comment #1

austin111 says ...

I saw Children of Men last night. I disagree that's it's the greatest film of the year. Granted, the cinematography is beyond superb and should win everything thrown at it -- if anything gets thrown at it. There are plot holes here and there throughout, and moments where you must suspend disbelief, so I can't exactly call it the best of the year, but that said, it's a potent experience at the "cinema" so it's sad that it hasn't gotten more attention. For what it's worth, it's gonna be a classic underground flick that people will be watching for years to come.

comment #2

jeffmcm says ...

Anybody know who this 'prominent director' would be? It must be somebody younger because Clint Eastwood or Martin Scorsese wouldn't say 'holy shit'. And why Sunday?

comment #3

TheScott2K says ...

Brett Ratner would say "holy shit."

comment #4

The Winchester says ...

suspension of disbelief? In a movie that takes place 20 years in the future, where ? No way...

Seriously, though, I caught Children of Men for a scecond time the other night, and it plays even tighter than the first time. None of the wonder of those 5-6 ridiculously amazing long shots is lost, or even slightly dimmed. Maybe I missed these plot holes, or just didn't care. Funny thing about the second viewing? It doesn't seem nearly as bleak. I guess it's what you take from it.

I second your comment about it becoming an underground classic, though. This movie will have it's lovers, and will eventually find it's audience.

comment #5

dre says ...

The movie is phenomenal. I'm glad it was at least recognized by the Academy though I still don't understand leaving Cuaron out of the Best Director mix...it's as preposterous as anything they have ever been accused of doing.

comment #6

Craig Kennedy says ...

Fully agreed Winchester, CoM was even better the 2nd time around. The handful of justifiably buzzworthy shots still amazed. The 1st time it was the visceral impact, the 2nd time it was the appreciation of technique...and it was still visceral.

The movie itself seemed a weightier thing the 2nd time through as well.

Plot holes? Still not seeing them.

comment #7

gatsby1040 says ...

No plot holes except those imagined by the viewers who can't pay attention to detail. The exposition is all delivered very subtly, rarely through dialogue, usually through visuals, and is never spoon fed. To take one example -- the brilliant scene where the car won't start. The first and second times I thought that was an example of plot convenience (wouldn't it be cool if the car doesn't start!). On third viewing I heard a bit of very brief offscreen dialogue in an earlier scene where Luke says to an underling "That car'll need a jumpstart tomorrow."
Brilliant! The movie's only full of plot holes if you don't pay close enough attention. Unlike 95% of today's Hollywood fare, COM doesn't treat the audience like a bunch of morons.
Oops... maybe thats why it'll only do $30 mill domestic.

comment #8

Doug Pratt says ...

the film should have been released to theaters a month or even two months earlier than it was.

comment #9

le corbeau says ...

I don't get the "plot holes" thing either. I grant you there's at least one headscratcher in the setup-- as I've said before, there's no reason that The Human Project would be clandestine from even (or especially) a fascistic government, they'd have grant money and resources pouring at them-- but precisely because the movie is elliptical about so many things, leaving you to fill in the gaps from subtle hints and bits of texture, you don't worry about understanding every last bit of the backstory but accept the overall messiness of a world gone wrong in so many different but convincing ways.

comment #10

Mr. Peel says ...

Count me in on the 'no plot holes' train. The script is pretty damn close to airtight. It's the best film of 2006 and years from now it'll still be the best film of 2006.

comment #11

Thrudvangar says ...

I saw COM for the fourth time over the weekend and I picked up even more things. There's a lot going on in that film.

comment #12

slothroplt says ...

Seen it twice now. No letdown whatsoever the second time through. The film will be prominent in many a cinema fan's DVD collection for years and years to come.

Fuck the Oscars. COM stands on its' own as the best picture of the year and one of the best of the decade.

comment #13

austin111 says ...

I've seen it and I'm telling you that it's not "the second coming" as far as "I'm" concerned. I will say that it's a pretty great movie, though, and it does capture a good sense of where the world could go in the future, which is down a long dark hole. Yeah, there are definitely holes in the plot, but they weren't, thankfully, too distracting. I'm intelligent enough to recognize a plot hole when I see it, thank you very much.

comment #14

bipedalist says ...

Very good film but certainly not better than Pan's Labyrinth or The Departed or The Lives of Others. It's on the level of Little Children for me: really great but not in the top five - good, though. Pan's rules.

comment #15

Ju-osh says ...

I agree that the average viewer has to learn the difference between 'plot holes' and questions and vagueries purposefully inserted to arouse curiousity and conversation.

comment #16

mitch says ...

Are we bored yet?