Post by Pulpmariachi on Jan 6, 2007 17:09:14 GMT -5
Alfonso Cuaron is quite possibly the best director to come out of Mexico. He's probably one of the greatest directors working today. One needs look no further than what he did with the Harry Potter series . . . he took these two rather childish films and morphed and shaped them into something much darker . . . much more adult . . . and seventy billion times better. Purists may say that he strayed too far from the books and made it too dark (or some say boring, but those people are idiots) and then come up with all these childish criticisms of his ability -- all of which are wrong -- but he changed the series for the better and I, for one, was disappointed when he declined the offer to make the fourth movie. Why would he do that? Quite simply . . . so he could blow the pants off of us with his next effort.
To say "Children of Men" is a masterpiece would be . . . well, it would be correct, because it is a masterpiece. Cuaron took an experimental novel from a mystery writer (who you could feel was having problems with growing old) and shaped them into this cinematic work of brilliance. The story line basically reads in a world where all women are infertile Theo Faron discovers one girl pregnant and does everything that he can to get her to safety. I could say more, but why spoil anything? What results in the journey is this incredibly intense, incredibly heartfelt, and nearly bewildering spectacle of violence, tyranny, deception, and betrayal. The whole film is entirely transfixing and after about ten minutes you'd be hard pressed to pull your eyes from the screen.
As he has done before Cuaron pulls out exceptional performances from every single actor. They all fit in the world so well, fight against it, but they live in it at the same time. Since the world has gone to hell, Great Britian is pretty much the only place where civilization makes some appearence, mainly because it's been reduced to a military state. Immigrants are being shipped off to and fro in concentration camps equallly frightening and terrible. (Yes, there are modern day connections.) The world is grieving over the death of the youngest human on the planet, further taking away their hope. The film does take place in 2027 but the entire world is brought to life incredibly well and after awhile you just don't even think about that it's the not-too-distant-future (as opposed to other futuristic, post-apocalyptic films, like "Blade Runner", "Mad Max", or "The Fifth Element", which do draw attention to technology). You might be able to see some of this happening in modern times. . . .
Really, the movie -- acting-wise -- is Clive Owen's. He's practically in every single scene and "Children of Men" works as an example of how third person limited writing can work in film. Sure, there are a few times we see things Theo can't, but they're not many and important. Through him we feel this tension, this desire, this need to help this girl out and the whole film dangles on a thin line that if Owen hadn't given such an amazing performance, the whole movie would've collapsed on itself.
But one of the biggest shiners here is the cinematography. Emmanuel Lubezki pulls out all the stops and creates some of the finest handheld work since "Saving Private Ryan." Some takes last nearly twelve minutes in length, pulling you further into this journey. It's amazing how Cuaron and company were able to pull it off. And you don't realise, a lot of the time, how long this take is going, and cuts seem to blend in that you didn't notice he had cut away from us. The desaturated look adds to the bleakness (as it very well should).
Seriously, your heart stops many, many times.
In 2006 generally regarded as the top three Mexican filmmakers released a movie. Guillermo del Toro came out with "Pan's Labyrinth", Alejandro González Iñárritu released "Babel" and Cuaron put out this. Easily, it's the best of the three. I think that what Cuaron did right was take this on as a piece of magical realism . . . something I've noticed have bugged many other film critics (why doesn't he explore why people stopped having babies? why is this never explained? blah blah blah). What's not important is why it happend, it's just that it happened and these people's lives are still going on. Moreso, Cuaron offers commentary into immigration issues, how even the lowest revolutionaries are backstabbing, self-interested morons, and that peace isn't always as difficult to achieve as everyone thinks (see: the climax). Also, as well as not explaining why, Cuaron doesn't approach the obvious religious metaphor of the picture (unlike something like "The Nativity Story" you don't know who will survive or what's going to happen). It's your decision on how to approach the movie, but ultimatley, every single approach works on some way. The Catholics called it one of the most spiritually fullfilling films, didn't they? On top of offering all that, Cuaron delivers some quality entertainment (which a lot of other films with messages tend to do . . . look at "Crash" with its emotionally pornographic look at race relations, or "Babel" where Inarritu can be felt behind the camera, trying to figure out the worst things to do to his characters . . . I'm not saying that every film should be entertaining, but it does help, even "Schindler's List" had some entertainment, be in far and in-between, while simultaneous plowing you over with this horrible war) including quite possibly the slowest car chase ever caught on film. I'm not joking.
