Genius Brand

email this story
read comments (56)
post a comment

"Best Picture of the Year" means different things to different folks. For some (most, I suspect) it means being the most fundamentally "entertaining" -- the one that will most likely reach the largest middlebrow audience. (Which is why a lot of people are suddenly behind Dreamgirls.) For others, it's the film that's the most soul-soothing or life-capturing (Volver, Babel, Little Miss Sunshine, The Lives of Others ). Or that seems the most complete and fully realized according to its own particular rules (The Departed, The Queen, Pan's Labyrinth, United 93).

But for me, the highest synthesis of Best Picture satisfaction means delivering on one or two of the above plus one other -- it has to be visually historic. It has to knock your socks off by way of sheer visual energy or innovation. So much so that what you're seeing becomes absolutely "real" and everything else drops away. The popcorn is put under the seat, notions of bathroom breaks are out of the question, and you almost stop blinking for fear of missing something.

Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men (Universal, 12.25) is that film, and is my choice so far for Best Picture of the Year.

This is a futuristic, dystopian end-of-the-world actioner and grim as hell, but what mainly comes through is how remarkably convincing it all looks and feels. Set in 2027 England, It's one of the most exactingly detailed, full-on visions of a totally-fucked future -- a world in which women have stopped having babies -- that I've seen in any medium ever. Jim Clay and Geoffrey Kirkland's production design is so precisely composed that it easily trumps whatever down-head feelings the film may temporarily impart.

And yet Children of Men doesn't push the moody atmospheric gloom-vibe of films like Dark City, The Handmaid's Tale, 12 Monkeys or Blade Runner. Based on a 1993 novel by P.D. James, an elderly British woman who mainly writes murder mysteries, it's a movie with underlying heart and hope -- a vision of an Apocalyptic ruin that also delivers warmth and frailty and compassion, and a vision of life that actually includes a future.

Understand this above all: Children of Men is the most excitingly photographed thing I've seen all year. It's easily in the realm of Full Metal Jacket, Black Hawk Down and Saving Private Ryan, only more so. It's basically one long take after another, but the standouts are three bravura sequences that each last four or five minutes (longer?) without a cut, and involve truly astonishing feats of sustained choreography and miraculous camera movement. This alone should trump any misgivings you may have about any other aspect (although there's not much to beef about).

In short -- it's the photography, stupid. The dp is Emmanuel Lubezki and the camera operator was George Richmond. I don't know who precisely did what but the hand-held lensing is the stuff of instant legend. If Stanley Kubrick were alive today he would absolutely drop to his knees.

Any film buff who doesn't rush out and see this film at least twice (and drag along as many friends as possible both times) is a traitor to the cause. That's all there is to it -- see it or live in shame. There's no third option.

Children of Men may not satisfy every sector of the audience (I talked to a white- haired guy after the big Thursday-night premiere who thought it was the worst thing he's seen in years), or even a majority of the big-gun critics. Variety's Derek Elley, astonishingly, gave it a mezzo-mezzo review after catching it at the Venice Film Festival. And I've heard the usual beefs about Clive Owen not exuding enough warmth. And there is concern among Universal execs that Men may not make a whole lot of coin.

Children of Men director-co-writer Alfonso Cuaron (r.); the great Emmanuel "Chivo" Lubezki , the film's dp, to the left

But ten, twenty or fifty years from now, long after the pure-fizz movies (the ones that sometimes make people giddy and chuckly when they're first seen) have been forgotten, people who care about the eye-popping art and vitality of cinema at its finest will be watching Children of Men.

I guess that white-haired guy was brought down by Cuaron's vision of a crumbling world -- worldwide infertility, bands of terrorists, mass chaos, people in cages, roving criminals on every corner. Britain, however, is the last island of relative stability in this world of November 2027. All the other countries have collapsed into total ruin.

What rings so true about this polluted Orwellian atmosphere is that it's not radically different from the England of today -- it's just a bit grimier and madder with more cops and bigger video-screen ads, and a lot more animals on the streets, and much dirtier exhaust coming out of everyone's tail pipes. Soldiers and cops are roving all over the place, warnings are constantly broadcast and posted. Broken windows, rampant graffiti, kids throwing rocks and garbage at passing trains....all the signs.

