what is truly amazing about the movie, i think, is the subtext. in a typical hollywood movie like blood diamond, there is no subtext. the director is so... smug? smug, i guess, that has to be explicit about every god damn point he wants to make. That means speeches and cardboard characters. not so much of that (if at all) in children of men. the movie has tons of commentary in it, but it's almost invariably subtle, never in your face.
Absolutely amazing cinematography in this film, the best I've seen in a good, long time. As for the shaky camerawork: I felt it worked more than it didn't. It helped to convey lack of order and stability in the world, and was especially at-home in the action sequences. My two favorite scenes ended up being the car chase and the uncut battle towards the end-- both were shot masterfully, and I'll be damned if I didn't feel like bullets were whizzing by my head in that theater seat. One of my main problems with the film ended up being the Fishes; never having learned the true motivation, coupled with the fact that I can't stand the "terrorists-with-a-political-cause-and-that's-all-that-matters" cliche, I walked out of the theater hating them for mucking up so many well-laid plans and killing my favorite character (you all know who) for no reason. Overall, a damn good film, and the best I've seen in theaters in a good while.
Gravity and Punishment on
"I assure you, your distaste only reveals your ignorance."
Absolutely amazing cinematography in this film, the best I've seen in a good, long time. As for the shaky camerawork: I felt it worked more than it didn't. It helped to convey lack of order and stability in the world, and was especially at-home in the action sequences. My two favorite scenes ended up being the car chase and the uncut battle towards the end-- both were shot masterfully, and I'll be damned if I didn't feel like bullets were whizzing by my head in that theater seat. One of my main problems with the film ended up being the Fishes; never having learned the true motivation, coupled with the fact that I can't stand the "terrorists-with-a-political-cause-and-that's-all-that-matters" cliche, I walked out of the theater hating them for mucking up so many well-laid plans and killing my favorite character (you all know who) for no reason. Overall, a damn good film, and the best I've seen in theaters in a good while.
But they're a symbol of the hopelessness of the world. I never hated the Fishes, you pitied and feared them in equal measure. The world had turned them from freedom fighters to terrorists, the despair and violence corrupts everything in this world, which makes the symbolism of children and the hope they bring all the more potent.
And there was no 'shakey cam' as people called it, that implies that it was at any point in the movie gimmicky or cheap. Some sequences were so well stated with the camera, the car attack, the part where Leo overhears them talking about his son at Jaspers, agh so much more I couldnt be bothered to cite.
The scenes are so detailed and richly presented, with so many layers and layers of information and substance that build this world. Basically if you engage this movie, it gives you so much in return, but if you say something like "When are they gonna explain why the cant have children" at any point, not only will you never enjoy this film, you don't deserve to and have no capacity for it.
I'm sorry, I can't imagine how in the world earth could become sterile and scientists unable to find out why or figure out a cure.In a movie that is presented in such a realistic fashion, this really took away from it for me.
Um, what? I can. Aids? Scientists aren't magicians, it is entirely feasible, especially in the world of sci-fi, even realistic sci-fi, to imagine that a disease, or virus, or ailment, arises in the future which stumps scientists.
Ummm, we are familiar with what AIDs and we have made great strides in treating it with drug cocktails.
All I'm saying is I'd like a passing explanation, that's all. Come on, one of the characters was a nurse for God's sake, she was talking about it, a passing comment that'd make sense would have been all that was necessarry.
Our technology and understanding simply might not be advanced enough to decipher it. It confuses and infuriates me that you'd be presented with this premise and go "I FIND THAT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE SIR - GOOD DAY."
And aside from that its just so not the point, the point of the film is the impact on society, highlighting our nature through this event, how we'd react.
But I think the whole Green Mile and Blood Diamond comment has sealed it for me. This movie was simply to subtle for you, Im calling you dumb, you enjoy Hollywood films with overt emotional overtones.
Ummm - ok. I'm glad you can make that judgement from two films I listed. I also like Central Station - or is that not emotionally subtle enough either?
