 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
68.90.9.151
I caught this film last weekend and my initial impressions were both favorable and (marginally) negative. IMHO, this is a very good film, not quite great, but taken on it's face, perhaps a flawed masterpiece in spite of itself. There is no question that it's strengths reside in it's stunning realism, solid performances and deep, thought-provoking theme, but where it falls just shy of greatness from my perspective is it's lack of a cohesive, believable story (more on that later).If push came to shove, I'd have to say that Children of Men has a Charlie Kaufman-esque simplicity about it. Those who are enraptured by the Charlie Kaufman school of screenwriting will undoubtably love Alberto Cuaron's & Timothy J. Sexton's screenplay because of it's allegorical, slice of life approach even though it has a somewhat predictable conclusion that is more of a stopping point than an actual end to the story.
Maybe it's just me, but I like to be surprised in movies. I doubt that anyone who goes to a screening of Children of Men will fail to figure out what is going to happen in this film after the first 5 or 10 minutes, even those folks who haven't seen the trailer. That aside, I'd like to reiterate, that CoM is still a visually stunning, wholely engrossing, chase film with some of the most realistic looking street combat footage ever achieved.
Michael Caine in an excellent supporting role as an aging new-age hippy (Jasper Palmer) was perfectly cast, as were the leads. However, I kept hoping that Clive Owen (Theodore Faron) would steal a BMW, regain his super-powered driving skills and save the day (such is life after being typecast as the driver in a series of well known promotional commercials)!
______________________________________________________________________
SPOILERs:
The only real surprise was the early exit of Julianne Moore who also contributed a stellar performance. This event was startling in and of itself and added to the tension built throughout the remainder of the film.
So, you may still be wondering why, in my estimation, this film falls shy of greatness, from the standpoint of storytelling? Well, the plot, that 'evil' thing which brings film-lovers into the cinema and envelopes them, suspending disbelief in order that they should care all the more about the characters weaving the story is given short-shrift to the film's cautionary theme and, ultimately, a feature length chase with an unborn child as the McGuffin.
(Don't look yet!) MORE SPOILERS:
We are never given a believable rationale for why ALL births suddenly ceased worldwide rather than declining gradually (not that an explanation wasn't attempted, it's just that the explanation lacked credibility). Also, the reaction to mankind's inability to procreate seemed as indefineable as the feature-long chase and escape of Kee ('last best hope for mankind' portrayed by Claire-hope Ashitey).
______________________________________________________________________
All in all, I came away feeling that I'd just experienced a visually stunning movie with excellent acting, superb cinematography and a compelling, discussion worthy theme, but taken solely on it's own merits it wasn't a movie that would draw me back for repeated viewings like Kubrick's dystopian near-future cautionary, A Clockwork Orange.
AuPh
Follow Ups:
thank you gentlemen!
Ahem...
Sorry ...and Ladies too! nt
I disagree pretty strongly about a plausible explanation for the infertility being needed to anchor the movie's plot.I got the strong impresssion that the people in the movie don't really know... that so many of the potential catastrophe's hanging over our heads began to happen that it could have been any one or a combination of them.
The joke Michael Caine told early on about the guy proclaiming that he had a plausible theory for the infertility was a big clue that the characters in the film didn't really know.
Also the newspaper headlines in the room where Julainne Moore was first talking to Clive Owen were full of thengs like "Nuclear Fallout Devastates Africa" and another mention of nuclear holocaust in Kazakstan and another "Nuclear Fallout Devastates ... (couldn't make out the country or region)" Then there was a headline that said 150,000 die after leakage (clearly NOT a reference to Olestra).
Also, the burning animals and the unfettered pollution from all the factories showed that the world (or at least their world) had become a - much worse than it is now - toxic mess. Then there was the mention of the flu pandemic. It just seems as thouigh so many systems were breaking down that human female fertility was one of them.
There was also the tv screen that showed the worlds' devastation and showed a mushroom cloud over NYC.
So there were lots of things that COULD have caused it and clearly quite a few years of absolute chaos before and after that point so in my opinion not knowing for sure what it was took absolutely nothing away from the film. In fact I think it put us on a level playing field with the characters which added to the depth and feeling in the film.
In terms of the official reaction to the infertility... except for one clue we weren't shown any of that... it simply wasn't part of the story. The clue was a couple of shots of electronic signs on the London streets that said - to paraphrase - "Not getting fertility tested is a crime" So clearly the official response was one of great concern.