The key plot point is that there have been no births in the world since 2009. It's over -- everyone has given up.

Cuaron, Ashitey, Owen during the Venice Film Festival

Owen's arc is to go from being a bitter disllusioned milquetoast -- a bureaucrat named Theo Faron who can only shuffle along and think of his own misery -- to a fighting humanist-activist doing everything he can to protect an illegal refugee named Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey), who, we soon learn, is miraculously pregnant. If it lives, the baby inside her will be the first child on the planet in 18 years. And it falls to Theo to smuggle Kee to a group called the Human Project, a group of scientists trying to find a cure for global infertility.

Michael Caine plays the only joyful character, a former political cartoonist-turned- pothead named Jasper who's also Theo's best friend. He's in only two scenes but nonetheless lifts the film's spirit significantly. Peter Mullan adds another energy jolt toward the end as a half-crazed cop friend of Caine's.

The action starts with Theo being kidnapped by an immigrant-rights terrorist group run by Julian (Julianne Moore), a former lover of Theo's who gave birth to their child only to see it die. She wants Theo to get hold of transit papers for Kee, which he does. But then things start to go crazy, and soon the film is pretty much one chase or high-peril situation after another.

That's another reason people may pigeonhole this film as being less than it is -- they'll say it's just another futuristic action flick.

I don't think it matters at all if Cuaron and Timothy J. Sexton, who share script credit, have dealt with the various issues with sufficient or insufficient detail. It didn't bother me that the infertility thing is never really explained -- what mattered to me is that I absolutely believed it had taken hold.

The photography is legendary not just for the excitement factor, but because it's fascinating to try and figure out how this and that sequence was shot. My favorite is an attack on a car in the countryside -- it's a single take that reportedly required a special mini-crane that allowed the camera to shoot both inside and outside the car. The big battle sequence at the finale is mind-blowing. It's basically the final battle sequence in Full Metal Jacket on steroids.

I had thought of Cuaron mainly as a soulful-whimsical dramatist after Y Tu Mama Tambien. His Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban ('04) was better than the others, but I did what I could to ignore it. His short in Paris J'etaime ("Parc Mon- ceau") was pretty good. Children of Men, however, is a huge leap forward. Now he's one of the big-boy visionaries in the class of Kubrick, Orson Welles, Spiel- berg, Gregg Toland, Chris Nolan, Ridley Scott, et. al.

Birds beating Bond<< previous | next >>Death of Movie Palace

Posted by Jeffrey Wells on November 18, 2006 at 12:20 PM

comment #1

Noah says ...

I really loved the film too. But the Kubrick/Spielberg class is definitely different from the Nolan/Ridley Scott class. Especially considering Nolan has made only about four films, so I wouldn't quite put him on the same bar as Kubrick or Spielberg. And Ridley Scott is a joke. Those other filmmakers would never make a movie as awful as 1492 or Legend. Yet, you can't stop blowing him.

Posted by Noah at November 18, 2006 12:37 PM

comment #2

wildphantom says ...

Spot on Jeff. Saw this in the UK a couple of months back and too was astounded at its technical brilliance. Cuaron's Potter movie blew me away visually back in '04. He has an eye for moments that just defy the laws of what you can do with a camera.
Like you said, that last battle 'one-take' is just out of this world. Its also followed by a beautiful silent scene that encompasses everything the film is about. Cuaron knows how to dazzle and when to hold back.

Definitely one of the best movies of the year.

Posted by wildphantom at November 18, 2006 12:52 PM

comment #3

The Winchester says ...

Not for nothing, but there was a long time after the film first screened when suddenly it was off the Oscar balloon. But upon finally seeing it, it's the best film of the year.

Curiously, Dreamgirls AND Flags of our Fathers were pretty much permanently roosted in Best Picture category, but are now just in the "plus" category.

Posted by The Winchester at November 18, 2006 12:54 PM

comment #4

jeffreywells says ...

Wells to Winchester: Things change.

Posted by jeffreywells at November 18, 2006 1:04 PM

comment #5

bipedalist says ...

Love Spielberg though I do, even HE doesn't belong in the same class with Kubrick.

Posted by bipedalist at November 18, 2006 1:20 PM

comment #6

Matthew Lucas says ...