When you say its 'above average' you seem to indicate that there are so many of these films, and its just another one in the line, a throwaway experience like the Island or I-Robot or something. But the reason its being received so well is because its such a rarity, a detailed, rich and understated movie, perfectly paced and presented, written, acted and directed superbly.
No, I'd say the Island and I-Robot were decidely below average. When I say "good film," I don't compare it to others in the same genre; I weigh it among all films.
The acting is good, it's not great. Claire-Hope Ashitey felt a bit stiff or off in more than a few lines, but maybe it's the accent. I'm not sure.
If your confused as to why its getting so much praise, pick one of the 144+ positive reviews at rotten tomatoes and read it, there are 14 or so negative ones that you can look at too, but you get my point, this film has a lot in it for most people, a lot to enjoy and appreciate.
I did like it.
I did enjoy it.
I thought the movie was good.
I didn't waste my 20 dollars I spent taking myself and my friend to the theater.
I didn't think it was amazing.
Good, above average, yes.
Let's review. What I didn't like:
No explanation. I can accept the fact that earth is sterile if I'm given a good reason for it to be; the logical part of me would have liked at least a passing explanation - that's the way I am.
I did think the shakey camera was a bit overused.
I thought the ending shot cinematographically was a bit week.
The "Ruby Tuesday" cover was attrocious.
What I did like:
General story line was good.
Pacing was good.
All the pop culture references.
The "set" design and the whole feel of the world.
The action scenes were spectacular.
The fact the ending didn't get all happy on us.
I gave it 8 on IMDB because 7.5 isn't an option.
I thought an explanation would have been irrelevant. Maybe it was GM food, something in the water, pollution, and so on.
Just having some guy near the end let us in on what was happening would have seemed pretty cheap to me. It wasn't about a race to find the cure, it was about saving the baby.
I think the way they handled it was perfect. It doesn't make any sense at all that people would have figured out exactly what was going on in such a short period of time.
I think the way they handled it was perfect. It doesn't make any sense at all that people would have figured out exactly what was going on in such a short period of time.
The paradox that animals can still reproduce but humans can't and test tube babies don't work (judging by the headline of that one paper) either doesn't bother you at all?
I think the way they handled it was perfect. It doesn't make any sense at all that people would have figured out exactly what was going on in such a short period of time.
The paradox that animals can still reproduce but humans can't and test tube babies don't work (judging by the headline of that one paper) either doesn't bother you at all?
As Jin said.
Also, test tube babies still use sperm, eggs, and implantation into a mother. It only really helps with fertilization problems. The midwife mentioned mothers losing their babies during pregnancy when it first started happening, so we can assume that fertilization isn't the issue.
Proto on
and her knees up on the glove compartment
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
a movies job isn't to explain its own past. we get thrust into a world, and are given the facts.
also I want to second that the cinematography was outstanding. I actually stayed behind to get the name of the guy who did it.
I took the whole infertility things as such: This is the premise that you dont get to question, period, other wise, there really isnt a movie
ronzo on
0
SirUltimosDon't talk, Rusty. Just paint.Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
I like the way the whole infertility thing was handled, in that they didn't touch it. The movie wasn't about what was causing infertility, it was about getting the baby to the Human Project. The film stuck to it's guns and didn't try to take on too broad a scope or go into too much depth on something who's only purpose is to set the scene.
I took the whole infertility things as such: This is the premise that you dont get to question, period, other wise, there really isnt a movie
You know, this is exactly it. Infertility was not the point of the movie, it was background noise. If the movie was about a scientist trying to solve the epidemic then I could understand being pissed at the way the problem was treated. As is, I thought the movie treated it perfectly. However, I do see how someone would be bothered by it if they themselves can't do a good job of suspending disbelief for a science fiction movie.
And I absolutely love the ending to this movie. Second time I saw it, I could tell people around me were pissed at the way things concluded. I don't know, that sort of made me enjoy the ending even more.
I think just enough was given to us about the infertility epidemic. No one in this movie's world really knows how or why this happened. Just that it did. And the midwife explaining how it happened (first lots of miscarriages and then pre-natal appointments at her clinic petering out) was perfect.
