BBC: Why Children of Men has never been as shocking as it is now

Did this film predict present day Europe? What is the consensus here? What's its bluepill to redpill ratio?

bbc.com/culture/story/20161215-why-children-of-men-has-never-been-as-shocking-as-it-is-now

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=wGqezzQuB7s
youtube.com/watch?v=3MtIF6tw-Io
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Blue pilled. Cuaron is chairo as fuck.

With that said, i like that he portrayed the terrorist left as well terrorist and shitty.

The movie reflects sentiment that was felt by many at the time. Unfortunately the people who saw this coming years ago have never truly been vindicated.

Not nearly as bluepilled as you think.
>Showed an angry muslim ghetto all the way back in 2006
>Foresaw (effectively) the Refugee crisis
>Shows lefty terrorists as being douchebags
>Some of the finest cinematography of the past century

I honestly don't know what to say. It's been a while since I watched it. In the end, the protagonist sacrifices his life for a nigglet.

There have been people who have foreseen a lot of what is happening a long while ago.

youtube.com/watch?v=wGqezzQuB7s

youtube.com/watch?v=3MtIF6tw-Io

I managed to get ahold of some strawberry cough the other day.
Immediately threw on the movie, did not disappoint.

I guess I need to see it for myself. Yes I made a thread on a movie I've never seen. Been curious about it for a while.

Movie portrayed the rebel left accurately, i.e. as absolute scum.
It was a dismal, unpleasant, but effective movie.

Cinematography is the only good thing about this leftist piece of garbage. The only right wing character in this is a literal Nazi who betrays the main character, the saviour of mankind is a nigger, the immigration ghetto is portrayed as the fault of the West, and the journalist character is introduced as having been critical of Bush.

One of the most bluepilled pieces of shit I've ever seen. Total garbage. And those terrorists were supposed to be sympathetic.

>And those terrorists were supposed to be sympathetic.

What? They were shown as total assholes who only wanted the baby for propaganda and were willing to betray anyone to do it.

Only sympathetic character was the hippie living with his braindead wife.

Because liberals are slow. It takes them years to process something.

What look like total assholes to us, look like heroes to the mainstream lefties.

Either way, it was one big rapefugee cry piece, and if it were up to me, this piece of shit would be banned across Europe on grounds of being Marxist propaganda.

>white man cucking out to save a black baby
>redpilled

I guess the race didn't matter when you have the first baby in the world since 20 years.

I liked how they made the mother a total whore, she didn't know the father, because there were so many and they didn't gaf. Realistic nigger portrayal

>pull my finger

Still not a human baby though.

>Memes

White and black people can create a fertile offspring. That means blacks are human - their culture is just fucked up. Or are you gonna deny science for the sake of argument, as the left likes to do?

Childhood is siding with the main character and the 'rebels'.

Adulthood is realizing the state & police were right, and shit was fucked up.

Children of Men isn't exactly redpilled, but it sets one on the redpilled path.

Plus 'the uprising' was one of the best war scenes ever filmed.

I bet this is the same leaf that's arguing against going to war against leftists because it might kill white people.

Day of the Rake when?

I agree. The longshot scene was a masterpiece

Without unduly delay, if you ask me. Let them win Trudeau's way

It is plainly the best dystopian movie ever created. Made in the midst of the Bush/Cheney anti-war backlash. It also is some of the best Neo-realism ever made. The combat sequences in it simply have no equal.

It was using the imagery of the 2nd Intifada and placing that template on Britain. In that way it used events that were really happening at that time and brought them home.

You may think that it is what is going on in Europe right now but you're just delusional. It is Sci-fi and Europe simply isn't Syria.

Sorry to drop the truth. But keep trying. Fantasies can come true if you're stupid enough.

Oh you actually watched the movie.

This and the road are the only red pilled movies

Videodrome will red pill the shit out of you

talking about red-pilled movies just walked into a cinema like for the first time in a few years to watch american pastoral
>women being batshit insane
>ruining everything that is perfect aryan american utopia
>lefties are literally retarded terrorists
now that was a hella of a surprise

the only other thing that bothered me was the jewish pandering but considering the main character was called Swede and was blue eyed blond upstanding citizen can't really complain

so can coyotes and dogs, Pawel. Seriously don't tell me that an aborigine is Homo Sapiens. they should certainly be treated like people, but they most certainly are not the same species.