I am really looking forward to "Children of Men." The trailer is one of the best I've seen in years. Although I still think "Flags of Our Fathers" will be nominated for Best Pic. Maybe by the skin of its teeth...but it'll sneak in there. It's the kind of thing the Academy loves. Will it win? Nah. But I have a feeling they'll throw it a bone at least.

Posted by Matthew Lucas at November 18, 2006 1:28 PM

comment #7

bipedalist says ...

I agree with you, Matthew. Put it this way, if Master and Commander can get nominaed on a few good reviews and a director's good name so can Flags. Both films did poorly at the BO and cost a lot to make.

Posted by bipedalist at November 18, 2006 1:40 PM

comment #8

MattyC says ...

"See it or live in shame"

That's a pull-quote if ever I've seen one.

Just a black one-sheet, the title, and those six words. Awesome phrasology Jeff.

Posted by MattyC at November 18, 2006 1:43 PM

comment #9

NYCritic says ...

My only concern about this film, which I liked as well, is that Universal has decided to release on Christmas Day in the USA and unless there is critical support for the movie, I think it's going to tank at the box office.

The Academy screening I attended was packed, but several people (who I know to be Academy members) walked out at various stages of the film and the reaction was rather ho-hum. Nobody was "buzzing" about it in the way they were about other films I've seen at these screenings in the past.

Posted by NYCritic at November 18, 2006 1:51 PM

comment #10

MattyC says ...

Also, Noah:

Come on, man. Seriously. I've seen some lame trolling in my time, but making an obviously ridiculous, completely indefensible statement such as, "Ridley Scott is a joke", renders any point you were trying to make completely invalid.

Alien. Bladerunner. Gladiator.

'nuff said.

Making the occasional shitty picture does not render your classics any less classic.

But you're right, Spielberg would never make something as lame as Legend. Oh, wait, I forgot Hook. And 1941. And Always. Point is, everyone has their missteps. Doesn't make your classics any less classic.

Posted by MattyC at November 18, 2006 1:56 PM

comment #11

Devin Faraci says ...

It's a goddamn masterpiece.

Posted by Devin Faraci at November 18, 2006 1:57 PM

comment #12

Reint says ...

"It's a goddamn masterpiece."

Hell yes it is. I'll just repeat what I've said earlier, in other posts:

It's technically brilliant (multiple times, I found myself wondering, "How the hell did they do that?") and extremely engaging. An adrenaline rush of a film, it has everything: high-stakes drama, well placed comedy and brutal yet exhilarating action.

SPOILER BELOW!!!

When the baby is born, my jaw almost literally hit the floor. The moment it comes to life is one of the most astounding sights I've seen in a theater. The baby is all CG, a monumental FX achievement. Just this should get the film some awards.

Posted by Reint at November 18, 2006 2:29 PM

comment #13

Jay T. says ...

After the trailer I definitely knew I was going to catch this film in theaters, but wow... now I really want to see it.

Posted by Jay T. at November 18, 2006 2:57 PM

comment #14

The Winchester says ...

Winchester to Wells: Obviously things change, but you were one of the quickest to discount this movie back in the summer. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad you loved it, and that actually makes me think I'll enjoy it even more. (Our tastes run similar for the most part). All I'm saying is all this Oscar prognostication tends to lose focus over the actual content of the films themselves.

But what really matters, in the end, is that the movie is great. Awards be damned.

Posted by The Winchester at November 18, 2006 3:05 PM

comment #15

Craig Kennedy says ...

I really hope Wells is right about this one but how can I trust a guy who goes all weak kneed for soft-headed nonsense like A Good Year and then never misses an opportunity to take a massive steaming dump all over the slight, but completely charming Stranger Than Fiction?

Posted by Craig Kennedy at November 18, 2006 3:11 PM

comment #16

bipedalist says ...

Winchester, you're missing the bigger picture. Awards attention gloms on to "good movies." For instance, right now people are writing me and saying, "Casino Royale is getting such great reviews, do you think it has best pic potential?" And even the little movies want Oscar attention. No filmmaker goes out there and says, "I don't want awards attention." They all do. That's not the reason they make them but it certainly is the gravy. On the one hand you're saying, the movie is good so forget awards, and on the other hand you'd probably be happy if a movie you really liked won a bunch of them. Does any of this make sense?