Several factors can cause infertility and they were all hinted at in the movie. Nuclear war and the resulting radioactive fallout and a virulent form of the flu (and other diseases) seem to be the most likely causes.
On the subject of death and daemons disappearing: arrows sure are effective in Lyra's universe. Seems like if you get shot once, you're dead - no lingering deaths with your daemon huddling pitifully in your arms, just *thunk* *argh* *whoosh*. A battlefield full of the dying would just be so much more depressing when you add in wailing gerbils and dogs.
First time I heard of this movie was the SE++ thread linked awhile ago. Convinced my mom to go see it and, well, I was far from disappointed. Her? She said it was 'okay'. Strangely, the reasons she didn't like it as much were a few that have been listed here. Why there wasn't an explanation for the infertility, and the fact that the ending didn't really wrap it up, among other things.
Me? I didn't mind so much. As you guys have said, infertility wasn't focus of the movie, it was a device to set up the movie.
And the cease-fire scene? Implausable? About as implausable as the entire movie, which is to say, not too much. I enjoyed that it was silent, everyone was staring in awe, some knelt and looked like they were praying, everone was just like "Is that? Really? No fucking way..but..how?" You could almost see them thinking it. And then you catch sight of the rocket in the background and you're like "Wha-" And then boom and the fighting is on, just kind of jars you.
[spoiler:60ea73f2b0] And Theo taking Cid(or Sid or Syd, whateverthefuck) out with the car battery? I've seen worse in movies, but christ that made me go 'ohhh'. I mean, its a fucking car battery, those suckers are heavy. What added to it was that it didn't cut to a close up to the battery like alot of movies. It doesn't give that momentary pause of 'look what we found!'[/spoiler:60ea73f2b0]
And, is it just me, or did anyone else think the baby was stillborn at first? Talk about a slap in the face, eh?
[spoiler:60ea73f2b0]I really liked the way the director used pet animals as sort of a replacement for children. You noticed almost everyone in the film had a pet cat or dog, so it's pretty obvious the animals aren't having any trouble reproducing. I pleasantly surprised none were killed though; I hate seeing animals (especially dogs) die in film.[/spoiler:60ea73f2b0]
Actually, if you pay attention, in one scene, you see a dead dog near a polluted stream and
[spoiler:60ea73f2b0] when the Fish's come out of Jasper's house you hear them say they found a dead woman and dog.[/spoiler:60ea73f2b0]
But yeah, I liked how everone had a pet. Like they were replacing the children they would never have with animals to take care of. When we saw it, my mom was like "And she's still carrying that dog" When Merica (That was her name right?) shows up again after all the fighting. That dog had, basically, become her child and she would rather die than leave it (note: inferred opinion, not fact).
Its like going into terminator expecting them to explain time travel. Its not the point of the film, its a background element, a device as you said, used to show how humanity would act in a slow burning apocalypse or death, if we were going to fade out, what would our last years be like? Im amazed by people going in expecting an explanation, then being disappointed. How would you have been satisfied if they did explain, 'its disease' - ah wow. Who cares?
The point of the movie, and the reason why the ending did wrap it up, was that children represent hope and the future, an integral element of our society, one that if removed, would devastate us and cause the world depicted. [spoiler:cfd50c0db1]The ending finishes up on a message of hope, Clive Owen has died for a cause, in the truest sense, because he died for another human being, he died for the future. Its like, my god, these things are so simple and obvious. What kind of ending did you want? A Loader battle between the Queen and Ellen Ripley? Thank your stars they even showed that The Tomorrow comes, they could've ended it with Key floating in the water alone, the movie still would have had an ending, just a darker one.[/spoiler:cfd50c0db1]
I think just enough was given to us about the infertility epidemic. No one in this movie's world really knows how or why this happened. Just that it did. And the midwife explaining how it happened (first lots of miscarriages and then pre-natal appointments at her clinic petering out) was perfect.
Several factors can cause infertility and they were all hinted at in the movie. Nuclear war and the resulting radioactive fallout and a virulent form of the flu (and other diseases) seem to be the most likely causes.
With how much info the movie gives you it could have just as easily been god's punishment as the religious zealots claimed.
