Children of Men- Your thoughts *Spoilers*

[Mr Light]

Hurum. I just read the first 50 pages of the book. And it was nothing but Theo's diary spelling out his entire life story as well as the infertility crisis. 50 pages in, and there isn't even a narrative yet. And it's pretty bleak and depressing (moreso than the movie I dare say). From someone who's already read it... at what point does the book develop a plot?

 

[Dorian Thompson]

I couldn't stop thinking, "What if they didn't develop a cure?" Kee's baby was the last person born on the planet, and she's 20 years younger than anyone else. Can you imagine being alone on this planet for 20 years when there isn't another soul around? You'd go mad.

The whole dystopian element of the story fascinated me because it was so close. Only 20 years ahead. I can believe things would fall apart that fast. Clive Owen and Julianne Moore, they were "80s kids" that I tease about with the helicopter parents taking them to college. They entered their 20s at the turn of the century with hope, and by the time they were thirty the planet was dying. It's a fascinating, grim, horrific world.

 

[Reverend]

My reaction to seeing Children of Men was, that was the best movie I never want to see again. It was just too depressing.

I'm curious, have you seen United 93? That's exactly how I'd describe that film.

Now I must have an unusually high depression tolerance (or maybe it's my Britishness!) but I must have watched Children of Men a good half dozen times and at no point have I felt overtly depressed; after all the film is about hope.
As for United 93, I watched it twice and while it's certainly a well made and important film about a very real and tragic incident, I can't say it was especially depressing for me.
I do however have my limits, for instance I never want to see Schindler's List ever again. Even for a desensitised, cynical bugger like me that one can be a little too much to bare.

 

[Lookingglassman]

This is a very good movie! I have seen it about 5 times and it never gets old.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

My reaction to seeing Children of Men was, that was the best movie I never want to see again. It was just too depressing.

I'm curious, have you seen United 93? That's exactly how I'd describe that film.

Now I must have an unusually high depression tolerance (or maybe it's my Britishness!) but I must have watched Children of Men a good half dozen times and at no point have I felt overtly depressed; after all the film is about hope.
As for United 93, I watched it twice and while it's certainly a well made and important film about a very real and tragic incident, I can't say it was especially depressing for me.
I do however have my limits, for instance I never want to see Schindler's List ever again. Even for a desensitised, cynical bugger like me that one can be a little too much to bare.

But Schindler's List is about hope just like Children of Men. I love Schindler's List (I watched it yet again recently) and I think it's one of the greatest films ever. But then I'm a big war and Holocaust film buff.

 

[Harvey]

But Schindler's List is about hope just like Children of Men. I love Schindler's List (I watched it yet again recently) and I think it's one of the greatest films ever. But then I'm a big war and Holocaust film buff.

Bah. Spielbergian sentimentalism and manipulativeness at its worst. The Pianist is a far better modern movie about the Holocaust.

*Runs and hides*

 

[The Nth Doctor]

But Schindler's List is about hope just like Children of Men. I love Schindler's List (I watched it yet again recently) and I think it's one of the greatest films ever. But then I'm a big war and Holocaust film buff.

Bah. Spielbergian sentimentalism and manipulativeness at its worst. The Pianist is a far better modern movie about the Holocaust.

*Runs and hides*

Oh, you did NOT!!!

The Pianist is an excellent film, I agree. But the rest of that post...I'm just going to block from memory.

 

[Borg451]

I think it never explained the infertility problem because it wanted the viewer to come up with their own conclusion. I could be pollution, the stuff that we eat these days (hormones and chemicals), or it could just be plain and simple evolution. Maybe we were supposed to stop breading and die out.

Yeah, none of those really worked for me. Maybe big chunks of the population would be affected by any one of those things, but not everyone on the freakin planet.

Maybe I'm just too much of a science nerd, but that premise was just too much of a whopper not to have a better explanation. It would be like if everyone in the future had suddenly learned how to fly, and the movie didn't bother to explain it. We'd all be going "Huh? Just how exactly did THIS happen?!?"

well in cases like that it can only be God...

Think, the infertility started and was complete within a few month.
It only affected Human Women.
It affected ALL Human Woman

whether u believe in god in RL in the film im certain that was the reason.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Thread necromancy!

I read the book several years ago, when the film came out. PD James' book is, to be blunt, appallingly awful.

I've had the DVD for years; I bought it at Big Lots for about three dollars somewhere along the line. I've never watched it.

Until today. Which is cold and gross and I don't feel especially well.

Nothing like the book. I shouldn't have let my bad experience with the novel get in the way of this film.

There were a number of points where I went, "No! You didn't just do that!" I didn't see some of the plot points coming.

I found myself weeping at some points (Jasper's last scene in his house is a good example), and during the street battle my breathing was tight and I'm sure my blood pressure went through the roof.

I was left with the thought that civilization is nothing more than a thin veneer, and we're much closer to the precipice we see in the film than we would really care to admit.

Very good film, though it does drag somewhat in the middle. I doubt I'll be in any hurry to rewatch it.

 

[The Nth Doctor]

I've heard the novel isn't very good, and considering how much I love the film, I've never bothered with it. Rarely do I avoid a novel a great film is based on (in fact, I just finished David Mitchell's excellent Cloud Atlas, which is even better than the incredible and ambitious film), but this is the exception.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

I've heard the novel isn't very good, and considering how much I love the film, I've never bothered with it. Rarely do I avoid a novel a great film is based on (in fact, I just finished David Mitchell's excellent Cloud Atlas, which is even better than the incredible and ambitious film), but this is the exception.

If you're curious, the summary on Wikipedia will suffice. The summary isn't as turgid.

James' novel is a vastly different story. All the filmmakers took were character names and the basic premise (civilization's long dark teatime of the soul due to worldwide infertility).