I think the thing a lot of people miss about this film is that with all the camera-work, it immerses you into THEIR situation – in their timeframe. We are just going along for the ride. We learn bits about things that have been happening, but I think this isn’t a complete story, it’s the audience being thrown into a sequence of events. It’s very well done. I see no need for a sequel. It’s just a very different cinema experience and once you realise that, you can enjoy the film for what it is. Brilliance.

As for other great dystopian movies? These suggestions are much more glossy than Children of Men, but I especially liked V for Vendetta, I Robot and Minority Report as movies from recent times. “1984″ with John Hurt and Richard Burton was very well done for its time, but I think was a bit flat in comparison to the book. The same can be said for Fahrenheit 451, but I hear they are remaking it right now. A lot of people like Blade Runner, but I didn’t find it that great. Dragged on a bit for me.

Bit gaia hippy for me. ;P Seems to me that cinema is the twenty-first century equivalent of the lute player or court jester. Best advice, don’t take him too seriously and for god’s sake (ha) don’t pay attention to his opinion on science.

As I said in 8., Children of Men is a movie that immerses the viewer into the setting being shown. It spends little time on the before and after. The camera work puts you right into the action – pulling you out of your current world and dropping you into this somewhat familiar but totally bleak parallel world. It releases some information to you as you move through and along with the film. It’s a different kind of film – very modern and fresh and that’s what I think many people weren’t used to when they watched it.

I suspect another viewing may change your mind a little.

Ben says Hi.

I recently watched this film and I’m going to have to agree with Rob E. here in every way. The beginning was very gripping, as Rob mentioned. I really enjoyed the setting too, although the whole infertility thing was way too unbelivable. Maybe I’m a “realism-nazi” of sorts, but I like my movies filled with facts for the setting and story to be based upon.

I’m not saying people are wrong if they enjoy or like the film, I just personally don’t see what all the fuss was about.

Cheers,
Deme(a friend of Ben’s)

When watching the movie, don’t go in with any pre-conceived expectations. The setting is a dystopian world, one not completely inconceivable based on current events. But the whole movie is “for the moment” – forget about what got humanity to where it is, and forget about where it might go as you watch it. Immerse yourself in it for the moment. Don’t worry too much about story – there is one there, but this is a movie to experience. And watch the cinematography.

I just recalled a moment from years ago. As a young teenager, I rolled up to the Savoy cinema in Hurstville with a friend to see “Georgy Girl”. We were late and just as we gained our seats, the lights dimmed and images of roses began to flood the screen. What the….? We had inadvertently blundered into a screening of “My Fair Lady”. We decided to sit through it – and actually enjoyed it .
Memory seems to treasure serendipitous discoveries.

I think reading a review like mine and following it up with other positive reviews is going to build up a pretty big expectation which any film might struggle to meet. I can draw parallels to fabulous reviews I’ve read about movies like Madagascar and the swag of computer animated films released over recent years. I found most of them a real chore to sit through.

Anyway, nobody should be able to tell you what you should like.

I haven’t read P.D. James’ novel upon which the film is based.
Such a great concept for a movie – ruined IMO by an awful screenplay/script and insensitive and impatient direction.
Yes, the beginning of the film is gripping, but the incredibly poor character development and dialogue left me cold.
Julianne Moore was unconvincing as the resistance leader and the absurd scene on the bus where the detail of a lost child was revealed in a crazily accelerated, emotionally charged conversation was breathtakingly underdone. Frankly, I was glad when she met her end early in the piece.

“She’s pregnant.”
“Yeah, I know – it’s a f*****g miracle innit?”
Give me a break!
And also in the same milking shed scene – why the random, tethered cows, ready for milking in the middle of the night?
Laughable too, his pathetic attempt to conceal a vehicle a scant 20 metres from Michael Caine’s dwelling??
Picky I know, but I paid money to see this film – I expect better than this.

Clive Owen seemed appropriately moribund throughout and did OK with the limited opportunities presented to him.
Michael Caine stole the show with an all-to-brief, vibrant yet sensitive portrayal. This scene – reaching for the Quietus kit and moving to the chair opposite his damaged partner – was the best of the film.

It seemed the the director was in a huge hurry to get to the Bexhill-on-Sea sequence.
As you commented Stu, this was outstanding for a single take – conjuring a sense of misery, omnipresent malevolence and danger that I haven’t felt in a cinema since viewing the beach landing sequence in “Saving Private Ryan” or the very first “Alien” movie. There was a “holocaust” feel about the groups of desperate people herded under harsh lights in the arrival sequence.

I thought the absence of an explanation for the global sterility was OK – a topic for conjecture after the show. As was the ending – it unfolded teasingly, causing one to revisit the doubt regarding the “Human Project” revealed earlier in Owen’s quizzical: “You’ve never had contact with them directly?”

Not the best movie I’ve seen in the last 5 years, in fact I saw a better one the week before – “The Departed”.
I would still recommend it for friends to see – they can make up their own minds ☺ I feel that director Cuaron should stick to directing the “fantastic” for the time being – he seems to have no feel for “real” people yet.