The point of the movie would have been ruined if we knew what caused everything. Everyone had their own beliefs and that caused the problems. Each of these theories was equally valid and that's why it was so scary. If the movie said "Oh it was hormones in the food that caused it" or "It was nuclear war" then suddenly the movie would have an agenda for a specific cause. Having an unknown gives it more focus on the story as opposed to a backstory.
The film was so much better for having the restraint to allow the audience to wonder what happened instead of explaining it like so much Hollywood tripe.
Britain is also extremely densely populated. I mean London isn't city, it is a designated area of a constant never ending sprawl that covers a quarter of the country. Not a lot of people realise this fact. I think that more than the island part is why Britain was surviving, there is no isolated areas at all, except in far north of Scotland, which is probably where the human project was, on an island up there (or as I immediately though, Iceland, kind of an Atlantis allusion there)
I thought there was mention of the Human Project being on the Azores.
The point of the movie would have been ruined if we knew what caused everything. Everyone had their own beliefs and that caused the problems. Each of these theories was equally valid and that's why it was so scary. If the movie said "Oh it was hormones in the food that caused it" or "It was nuclear war" then suddenly the movie would have an agenda for a specific cause. Having an unknown gives it more focus on the story as opposed to a backstory.
The film was so much better for having the restraint to allow the audience to wonder what happened instead of explaining it like so much Hollywood tripe.
I just got back from the theater, and I was very impressed. The characters, the acting and the atmosphere (especially the camera work) really sucked me into that world, and I was fucking scared the whole time.
I didn't expect them to say what caused the infertility, and I actually expected a darker ending than what we got.
Mullitt The Wise on
0
Big DookieSmells great!DownriverRegistered Userregular
Considering that the actions and attitudes of basically every person in the film are driven in some way by the infertility issue, I'm not sure how you can call it a macguffin. Yes, it's a plot device, but it's not like you could switch it out with some other (ANY other) catastrophe and still tell the same story. Everything that happens in the movie is a direct or indirect result of the infertility.
Something that really struck me as I watched was how horrific every act of violence really became under the setting of humanity's infertility.
Every person killed is one less forever. Right now we see 100 people die and our mind says (on some level) "It's okay, there'll be more".
But there aren't any more.
There would be, say, 7 billion people on Earth (give or take a little) when the infertility set in? 7,000,000,000. Now you kill 1. There are now 6,999,999,999, and there will effectively never be any more than that.
Now account for these terrible acts mentioned (nuclear exchanges, wars, social order breaking down) and the number of people who would simply succumb to natural causes (disease, defects, injuries and old age) and it's not hard to imagine that in those 18 years, humanity's numbers would begin to plummet.
As was mentioned in the film, the world was already pretty fucked up, and even if people could suddenly start having children again, would there be anything left to give them? Without a massive explosion in population (the vast majority being able to reproduce again), in a few decades the gap of an entire generation would be staggering, with a few people in their teens and nearly the entire planet's population between the age of ~40 and their limit/death. One or two generations later, almost everyone would be gone.
It's boggling.
Forar on
First they came for the Muslims, and we said NOT TODAY, MOTHERFUCKER!
Yeah, I liked how subtly they made you aware of the mindset.
