We have a new update on The Future of the Penny Arcade Forums.
Good or bad movie? Children of Men
Noneoftheabove
Just a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered User regular
Just a conforming non-conformist.Twilight ZoneRegistered User regular
Recently I was able to see Children of Men, albeit long after the release and all the hoopla over it.
Most reviews sing the film's praises, but I have to disagree.
I am not going to say this was a really terrible film or that it was truly a classic, but it did present many stand-out qualities that could not be overlooked. I think Children of Men presents itself with a very clear purpose, and once you discover that, there really is no film to watch. I just could not enjoy it as one would enjoy a good film, whatever one might call a "good film".
Maybe this is due in part because it is such a difficult film to watch, stemming from the fact that the writing/script is so very bleak.
The actors did an excellent job with the material they were given of course. Even if the characters seemed under used and over simplified to the point of being easily identifiable arch-types as backdrops in the theme of such a dark moody picture.
Children of Men has a message, and that message is on everybody's mind in some way politically or otherwise, I'm sure. You read and watch the news media and you already come away with a foul attitude to begin with. The movie just comes out and slaps you in the face with it, as if the viewers were all obliviously living a fairy-tale sort of life.
Technically, Children is a good film in many ways, no doubt! But once you watch it you are left with no real reason to go back, except perhaps to pick up on the more subtle details. Everything else about the film just screams at you for attention, while demanding you become emotionally involved by it. It left me cold.
Do realize, reader, I came in expecting this sort of movie. I know you guys here have talked about it to some degree. So I am late to the party, but I'd like a chance to really pick at it's deeper levels, to see what the forums local intelligencia had to say about it.
Most reviews sing the film's praises, but I have to disagree.
I am not going to say this was a really terrible film or that it was truly a classic, but it did present many stand-out qualities that could not be overlooked. I think Children of Men presents itself with a very clear purpose, and once you discover that, there really is no film to watch. I just could not enjoy it as one would enjoy a good film, whatever one might call a "good film".
Maybe this is due in part because it is such a difficult film to watch, stemming from the fact that the writing/script is so very bleak.
The actors did an excellent job with the material they were given of course. Even if the characters seemed under used and over simplified to the point of being easily identifiable arch-types as backdrops in the theme of such a dark moody picture.
Children of Men has a message, and that message is on everybody's mind in some way politically or otherwise, I'm sure. You read and watch the news media and you already come away with a foul attitude to begin with. The movie just comes out and slaps you in the face with it, as if the viewers were all obliviously living a fairy-tale sort of life.
Technically, Children is a good film in many ways, no doubt! But once you watch it you are left with no real reason to go back, except perhaps to pick up on the more subtle details. Everything else about the film just screams at you for attention, while demanding you become emotionally involved by it. It left me cold.
Do realize, reader, I came in expecting this sort of movie. I know you guys here have talked about it to some degree. So I am late to the party, but I'd like a chance to really pick at it's deeper levels, to see what the forums local intelligencia had to say about it.
Noneoftheabove on
0
Posts
I agree that movie had a good story, and yes the talent was certainly there with the actors. But what execution did they fail in exactly?
If by execution of the story and setting, I'd say it was done very well. For what the film creators had in mind they executed the film very well, both visually and thematically.
But we agree that there are flaws in the picture, I'd just like to know what you did not like.
https://medium.com/@alascii
edit - even the way the story was told. foreground was what's happening now, what we are running from now, what we have to kill now. The history and details were in the back ground if you payed attention.
coincidence?
https://medium.com/@alascii
This is an entire literary style. Half-Life can't claim credit for it.
Still. Any movie that is even remotely influenced by Half-Life 2 is a movie to see.
That is exactly what I liked about it. The movie was incredibly tense because of the incredible camera work and the great set pieces. It took scenes that could be almost boring or transitional in other movies and made them seat-grippingly tense. It really put you in the moment. Wonderful stuff.
I didn't mean to make it sound like that. Just that they were similar not that either of them invented it.
edit - though it makes sense you thought I meant something else since I wasn't clear. woops.
The pacing might be bad because there were no hooks to keep a viewer occupied.