Apologies, I didn't read the comment you were replying to. Fuck the leaves.

I watched this about a year ago with a nice bottle of scotch. Politics aside, enjoyed it... but yeah, it offends me that anyone might believe it's even slightly redpilled...

>"brown people r the future, mang!"
>black heroine, cuck white guy hero, abundant references to "dat herb, bruhhh"
>oh, and made by a Mexican director

It's about as redpilled as a morning listening to NPR.

we're on the slow road to entropy, stagnation and death. The only solace I have in it all is hoping someday that Canada is vaporized.

Does it have this retarded "Murrica GOAT" vibe to it? I hate that shit in film, "USA is the best, we are good and honourable and selfless and oh look a puppy let's feed and hug it. Oh look the aliens have landed on Earth and of all places possible they chose Muerica, I guess only we can destroy them (and it will be a nigger or a woman who is the ONLY person in the world capable of doing it)"

>Does it have this retarded "Murrica GOAT" vibe to it?

yup it starts in 1960's after all, but it is contrasted with hippy anti-war movement and the "fuck america" themes so it's sort of in balance I guess? I didn't like the editing so the movie was pretty meh for me, too many short cuts as if it was made for ADD kids

let's give it another ten years and see what happens.

>...In the end, the protagonist sacrifices his life for a nigglet.

When every single woman on earth is sterile you take what you can get.

Reminds me of my cousin from Idaho saying how much he hated The Matrix because there were "too many niggers in it". I told him it's hundreds of years in the future and humanity is fighting for survival against machines. I think I could put he nigger shit on the back burner until the machines were destroyed and humanity was safe.

Lol, besides Morpheus, I didn't even notice any niggers (tho I know they were there). I guess that's because besides Lawrence Fishbourne no one has acted well enough to be recognizable when you had Agent Smith played by Hugo Weaving (amazing acting in this particular trilogy) all over the place.

Great movie, I saw it 10 years ago and going to watch this Christmas. Ii's not "redpilled" but it is apocalyptic and depressing, Cuaron foresaw how awful the future will become like the bombings and riots in the film, it looks like news today which was intended as he went for a realistic tone. The film also introduced me to Islam at a every age like how ape like they are and how there's so many of them in Britain.

tl;dr watch it if you never have before, Cuaron got a lot of things right, at least in visual terms.

>Oh look the aliens have landed on Earth and of all places possible they chose Muerica, I guess only we can destroy them

Where else would they take place?
You want American movies to take place in Poland or some shit?

This

yeah but none of them would've survived a war of survival against the machines so it wouldve been quite unrealistic.

besides that white americans and japanese would've been the only ones to make it to that point in the movie due to technology that was made to fight the machines also had the smarts to prepare for the worst

Its actually a pretty good movie even though its a coon who ends up being preggo.

>hurr durr it's a good movie even though they're showing race mixing with a subhuman ape

This kind of jewish filth wouldn't be allowed 50 years ago.

It's more that in murrican alien movies (except The Independence Day which was still horrible anyway) aliens land ONLY in USA, not in multiple places on Earth, plus there is often this "only one person in the world is able to stop 'em" shit. It makes me drop a film instantly.

Dog = canis lupus familiaris
Wolf = canis lupus lupus
Coyote = canis latrans

Dogs and wolves can interbreed and produce hybrid vigor. Such hybrids may not be suitable for (human) domestication but biologically they are perfectly healthy.

Dogs and Coyotes can interbreed but produce generally less fit offspring. Coyotes are less intelligent, less social, more violent, have different calls, and have estrous twice a year (wolves have one). The offspring are often semi retarded, unfit as wild animals AND domestics, and generally prone to problems from genetic mismatches. There's a reason why coyotes EAT small dogs and are often killed by large dogs.

So are blacks a 'wild' version of whites like wolves, or are they a close (but incompatible) version of whites like coyotes?

what if it was an actually cute mixed race girl?
What if she was likeable, instead of a worthless sack of shit that has a baby in her?

I dunno what movies you are talking about, but I can't think of any that take place only in the U.S.