As for Cuaron being anti-science and multi-culturalism. Hogwash. I think you're letting your political views (and perhaps a hyper-senstivity to anything that MIGHT signal something in opposition to them) color the lens of perception thru which you watched this film.
There was not a single moment of that film that was anti-science (though there were many subtle and not so subtle references to being vicitims of technologies used for bad purposes) and the whole film was a paean - of sorts - to multiculturalism.
As a side note I would think you'd applaud the view of the string of newspaper clippings at Michael Caines house when we first get there. The ones that point to our invasion of Iraq as the first fatal step in on the road to where the planet was when the movie started.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
c
Agreed. An explanation would not only have been besides the point but also have strained the suspension of disbelief all the more. Movies should take their worlds for granted. I'm sure that after 18 years of no chidren born people would have exhausted the why-did-it-happen talk to death. For whose benefit but ours would they wonder at or discuss possible explanations? When a movie holds my hand it's reminding me it's a movie, it breaks the spell and I recoil. What's important is that long-standing infertility is a fact of life in this world, one established in the nearly too-expositional opening, with the news report of the world's youngest person's death--a fact that could just as easily and probably more effectively have been established by reserving this revelation until the pregnant woman is revealed, Owen's shock coinciding with our realization, naming our nebulous sense heretofore perhaps of "something missing," that we've yet to see any children in this movie.Not a perfect film, but some of its long sequences were bar-raising technical feats to marvel at and make the film worth the watch themselves.
> > I think you're letting your political views (and perhaps a hyper-senstivity to anything that MIGHT signal something in opposition to them) color the lens of perception thru which you watched this film. < <Was it ever any other way with Mr. Philander? He regards "V for Vendetta" as a great movie. Sure, I think Bush has been a horrible President. But I found a three hour interview with James Carville to be more subtle and less painful.
...more entertaining than Children of Men. When I reviewed "V" quite awhile back I gave it 4 1/2 on a 5 star scale, but I also proffered caveats (see link below). Moreover, I do consider Brazil and Clockwork Orange great films (5 star masterpieces) and, if we must provide rankings, all are superior to Children of Men IMHO, which I'd probably give 3 1/2 stars or 4 stars.> > > "Was it ever any other way with Mr. Philander?" < < <
Hmmm, well, if you say so then I guess it must be true, right? (~;^D) But in case you've forgotten I praised Children of Men and supplied valid reasoning for my reservations. Apparently I'm butting heads with folks who want to bypass AMPAS and use the 'lost poetic waxing process' to cast their own virtual best Picture Oscars (grin). Considering the positivity of my review I wasn't expecting to be attacked on a personal basis.
BTW, I don't mind your calling me "Mr. Philander" rather than by my proper moniker or the abreviation (AuPh) if you don't mind folks taking the liberty of refering to you as 'KAFKA Steve' based on your reading too much existential foo into the ambiguities of CoM! ;^)
As always, no offense intended.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to respond with more tolerance to a differing viewpoint. If, in the course of responding any of your remarks are caught, killed or captured, the Secretary (Moderator) will disavow any knowledge of your actions. This message will not self destruct in 5 seconds, but will eventually disappear into the archives. Good luck, Steve. :o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Cheers,
AuPh
I was especially taken by the portrayal of Natalie Portman's character becoming liberated by being willing to give up her life. The part where she came to realize she'd been fooled and accept the liberation.Overall though, except for being cautionary tales I wouldn't even bother to compare the two movies.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
That's just one of the reasons I think Children of men is a great film.The core of the movie is about what happens in the world when hope dies as seen through the inner journey of Theo. If you're not watching Theo's transformation from dead man walking to reluctant hero to someone who cares deeply then you're missing over 60% of the film. (Owens give a career best performance IMO and anchors the movie.) I cared very much about the main characters, especially Theo, Kee, Miriam and Froley.
The film is basically a chase picture in structure. Tight and intense - but it blows the genre wide open. CoM has got a lots socio-political commentary on its mind so Cuaron's not going to take the time for a study of the relationship between Theo & Julian for example, but he shows you an awful lot about them together in just the short while Julian reamains in the story.
