Sunday, January 07, 2007

The Children Are Our Future

This afternoon, I went to see the movie Children of Men. It seems like the first time I caught a trailer for this film was well over six months ago. Usually, that big a lead time is an indicator either of a major summer blockbuster a studio is trying to cram down your throat, or of a troubled movie that has its release date delayed a few times. Obviously, this movie was not the former. Fortunately, it also turned out not to be the latter.

Visually speaking, Children of Men is the strongest entry in "dystopian science fiction" in many, many years. Every frame is calculated for maximum visual and emotional impact, and it delivers. The environment seems all too plausible, given just a slight societal nudge in the wrong direction. (And of course, the premise of the film is a great big nudge -- that the entire human race becomes unable to have children.)

The acting is first rate. Clive Owen is the perfect model of the "reulctant hero" caught up in the unfolding story. Julianne Moore really commands your attention in what is actually a very short time on screen. Michael Caine provides excellent comic relief. And the rest of the cast, from newcomers to actors only a major geek would recognize (Chiwetel Ejiofor from Serenity and Inside Man, for example), are all fantastic.

The direction from Alfonso Cuarón is even better. Much of the film comes off very effectively like "documentary footage" from a warfront. Two very powerful and key sequences in the film (one near the beginning, one near the end) are delivered in long single takes that manage to be both technically mind-blowing while not in any way intrusive to the narrative. They're a thing to behold.

However -- and this is where I'll separate a bit from the critical mainstream a bit -- I found the script just a bit lacking. I appreciate the nature of the social commentary being made, but (and some will find this funny) I don't find myself cynical enough to accept the plausibility of it. There's a quick bit of lip service here and there to explaining why people are doing the things they're doing in this movie, but ultimately you just have to basically accept that it's the way it is.

Although really, even this can be construed as a point in the movie's favor -- its story is compelling enough to spark a deep conversation among those who see about just whether the behavior of the people (and more to the point, the groups and factions) in the movie is realistic. I'm certain there are many, many people who would feel it is, and they could easily find good support for that argument.

I give the film a B+, and the recommendation that anyone who likes their movies deep and thought-provoking ought to see it.

3 comments:

Davíd said...

I saw the movie on Friday and really enjoyed it. Interestingly enough, at least one of the friends I saw it with had the same plausibility issue as you. I, on the other hand, could totally accept that humanity could break down like that.

Anyway, I found it really well done. A-/B+ material.

Brad said...

Plausibility is your fault with this movie?

I could not find a single thing wrong with this movie. Every frame and ever image [lots of imagery and symbolism through out the movie] and every moment of the movie had a purpose.

i laughed, i cried, i squirmed in my seat. you cannot ask for much more out of a movie.

if I want plausible - I'll watch mythbusters or the news. If they had gone into depth as to why mankind was in this state I felt it would of taken away from the movie. i loved every last frame of this movie.

it is a movie like this that gives me hope that something worth while will come out of hollywood every-so-often.

GiromiDe said...

I read only a portion of the book many years ago. I should pick it up again.

As far as plausibility is concerned, civilization always walks a tightrope.