Movie Review: Children of Men
Is the best film of 2006 here?
Thematically, Children of Men is among the most interesting, provocative films I’ve seen in recent years. Set in the year 2027, it explores the final desperate days of a world where humanity is no longer fertile. As the film opens, news reports describe the death of the world’s youngest person: Diego was 18 years old. There are no children in the entire world. With the children, love, peace and beauty have also vanished: suicide bombings, radical religionists, global warming, radical anti-immigration laws, all of the current neuroses of the world are taken to their pessimistic extremes and combined against a backdrop of a literally dying world.
It’s not a cheery film. Tones are grey and harsh; perpetually cloudy England seems devoid of life — and frankly, given the world that is portrayed, one worthy of death. I am not sure I’ve seen a movie so powerfully evoke a feeling of despair.
And yet this is a film by Alfonso Cuarón, the Mexican filmmaker who brought us Y Tu Mamá También and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban. Each of those films were infused with a wonderful spark of life that was infectious and ultimately inspiring beyond their immediate subject matter. Children of Men, while showing us the depths of human desperation and the absurdity of an existence without hope, manages to completely fill the audience with moving portrayals of friendship and love amidst the darkness. The characters who relate to each other as friends, lovers and protectors are so effective that the audience remains positive in the ultimate redemption of mankind even as it tries to exterminate itself on the screen.
Clive Owen plays Theo, a London bureaucrat who has become utterly disillusioned by loss, grief and the petty violence of his world. As such he is an unlikely hero, but ultimately he is drawn — through love for his ex-wife Julian, played in understated tones by Julianne Moore — to protect the world’s sole hope, a small, fragile pregnant woman named Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey, who I hope will not remain an unknown). The plotlines sound strangely like other apocalyptic thrillers such as Mad Max, where a grizzled protagonist must confront his demons while preserving the hope of the world. But Cuarón breathes real life into the tired scenario, whether by filming hyper-realistic action scenes with supremely long, natural takes or by bringing in small touches of humor and interpersonal warmth.
Clive Owen shows a great range of emotion from impassivity to desperate hope in his portrayal of Theo, but a strong supporting cast also helps fill Cuarón’s world; Michael Caine has a fun turn as a pot-smoking stoner friend of Theo’s, and Chiwetel Ejiofor (Serenity) plays a rebel leader with a singular intensity. The result is a world of true horror without the sound of children’s voices, and yet a world where love and hope are still possible.
The action in the film is virtually relentless and the effects and overall atmosphere are truly powerful. It’s not a flawless film; at times the infusion of contemporary politics is overpowering and threatens to burst the illusion of reality. But Cuarón manages to pull off an entirely convincing future that tells of epic battles between despair and hope, chance and fate that leaves the viewer entertained but with some heavy thoughts to be thunk thereafter.
Interesting. I saw a preview and thought it looked good. But my husband didn’t.
Comment by Susan M — November 17, 2006 @ 6:12 pm
Yeah, this looked good.
Tomorrow, I was planning to see either Little Children or Volver.
So many good movies out right now.
And, over the holidays, members of my family will no doubt want to see Happy Feet (I have little kids) and even the new Bond movie.
Comment by Matt Thurston — November 17, 2006 @ 7:10 pm
I was looking forward to seeing this movie in September, when it was supposed to come out. Now we have to wait until Christmas (well, all of us except Supergenius and his supersecret movie connection).
I think reviewing a movie this long before it actually comes out is just bragging!
Comment by NFlanders — November 20, 2006 @ 12:30 am
heh heh heh — Neddy, I guess I’m a little transparent.
Comment by Supergenius — November 20, 2006 @ 1:37 am
BTW - can I say how much I hated Y Tu Mamá También? That whole scene with the two kids whacking off in the swimming pool really drove me away from the movie. But I honestly felt it overall amazingly fluffy and I still can’t see what everyone saw in it. (Of course while I love art films, I think the majority are just as superficial and simplistic as the trite stuff Hollywood gives us - it’s just that they follow different forms so the art crowd likes them)
Comment by Clark Goble — November 20, 2006 @ 12:57 pm
wow, I read this book many, many years ago. I never thought it would be made into a movie, but I’m pleased to see it has been. I always love sci-fi/dystopic/apocalyptic fiction, but the book was one that stuck with me more than most because it was so well-written, and such a dark, haunting, and believeable portrayal. I think it was published about the time a lot of research came out suggesting a negative impact of modern lifestyles on fertility, which made it all the more believeable for me.