For people who want tons of explanation and all loose ends neatly tied up - Cuaron ain't your man. He trusts the intelligence of his audience and leaves things up to us to interpret or complete. Cuaron is a strong visual director and there's tons of context and background in every frame - but you're gonna have to look, Cuaron isn't gonna waste vaulable screen time with needless exposition. His scifi inspiration is Tarkovsky, not Spielberg.
Cuaron's not interested in why women can't carry babies any more. (There was no explanation offered in the film, BTW.) He's interested in "what's going on now", set in the "what if" to provide more himself narrative freedom. The infertility is just the premise to get things rolling and explore issues in our present. Cuaron would rather ask questions than provide answers - which is fine by me.
I found CoM utterly captivating - it really demands to be seen at least twice - no way you can catch everything the first time around.
I've seen it twice and plan to go again while its in theaters.
> > > "Cuaron isn't gonna waste vaulable screen time with needless exposition. His scifi inspiration is Tarkovsky, not Spielberg." < < <Harmonia, that isn't a good selling point (at least with me) as I readily admit to loathing Tarkovsky's Solaris. Furthermore, I only appreciate about 50% of Spielberg's work; generally I think he's a sloppy filmmaker. For instance, I can't stand ET, but absolutely love AI; I consider Temple of Doom silly, but find Raiders of the Lost Ark rousing entertainment; I revile Hook, but revere Always; I'm impressed with Close Encounters, but unmoved by Minority report; I find Catch Me if You Can & 1941 amusing, but conversely find Empire of the Sun & Amistad dull; I see Schindler's List as a tightly filmed, personal work that was excellently cast, but consider War of The Worlds as impersonal, manipulative and poorly cast, and so on and so forth).
Now I will say that my wife likes Children of Men even more than I do, but neither of us like Solaris, so go figure.
> > > "For people who want tons of explanation and all loose ends neatly tied up - Cuaron ain't your man. He trusts the intelligence of his audience and leaves things up to us to interpret or complete." < < <
I don't gauge a film by either it's symbolism or how much information the Director & screenwriters chose to share with the viewing public; it isn't about the intellect of the viewer either (if I want mindless entertainment and chases I'll go watch a Republic serial). For me, it's whether I feel the story being told is cohesive (finished) and agree or disagree with the message that's conveyed.
> > > "Cuaron's not interested in why women can't carry babies any more. (There was no explanation offered in the film, BTW.) He's interested in "what's going on now", set in the "what if" to provide more himself narrative freedom. The infertility is just the premise to get things rolling and explore issues in our present. Cuaron would rather ask questions than provide answers - which is fine by me." < < <
Which is fine by me as well, as far as it goes, but sometimes there needs to be more than just a premise even if the solutions are left up to the audience. One can't explore solutions without knowing something about the causes. OTOH, as a chase film with superb action sequences, it's very good.
Again, my caveats aside, this film shouldn't be considered less successful on it's own merits, but IMO cause and effect relationships are important structures for any great SF film. In that regard, at least for me, Children of Men remains a very good film as opposed to a masterpiece of great cinema.
Cheers,
AuPh
Nobody in the film was exploring solutions. They were viewing the pregnancy and baby as a miracle of sorts and a symbol of hope and were simply trying to ensure their safety. It was a very, in the moment, movie. And I mean that in the best way.
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
...we weren't discussing solutions in the context of what the characters were actually doing on the screen, but rather discussing water-cooler opinions about possible solutions.Note: My remark ("...there needs to be more than just a premise even if the solutions are left up to the audience") was in response to Harmonia's comment about the Director, Cuaron ("The infertility is just the premise to get things rolling and explore issues in our present. Cuaron would rather ask questions than provide answers"). No offense, but you might read a little more closely before posting criticisms.
Those in pursuit treated the coming child as some sort of miracle rather than seeking a scientific rationale for it; it stretched credulity for me as did her narrow escape while in labor. Furthermore, one child born as a fluke (regardless of whether one is inclined or disinclined toward acceptance of religious allegories), would not be capable of saving the aging human race unless there were a major scientific discovery, period.
