People can stop making movies this year, Children of Men is already going to sweep the 2007 Oscars. That is all.

kk thx bai

Okaaay.

How about WHY you claim it is as good as it is...

Never heard of it. What's it about?

The story, the acting, the sets, the cinematography, the dialog was very realistic, some of the best I've seen in a movie. Everything about this movie seemed different from every other movie I've seen and it worked on every level. A lot of long scenes without (noticeable) cuts was a nice thing as well. It's hard to describe WHY the movie was so good without really spoiling parts of it. It's a must see, and I have no doubt it's going to win massive awards.

I got the feeling it would be 'one of those movies' when I saw a commercial about it. Maybe tomorrow I'll go see it.

It looks impressive. I caught the scene with the guy buying coffee from a shop and then going outside and the building exploding somewhere... I wanna say the Daily Show. That one scene almost blew my mind. It was completely unexpected, and everything about it seemed perfectly real.

And that was about the time I knew I had to see it.

Maybe I'll do that this weekend.

The name bothers me. I have instant dislike of this movie.

Aye, that scene BLEW MY MIND!

Great movie. Go see it if you like;
- Quasi-futuristic movies
- Fascinating cinematography and directing
- Good movies
- Michael Cane as a hippie

It's such a beautifully crafted movie, I wanna say 'visual masterpeice' but that sounds so corny. Every corner, side, top, bottom of every shot is packed with detail or something happening. Pretty cool story, also.

The aforementioned long scenes without a cut are very cool. My favourite was the 'car-chase' in the middle of the movie that must have included a good 20+ stunts which all had to go to plan for the scene not to be re-shot. The way the long scenes are shot is so involving, it drags you in and doesnt let go.

[QUOTE=Chaz Ghostle]The name bothers me. I have instant dislike of this movie.[/QUOTE]
Seconded. Also, the plot outline sounds ridiculous.

It's been a few months since I saw it, but if I remember rightly, that's the opening scene. Throws you in to the story pretty hard!


That scene was incredible. Something I don't think I've seen before which I really liked was the way the camera would pan around and eventually settle in to one character's first person perspective. Really strange, but so effective.

I felt the film could have been twice as long and I'd have still been rapt. There is so much background to the story that I would have liked to know - which reminds me, I've gotta read the book! I thought the film would be about how we came to be in a world with no fertile adults, but it was far more about how society deals with having no future. Truly fascinating. Also, the way it ended, I still had so many questions about what would have come next.

Oh, and the scene with the (there's no way to describe this without spoiling it, so it'll have to go in spoilers) baby and the soldiers. wow.

what's so ridiciulous about it? i think it sounds very plausible in a world that has so many natural blunders and mishaps. especially with pollution and disease.

Hell yeah. And the uber-long action shot of Clive Owen getting into that building is awesome also.

It's not that it's not plausible. It's that it's just ridiculous. Some dude running around town protecting a pregnant chick from Mad Max-esque punks so that she can have a baby because if she doesn't, "We're all doomed! Oh nooo! You're our only hope!" And judging by the trailer, the aftermentioned chick looks seriously drugged and completely apathetic.

I realize that it's also pretty lame to be talking about how much a movie "sucks" without ever seeing it - but I'm just telling the impression I got from the synopsis and the trailer. "Manbabies" does not look like something I'd want to watch.

its not the plot that makes me not want to see it, its that the pregnant girl looks so ****ing weird and creepy

hrm... ok.

Yeah, that's a great reason to not want to see a movie.

No, see, it's the director's fault for not getting an attractive black woman to play the role...

Now if only it and "The Fountain" would actually play at any Canadian theaters instead of them showing Casino Royale for half a year.

Thought it was an excellent movie. Its idea of a fascist Britain seemed way too real and beat V for Vendetta's attempt in that respect.

ok i must see it now

Well now I hate it.

i dont believe you

I'm really excited about seeing it. The trailer really grabbed my attention, and its tag of "Bladerunner of the 21st century" is obviously just marketing, but makes me hopeful anyway.

Ditto. I really don't think there's a whole lot that can completely trounce Blade Runner. Not in the same niche anyway.

I loved the movie, simple as that.

Did anyone think the barn scene (not putting this in spoiler tags because it's in the trailer), where she's covering up, was a reference to Botticelli's The Birth of Venus?

I hear it's good, but I'm really getting tired of seeing a thread every time SAJN's parent's take him to the movies.

My girlfriend and I were at the mall, which closed at 9:00, and the movie (theatre attached to mall) didn't start until 10:05. We walked into the theatre at 9:05 , to discover that we were so early the previous showing hadn't finished yet. All I saw was Theo in the boat, so that part was spoiled for me. My girlfriend saw Kee with the baby, so she was worse off . We then waited outside the theatre's doors, which in hindsight was a bad idea because we heard everything the people walking out of the movie were saying. No real plot points or anything, just things like everybody dies, gory (really wasn't, these people were just hyper sensitive), gratuitous nudity (again, sensitive), action scenes were good, it was boring, etc .

Anyway, The Good Shepherd was playing at 9:10, and because the ending had been spoiled for my girlfriend, I said we could just see that instead if she wanted. We decided to see this movie anyway, and I'm glad we did. People who say it was boring or everything wasn't resolved aren't the audience movies like this are intended for.

The last time I saw a movie in theaters with my parents was in middle school. Nice try. I see as many movies as I can because that's my major and I love movies, but I know you don't want a serious response from me, you're just trying to be funny.

Children of Men was okay, though the lack lack of explaining why women are infertile is demonstrative of the writer's inability to completely write a story .

They explain why women are infertile. They say that nobody knows why for sure. I don't think it's because the writers are poor writers, I think it gives the viewer more to think about. If they explained why people might think it's cheesy, but leaving it open for interpretation leads people to think more along the lines of 'Oh crap, we are so screwed and there isn't anything we can do about it.' Letting the audience know why it happened will make them think there is a solution, not telling them why makes them think that it's inevitable.

I thought it was because of the Combine suppression field ?

My opinion is that the movie isn't about why women are infertile. This also explains why at the end of the movie we don't know if Kee's baby is going to save the human race or not. The movie was about Theo, and him finding a purpose in life. That's just my opinion, anyway.

.

I thought it was a very good movie. Not great, but very good. I found the ending to be a little unsatisfying. The portrayal of England under authoritarian rule was excellent, though, and there were definitely a few really awesome scenes.

Also, Michael Caine's joke about the Human Project was hilarious.

[QUOTE=Victor Van Dort]They explain why women are infertile. They say that nobody knows why for sure.[/quote]

That's not an explanation.



K-Pax did something like this, but the writer's at least gave evidence that could support either of the possibilities. Children of Men didn't give any indication as to what happened. No evidence to indicate any possible causes of it. It's a sign of lazy writers.

Actually I'm just tired of seeing a "best movie ever!!" thread every two weeks.

Then don't post in them?