[spoiler:162adce8e6]When the one dirt-biker dies and his brother shows up later in the film, just before the brother is about to shoot Clive Owen's character he gets in his face screaming "He was 18!" while on the verge of tears. Those two murdered a woman in cold blood but got incredibly upset that Clive killed such a young man in self-defense.[/spoiler:162adce8e6]
Also, spoilered, but I dont think it's been mentioned, though I expect it would have. I just saw it a second time to make sure I fully understood stuff (still trying to figure it out) but
[spoiler:73b4c06e6c]during the final "Children of Men" in white letters on black backdrop, there was children's laughter. I hadn't noticed it before, but perhaps thats a sign that it was all successful? That somehow humanity managed to soldier on?[/spoiler:73b4c06e6c]
Wezoin on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Also, spoilered, but I dont think it's been mentioned, though I expect it would have. I just saw it a second time to make sure I fully understood stuff (still trying to figure it out) but
[spoiler:669f372af6]during the final "Children of Men" in white letters on black backdrop, there was children's laughter. I hadn't noticed it before, but perhaps thats a sign that it was all successful? That somehow humanity managed to soldier on?[/spoiler:669f372af6]
i'd certainly say even without that, that the message of the movie was of hope, not of "yeah... it's over"
Also, spoilered, but I dont think it's been mentioned, though I expect it would have. I just saw it a second time to make sure I fully understood stuff (still trying to figure it out) but
[spoiler:cf2f5353a4]during the final "Children of Men" in white letters on black backdrop, there was children's laughter. I hadn't noticed it before, but perhaps thats a sign that it was all successful? That somehow humanity managed to soldier on?[/spoiler:cf2f5353a4]
i'd certainly say even without that, that the message of the movie was of hope, not of "yeah... it's over"
If so, the movie would deserve points for going "Ha, you stupid fucks, there's no happy ever after." Not enough movies do this.
Docshifty on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
edited January 2007
if a movie starts out normal, and things turn shit,and can't be fixed that's cool, that's an arc.
if this movie started out shit, stayed shit, and then ended in shit, that's not much of an arc. it would not be much fun to watch.
if a movie starts out normal, and things turn shit,and can't be fixed that's cool, that's an arc.
if this movie started out shit, stayed shit, and then ended in shit, that's not much of an arc. it would not be much fun to watch.
I didn't say it would make the movie better. But there's something to be said for a director to go "We're past the point of fixing all this."
And even if it did end like that, it wouldn't really diminish the finer points of the movie. I guess depending on how cynical you want to be you could go "Well, what was the fucking point?" But then, you could also look at it and say "Even when things couldn't be fixed, when the world was falling apart, there were still people who cared." That would be enough for me.
But the movie is better the way it is now, so it doesn't really matter.
Docshifty on
0
SirUltimosDon't talk, Rusty. Just paint.Registered Userregular
edited January 2007
I just got back from seeing it for the second time. I must say, hearing the crowd gasp when
[spoiler:f8e50762f4]Syd gets hit by the battery[/spoiler:f8e50762f4]
was one of the most satisfying moments in recent memory. It's also amazing the stuff you pick up on the second time through the movie.
Saw this last night and liked it for most of the reasons posted here. I waited to come into the thread until I saw it; reading the comments here made me appreciate it more and understand why the reason for the infertility is unimportant.
I have to go see it again, essentially, to bring it all together.
Saw this last night and liked it for most of the reasons posted here. I waited to come into the thread until I saw it; reading the comments here made me appreciate it more and understand why the reason for the infertility is unimportant.
I have to go see it again, essentially, to bring it all together.
Yeah, the first time I saw it I thought the ending was stupid (A Halo 2/Half Life 2 style ending) but the second time I went "ooooooh, thats why."
Wezoin on
0
VariableMouth CongressStroke Me Lady FameRegistered Userregular
Saw this last night and liked it for most of the reasons posted here. I waited to come into the thread until I saw it; reading the comments here made me appreciate it more and understand why the reason for the infertility is unimportant.
I have to go see it again, essentially, to bring it all together.
Yeah, the first time I saw it I thought the ending was stupid (A Halo 2/Half Life 2 style ending) but the second time I went "ooooooh, thats why."
really? I didn't think it was stupid or anything but I don't feel like I got it... know what I mean?
Posts
But they're a symbol of the hopelessness of the world. I never hated the Fishes, you pitied and feared them in equal measure. The world had turned them from freedom fighters to terrorists, the despair and violence corrupts everything in this world, which makes the symbolism of children and the hope they bring all the more potent.
And there was no 'shakey cam' as people called it, that implies that it was at any point in the movie gimmicky or cheap. Some sequences were so well stated with the camera, the car attack, the part where Leo overhears them talking about his son at Jaspers, agh so much more I couldnt be bothered to cite.
The scenes are so detailed and richly presented, with so many layers and layers of information and substance that build this world. Basically if you engage this movie, it gives you so much in return, but if you say something like "When are they gonna explain why the cant have children" at any point, not only will you never enjoy this film, you don't deserve to and have no capacity for it.