> > > "They were viewing the pregnancy and baby as a miracle of sorts and a symbol of hope and were simply trying to ensure their safety." < < <
Sorry, but I'm not a big fan of unresolved symbolism when it's the main theme of the film. Miracles work for a moving scene, but to leave key elements either unresolved or, worse yet, unaddressed is the most egregious form of Deus-Ex-Machina for a Director or writer, IMO. I don't like being spoon fed, but I don't like being starved either! ;^)
SPOILER-MAKER~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So, mother & child sail off into the fog-set on a fishing trauler along with the only possible scientific solution for mankind's survival. Clive Owen's dies because he couldn't procure a BMW and get her there quick enough to set sail himself. So, I guess the rest of the human race dies off, right? Some symbol of hope! Ah yes, the symbolism: as far as the human race is concerned, that ship sailed! Well, there's your happy ending, folks; time to go drain the lizard and leave the theater with a smile on your face. FINI! :o)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As I've stated time and again, I like this film, but I'm trying to be objective about it and avoid all of the impassioned trimmings other's ascribe to the Director's accomplishment. Children of Men is a very fine film, but gauged against other great dystopian films I can't personally bestow upon it classic status. In fact, until I've seen Pans Labyrinth, I can only rank it AMONG the best films of 2006.
Cheers,
AuPh
It's a film about transformation and hope. Maybe it speaks most loudly to those who inherently conneect to those themes.If one needs "scientific" reasons for the conditions at the beginning of the movie and the hope at the end then one is bound to be disappointed (even if only a little).
Don't piss on my shoe and tell me it's raining.
> > > "It's a film about transformation and hope. Maybe it speaks most loudly to those who inherently conneect to those themes. --- If one needs "scientific" reasons for the conditions at the beginning of the movie and the hope at the end then one is bound to be disappointed (even if only a little)." < < <Well, I can't speak for anyone else, but I try to employ both heart & mind when watching films that profess depth, especially when it translates into Oscar buzz. Not being especially enamored of the slice-of-life school of filmmaking Cuaron's efforts may be lost on me, but I suspect it has more to do with my appreciation of films that aren't totally open ended. Also, I like to be surprised in movies; in my opinion there were very few surprises plot-wise in CoM. It still merits high marks for those scenes which worked flawlessly well, for the superb acting and it's direction.
AuPh
Hi AuPhHere in Oz our best movie review show recently interviewed the director, who said that he wanted to make a sci fi movie that avoided as many cliches as possible. In fact, he wanted to make the great anti-sci fi sci fi movie. One thing he was adamant about was that he wanted the reasons for infertility unstated in the movie. He thought a scientific explanation would appear "preachy" or glib (can you imagine the following dialog, "We just kept polluting our environment until one day Mother Nature gave up on us, or, The Thargs from planet Thargron fired an energy beam at us that caused infertility, etc").
Can you imagine what would have happened if a bigtime Hollywood director had made this movie? Spielberg? Tom Cruise as the hero, replete with CGI effects. Puh-leese....
I liked the movie a lot (the director used video rather than film to give it a gritty urban look, which I liked), but I too found it frustrating and inconsistent. The final battle scenes were wanky IMHO. I also didn't like the lack of character development or motivation in the bad guys (but then again maybe the director wanted it this way). I also thought the ending was weak.
On the flipside I thought the movie mirrored our times in a lot of ways. The illegal immigrant angle was terrifyingly real. The most fascinating aspect I found was the truth in how children pacify us. The scene with the soldiers aghast at seeing a baby for the first time was great cinema.
Cheers. Doug
Including the 5 minute plus takes; which contributed to the most inspired cinematography I have seen since The Thin Red Line/Saving Private Ryan.
Yes, you're right. My bad. I was thinking of another movie I recently saw that was set in London. Must have London on the brain.....Cheers. Doug
I concur. This was a very good movie that falls just shy of greatness; it has moments that are superb and for the most part achieves what the Director set out to accomplish.AuPh
we have too many humans, not too few at the moment and that poses the greatest threat to our species: the movie portrays the exact opposite situation. Almost seems like a "right to life" 2 and a 1/2 hour advert.
More likely it's suffering infertility because it's in shambles. See Sjb's post above.
Howzabout a virus engineered to express a chineric toxin (such as ricin) linked to an immunoglobulin targeting fetal proteins? [This is not very different than our bioweapons research carried out at Ft. Detrick. My undergraduate advisor, John Collier, was involved in chimeric diptheria:IgG toxin design.]Is a scientific explanation really more satisfying than the moral query of who would do this and why (they're nuts)?
If that really happened I would suggest you break open a Bible cause somebody big is mad.
Grits: "Rewarding, very, very, VERY REWARDING!"