There is a saying that applies to good writers, and it is that you should never be without a point of contention in your story if you wish to hold the attention of your audience. There were many points of contention in Children of Men, few were fully developed.
With Children of Men, I think the film lacks a single strong point of contention. To explain this concept in Children of Men as viewers for example:
1. We're presented with a dying world, ok fine. 2. Now we're given rebels and would-be rebels of that dying world, ok good. 3. And now we as the rebels must fix this dying world by taking the last child as a rally cry for our own selfish cause. Or we can do the right thing and deliver it to the World in the hopes the World finds a solution to the problem, excellent!
For the last half of the movie, point of contention #3 it seems, is completely forgotten! Where are the rebels who wish to take the child and fight the main protagonists, Theo and Khee? We get a brief little speech from the leader during the main battle who proclaims his mistake upon seeing Khee's child, but it is too brief a moment to appreciate him as any kind of threat or part of the story. It is a mess in other words!
The "dying world" scenario is enough I guess.. There have been great movies based around a singular MacGuffin.
So do you think the movie had too many points of focus?
I felt it had too many being poorly developed..
I don't know if that's true, the baby one. It was very directly tied into the plot and whatnot, and were it different the entire story would have to be different.
the word may be applied too liberally here.
Rosebud!
edit: Yeah, it's not a MacGuffin.
The definition of MacGuffin is: coined by Alfred Hitchcock,
: an object, event, or character in a film or story that serves to set and keep the plot in motion despite usually lacking intrinsic importance
It is a term bandied around by those in the "film" expertise area, an area in which I don't proclaim to be an expert by any means, but as an avid enthusiast. So Khee, and Khee's baby are a character, yes? They drive the plot, it's a MacGuff...
but khee and her baby have intrinsic importance. that's where the problem lies.
the boat they are trying to get to, that's a macguffin. they could be trying to get anywhere and it wouldn't matter. the fact that it's a baby and a foreigner/mother being saved has a lot of impact on the story.
because it's a good example.
You have me there, hmmm.... So I wonder if MacGuffins are an important part of a film, or just this film in particular?
Khee's baby itself could be sort of a McGuffin however.. Because it is Khee the film is revolving around, not just because she has a baby, but because she can give birth. The rebels or "fish" as they are called in the movie, want to use the baby for their needs, just as Theo and Khee.
I disagree. The movie revolves around Theo. It's about his journey from total despair to hope at the end, finally giving his life purpose.
I didnt know much about it before I went, and found it to be unexpectedly relentless and harrowing. I was almost exhausted by the time it finished. Any movie that can do that was well put together in my opinion. I'm also currently living in the UK, so perhaps that added to the grim reality of the situation for me.
I also have a soft spot for any movie that doesn't feel the need to explain things. I know some people hate this kind of device, but I like having something to talk about after the film. It gets me to engage with the material. Too many films these days I walk out of, shrug, and never think about again.
I also think that some films write themselves into a hole when they explain things too much as half the audience comes out thinking "yeah right". Unknowns are easier to suspend disbelief for rather that pseudoscience.
- Side Note: The making of segments on the DVD impressed me too... There was some pretty innovative film-making going on there, for a movie like this.
1) Israel-Palestine...how heavy-handed was that metaphor in the camps about what happens if you treat any group of people like subhuman animals and the mutual intolerance that results.
2) The problems europe faces with a declining birthrate and a postmodern civilization.
Yeah, I never got the impression it was about a specific situation, but more the direction the world seems to be going in (in the director's point of view, at least).
Most reviews I have read seem to point out how CoM fails to explain story elements or go further into backstory development; despite the fact they were good reviews. And I have to wonder, did these reviewers even watch the movie beyond gawking at impressive visuals?
If this movie delved any deeper into the backstory and the goings-on there would have been need for a 30min. CNN report to spell it all out in lump sum! I think Children of Men did an excellent job explaining everything the viewer would need to have known to enjoy the film. If the reviewers had anything to question, I think it would be that the movie lacks giving the audience more depth to their characters. Because a good portion of the movie is spent explaining the atmosphere of the story.
So I completely agree, Children of Men does give people credit for intelligence, and that is a major plus in my book for any film.