Comment by kristine N — November 24, 2006 @ 6:35 pm
[...] Alfonso Cuarón hails from Mexico City and is the acclaimed director of many major motion pictures, including A Little Princess, Y tu mamá también, Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban, and most recently Children of Men. I sat down with Mr. Cuarón as part of a brief round table of interviews earlier today — here are the two measly questions yours truly got to ask. I was going to transcribe the whole round table, but my typing fingers got tired. Supergenius: Thanks for the most depressing film of the year! Alfonso Cuarón: oh. [...]
Pingback by Kulturblog » Interview: Alfonso Cuarón — December 12, 2006 @ 12:49 am
I can’t wait for this to come here. It’s only getting a limited release next week, so I doubt it will play here until 2007. Three out of four (or five) AV Club critics have it as the top movie of ‘06. If it was another director I’d suspect that that’s a product of overhype, but I have a lot of faith in the Cuaron.
Comment by Tom — December 21, 2006 @ 3:45 pm
Tom, it’s on their lists with good reason. I saw it again last night at it was still as visceral and full of raw emotion as before.
Comment by Supergenius — December 21, 2006 @ 7:49 pm
I also saw this movie the other day and as impressed as I always am with Clive, it didn’t really work for me, but I’ve got admit, he’s a total hero in flip flops and no gun. How is that even possible?
I also saw The Holiday. DO NOT WANT. What a terrible film and waste of two hours. What was Kate Winslet thinking?
Comment by WendyP — December 21, 2006 @ 9:38 pm
I finally saw this film last night.
It wasn’t bad, although now a day later I like it less than when I came out of the theatre.
I know it will be an odd comparison. But it reminds me of what I wrote about Apocalypto. A B-action movie with pretensions of art house grandeur. It just didn’t have the significance it thought it did. But as a cheesy action flick it was fine. Certainly well directed in that sense. (Although as in Apocalypto some of the overt symbolism got to be a bit much)
I’ll say this though, the comic relief in Children was superior to Apocalypto. Michael Caine definitely stole the show.
I noticed, as I walked out of the theatre, the one sheet listing all the rave reviews. It’s definitely not deserving of academy award consideration in my view. (I’ve not seen enough movies this year to make decision which does - but then every year Hollywood throws up a bunch that leave me scratching my head) One of the reviews quoted on the billboard was “Bladerunner for the 21st century.” Come on. Not even.
My guess is though that they threw in enough anti-Bush imagery in the film to capture a few nods, as if that were enough to make a serious statement. However my opinion was that as political commentary this was about on par with V for Vendetta. (And it actually shares a lot of parallels with that film, albeit taking more of a Mad Max come Saving Private Ryan vibe rather than a Matrix come Phantom of the Opera vibe)
Anyway, it’s worth seeing, so long as you go in expecting a cheesy B-movie with the similar plot contrivances and the like.
Comment by clark — January 15, 2007 @ 12:57 am
Whoops. That should have read “although as in Superman some of the overt symbolism got to be a bit much.” Gibson actually didn’t do too much weird symbolism in Apocalypto. On the other hand Bryan Singer when remaking Superman obviously had seen Gibson’s The Passion a tad too many times while drinking. Cuarón comes off as having seen The Greatest Story Ever Told too many times while having a bad trip after just having read too much Lenin and Marx.
Comment by clark — January 15, 2007 @ 1:00 am
As rare as it is, I agree with Clark.
The movie was quite impressive in a lot of ways; it just wasn’t very good. A lot of the cinematography and other behind-the-camera stuff was fantastic and the idea behind it all is cool, but I found the plot lame and the characters static and boring.
It worked fine as a straight ahead action movie, but I didn’t gain much insight into today’s conditions or overall society. I know, hope and despair, blah blah blah. And there was some of that, I guess, as I think back–but I didn’t feel it while watching the movie. I’m a Cuaron fan too, so I wanted to love it, but it just didn’t work for me.
Comment by Logan — January 16, 2007 @ 7:01 am