All I'm saying is I'd like a passing explanation, that's all. Come on, one of the characters was a nurse for God's sake, she was talking about it, a passing comment that'd make sense would have been all that was necessarry.
Ummm - I did say I liked it.
I got that, thanks.
Ummm - ok. I'm glad you can make that judgement from two films I listed. I also like Central Station - or is that not emotionally subtle enough either?
No, I'd say the Island and I-Robot were decidely below average. When I say "good film," I don't compare it to others in the same genre; I weigh it among all films.
The acting is good, it's not great. Claire-Hope Ashitey felt a bit stiff or off in more than a few lines, but maybe it's the accent. I'm not sure.
I did like it.
I did enjoy it.
I thought the movie was good.
I didn't waste my 20 dollars I spent taking myself and my friend to the theater.
I didn't think it was amazing.
Good, above average, yes.
Let's review. What I didn't like:
No explanation. I can accept the fact that earth is sterile if I'm given a good reason for it to be; the logical part of me would have liked at least a passing explanation - that's the way I am.
I did think the shakey camera was a bit overused.
I thought the ending shot cinematographically was a bit week.
The "Ruby Tuesday" cover was attrocious.
What I did like:
General story line was good.
Pacing was good.
All the pop culture references.
The "set" design and the whole feel of the world.
The action scenes were spectacular.
The fact the ending didn't get all happy on us.
I gave it 8 on IMDB because 7.5 isn't an option.
And dude, chill out.
Just having some guy near the end let us in on what was happening would have seemed pretty cheap to me. It wasn't about a race to find the cure, it was about saving the baby.
As Jin said.
Also, test tube babies still use sperm, eggs, and implantation into a mother. It only really helps with fertilization problems. The midwife mentioned mothers losing their babies during pregnancy when it first started happening, so we can assume that fertilization isn't the issue.
took out her barrettes and her hair spilled out like rootbeer
also I want to second that the cinematography was outstanding. I actually stayed behind to get the name of the guy who did it.
And I absolutely love the ending to this movie. Second time I saw it, I could tell people around me were pissed at the way things concluded. I don't know, that sort of made me enjoy the ending even more.
Several factors can cause infertility and they were all hinted at in the movie. Nuclear war and the resulting radioactive fallout and a virulent form of the flu (and other diseases) seem to be the most likely causes.
THE INFERTILITY WAS A MACGUFFIN.
a little more than that but mostly yes.
I think part of the problem was I went into the theater expecting an explanation to the epidemic and obviously one wasn't given.
I'll go see it again in a week or two and just accept it as true.
Sometimes I need multiple viewings of a movie to fully appreciate it anyway.
Me? I didn't mind so much. As you guys have said, infertility wasn't focus of the movie, it was a device to set up the movie.
And the cease-fire scene? Implausable? About as implausable as the entire movie, which is to say, not too much. I enjoyed that it was silent, everyone was staring in awe, some knelt and looked like they were praying, everone was just like "Is that? Really? No fucking way..but..how?" You could almost see them thinking it. And then you catch sight of the rocket in the background and you're like "Wha-" And then boom and the fighting is on, just kind of jars you.
[spoiler:60ea73f2b0] And Theo taking Cid(or Sid or Syd, whateverthefuck) out with the car battery? I've seen worse in movies, but christ that made me go 'ohhh'. I mean, its a fucking car battery, those suckers are heavy. What added to it was that it didn't cut to a close up to the battery like alot of movies. It doesn't give that momentary pause of 'look what we found!'[/spoiler:60ea73f2b0]
And, is it just me, or did anyone else think the baby was stillborn at first? Talk about a slap in the face, eh?
Edit:
Actually, if you pay attention, in one scene, you see a dead dog near a polluted stream and
[spoiler:60ea73f2b0] when the Fish's come out of Jasper's house you hear them say they found a dead woman and dog.[/spoiler:60ea73f2b0]
But yeah, I liked how everone had a pet. Like they were replacing the children they would never have with animals to take care of. When we saw it, my mom was like "And she's still carrying that dog" When Merica (That was her name right?) shows up again after all the fighting. That dog had, basically, become her child and she would rather die than leave it (note: inferred opinion, not fact).