Posted by bipedalist at November 18, 2006 3:15 PM

comment #17

Noah says ...

MattyC,

Alien wasn't even as good as its sequel. Blade Runner is probably the most overrated Sci-Fi film of all-time and that's not hyperbole. Ridley Scott is such a hack that he gave away the "secret" that Harrison Ford is a replicant a few years ago. I find it pretty ridiculous for there to be a film that leaves things ambiguous, only to have its director tidy things up for the audiences a few years later. And Gladiator? Are you kidding? You really want to put him in the same class as the man who made Schindler's List and the man who made 2001 based on Gladiator? Whatever, your opinion is your opinion and mine is mine. But, I think you're giving the man a little bit too much credit if you equate the man who made Matchstick Men and Kingdom of Heaven (two of his best films, I feel) with the man who made Dr. Strangelove and Clockwork Orange.

Posted by Noah at November 18, 2006 3:20 PM

comment #18

actionman says ...

ridley scott is a mster-class filmmaker.

Posted by actionman at November 18, 2006 3:28 PM

comment #19

actionman says ...

oh yeah---amazing review, Jeff. one of your best in a long time. Cannot wait to see this baby

Posted by actionman at November 18, 2006 3:30 PM

comment #20

The Movie Man says ...

Good review Mr. Wells, looking forward to this film. Speaking of Kubrick, I recently rewatched his "The Killing", damn that's a precise, amazingly modern fucking movie. At the risk of being filleted by HE readers, I think Kubrick's early work is much more satisfying than the second half of his career. He's a master, not arguing otherwise, but I think he got stuck on a certain visual tempo and theme (and the fact that he's Kubrick, WORLD CLASS GENIUS FILMMAKER) and as a result I find his latter work unengaging (though the end of Full Metal Jacket is masterful.) Specifically I find "A Clockwork Orange", "2001", "The Shining" and "Eyes Wide Shut" very hard to get through though they all have moments that any other filmmaker would kill for (except Eyes Wide Shut, I'm not defending much there.) I prefer the vitality, the grit, the life, the jet black humor or "The Killing", "Dr. Strangelove" (one of the greatest American films ever made) "Paths of Glory" and the vastly underrated "Lolita." His later, more sedate, hypnotic style, his evocation of dehumanization worked for me completely once, and that's in "Barry Lyndon."

Posted by The Movie Man at November 18, 2006 3:44 PM

comment #21

The Winchester says ...

Bipedalist: You make some sense. But that's not the point I'm making. I'm basically tired of all the pre Oscar (Oscar encompassing all awards, really, except Golden Globes because, despite being the "early signs" of Oscar winners, does anyone even really care?) hype. It's ludicrous. Case in point: Wells reporting a few months ago that Children of Men is dead in the water as an Oscar contender because of mixed response at a film festival, then coming back and telling me it's the best picture of the year. Meanwhile, Dreamgirls and Flags of Our Fathers, which have practically been shoved down our throats since the greenlight (not just by Wells, I'm not attacking the man) are suddenly deemed not all that great. Similar situation with The Departed, where it was declared dead because it didn't premiere at Toronto, and yet now it's the front runner for at the very least Best Director.

Yes, I'm aware of the edict that "Things Change" (David Mamet made a nice little movie about it almost 20 years ago). But things change upon the actual VIEWINGS of these films. And that's what frustrates me more than anything right now. The films are practically decided before being seen, or based on scattered viewings from festival audiences.

Obviously, people tend to make good movies with hopes of winning awards (or at least recognition, or cash, or all of the above). The shining example of that right now would be A Good Year. Who WOULDN'T want to greenlight the reunion of Crowe and Scott? And we've seen how everyone has responded to that film.

But do you think that the guy who made Saw III had a golden glint in his eye as he directed a scene where pigs are slaughtered so that a man can drown in it's entrails?

I have no doubt that Children of Men is an amazing film, I've been anticipating that and The Fountain all year, over Dreamgirls and Flags. And, like I said, I'm really glad Jeff likes it, and I hope it does go on to do well. But it's also been my observation that the best movies of the year are rarely the ones that win any awards.

Then again, what do I know? I think the best films of the year are The Proposition, Hard Candy, The Science of Sleep and Little Children.

