2027. In the throes of chaos and general apathy, humans have become infertile and the youngest person on the planet has died at 18 years old. A former activist (Clive Owen) agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman (played by Claire-Hope Ashitey) to a human project sanctuary at sea, where her child's birth may help scientists save the future of humankind.
First of all, I am amazed at how many people wrote off "Children of Men" as 'another bleak Orwellian sci-fi' á la the abysmal "Equilibrum", for to me it is clear that Alfonso Cuarón has created something refreshingly unique both in style and content here. It is a run-and-hide actioneer pumped full of adrenaline, and paralleled with an interested vision of the future. As the protagonists dart along the decaying routes of Britain in desperate hopes to save humanity, I was sort of surprised at how compelled I was at one point, from the amazing setting of crumbling buildings that look like war-torn Balkan countries to the political revolutionaries and snipers on the rooftops, the dark atmosphere is superbly breathed life into.
As for acting, as a notorious Clive Owen-hater, he is nevertheless perfectly cast in the role of a lifeless, jaded corporate drone who has greatness clumsily thrust upon him. Seriously, I've recited grocery lists with more panache. Blink and you'll miss both Julianne Moore and Michael Caine, for neither inhabit leading roles in "Children of Men". To compensate for it, Claire-Hope Ashitey proves a likable character throughout, even offering some humour along the way, and the dire circumstances automatically elicit sympathy for out protagonist centre.
Although "Pan's Labyrinth" is a strong contender in the same category, the cinematography win should be a lock at the Academy Awards, and rightly so. Director Alfonso Cuarón coats his standard gliding tracking shots over the craggy British landscape and fallen citiea, and here it is bleakly perfect. On the other end of the spectrum, he aptly uses atmospheric shaky-cams to capture the frantic chases and escapes Theo and the girl experience on their way out of the country. Thankfully, it is not a-monkey-could-have-shot-this shaky, but appropriately moody.
The crux, and there nearly always in one, is the unspeakably lazy writing of the template script, undoubtedly by Cuarón himself. If you intend to make a film largely about science, you should probably at least nod to science. In the film, no explanation is ever offered as to why people can no longer procreate, and it becomes clear that the writers have NO IDEA what they are talking about. Luckily, "Children of Men" is cleverly crafted in such a way that it never needs to explain what caused the infertility or the technicalities of what is wrong ("We don't know what caused it"), but as a result it is neither very interesting nor very credible. No matter how you get around it, you need a firmer scientific footing to appeal a wider audience.
The film does, however, bring up important existential questions in bioethics. The implications of humanity no longer being able to procreate its species are wide-ranging and severe. In a way as humans it would not directly affect us since *we* would lead our ordinary lives to the fullest (albeit without having children). But undeniably, whatever distant genesmanship to our offspring and future generations, it would eventually provoke a kind of altruism that would lead us to act, much like Theo in protecting the pregnant girl, even if the child was not his, because in the end it would benefit the survival of our species which is all that matters to the selfish nature of genes.
"Children of Men" has an admirably grainy and bleak tone, even though it is momentarily lifted by humour. It is a pity that its fans are doing most of the insightful thinking in the message boards, scratching their heads trying to come up with feasible scientific explanations for the infertility in the film ("carrying capacity of the population", "over-dependence on anti-depressants", "flunk of evolution" and "plague" to name a few) something that the writers should already have sketched out in the writing stage.
7.5 out of 10
First of all, I am amazed at how many people wrote off "Children of Men" as 'another bleak Orwellian sci-fi' á la the abysmal "Equilibrum", for to me it is clear that Alfonso Cuarón has created something refreshingly unique both in style and content here. It is a run-and-hide actioneer pumped full of adrenaline, and paralleled with an interested vision of the future. As the protagonists dart along the decaying routes of Britain in desperate hopes to save humanity, I was sort of surprised at how compelled I was at one point, from the amazing setting of crumbling buildings that look like war-torn Balkan countries to the political revolutionaries and snipers on the rooftops, the dark atmosphere is superbly breathed life into.
As for acting, as a notorious Clive Owen-hater, he is nevertheless perfectly cast in the role of a lifeless, jaded corporate drone who has greatness clumsily thrust upon him. Seriously, I've recited grocery lists with more panache. Blink and you'll miss both Julianne Moore and Michael Caine, for neither inhabit leading roles in "Children of Men". To compensate for it, Claire-Hope Ashitey proves a likable character throughout, even offering some humour along the way, and the dire circumstances automatically elicit sympathy for out protagonist centre.
Although "Pan's Labyrinth" is a strong contender in the same category, the cinematography win should be a lock at the Academy Awards, and rightly so. Director Alfonso Cuarón coats his standard gliding tracking shots over the craggy British landscape and fallen citiea, and here it is bleakly perfect. On the other end of the spectrum, he aptly uses atmospheric shaky-cams to capture the frantic chases and escapes Theo and the girl experience on their way out of the country. Thankfully, it is not a-monkey-could-have-shot-this shaky, but appropriately moody.
The crux, and there nearly always in one, is the unspeakably lazy writing of the template script, undoubtedly by Cuarón himself. If you intend to make a film largely about science, you should probably at least nod to science. In the film, no explanation is ever offered as to why people can no longer procreate, and it becomes clear that the writers have NO IDEA what they are talking about. Luckily, "Children of Men" is cleverly crafted in such a way that it never needs to explain what caused the infertility or the technicalities of what is wrong ("We don't know what caused it"), but as a result it is neither very interesting nor very credible. No matter how you get around it, you need a firmer scientific footing to appeal a wider audience.
The film does, however, bring up important existential questions in bioethics. The implications of humanity no longer being able to procreate its species are wide-ranging and severe. In a way as humans it would not directly affect us since *we* would lead our ordinary lives to the fullest (albeit without having children). But undeniably, whatever distant genesmanship to our offspring and future generations, it would eventually provoke a kind of altruism that would lead us to act, much like Theo in protecting the pregnant girl, even if the child was not his, because in the end it would benefit the survival of our species which is all that matters to the selfish nature of genes.
"Children of Men" has an admirably grainy and bleak tone, even though it is momentarily lifted by humour. It is a pity that its fans are doing most of the insightful thinking in the message boards, scratching their heads trying to come up with feasible scientific explanations for the infertility in the film ("carrying capacity of the population", "over-dependence on anti-depressants", "flunk of evolution" and "plague" to name a few) something that the writers should already have sketched out in the writing stage.
7.5 out of 10