Well, no wonder there's no repoduction going on. By the 2030s, the Master's been collecting brides for about 70 years. He probably has them all.
(Disclaimer: this post contains spoilers. If you intend to watch the film for some inexplicable reason, click away).
The original (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Children_of_Men) apparently actually has a plot. There are no children, society has rearranged itself in a rather dystopian fashion, and the lead character is a former advisor to the head of state, his brother. There is considerable exploration of the whys and wherefores of the state of government and of society in the speculated future. Our protagonist comes into contact with a resistance movement; in the course of the plot it turns out one of the resistance leaders is also pregnant with humanity's first baby in X years. So much for the book.
The screenwriters of the movie decided that this SF plot could be dispensed with nearly in full in favor of rehashing nearly every moonbat-liberal cliche' in the book. The protagonist is now not a former advisor in government but a one-time activist and protestor, now in a drone government job. The resistance leader becomes the protagonist's former girlfriend and activist. The pregnant lady role is given to a welfare-mom type who has no idea who the baby-daddy is and doesn't care.
Any hint of background on the causes of the baby dearth is cut out. In its place are frequent references to, of all things, Bush (as in George W.). So, if you were hoping for a SF film, forget it; all the science- (or speculative-) fiction has been expunged from the film.
A gratuitous pot-dealing ex-hippie is inserted (who has the only vaguely amusing lines in the film); his wife is in a coma (unexplained) but she was an activist too, with a wall filled with clippings from today's news and anti-Bush slogans. The thuggish police force, whose modus operandi appears to be shooting anything that moves and deporting anything non-white-English, is named, of course, "Homeland Security" even though the film takes place in future England. One character remarks that 2003 (as in the start of the Iraq conflict) was the year when everyone was the most blind. The only characters who are in any way kind or helpful display Marxist pictures or symbols which are filmed prominently so that the dumb viewer can get the point. This sort of sophomoric-lefty-moralizing continues throughout the film's length.
Meanwhile, the action has one common thread; senseless murder. The protagonist's girlfriend dies. The pot dealer dies, and his wife and dog too. The "Fish" (rebels) die. Nearly all of this killing is done without cause; for instance, the police interrogate the pot dealer about the protagonist's whereabouts by shooting him. This is a helpful way of getting information from a suspect?
So the characters blunder from bad to worse for two hours leaving bodies galore in their wake, at the end of which nothing happens. Well, a happy ending is somewhat implied but . Sort of a $80 million _Waiting for Godot_ with the dropping of bodies as tempo.
The upshot is that if your politics are somewhere left of Cindy Sheehan you might enjoy this; if you actually expected a plot or some science-fiction, much less a "_Blade Runner_ for the new century" as one review gushed, stay home. Maybe the book has something to offer, as apparently it's quite different from this disaster of a film.
Frankly, _Manos - The Hands of Fate_ had a more believable story and better acting.
My wife and I are seeing it this week. I'll gladly post a review in this very thread.
Anyone waiting for a happy, fun-filled futuristic fantasy has a long wait ahead of them.
ping.
Slasher movies always seem to have a built in audience but the violence is probably not graphic enough to attract them. A bit from a review of the film:
The somber palette and relentlessly downbeat milieu may not be for every taste, though some may discern biblical parallels in the "miraculous" birth of the child. Pervasive rough and crude language and some mild profanity, crude expressions, heavy but not graphic violence including explosions and shootings, a childbirth sequence, brief partial nudity and drug use. L -- limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling.
Is this based on the novel written by P.D. James about 20 years ago?
I used to like her writing, especially the Inspector Dagleish series, until she wrote this dreck.
"A few moments ... are nearly laughable" -- Never a good sign.
The special effects and camera shot are supposed to be spectacular. Does the film really mention Bush by NAME??? That would make no sense at all.
It was even better on MST3K
Wow! Thank you for that detailed review.
PD James' book was not at all like that. It was very pro-life and religious (Christian). The hero, in fact, was a priest, and the society is a very Swedish socialist-style one in which people are all euthanized at a certain age (75, I think it may have been). In fact, the book begins with a chilling scene where an older woman is being "euthanized" with her age group and decides she doesn't want to go through with it.
There has been no normal childbirth for years, so women own dolls or small dogs and carry them around wrapped in blankets. And then a young woman shows up pregnant, and the society is completely thrown off by this and attempts to hunt down the woman and her protectors (the priest and some others).
I'm glad I didn't waste my time seeing this distortion of her book. I thought it was being suppressed in this country because it was pro-life, but maybe it just didn't do well in Europe (where it opened in October) and they're not going to distribute it heavily here.
What is a telling comment on the Bush Derangement Syndrome is that these maroons actually think people will still be hating Bush in 2027 (or is it 2037?).
Thinking about it, they may be right. In the coming years, I look forward to causing strokes in geriatic hippie reprobates by suggesting to them that Nixon was a great President that got a raw deal for nothing.
The Ben Stiller flick, Happyness movie with Will Smith, and Freedom Writers with Hilary Swank killed this movie. The news even sounded disappointed that Children of Men was a dud. It is ashame that another decent movie is being ignored by conservatives. Typical!!! I hate to see threads that complain that Hollywood does not make good movies. It always makes me laugh and cry because conservatives are so unable to be satisfied. What do you want Hollywood to do????? You demand family movies and you ignore them!!!!! If I was Hollywood I would look at the bottom dollar and see only what makes a buck because the last few conservative type movies have not made anything.
One of the clippings on the wall says she was tortured.
Nearly all of this killing is done without cause; for instance, the police interrogate the pot dealer about the protagonist's whereabouts by shooting him. This is a helpful way of getting information from a suspect?
Actually it's the Fishies who shoot Michael Caine, after he refuses to tell them where the protagonist has taken the girl.
I will admit to being a huge Clive Owen fan and typically like dark, morose movies. However, I thought that this was an interesting take on what would happen in civilization if something as basic as procreation was taken away. I guess you could read some Bush-bashing into it, but given the nature of Hollywood today, it's going to happen.
I'd highly recommend the movie and hope that it gets several Oscar noms including best picture, director, actor and cinematography.
Yeah, I figured as much as when the liberal newspapers gave it 4 stars.
OK, I saw it by accident. Sorry they got my money.
While it was an incredibly well filmed movie it is probably the most illogical pile of garbage I’ve ever seen. The leaps of logic….a….. There was no logic, to stupid to waste time commenting on except I think a lot of pot was smoked in the scripting, filming and editing and then by any critics who liked it or apologized for it.
I read some reviews after seeing it and saw it explained as a movie “packed with symbolism”. Yes, it was a senseless collage’ of ridiculous symbolism.
It reminds me of the genius who can’t tie his shoes.
While the director may be a genius at cinematography he’s bankrupt after that.
It’s almost worth seeing to witness these Hollywood types trying to espouse their supposed political wisdom on the world when their ideas can’t even make sense through a 2 hour movie.