The Day the Earth Stood Still was world wide
Close Encounters, World Wide
Signs. World Wide

You are retarded, just like everyone from your shithole of a country. Go back to being irrelevant in silence.

Saw it way back when I was a early teen

Pregnant man sounds like SJW cancer at first but I remember it not having that SJW twist, the man thing was done for PR and sci-fi effect. The message was that humanity became so degenerate , children stopped to be born. It showed the horror of humanity suiciding itself. Basically pro-life the movie
Very good movie actually.Wasnt redpilled back then , need to research to make am assessment on other redpills

>preggo man

I guess they made a special version to fit german culture

>deny science

Everyone who wants to say Blacks are equal to Whites NEED to deny science. Yes we can interbreed. But every intelligence test, every crime statistic, and every example of African "civilization" proves they suck.

>last hope of humanity is a nigger child
>not stomping it out of existence so that humanity can die a dignified death

They still are human tho

Yes. And these are both dogs.

Were the neanderthals human as well?

And that was my point. I don't understand what are you arguing about

Look, man. I know we're supposed to view the world through a political lens on this board. But this film is a fucking masterpiece. It's one of the best pieces of art made in the past fifty years, and you don't need to be aligned with it politically to think so. Cuaron did an excellent job with already excellent source material.

Things you should argue about re: Children of Men -

1) Cinematography and how certain effects and emotions were achieved through the placement of the camera

2) The relation between plot and background. How do the scenes in the film tie together plot and background, and why does the final product work how it does?

3) What is the relation between death and the long shot in the film? How do extended cuts influence the emotions we feel towards a traumatic or shocking death in the film?

Things we should not be talking about when we talk about Children of Men -

1) What is the approximate color of the pill taken by some anthropomorphic metaphor of this film?

Appreciate fine art. Do not sully it by chucking it headlong into the ideological meat grinder.

Homo neanderthalensis, does that ring any bell?

I asked you a simple yes/no question. I expect a simple yes/no answer. Or are you implying that pic related is a human as well because it has "homo" in it? If yes, why should anyone care what that something is a human?

Yes, homo neanderthalensis were human, hence the "homo" part. You seem not to understand the idea of species' development (evolution)

fucking defender of western values over here

learn from this dude. saying "dis movie communist, ban it" is probably the most communist thing a person could say. some of you fucking pinkos are having an identity crisis and should sort that out.

this

fuck off, the muslims are the good guys in this, along with the leftist anarchists

overall a shitty pointless movie anyway, but don't put it on a pedestal, it was an anti bush film, which was really more an anti right wing mentality to begin with

>implying hating Bush isn't red-pilled
That neocon fucker did more to ruin America than Nixon. PRISM is Stasi 2.0, straight out of commie states.

Did we have a single good first world president since JFK?

I made a comment two years ago that Children Of Men was the a glimpse into future, without the infertility.

>I agree. The longshot scene was a masterpiece
embarrassing. it was a completely cliche shot, with nothing technical impressive or meaningful

>Or are you implying that pic related is a human as well because it has "homo" in it? If yes, why should anyone care what that something is a human?

>Or are you implying that pic related is a human as well because it has "homo" in it?
"Human" is a genus-level classification that corresponds to the genus Homo. So that's precisely correct.

Stop whining already. Write a script for a new movie that isn't propaganda and Sup Forums will help get it made.

>If yes, why should anyone care that something is a human?

>Do not sully it by chucking it headlong into the ideological meat grinder.
a load of bullshit. one can do what you suggest, view a film for its artistic merit and also discuss any political aspects of the film. the political has always been a part of film criticism and there are many films on which you couldn't even have a real discussion without bringing up the political or ideological. it's just as limiting to say "don't sully muh art with politics" as it is to view it through a solely political lens.

What does it matter in context of the film?
The dude didn't get to pick the color, he was just handed a boon with a niglet and told to get moving.

jesus christ, it's a fiction. none of those parameters are real, they are all consciously and intentionally constructed you fucking retard.

Homo habilis was a human species, yes. Can you rewrite the second question so I can understand it, please?

pretty bluepill in that it portrays brits who don't want the refugees as evil fascists. Maybe slightly redpill in that it portrays the violent revolutionaries in a negative light. still prophetic and a well made propaganda piece regardless.