Since early 2006, or even late 2005, I had been waiting for this film, and my expecations were incredibly high (especially because I have a deep level of respect and admiration for Cuaron). It took until the first week in 2007 to see it . . . the film was originally planned for a Fall release but Universal liked it so much (or maybe it just wasn't done yet) that they pressed it back to prime awards seasonc . . . but it exceeded my expectations.
Probably the best film of 2006, "Children of Men" is amazing.
A+.
To say "Children of Men" is a masterpiece would be . . . well, it would be correct, because it is a masterpiece. Cuaron took an experimental novel from a mystery writer (who you could feel was having problems with growing old) and shaped them into this cinematic work of brilliance. The story line basically reads in a world where all women are infertile Theo Faron discovers one girl pregnant and does everything that he can to get her to safety. I could say more, but why spoil anything? What results in the journey is this incredibly intense, incredibly heartfelt, and nearly bewildering spectacle of violence, tyranny, deception, and betrayal. The whole film is entirely transfixing and after about ten minutes you'd be hard pressed to pull your eyes from the screen.
As he has done before Cuaron pulls out exceptional performances from every single actor. They all fit in the world so well, fight against it, but they live in it at the same time. Since the world has gone to hell, Great Britian is pretty much the only place where civilization makes some appearence, mainly because it's been reduced to a military state. Immigrants are being shipped off to and fro in concentration camps equallly frightening and terrible. (Yes, there are modern day connections.) The world is grieving over the death of the youngest human on the planet, further taking away their hope. The film does take place in 2027 but the entire world is brought to life incredibly well and after awhile you just don't even think about that it's the not-too-distant-future (as opposed to other futuristic, post-apocalyptic films, like "Blade Runner", "Mad Max", or "The Fifth Element", which do draw attention to technology). You might be able to see some of this happening in modern times. . . .
Really, the movie -- acting-wise -- is Clive Owen's. He's practically in every single scene and "Children of Men" works as an example of how third person limited writing can work in film. Sure, there are a few times we see things Theo can't, but they're not many and important. Through him we feel this tension, this desire, this need to help this girl out and the whole film dangles on a thin line that if Owen hadn't given such an amazing performance, the whole movie would've collapsed on itself.
But one of the biggest shiners here is the cinematography. Emmanuel Lubezki pulls out all the stops and creates some of the finest handheld work since "Saving Private Ryan." Some takes last nearly twelve minutes in length, pulling you further into this journey. It's amazing how Cuaron and company were able to pull it off. And you don't realise, a lot of the time, how long this take is going, and cuts seem to blend in that you didn't notice he had cut away from us. The desaturated look adds to the bleakness (as it very well should).
Seriously, your heart stops many, many times.
In 2006 generally regarded as the top three Mexican filmmakers released a movie. Guillermo del Toro came out with "Pan's Labyrinth", Alejandro González Iñárritu released "Babel" and Cuaron put out this. Easily, it's the best of the three. I think that what Cuaron did right was take this on as a piece of magical realism . . . something I've noticed have bugged many other film critics (why doesn't he explore why people stopped having babies? why is this never explained? blah blah blah). What's not important is why it happend, it's just that it happened and these people's lives are still going on. Moreso, Cuaron offers commentary into immigration issues, how even the lowest revolutionaries are backstabbing, self-interested morons, and that peace isn't always as difficult to achieve as everyone thinks (see: the climax). Also, as well as not explaining why, Cuaron doesn't approach the obvious religious metaphor of the picture (unlike something like "The Nativity Story" you don't know who will survive or what's going to happen). It's your decision on how to approach the movie, but ultimatley, every single approach works on some way. The Catholics called it one of the most spiritually fullfilling films, didn't they? On top of offering all that, Cuaron delivers some quality entertainment (which a lot of other films with messages tend to do . . . look at "Crash" with its emotionally pornographic look at race relations, or "Babel" where Inarritu can be felt behind the camera, trying to figure out the worst things to do to his characters . . . I'm not saying that every film should be entertaining, but it does help, even "Schindler's List" had some entertainment, be in far and in-between, while simultaneous plowing you over with this horrible war) including quite possibly the slowest car chase ever caught on film. I'm not joking.
Since early 2006, or even late 2005, I had been waiting for this film, and my expecations were incredibly high (especially because I have a deep level of respect and admiration for Cuaron). It took until the first week in 2007 to see it . . . the film was originally planned for a Fall release but Universal liked it so much (or maybe it just wasn't done yet) that they pressed it back to prime awards seasonc . . . but it exceeded my expectations.
Probably the best film of 2006, "Children of Men" is amazing.
A+.
