Children of Men

Absolute victory of form over content and story. Even though, in its almost metaphorical conception of human incapacity to reproduce, it can drive a few bugs into the viewer's mind. It's a pity that it doesn't develop the central idea too much, it doesn't provide a cohesive resolution and rather serves as a screen for the camera and editing. But oh, for what purpose! The expression "raw" has never applied to any other film as much as it does to The Descendants. The attack on the car and especially Thea's journey through the battle tumult resonate in me longer than after the closing credits start rolling, and I am afraid that some unnecessary and mainly pre-condemned plagiarists will try to shoot a scene that will be better or longer and fatally fail. Definitely not the film of the year, but perfect for contemplation and amazement from a visual standpoint. (12/22/2006)

In Children of Men I didn’t find a single groundbreaking, new, or significant thing that should be recorded for eternity in the history of cinema. Alfonso Cuarón is a fine director and presents us with a truly distinctive view of the future in a fast-paced film, full of clever moments and details. The story is presented in a very peculiar and unusual form, far from the grandiose meddling with futuristic gimmicks like Minority Report, but there’s nothing to lean on in terms of plot. The film's idea is clear and powerful, but the script does not allow it to fully develop. Emotionally, the film is relatively cold and, above all, extremely simple in terms of plot. Essentially, everything is clear from the beginning. There are occasional interesting ideas, but they don't change anything in essence. The car chase and the final battle for the city are thrilling, but we have seen similar things in Saving Private Ryan or Black Hawk Down. The fact they occur in a wannabe existential sci-fi does not make it a revolutionary matter. (05/14/2007)

This is no milestone in the history of cinema, for that Cuarón would have to be as good a screenwriter as he is a director, but it’s definitely a film that can only be recommended. At least 2 scenes – the carjacking and the wartime turmoil in the refugee zone – are worthy of inclusion in the proverbial "hall of fame" of memorable scenes; the only thing I missed while watching them was an involuntary "Holy shit!". Another thing worth praise is the interestingly portrayed atmosphere of the near future: bleak and troubled, free from exaggerated technological trappings, but with an emphasis on one of the expected future problems of Western civilization, which is already beginning to rear its ugly head (see this year's events in France), namely the problem of illegal immigrants and the related rise of xenophobia. Clive Owen is a very charismatic guy and a good actor, I'm rooting for his current status as a major leading man, just a shame that in his case it didn't come sooner. (12/28/2006)

It's not appropriate to write "a technically brilliant, all-round brilliant thing" about most films seen in the movie theater. However, that does apply to Children of Men. Add together brilliant cinematography, direction that knows what to do with its mega-long shots, great acting performances... There you have it. I'll probably never get Michael Caine combined with Ruby Tuesday out of my head. (08/24/2009)

If Children of Men didn’t have such a simple plot, there wouldn’t be anything to reproach it for. The plot wouldn’t even be a problem, but the end result is merely a patchwork of a bunch of incredibly intense scenes that don't seem particularly consistent as a whole. Even without the long takes, Children of Men would be worth seeing. However, the scenes are there, and they constitute the proverbial icing on the cake, which elevates Children to a clear "must see" affair that we haven’t been treated to in our movie theaters for a long time. And probably won't for a long time to come. (11/10/2006)