(And Slither, but that's for the fun value over anything)

Posted by The Winchester at November 18, 2006 3:45 PM

comment #22

The Movie Man says ...

The Winchester-I back you up on The Proposition, its a shame more people aren't talking about it.

Posted by The Movie Man at November 18, 2006 3:47 PM

comment #23

daffodil 11 says ...

Spot-on Jeff, CHILDREN OF MEN is not only one of the films of the year but it is also going to have a huge life beyond theatrical as more people discover this film and spread the word.

As the Awards season gets closer to it's conclusion, more & more films are failing to live up to the hype. Where it felt all but a foregone conclusion as to who was going to be nominated a few months back, it feels like a whole new ballgame now. Besides the contenders now becoming ore and more left-field (BORAT anyone?), I also wonder what the ratio of American talent/product is going to be to talent & product from overseas...

CHILDREN OF MEN was released in my territory some months back with near no promotion. But the film was found by it's audience and despite market overcrowding, managed to retain a presence for some time. I encouraged everyone to see it after being absolutely blown-away by it's power in the first weekend. Those that did were 100% positive in their feedback, women particularly. My 60+ mother went to see it just for an eyeful of Clove Owen and came away moved to the core.

The early (and fumbled) international release could be the start of a new trend that might be supported by an eventual DEPARTED nomination triumph: that awards-centric films are released earlier in the season, to allow studios to reap the windfall by a well-timed DVD release around late February.

CRASH's jump on the amazon.com sales ranking after it's (most undeserving) win had to be noticed by somebody...

Bring-on CHILDREN OF MEN in the Oscar race. This is a triumph of cinema on every level and needs to be seen by people everywhere to restore their faith in just how well a film can be made.

Posted by daffodil 11 at November 18, 2006 3:54 PM

comment #24

The Winchester says ...

Movie man, thanks for the support. It is a great film.

And while no one is talking about it for awards, it doesn't change the fact that we think it's a great film.

Posted by The Winchester at November 18, 2006 4:07 PM

comment #25

Craig Kennedy says ...

I absolutely agree on Proposition and if there was a special Oscar for fly wrangling, it would win hands down.

Also glad to see some loving given to Lolita and Barry Lyndon, not that Kubrick is lacking in critical praise.

Posted by Craig Kennedy at November 18, 2006 4:16 PM

comment #26

bipedalist says ...

Winch wrote:

"But do you think that the guy who made Saw III had a golden glint in his eye as he directed a scene where pigs are slaughtered so that a man can drown in it's entrails?"

You'd be surprised who has Oscar prospects. You just wait until the For Your Consideration ads start to fly. You'll see. I keep a gallery that tracks them if you ever want to check it out...http://www.oscarwatch.com/FYC/gallery.

What's worse, the Oscar hype or the studios hyping their Oscar movies? Sorry, I'm talking in circles, I know...

Posted by bipedalist at November 18, 2006 4:25 PM

comment #27

The Winchester says ...

Bipedalist: Yes, I'm a big fan of those For Your Consideration ads for movies that are outright dreadful and have no hopes, but have to try to save face, or worse honor a contract. Do me a favor and let me know when you see the For your Consideration: Best Actress Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct 2.

The sad thing is, I'm being dead serious. I fully expect this ad to show up soon.

And to answer the cyclical question, can I say all of the above? They feed one another and create bigger, blander problems. Like Cold Mountain.

Posted by The Winchester at November 18, 2006 4:33 PM

comment #28

MattyC says ...

Noah:

Here's the thing. We can agree to disagree on the quality of Scott's films versus Kubrick's (although I was more addressing Spielberg, who has way more duds to his credit, in my post, which you completely avoided), and that's fine.

However, Jeff's review was primarily about camerawork and having a director's unique eye for the visual element. In this regard, Ridley Scott has long been viewed as a visual master. Alien and Bladerunner are usually talked about as groundbreaking for their time, especially coming as a one-two punch like they did.

Alien came out in '79, when everyone in the world was trying to copy the success of Star Wars, but it did the space thing realistically. I believed there was such a thing as deep space miners, or whatever they were supposed to be. Now, don't get me wrong, when I'm actually choosing which one to watch on a saturday afternoon, nine times out of ten it's Aliens. But a James Cameron film is a completely different animal from a Ridley Scott film, and I love them both for unique reasons.

