I just finished watching Children of Men, which I’ve heard nothing but good things about. … it did not live up to my expectations.
I found the characters to be wafer thin, the main idea poorly explored and unexplained, the plot contrived and trite. The whole movie felt like a chain of cliches. In my view, it is not a good movie. … So then I’m a bit puzzled as to why it is so highly rated. I mean, different people have different tastes - but I’m now doubting that someone would really call the movie a ‘masterpiece’ or anything like that. I find the contrast between what I heard about it and what I experienced to be quite bizarre.
So I’m curious about what other people think of it here - outside of reviews on popular websites. I’d like to know if people do still say that it is a great movie. If you do like it, you don’t have to justify why or say what was good about it if you don’t want to. I’m content to accept that different people have different tastes. I’m really just curious whether or not there is a mismatch between online reviews and opinions on Lemmy. There’s certainly a mismatch with my own opinion!
It’s a different kind of storytelling than most audiences are used to. You’re not just handed a complete story with all the details explained, you’re more along for the ride while you barely know who these people are or how things got this bad. Along the way some things become clear but many others do not. To me this feels far more realistic than most movies that are made today. And there’s some very impressive cinematography on display along the way as well, with minimal (or none? can’t remember) CGI. So yes, I’m certainly one of those people who think it’s absolutely brilliant. Should probably rewatch it again, come to think of it…
To clarify, what I didn’t like about it was not really about it having gaps in the details. I don’t mind that the viewer was not told the cause of the problem for example.
(At this point I started trying to be more specific about what I didn’t like - but I’ve decided to skip that. You liked the movie. That’s good. Enjoying things is good, and I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind!)
I loved the movie and I’m interested in specifics about what you didn’t like! Being passionate about your opinions isn’t inherently disrespectful.
Ok. There are two broad things I didn’t like. The first is that the plot is highly formulaic. I reckon that from the first time we see Julian, it is possible to predict every major plot point from that time all the way to the end of the movie. So then it’s just a matter of when and precisely how the various things will happen. Like obviously he’s going to get drawn into the rebel group, and obviously they’ll have a pregnant woman that he need to protect, and obviously there is going to be a betrayal, and obviously the people closest to him are going to die, and obviously the child will be seen as beacon of hope - etc. Its like the movie is made by snapping together a selection of off-the-shelf general-purpose tropes.
And the second thing I disliked is that several of the conversations seem like they are performed for the viewer rather than for the characters. For example, early in the movie in the car when they are discussing treatment of refugees… It reflected their views and situation pretty well to the viewer, but it made it sound like they’d barely discussed it with each other before - which I did not find plausible. I think ‘real’ people in that circumstance would already be very familiar with the situation and with each others opinion on the situation - and so the the conversation would be different. Another similar example is near the end, talking about when the miscarriages started in the hospital. It sounds like a sharing of an powerful experience, new information, very heart-felt. But it seems to me that since those events were 18 years ago, and were of critical importance to everyone on the planet, I think everyone would have been highly familiar with that kind of account. It would not be a new sharing of information. It would be an extremely well know sequence of events; and so the conversation should have been different. (And at the end, they made a comment about it beings strange living in a world without the sound of children… like, ‘no shit’ - is that a novel thought? After 18 years? It just didn’t feel real to me.)
One other particular scene I disliked was when Jasper sacrificed himself to let the others escape. I just could not believe that Theo et. al would just stand on the hill in plain sight of their pursuers, while Jasper obviously was ready to give his life to allow them to escape. They made no effort to stay hidden or anything. They’re just standing there watching, while their friend gives up his life to protect them and the one hope for humanity… a simple glance from any of the baddies could spell their doom, but they just stand and watch. Like… what the hell are they doing? I feel like the reason they stayed is that so the movie could show the death and their reaction, and avoid having to jump between different characters’ view points. And Jasper starts doing the ‘pull my finger’ thing… which I feel they only did because that kind of thing is basically the only characteristic the movie had managed to build up for Jasper that they could use as an emotional lever…
By contrast, today I watched Das Boot. Which is a much older and less flashy movie. But in Das Boot, the characters only say things that are realistic conversations for people in that situation. And the plot was not so easy to predict, because since it was not a message of hope or anything like that, it was much harder to guess how it might end. And if you aren’t watching the running-time, this makes certain action scenes fair more intense - because they could very well be the end of the movie. There is no ‘plot armour’ for these characters. So… for me, Das Boot is better than Children of Men. (The movies are very different. The only reason I’m comparing them is that I happened to watch them in succession and I thought it might be useful to help illustrate what I was talking about above.)