... in Adaptation through Robert McKee's lecture (Brian Cox)! FYI, I'm not exactly a fan of Charlie Kaufman's screenplays in case you haven't figured it out yet, but for your continued edification (or perhaps your continuing education), an explanation of Deus Ex Machina is provided below:
It's nice to see movies that are open to interpretation. Given the great attention to detail it must have taken great dicipline to leave such significant things open to many views. It allowed for much more interesting character development as well.
> > It's nice to see movies that are open to interpretation. < <I concur.
Even though the director left it open to interpretation, there is enough of a hint. The near-simultaneous global infertility indicates that this is a man-made, not natural, flu-related phenomenon: a bioterrorism attack by simultaneous global release of a pathogen. An organization like Om Shinrikiyo (remember Asaharu Oh?) would try to do this. One wonders how long scientists would take to identify the cause and look for a cure. Would they have enough time? Would politicians be able to pacify a panicking society long enough for cure discovery before global anarchy broke out? IMO, all these background details would just bog down the modern story of the Nativity told by Cuaron, though they could make for an interesting, conventional science fiction film.
> > > "IMO, all these background details would just bog down the modern story of the Nativity told by Cuaron, though they could make for an interesting, conventional science fiction film." < < <The christian religious subtext isn't one of the film's strengths, IMO. In a sense, Cueron's film is not just anti-SF, but anti-science and anti-cultural diversity. Such allegories were commonplace during the cold-war when science fiction cautionaries played into the 'us against them' public psyche of nuclear fear that contrasted our christo-capitalist culture with the then-godless communists.
When H.G. Well's War of The Worlds was adapted and updated for Hollywood treatment in the 1950's, religious themes were heavily employed to drive home the East vs. West allegory along with the cautionary moral about science being subserviant to religious values, but in today's world, when religious extremism threatens mankind on every front such preachy themes not only seem antiquated, but out of touch with reality.
Getting back to Children of Men. To some extent, Cueron appears to fault science for mankind's infertility, that it's "god's" punishment. The allegory would still have been there if he had asserted that this outcome resulted from an act or acts of terrorism or environmental catastrophy, etc., but failing to do so only amplifies the religious symbolism. This vagueness actually works against the film rather than for it.
The war ghetto and islam verses christian themes resound in the last 20 or so minutes of the film and the importance of the inexplicable baby is made all too precious to the story emphasizing the nativity angle, but in the end it becomes more of a chase movie with the baby being a McGuffin football headed for the goal line. Even then, we don't know what, or who's goal.
These are all caveats, but my point here is not to condemn a film which I admire and find compelling on several levels, but to make note of other near-future cautionaries which in my estimation pull off their themes more artfully and are, in my estimation, are much more entertaining: films such as Stanley Kubrick's A Clockwork Orange and Terry Gilliam's Brazil, and even James McTeigue's V for Vendetta (Wachowski bros. screenplay).
That said, I'd recommend seeing Children of Men, even if it falls short of greatness. I believe that Director Cueron achieved what he set out to do, even if I don't agree with all of his choices or resolution.
AuPh
was shot instantly down by her virgin-birth crack."In a sense, Cueron's film is not just anti-SF, but anti-science and anti-cultural diversity. Such allegories were commonplace during the cold-war when science fiction cautionaries played into the 'us against them' public psyche of nuclear fear that contrasted our christo-capitalist culture with the then-godless communists."
Anti science how? Anti-cultural diversity? The movie and not the world it represents? What are you talking about?
> > > "Anti science how?" < < <On several levels science was seen as having caused the problems and then failed to correct them only leaving the door open to a miracle. The breakdown of society to the point of near savagery also lended itself to this anti-science theme.
> > > "Anti-cultural diversity?" < < <
The rounding up of dissidents in nazi-esque fashion and depiction of ghetos where foreign speaking occupants survived in squalor under armed guard is a pretty good indication that cultural diversity was under siege in this dystopian world.
> > > "The movie and not the world it represents? What are you talking about?" < < <
That's trickier, because in most SF movies there's some shread of hope in which the cautionary is grounded; IMHO, there's little if any such hope in Cuaron's film. CoM isn't just dystopian and allegorical, it presents a somewhat hopeless picture of the near-future society it depicts; it could be argued and rightfully, that Kee and her child's departure on the fishing trauler was the end of hope.