I did there - funny how an extra word could throw you off that much though.

this is some reddit tier criticism.

>fine art
>low hanging anti bush fruit

Cladistic accuracy? Beyond that is normative morality, which people tend to disagree on. I recommend avoiding unconditional "should" statements in discussion like this.

No one here is judging the film's political fluency. No one is judging how it presented the ideology it professed to represent. There is literally no discussion of form despite how obviously critical it is to the overall impression of the film.

People are judging the film because of where it lands on ideology, and not how it got there. It's intellectually dishonest, and a timid half-criticism. If you want to explore politics through the lens of art, you have to be prepared to dive in and entertain ideologies that do not hold value for yourself personally. It sucks.

>without the infertility.
yet

go back to redit you fucking faggot

Liberal bollocks.

Oh, it was supposed to ne "that", not "what". Well, because it is important to know our origins, how our species evolved over time, what we achieved so far, what are the differences between different sub-species/races, and to understand that at some point, if humanity will survive, someone as retarded as you will ask "were homo sapiens sapiens human just because they have homo in it?"

No. False ideologies are absolutely inadmissible. Period.

I dont think the agenda of the film is red pilled, but it was intense as fuck and a good watch

>make propaganda
>get called out on it
pretty simple. good art isn't propaganda.

>Well, because it is important to know our origins
Not in modern sociopolitical discussions. I just showed you why "b-but they be human too" is a retarded argument in that regard.

Idiot.

If you can't explore the absurd in art it ceases to be art and becomes a mere reinforcement of whatever established norm is in vogue at the moment.

This is literally the core difference between art and fashion.

curon is a fucking hack

you faggots need to spend 5 minutes watching actual film

bergman
tarkovsky
kurosawa
verhoeven
de palma
herzog
refn

this movie is fucking trash on all levels, politically and aesthetically

Used to be my favorite movie before the all the dystopian elements that made it entertaining started looking eerily familiar

To those saying it was bluepilled, it was understood Clive Owen was being a cuck for his dead wife's daughter. He was doing it for her not the ho.

Oh, did you?

>implying what's in vogue at the moment is not the absurd.
>implying art is ever not moralist propaganda.

>nigglet.

Child. The only child on the planet.

all this film explored was marxist progressive dogmas, and found them perfectly satisfactory

Holy crap. Truly best cinematography of all time

Yes, or would you have this friendly ape in your country with the same rights as you ?

haha pol has become more bluepilled than redit especially in art criticism. i get more out of tv these days than this shit board.

you're wrong

>If you want to explore politics through the lens of art, you have to be prepared to dive in and entertain ideologies that do not hold value for yourself personally.
i agree, but you said nothing like that in the post i called a load of bullshit. you actually said
>Appreciate fine art. Do not sully it by chucking it headlong into the ideological meat grinder.
that's what i was responding to and it is clearly retarded. see, that's the problem with faggy statements that you think are clever. they're vague and it makes you sound like you're saying there should be no discussion of ideology in film criticism, even if that's not your intention. it also makes it sound like a film is somehow sacred and shouldn't ever be criticized for the message it may be conveying. this is also Sup Forums and no one gives a fuck about your standards for how film should be viewed. go to a letterboxd circlejerk on Sup Forums for that shit.

Well, this friendly ape is long extinct. Besides, at no point did I state I would want lower races of human (like niggers) in my neighborhood or country. I merely said that niggers, homo neanderthalensis and homo habilis belong to human species, which is a fact.

Oh for fuck's sake you're just shouting postmodernist horseshit now. Is this how the twin of Marxism is born on the right?

That would be for V for Vendetta. Children of Men explored the psychology of the modern man through the lens of a person with no reason left to attempt to procreate. A relevant and poignant topic in today's times.

The point is not all dogs are equal. Some are much smarter than others, some are faster, some are larger, etc. They're all dogs but they are vastly different physically and mentally. It's not just that blacks have a fucked up culture like you stated.

"Poignant" is a leftist word.
You've long since outed yourself, apologist.

>I merely said that niggers, homo neanderthalensis and homo habilis belong to human species, which is a fact.
Yes, and I said that belonging to the human species means jack shit then.

Sup Forums is filled with Sup Forums retards. Stop kidding yourself

...