Blade Runner I actually do think is quite overrated, as far as being a quality film that I want to re-watch. However, the visual style is beyond reproach, especially for its time. There are still movies coming out trying to copy that futuristic, sleazy look that can't do it half as well even with all the advances in CGI, and it's nearly 25 years old!

Gladiator has a lot of haters, I realize. But I like the film's epic look and feel, and still don't think Russell Crowe has been as magnetic in a film since then. The imagery in that film, especially the shot of Joaquin Phoenix rising up into the stadium with rose petals falling all around, is magnificent.

We both agree that Aliens is the shit, and the pulse rifle with over/under pump-action grenade launcher duct-taped to a flame thrower that Ripley uses in the finale is my all time favorite little boy fantasy weapon ever, so let's leave it at that.

Posted by MattyC at November 18, 2006 4:41 PM

comment #29

JWEgo says ...

Jeff
Poland is calling us out- see my post in the Casino thread

Posted by JWEgo at November 18, 2006 5:09 PM

comment #30

EDouglas says ...

I usually don't believe in absolutes... and as much I loved the movie and Alfonso (just interviewed him the other evening)...there is NO WAY IN HELL this gets a Best Picture nomination. Sure, it'll probably get a lot of critics' kudos but the reaction to the screening I caught earlier this week was not saying "This is the greatest movie I've ever seen, let alone this year." Of course, the people there were mainly guild and not Academy (big difference) but I just can't see this getting enough support among the actors to get into BP. Maybe a well-deserved directing nom for Alfonso? Cinamatography? Absolutely. Script? (Probaly not, there's not much there.)

I mean there was a woman from the Directors Guild behind me who was bitching about how stupid the movie was and some other woman (not sure what guild) was also complaining about it.

IOW, I don't think it will happen. :)

Posted by EDouglas at November 18, 2006 5:32 PM

comment #31

EDouglas says ...

"Love Spielberg though I do, even HE doesn't belong in the same class with Kubrick."

After seeing Children of Men (and I might have already posted this somewhere), I wish Cuaron had finished AI: Artificial Intelligence instead of that hack Spielberg.

Posted by EDouglas at November 18, 2006 5:33 PM

comment #32

EDouglas says ...

sorry for the triple post...this is a long thread already... I agree about the Proposition and I'm bummed that First Look isn't sending DVD screeners out there to people to remind them like some of the other studios are doing (including IFC and THINKFilm)

Posted by EDouglas at November 18, 2006 5:35 PM

comment #33

fnt says ...

I loved it, but honestly am not sure if it's going to get widespread support. It's ultra-dark, it's violent and it's sci-fi. On merits, it should be a best picture nominee. But I'd settle for a screenwriting nom or a director nom. Maybe one for Clive Owen, but I know that's reaching...

Posted by fnt at November 18, 2006 6:48 PM

comment #34

jeffmcm says ...

AI is one of the best films made in the last 5 years and has an ending that is near-perfect in its queasy blend of emotional ironies.
I find that I have to post this every couple of months just to remind people.

Posted by jeffmcm at November 18, 2006 7:19 PM

comment #35

The Winchester says ...

AI is neither great nor terrible. It has a solid 45 minutes to an hour, known as the Jude Law part. But like all Spielberg in the past ten years, the ending craps the bed. I'm sorry. He always does it.

Posted by The Winchester at November 18, 2006 8:16 PM

comment #36

erniesouchak says ...

Lubezki's work in "Children of Men" is the best cinematography I've seen in a long, long time. The man is an artist, and that can't be said for many DPs. (His recent credits -- The New World, The Assassination of Richard Nixon, Lemony Snicket, Y Tu Mama Tambien.) The film is very good and often exciting, but what keeps it out of the "great" category, at least for me, is the thinness of detail about what's going on and why. As a viewer, you're thrown into a chaotic situation and it's never clear exactly who wants what. It's absorbing, yes, but ultimately not fully satisfying. I've heard thru the grapevine that there was initially a longer cut of the film -- 3 hours -- and the version I saw was about 45 minutes shorter than that. Too bad, because it needs MORE, and I'm sure the longer cut was better. Fingers crossed we'll see the whole thing on DVD.

