Children of Men (retrospective thinking)

This is a review indeed strictly for people to reply and argue to.



While Cuaron was attempting to create the perfect specimen of a science fiction movie, did he realize that a science fiction movie needed a good scientific background to push the story through? Where did he take his influences from? Did he acknowledge its inevitable comparison to other films of the science fiction genre which were much more efficient at stretching the imagination of science fiction, the science fiction movies whose stories inspire hundreds of genre variations, the ones that inspire cults and an entire cultural phenomenon? Granted that it can be argued that Cuaron was not trying to make "Star Wars" or "The Terminator," and that Children of Men was only science fiction because it had to be and that it can be acknowledged as something else entirely, I doubt I would be the only person to notice that the notion that the world is coming to an end due to the fact women are infertile is entirely half-baked. I'll explain myself further. I am not trying to imply that the premise that "women are infertile" is a silly science fiction premise, but that in terms of its use of a scientific background to compliment the story, that is about as deep as it gets. Because it doesn't go anywhere after that, we're stuck with the notion that "women are infertile" and uh... even in Batman Beyond: The Animated Series, the scientific background of every story is handled with pretty good sensibility to science fiction mythology, but instead we're reduced to Cuaron beating us over the head with notions of political instability in a future world, in addition to mass hysteria, and you have your science fiction bestseller, I assume. I'm not referring to the fact that the movie did not explain why "women were infertile," but that in order for the movie to serve its purpose, it would probably be something other than trying to wow us with its astute scientific imagination. I assume that by mass trailer advertising in the vein of "in the future, the apocalypse is near, women can no longer have babies, we are all going to die" is capable of attracting couple of millions to the cinema alone, are we to assume that when we actually go watch the movie, we're going to see something that the trailer did not already explain entirely?

During the scene where pictures of Julianne Moore and Clive Owen are plastered over the fireplace with an emotional song playing in the background, and when the camera slides from one picture to the next depicting their long lost period of joy and grace when they had each other, when they were anarchists together, um..... is that an excuse for a perfect flashback moment? Do you really think that Bogart and Bergman would still have a job in Hollywood after the year 1942 if that can be so effectively accomplished? Basically all Cuaron is telling us from that scene, oh yes, the song helps, is that "Julie and Clivey fought baddies together not so long ago, when they were both young and naive, and they both had hate in their hearts for the government. Please, about the only purpose that that scene served was to tell us that "they used to be something special together." How is it that from one scene, we already know everything about these two characters? I'm going to assume that facets of Julianne's character profile that we didn't know about are more interesting than Clive's, because now knowing everything about Clive, I can safely say I can't imagine a more disinteresting character. To sum it up, the movie had no character development, none, and it doesn't take a genius to realize that.

I have a hard time understanding how Michael Caine made time in the trailer, because other than comedy relief, his wise mouth half-baked philosophical analyzing of global armageddon is the only reason for his existence at all. He does nothing except fill a few dialogue pages with his so unbelievably stereotypical character. I also do not know why in all Cuaron's movies, a totally unsettling death always happens in the end. Even though Y tu mama tambien is not a bad movie, I never was a fan of the ending, I thought that there was little reason for why Luisa had to die, ok maybe Cuaron was trying to imply that life is indeed beautiful, and that we should appreciate the miracle of life, but in Children of Men, Clive Owens' "hero must die" death just felt so entirely surreal. I was aware of the gun wound, but it just seemed awkward to me the way he dropped dead on the spot, like Cuaron was trying to imply something differently, like "his heart just gave out" or something. I'm aware that it was trying to be faithful to its source. I'm not really addressing the fact that he died as much as I am trying to understand the ambiguity of the last scene. I'll gladly lend an ear to anyone would thinks they know this.

Also, I fail to see really what was so impressive about that 10 minute tracking shot. I hope people notice that that shot felt so unnatural in co ordinance with the movie; like Owen had to go through a maze to reach his touchdown point and that the maze just happened to be there. It was a scene that Cuaron would have put in if it cost him his dear life. Why? Because it looks goddamn good, and profitable too. If it took 4 million for the destruction, 3 million for the tanks, 1 million to pay the extras, and 3 million of extra money in case they have to do it again, it only adds up to 11 million, which giving it 15 seconds in the trailer, it would've made the money back already within 20 minutes of the trailer's initial release. I suppose people are entranced by the way it looks like the "ultimate emotional montage of humanity," but at that moment, having not cared for a single character or have been amazed at its revolutionary science fiction, that scene was entirely useless to me. Clive Owen's heroics depicted so beautifully, his incredible dodging of grenades and gunfire, and him forcing his half-limping body across falling debris is all good.... it's trailer footage.

So, in conclusion, half baked politics, half baked science fiction, little character development makes for a good B movie, but 10 minutes of tanks shooting at Clive Owen as an excuse to depict "beautiful violence" does not cheer a song for humanity nor will it make me cry, otherwise Von Trier would've done that already with Dancer in the Dark. And I realize that because it looks mature and emotional, it will always have a good reputation, but just because it looks emotional does not make it so. There's not an easier movie to criticize, I can assure you.