I can’t count the number of times that I was sitting there saying to myself “there is no way they just did that, no way.”
Basically, it’s a post-modern society where no one has given birth in 19 years.
The director deliberately tosses the viewer and the protagonist into a situation where neither knows what the hell is going on. The action unfolds rather willy-nilly as everyone comes to grips with the situation that is being presented and the constantly shifting details of his “mission.”
It’s a brutal film and it’s violence seems very different from other recent flicks. Characters in this movie die without warning or glamor. It’s not a gleeful gore fest but a frightening, bloody tragedy when anyone in the film loses their life.
All in all, I highly recommend watching this film. I would also recommend that you read nothing else about it before you go. Honestly, the less you know, the more enjoyable your experience can be.
This movie made no sense. Nothing, and I mean nothing was explained. You have no idea what’s going on, or why it’s going on. It just is. All you know is that life sucks. With that said, it wasn’t a bad film, there just should’ve been more detailing.
This movie made no sense. Nothing, and I mean nothing was explained. You have no idea what’s going on, or why it’s going on. It just is. All you know is that life sucks. With that said, it wasn’t a bad film, there just should’ve been more detailing.[/quote]
I read an interview with the director about this. He was pretty deliberate about creating a confusing world with little explanation. I think that dramatic irony is overplayed in most of modern cinema. By keeping the audience in the dark, the protagonist’s decision of whom to trust was all the more compelling. He doesn’t know and we don’t know and that’s very scary and confusing.
That being said, at no point during the movie did I feel like things were happening with no apparent reason. So many movies force feed their plot to the audience. This wasn’t story telling, this was a strictly cinematic experience and I think it worked very well on-screen.
That being said, if you don’t like movies that demand your total attention, don’t watch this.
From a cinematography stand point this films should be at the top of everybody’s awards list. Its an absolute gem. There were at least 2 long takes where the cinematographer captured the power and premise of the scene. If you’re a fan of seeing beautifully shot films, this will be right up your ally. Although the film is gritty, every scene draws you in from the amazing eye of the cinematographer. Lubezki has done some amazing work in the past but this by far ranks at the very top.
Second, the set decorator and production designer should be hired for every film ever made from this point on. I was absolutely astounded at the amount of detail each setting had. Everything had a meaning. The mise en sc?ne that was apparent through out the film was amazing. It ranks up there with Hitchcock’s use of mise en sc?ne.
I’ll comment about the film itself after I see it a 2nd time and I don’t want to ruin anything for anybody.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie with Clive Owen that I didn’t like, and him being in is was what made me decide to watch it. I was on the fence about it at first, and now I’m glad I saw it.
Not at all what I was expecting, but that’s what I liked about it.
It really make me think. It made me want to fight, but also get undecided about which side to fight for. It gives a pretty good view from multiple angles.
I have been wanting to see this since I first saw the preview in theatres. Good to know it’s going to be a great flick. I just hope I have time to catch it before it gets out of the cinema.
Maybe I can talk my girlfriend into watching this instead of whatever retarded ass chick flick she has already chosen to see if we happen to get the chance to go.
I agree with the general consensus so far. The visual aspects of the film were quite good along with the plot not being ‘spoon fed’, which allowed for your own conclusions to be drawn from what information you had.
My brother on the other hand made a decent point though, that “kee” wasn’t very well developed… but i guess she was just a poor girl from some ghetto or w/e since she had sex with a few dudes and didn’t even know who her baby was from. But still, you cared a lot more about the main guy than the woman who was carrying such an important baby.
[quote]PGA wrote:
From a cinematography stand point this films should be at the top of everybody’s awards list. Its an absolute gem. There were at least 2 long takes where the cinematographer captured the power and premise of the scene. If you’re a fan of seeing beautifully shot films, this will be right up your ally. Although the film is gritty, every scene draws you in from the amazing eye of the cinematographer. Lubezki has done some amazing work in the past but this by far ranks at the very top.
[/quote]
Cpmpletely agree. I used to think that the shot in Goodfellas where Henry Hill is going through the restraunt must have been the most difficult scene ever to shoot, but that scene towards the end during the firefight blows that out of the water. I can’t imagine how long it took to get that one sequence.
[quote]jedidiah wrote:
dennis3k wrote:
Good movie but if you actually want more in depth information on whats what then you’d be better off reading the book
Is it any good/worth reading?
[/quote]
Yeah…its ok, its not overly long, I wasn’t even planning on reading it I just saw it in a used bookstore after I had seen the movie and was curious
It’s a great flick. For some reason it didn’t make as much noise here as it has in Europe. And some independent American critics ranked it in the top 3, top 5 at least. But a lot of assholes omited it.
[quote]Majin wrote:
It’s a great flick. For some reason it didn’t make as much noise here as it has in Europe. And some independent American critics ranked it in the top 3, top 5 at least. But a lot of assholes omited it.[/quote]
Yeah, I’m not sure why it hasn’t been as touted as other films, it’s the best I’ve seen in a while.
Then again, I guess it’s tough to compete with such excellent other films concurrently in theatres, like “Stomp The Yard”…
I even started a thread a few months ago about the “Children of Men” trailer, and it garnered no interest.
[quote]Bauer97 wrote:
Majin wrote:
It’s a great flick. For some reason it didn’t make as much noise here as it has in Europe. And some independent American critics ranked it in the top 3, top 5 at least. But a lot of assholes omited it.
Yeah, I’m not sure why it hasn’t been as touted as other films, it’s the best I’ve seen in a while.
Then again, I guess it’s tough to compete with such excellent other films concurrently in theatres, like “Stomp The Yard”…
I even started a thread a few months ago about the “Children of Men” trailer, and it garnered no interest.
Stupid Americans![/quote]
I think the title could have been better maybe, to attract more attention. I didn’t really get what it was about and wasn’t that interested in watching it after seeing the trailer.
I don’t post alot for alot of the obvious bullshit reasons.
Nevertheless, wanted to agree with you guys about this film. I loved it except for its abrupt ending cutting to Children of Men. I was hoping for an ending that was either happy and inspiring or doomy and apocalyptic… I felt I received neither and was a little pissed. Nevertheless, it is a great movie and I would watch it again in a heartbeat.
If you read any further in this thread, the movie will be ruined for you. If you haven’t seen it, don’t do it.
I thought that the ending was the worst part of the movie as well. More than the overall tone of it, I thought that little “oh, I got shot back there” Was terribly contrived. In a movie that was, in every other sense, totally inspired, this scene was hella trite.
Anyone else have comments about specific plot issues/awesome points?