Posted by erniesouchak at November 18, 2006 8:51 PM

comment #37

erniesouchak says ...

Wells, since you've bothered to single out Lubezki, why not ID him in the photo you've posted? That's Cuaron with the camera on his shoulder and Lubezki looking right at you in the background.

Posted by erniesouchak at November 18, 2006 8:53 PM

comment #38

tholl-yung says ...

I saw it at a packed acad/guild screening (open to both) and no one stirred and there was light audible female sniffling during the two very emotional parts towards the end, mine included, and lots of laughter at the funny parts and "wows" walking out at the end. A note about the long takes -- people are looking for a different experience at the movies and this style should persist with the rise in use of 3 perf (partly because, as has been written in DP mags, it ensures a DI, so producers can't change their mind) which makes longer takes possible on the same load of film. 1000 ft at 4 perf is 11 min and almost 15 at 3. Did I mention I loved the movie?

Posted by tholl-yung at November 18, 2006 9:07 PM

comment #39

berg says ...

Once an actor reaches a certain stature in their career their contract includes things like a certain size trailer, the size of the font of their name in ads, and perks like "for your consideration" ads ...

Posted by berg at November 18, 2006 10:50 PM

comment #40

Thrudvangar says ...

The Winchester-I back you up on The Proposition, its a shame more people aren't talking about it.

Ditto

I watched it last night and it's the best film I've seen in some time. It's brutal.

Posted by Thrudvangar at November 19, 2006 1:32 AM

comment #41

Dan Revill says ...

Still can't wait for Children of Men. Saw a poster last night in the lobby at the theater. It's simple and beautiful.

As for the Proposition, easily one of the best films of the year. The sense of impending dread I felt while watching it in a dark theater is something that I don't think I ever felt during any type of film. It sits with you for a long time. Brilliant work of art. Such a shame it'll all be forgotten come awards' time.

Posted by Dan Revill at November 19, 2006 2:00 AM

comment #42

The Winchester says ...

I'm glad for the love given to the Proposition. It makes me smile. Even if the movie can't really make you smile.

Kudos on whoever made the crack about fly wrangling.

But, the movie will receive no awards recognition. Just the love and adoration of fans.

Damn fine flick.

And to bring it back to topic, I hope Children of Men is as good as Wells says and it knocks Proposition down from my top of the year.

Posted by The Winchester at November 19, 2006 2:50 AM

comment #43

Rich S. says ...

What is it about the poor UK? The vast majority of (good) dystopia movies is set there. 1984, A Clockwork Orange, Brazil, V for Vendetta and now Children of Men. There's a master's thesis there somewhere, if it's not out there already.

And the folks who are dissing Blade Runner are wrong. You can argue its merits as a story, but it, along with The Road Warrior, completely changed art direction in science fiction movies from that point on. Since the same can be said about Kubrick and 2001, the comparison is valid.

Posted by Rich S. at November 19, 2006 4:57 AM

comment #44

EDouglas says ...

TH: Cuaron told me that no shot in the movie was longer than 10 minutes, though it really seemed that refugee camp shot must have been longer... will definitely have to watch it again.

Posted by EDouglas at November 19, 2006 4:58 AM

comment #45

tholl-yung says ...

Ramblling here. CoM was shot 3 perf. Sheigh Crabtree wrote about the camp shot in 10/29's How'd They Do That (LAT) -- said it was almost 15 min long and shot with 5 min loads, and said solve the riddle. Not in the mood to do the math to feet, but anyway, she is adiment about the loads, so they had to do a very fancy "Rope" trick.

Posted by tholl-yung at November 19, 2006 8:48 AM

comment #46

BNick says ...

Excellent, Jeff. I've been psyched about this film since I first heard about it. Dunno about the Oscar buzz, though. No other prognosticator seems to have it on their radar screen.

Posted by BNick at November 19, 2006 9:33 AM

comment #47

Craig Kennedy says ...

I'm not going to see Children of Men because it's apparently not 'Oscar worthy'.

I'm also not going to see Casino Royale because it's going to make $132,000 less than Happy Feet. It must be a total loser.

Is there a Sarcasm Font for these message posts?

Posted by Craig Kennedy at November 19, 2006 9:44 AM

comment #48

jeffreywells says ...

