ending, and it would be my favorite movie of the past year.
January 9, 2007 at 11:17 am
Ah yes, that evil government, protecting its borders. Reminds me of another country dealing with the immigration issue today... hmm...
January 10, 2007 at 12:36 am
I have to agree on the A- rating. It's a fantastic movie in its artistic quality, its cinematography, and it's acting. The only thing missing for me was any type of emotion. I didn't feel much for the characters. But that doesn't make it stop being a GREAT film. Oh, I also think Julianne Moore is extremely irritating.
January 24, 2007 at 5:28 am
I thought the movie was good but could have been better. I think that Alfonso Cuaron should have been nominated for an Oscar for best director. This movie should win for cinematography though. This movie had a similar feel to the 1984 movie "Threads". Although not as good (it was a small budget movie) I recommend that movie to people who enjoyed this one.
January 25, 2007 at 12:18 pm
Actually I think you are wrong, the Human project is a group of people trying to bring back babies, Julian belongs to a group called something like Fishers, and they are a terrorist group after a fashion.
January 28, 2007 at 6:45 pm
It's about time for a woman's point of view. As someone who hopes to be a mother some day, this film touched me in so many ways. I thought it was very emotional and I was impressed out how some of the secondary players, such as Jasper's wife and some others brought so much more clarity and life to the other main characters. It is a beautiful and amazing movie. It really is brilliant film making and so realistic. I like futuristic films that can be realistic without being based on science fiction and this one does it perfectly. It was a rather depressing movie though, a bit more than I thought it would be. However, I'm glad I saw it and would recommend it as well.
February 2, 2007 at 10:26 am
Briliant at every level. Better experience it in a good cinema.
March 8, 2007 at 6:07 pm
I loved this film. I would give it an A flat-out. I loved it. I see where some are coming from with complaints that the characters seemed under-developed, but to me that fit perfectly with the atmosphere of the film and the oppressive nature of the environment it depicted. Best of all, the film stayed on my mind for days afterwards... one of the best things I can say about a film. Bravo.
April 12, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Severely overrated. Akin to A History of Violence in that regard: loved by critics for reasons the average moviegoer wouldn't care about. I might've enjoyed Children of Men more if I hadn't read the book first; I'll grant that the fact that the priest in the book was turned into a more-or-less-pagan midwife in the movie turned me off. Still, I fail to be impressed by a fifteen-minute take with blood on the camera lens. Indeed, the long takes might be technically impressive, but they weren't really necessary; they were a distraction from the fact that there's just not much story here. Which, might I add, is unlike the book. (And I was surprised by this, because I found Cuaron's Harry Potter movie the best of those so far.)
On the other hand, I found the character of Marichka quite hilarious, as my wife and I understood the Romanian she was jabbering. :)
April 14, 2007 at 11:12 am
I just watched the DVD last night, and I wanted to direct everyone who enjoyed the movie to the special features, where they discuss how they filmed some of those incredible one-take scenes. They don't talk about the big finale, which was disappointing, but what they did to make this film is amazing.
I think the documentary style was exactly what kept the tension so high for the entire movie, and the midwife was appealing to St. Peter, which is decidedly not pagan. I think she just represented an evolution of a Christian faith that might have developed in the future under the circumstances.
April 14, 2007 at 11:05 pm
Alfonso Cuaron is brilliant, isn't he? Harry Potter 3 really is head and shoulders above most movies I've seen.
On the other hand, Children of Men was absolutely horrible. And yet I loved it. And yet it was horrible. I loved it because it presented a fascinating idea which was carried well. I hated it because there was so much death and cruelty that you have to distance yourself or burst out in tears. I loved it because the acting was excellent and Clive Owen and Michael Caine are wonderful, just wonderful. I hated it because certain characters die so suddenly and awfully (cough cough) that you have to distance yourself from them or burst out in tears. (I know I said that already, but it's true!)
It was a great movie, and yet you leave it feeling shell-shocked.
So I don't know whether to recommend it or not. I will tell you this, though. This movie is something completely new (to me at least) and you will think about it for days afterward. See it or don't see it, but be prepared.
April 17, 2007 at 10:44 pm
I have to agree with many other comments...the film is incredibly done!!! HOWEVER, I must say your note of "a fair amount of harsh profanity" is a huge understatement. After the first 15 minutes I lost track of how many times the F word was said.
Aside from that, it was an wonderfully done film with incredible acting.
April 18, 2007 at 3:23 pm
#15: You're right about the F bombs. ScreenIt.com reports 72 of them, which means one about every 40 seconds. I guess I got really caught up in the film and came out of it with the wrong impression of how much swearing there was. Anyway, I've emended my tag to say "abundant" rather than "a fair amount."
April 21, 2007 at 8:10 pm
That would mean that the movie is about 48 minutes long. Which it's not.
Also, the radical group is called the Fishes. The Human Project was their destination.
April 21, 2007 at 8:44 pm
Whoops, that's why I shouldn't be trusted with math. It's one every minute and a half or so.
July 8, 2007 at 8:25 am
After watching this film, I feel like less of a person. I hope and pray that I won't wake up in the morning. Not because this film 'broadened my view of the future" simply because I no longer posess the will to live. I fear I may have to once again sit through two hours of utter horse [poop].. And not the nice kind you can use as manure, useless, deseased, maggot ridden crap.
I am now hollow inside, and just a shell of the person I used to be. Dear god, end my suffering. Take me to a better place.
Adios.
February 1, 2008 at 5:34 am
This is quite late, but I just watched this film, albeit in edited form. I don't think the film lost any of its meaning or power.
Technically one of the most amazing films I have ever seen.
I was reminded of "The Road," and I think the real message of the movie was about love and sacrifice. The political and historical framework in which it is set is totally apart from that theme, in the sense that my belief that we are not headed in that direction didn't detract at all. It is a story, set in one possible future, but ultimately just a story.
The movie touched me. I think it is about understanding that some things are worth sacrificing and that humanity is real, even in the worst circumstances.
An excellent film.
August 17, 2009 at 8:43 am
Good review.
It's worth pointing out that the Fishes are definitely not non-violent.
(disregard the score, everyone, numbers don't matter when there are words)
January 13, 2010 at 8:03 pm
I was glad for the somewhat bland characters here and there. If not for that I think I would have been in tears the entire movie. Besides, they're English, right?