If I'm not mistaken, Cuaron himself has stated that Children of Men is anti-science fiction. As a science fiction aficionado who appreciates both utopian and dystopian concepts, I concur with his view of this work. While I admire his film I'm troubled by the anti-science, or rather anti-SF, elements and have reservations about the slice-of-life miracle birth.
Again, and I don't know how many times I can repeat myself here, I admire his film and respect his achieving what he set out to do, but for me, it just falls short of greatness. The consensus may be different, and I respect that as well, but 3 1/2 to 4 stars is all I can muster for a very good to excellent movie based on how I felt about this film when I left the theater. The bottom line, I was moved by certain scenes within the film and left unmoved by others; likewise, in some places the suspension of disbelief was accute and in others I felt manipulated into disbelief. As always, everyone's mileage varies.
AuPh
Where does he do that?I've seen CoM twice and I never took saw that in the film. Maybe the cause of infertility was science, maybe it was terrorism, but no one knows and Cuaron doesn't tell us because he's completely uninterested in the why of the infertility. (And so should you be.) He just wanted to use the premise to hang the movie on.
There are people shown in the film that (naturally enough) proclaim the infertility is God's punishment. That would be a given considering the film's setting and the cultural history of Britain. But they're just there for texture and context. They're not proclaiming Cuaron's POV.
It was to avoid such religious/scientific baggage that Cuaron left the exposition out. The film would then become a film about why women are infertile instead of a film about what happens to society when people lose hope. I think Cuaron was absolutely right in NOT explaining the infertility. It doesn't work against the film - it clears the slate. It lets us see the the seeds of the that fictional dystopia are already planted here in the present. That's why the choices the filmmakers made about not having the movie look "futuristic" are so brilliant - that's us, 20 years from now. It's still recognizable as our own world. And the long takes, the wide shots, the kinetic hand-held camera thrust us into the reality of that place.
I don't understand why you feel the film is "anti-cultural diversity" either. How is that shown in CoM? I would have said the film is strongly the opposite. We have a white guy hero, an African heroine, a black british "baddie", Celtic and white British baddies, British troops of various races herding refugees of various nations/races into camps - refugees which include white Europeans, black Africans, Arabs, Jews, gypsies, Russians, Spaniards, etc. In the book, the pregnant woman is white. In the film, she's a third world, black refugee. Cuaron is a third worlder living and working in the first world - you think he's anti-diversity? Do you think Cuaron was advocating for the status quo - pro deportation of all refugees, Britain for Britons????? Did we see the same film????
I honestly don't see the importance of christian symbolism, although one is certainly free to apply this interpretation. I think you ascribe to the director something that isn't there - Cuaron wisely doesn't make much of it, leaving it in the subtext. He's frankly more interested in the political and social ideas beyond religion.
I'm well aware that anytime you have a baby that could provide hope for mankind some people are going to see this as a direct analogy to the nativity - hell, we even got mom in a manger. And that's perfectly OK. But these analogies are teasers. It ain't what the movie is about. The inner journey of Theo is just as important as the Key and her child, in fact, it's even more important. It's Theo's emotional journey and redemption that is the heart of the movie.
I'm also confused about the Muslim vs christianity you cite? Do you mean the marching at Bexhill??? There were many other ethnic groups collected there, including at least one other bunch marching. It would be natural in a refugee camp that people would live and organize around shared ethnicities. There would be confliicts, both internal and external. I don't believe that kind of reductionism is what the director intended at all. The mess at Bexhill
BTW, I love Brazil and Clockwork Orange, saaw them both in theaters when they came out and own them on DVD. But they are very different films about very different themes by very different filmmakers. There is room for more than a handful of great dystopian films, and they SHOULD shart new territory, they should be different.
V fo Vendetta I can't put in that company. I felt was a fairly weak if interesting effort.
I would say CoM is the best fiml I saw this year - and that included Pan's Labyrinth, UNited 93, Army of Shadows and The Death of Mr. Lazaresu.
I find it interesting...when Brazil came out I was defending it, when Clockwork Orange came out I was defending it, when blade Runner came out I was defending it (though I always hated the VO), now I'm defending CoM. Come back and ssee me in 15 years.
In the very beginning we see clips from all over the world and it seems to indicate global conflict between Muslims and Christians. IIRC, one the tele the phrase "only Britain stands...." was an indication that she was still fighting to stay culturally intact, hence mass deportations.
Grits: "Rewarding, very, very, VERY REWARDING!"
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