Wells to BNick: "Children of Men" is my choice for Best Picture of the Year. It would be nice if someone agreed, but it ultimately matters not.

Posted by jeffreywells at November 19, 2006 10:47 AM

comment #49

actionman says ...

so excited for this flick...what they showed at comicon was breathtaking. lubezki's work on Ali was simply stunning--it's an underrated movie to begin with, but the photography during those fight scenes was art. gorgeous stuff from start to finish. I for one LOVE long takes so I can't wait for this.

and the proposition is easily one of the top 5 movies of the year. it's one of those brutal, nasty genre movies that will never be fully recognized. granted it did get excellent reviews, but it just pisses me off when I suggest it to people and they've never even heard of it. every single shot in that movie is a wonder.

Posted by actionman at November 19, 2006 10:43 PM

comment #50

Mark says ...

Jeffrey,

When mentioning Cuaron's visual work, don't overlook the importance of Great Expectations. Though his attempts at long single tracking shots were less successful in that flick, it succeeded in introducing the color green to every working dp over the last decade. From The Matrix, Amelie, and The Aviator, to Saw; GE started the trend.

Posted by Mark at November 20, 2006 8:32 AM

comment #51

actionman says ...

absolutley right Mark
i remember seeing GE with my at-the-time gf and while she loved the whole thing, i found it visually stunning...i remember a long take that followed Ethan Hawke outside in the rain and in-and-out of some buildings that was remarkable

Posted by actionman at November 20, 2006 11:27 AM

comment #52

T. S. Idiot says ...

The shot in GE of DeNiro suddenly emerging from the water is one of the most remarkable in recent years.

Why does Wells insist upon identifying P.D. James "an elderly British woman who mainly writes murder mysteries"? Why does he assume we don't know who she is, and what does her age have to do with anything?

Posted by T. S. Idiot at November 20, 2006 12:09 PM

comment #53

slothroplt says ...

Seconded, thirded, whatever...The Proposition is the best film I've seen this year.

Posted by slothroplt at November 20, 2006 4:59 PM

comment #54

Dixon Steele says ...

MovieMan,

I agree with you, I much prefer Kubrick's work before he was anointed (self-anointed?) a Genius, from 2001 on.

Posted by Dixon Steele at November 20, 2006 6:44 PM

comment #55

jb says ...

Without question "Children of Men" is the film I am most looking forward to between now and the end of the year. I'm also glad Jeff won't choose for his Best Film of the year "The Departed", a film which generates absolutely zero emotional current.
Jeffrey: regarding the list of "visionaries" featured at the end of your piece - why did you include a cinematographer, even a certified genius like Gregg Toland, in a list of directors? And Chris Nolan: come on. "Memento" is one of the strongest films of the decade, no question. Beyond that? Unless you consider "The Prestige" or "Batman Begins" (both solid if unspectacular works) to advance the notion of his genius, what gives?

Posted by jb at November 23, 2006 6:03 AM

comment #56

Mr B says ...

I know this is very late, but i just saw Children of Men, and am now reading the review (I don't read reviews anymore until after the movie). Great movie. Great great movie. And can we give Michael Caine some special award? Who's the better stoner, Jeff Bridges or Caine?

Anyway, people are calling Ridley Scott a hack on here. Someone said above, a masterpiece isn't lessened by a piece of crap. Artists sometimes make magic, sometimes make steaming piles. If it was easy or automatic, they wouldn't be artists, judge each work as it is.

And who cares what he 'said' about ford being a replicant. Writers also do that all the time. My mom told me a long time ago, 'trust the work, ignore what an artist says about their work'. Once the work is made, it lives on its own blood. Maybe even they don't know all that is there.

And to the Bladerunner haters. Yeah, opinions are everyone's own property, but please don't come here and try and convince anyone that, FACT, Bladerunner is bad. To me, it is one of the greatest movies of the past 30 years, and is the definition of rewatchable. I mean, social-scifi films can no longer be watched without some mention of that movie. It helps define them and inform them. I like Philp Dick, and that movie to me did justice/ improved upon his work. And in my opinion, Aliens cries, kneels, and worships at Alien's feet.

Sorry i am late. But cheers, and Happy New Years!

Posted by Mr B at December 30, 2006 10:20 PM