I really appreciate you writing this up! All valid points. I recently learned what exposition means (I’m a native English speaker, but it was new to me.) It sounds like a lot of what you didn’t like is exposition in dialogue, and I agree - when I notice it, I instantly think less of the writing.
Also, great points about the characters being unfamiliar with these unique childless-world experiences even though it’s been their reality for 18 years.
Thanks again for taking the time.
Personally I liked how vague it all was. I love when movies leave stuff unexplained for the viewers to figure out or interpret instead of having unrealistic exposition. The characters live in that world, they don’t need to talk about how things are. The only real exposition is the news report in the beginning
Unlike most movies, I felt like I was IN the world. This was helped by the cinematography. I haven’t watched it in a long time but I remember the first time I saw the last (?) gun fight scene. Asking myself “Did [character] just die??” as the camera keeps moving. Yes, they did, but there’s no time to even let the camera hang.
Not the best story, not the best characters, but I still loved it.
I agree with you on the characters and plot - It leaves a lot to be desired, but the good acting makes up for it. I too would’ve loved to see the premise explored more in detail, but I think that would’ve required a much longer runtime, possibly split into several films, each of which wouldn’t really stand on their own. Think of it more as a story in a different world where the world building isn’t that important to fully grasp.
However, there are two very positive points about the movie I want to point out:
- The sound design. It actually sounds realistic. The ambience suits the scene without sucumbing to layers upon layers of what one would expect such a scene to contain. This means that the guns are free to sound like actual guns.
- The cinematography of them escaping through the battle is the true masterpiece. The continuous take approach allows for more immersion in the danger they’re facing and the urgency of the situation. It truly captures how it feels to be stuck in a war zone as a 3RC party, and it feels like a real combat scene with proper ricochets and stray bullets where you are at risk of dying at any moment even if you’re an innocent bystander and nobody is out to get you.
Fair point about the positives. Thanks for that.
As others have stated, the world building does a lot of heavy lifting in that movie where the explicit chsracterisation is perhaps weaker. The movie is not really supposed to be a character study, it is, like many sci-fi stories, about a hypothetical future and the extrapolation and exploration of humanity in that new world. The characters are there to help move the plot along and expose us to the events and interactions that take place, rather than as deep and nuanced people.
The cinematography is really spectacular and, even just from a technical perspective, totally mindblowing. The long shots convey chaos and tension in a way not many films had done before (or since) and I found them to be wholly immersive. I used to watch this movie a lot in a formative time of my life and it is still one of my favourites but I can totally understand why it didn’t resonate with you if you didn’t like the premise and were left cold by the characterisation. I would guess it just isn’t your kind of movie, which is totally fine.
I watched One Battle After Another last week. My impression was that it was a more feverish take on Children of Men. I rewatched that the next day and it holds up perfectly. Cinematography allows for the real story to be told in backgrounds and mood. Characters were not that important so I appreciate it that they kept movie short.
Oh, and the scene at Theo’s brother where a young adult at the table is too consumed by some electronics to participate in the discussion is uncannily prophetic since the movie came out before smartphones exploded.
I saw it when it came out and was stoked about the creative plot but front what I remember they just turned the cool concept to a “get from A to B action”.
With all the praise I heard about it later I’m thinking maybe I missed something or remember it wrong but here’s someone else who thinks it bland.
I watched the movie before I knew there was a book, so I came at it without all that context and I thought they did a good job with environmental storytelling. Things weren’t exactly laid out but I always felt like I had a handle on who the characters were and why they were motivated to do what they were doing, and the bits of the world we did see felt detailed and “built” even if the movie didn’t establish a ton of worldbuilding.
I only saw it when it first came out and have been thinking of giving it another rewatch. I don’t remember being blown away by the plot or anything - just that the action and cinematography was excellent.
The book has a roving murder pack of weasles. The movie does not. 3/10