The point of the movie, and the reason why the ending did wrap it up, was that children represent hope and the future, an integral element of our society, one that if removed, would devastate us and cause the world depicted. [spoiler:cfd50c0db1]The ending finishes up on a message of hope, Clive Owen has died for a cause, in the truest sense, because he died for another human being, he died for the future. Its like, my god, these things are so simple and obvious. What kind of ending did you want? A Loader battle between the Queen and Ellen Ripley? Thank your stars they even showed that The Tomorrow comes, they could've ended it with Key floating in the water alone, the movie still would have had an ending, just a darker one.[/spoiler:cfd50c0db1]
With how much info the movie gives you it could have just as easily been god's punishment as the religious zealots claimed.
The film was so much better for having the restraint to allow the audience to wonder what happened instead of explaining it like so much Hollywood tripe.
I thought there was mention of the Human Project being on the Azores.
I didn't expect them to say what caused the infertility, and I actually expected a darker ending than what we got.
Oculus: TheBigDookie | XBL: Dook | NNID: BigDookie
Every person killed is one less forever. Right now we see 100 people die and our mind says (on some level) "It's okay, there'll be more".
But there aren't any more.
There would be, say, 7 billion people on Earth (give or take a little) when the infertility set in? 7,000,000,000. Now you kill 1. There are now 6,999,999,999, and there will effectively never be any more than that.
Now account for these terrible acts mentioned (nuclear exchanges, wars, social order breaking down) and the number of people who would simply succumb to natural causes (disease, defects, injuries and old age) and it's not hard to imagine that in those 18 years, humanity's numbers would begin to plummet.
As was mentioned in the film, the world was already pretty fucked up, and even if people could suddenly start having children again, would there be anything left to give them? Without a massive explosion in population (the vast majority being able to reproduce again), in a few decades the gap of an entire generation would be staggering, with a few people in their teens and nearly the entire planet's population between the age of ~40 and their limit/death. One or two generations later, almost everyone would be gone.
It's boggling.
[spoiler:162adce8e6]When the one dirt-biker dies and his brother shows up later in the film, just before the brother is about to shoot Clive Owen's character he gets in his face screaming "He was 18!" while on the verge of tears. Those two murdered a woman in cold blood but got incredibly upset that Clive killed such a young man in self-defense.[/spoiler:162adce8e6]
[spoiler:73b4c06e6c]during the final "Children of Men" in white letters on black backdrop, there was children's laughter. I hadn't noticed it before, but perhaps thats a sign that it was all successful? That somehow humanity managed to soldier on?[/spoiler:73b4c06e6c]
i'd certainly say even without that, that the message of the movie was of hope, not of "yeah... it's over"
If so, the movie would deserve points for going "Ha, you stupid fucks, there's no happy ever after." Not enough movies do this.
if this movie started out shit, stayed shit, and then ended in shit, that's not much of an arc. it would not be much fun to watch.
I didn't say it would make the movie better. But there's something to be said for a director to go "We're past the point of fixing all this."
And even if it did end like that, it wouldn't really diminish the finer points of the movie. I guess depending on how cynical you want to be you could go "Well, what was the fucking point?" But then, you could also look at it and say "Even when things couldn't be fixed, when the world was falling apart, there were still people who cared." That would be enough for me.
But the movie is better the way it is now, so it doesn't really matter.
[spoiler:f8e50762f4]Syd gets hit by the battery[/spoiler:f8e50762f4]
was one of the most satisfying moments in recent memory. It's also amazing the stuff you pick up on the second time through the movie.
You people are gonna make me go see it aaagggaaaaiiiinnnnn.
I have to go see it again, essentially, to bring it all together.
Yeah, the first time I saw it I thought the ending was stupid (A Halo 2/Half Life 2 style ending) but the second time I went "ooooooh, thats why."
really? I didn't think it was stupid or anything but I don't feel like I got it... know what I mean?
I guess I'll be seeing it again.