Someone enlighten me on this movie, its very highly rated by people and i have no idea why.
if its trying to point at the racism/snobishness of britain/upperclass it really hams that up too much.(its like v for vendetta level of parody)
or is there some other hidden point to this movie im supposed to get? is it just a "what if" story of what would happen if we all became sterile?
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
twitter.com
the whole point of the movie is to show the truth behind mass immigration.
The rise of islamic extremism happened regardless of the infertility.
Great acting, great world building, great set design, great framing and composition, editing, pacing, sound design, choreography, line deliveries etc
Almost every single filmmaking element is on point.
You don't have to like it if you don't enjoy the narrative, but you should atleast see the value in other film elements to see why others like it.
>You don't have to like it if you don't enjoy the narrative
what WAS the narrative tho?
how to get this preggo woman into england so she isnt experimented on. oops her baby got seen by everyone now she gonna get locked up somewhere and experimented on
That's not it
There is no bullshit political agenda attached to this movie. It's a science fiction film that just happens to be fucking amazing.
It's funny because it's the opposite to reality
how do you even enjoy movies with a simplistic mindset like that
You asked why is the movie highly rated and I gave you an answer.
Now if you just deny all that and go on oversimplifying the story to somehow prove to yourself that everyone else is pretending to like it then be my guest.
You don't have to like every worldwide critically acclaimed movie if the majority likes it you know.
It's called having a taste.
the problem here is that you're just very stupid
A combination of
and
I like to think that whoever wrote this was trying to show an interesting dystopian Britain, started from the premise of nobody being born in the world, and built his world naturally from there considering many factors rooted in the real world, and many ficticious, without a political agenda in mind.
The arab/islamic and black overpopulation on the slums and decay of society partly due to those factors seems to come as a natural progression, even if the plot of the movie wasn't centrically about those issues.
Sometimes the stage itself is the message, and I've seen this movie played fairly often on TV recently. I wonder why.
lmao OP got buttblasted
you misunderstand, i know its shot well and acted well and all that jazz.
but the story is the substance of a movie. so can you stop being elitist for a moment and explain what the point of the story was. or if there is no "point" to it.
im not saying the sound/set/world design isnt a key factor in a good movie, im just asking what made people like it so much.
Its entirely more close to reality every year since it came out.
Also Alfonso Cuaron picked Emma Watson to be the girl after making Prisoner of Azkaban. She couldn't because of Goblet of Fire. Cuaron was offered Goblet of Fire but turned it down because they wanted post production of Azkaban to overlap with preproduction.
I felt like there were too many ideas thrown around at this
>mass infertility
>mass migration
>England as the sole survivor in a dystopian future
>a dash of Islamic extremism and populist revolt
Stick to just one or two of these and a clearer theme could have shone through, instead of just a really bad Christ parable making everyone stop fighting for a moment.
Michael Caine's character is similarly over-designed. Elderly jovial former activist hermit music aficionado pothead who lives with his vegetable wife and dog. Just keep it simple.
Thats just a bad opinion. Ir dsytopian and chaotic as it should be
it's a movie where the right and the left can use to harbor their own agenda or assume its a conspiracy against their own beliefs, but for regular people its a good movie with great shots
OP this is what happens when your pea brain is unable to see or appreciate anything except through the narrow lens of ideology. You've become a fucking stooge for pundits and are incapable of seeing anything as a story in its own right.
Wow, I both hate and love being reminded how stupid so many of you are. I couldn't imagine going through life with such limited ability to grasp basic concepts. It must be both a blessing and a curse.
youtube.com
Maybe this will help you, you fucking pleb
think you got it backwards there pal, my complete lack of ideology made me incapable of understanding what the movie was supposed to be about.
unless like i said, its just an interesting "what if" scenario thats shot and acted well
i liked the worldbuilding of the movie very much. but the main story was just "we run away from yet another threat".
There is no universal "deep meaning" or "point" which everyone has to get from viewing this or any movie.
That is also a simplistic view of the artfrom, there is a general theme and a general message and everyone "get's" something else from it.
Someone enjoys it just because it has quality sci fi action scenes, some enjoy it because it's a interesting social commentary of alienation and immigration, some enjoy it purely because they love the atmosphere or the general "feel" of it.
Do you think if I now gave you an essay of all the themes and questions the movie asks that you would suddenly think the movie is good?
No, you didn't enjoy the movie and no argument can't change that and that's fine, just accept others can.
Movies aren't puzzles which you have to put together in a certain kind of way to "get" them.
>I felt like there were too many ideas thrown around at this
It was fairly standard for a sci-fi movie, but I guess for plebs like you who can't handle anything too radically different from the real world having more than 1 crucial difference is "too much".
>The story is the substance of a movie
How to spot a pleb 101
>he still things stories have "points" which perfectly explain what they are about
Are you still in high school? Have you literally never read a book more complicated than To Kill a Mockingbird in your life? Jesus.
It's a dystopian scenario that's interesting on its own. I don't think there's a deeper point to taken from it. Maybe hope? Human perseverance through hard times? There's lots of Judeo-Christian subtext in this movie
go back to jerking off to lynch and jodorowsky
>my complete lack of ideology made me incapable of understanding what the movie was supposed to be about
No, if that were true you would not have immediately leapt to ideology for an explanation of the movie. A person truly free of the grip of ideology wouldn't assume it has some ideological motive, they would just examine the story as a narrative. Immediately assuming there must be some ideological meaning behind it is the calling card of the stooge.
>12 angry men
what WAS the narrative tho?
some nigger commits a crime and is nearly convicted. oops one juror holds out and makes them change their minds
It's quite easy to do that to literally any movie.
Obviously it should be chaotic, but I think the core motivation of the story is messy between the infertility and migration elements. I know they tie together but personally I think one would have been more resonant
I forgot to add the eye rolling Abu Ghraib visual references as they enter the slum.
So was it fairly standard or was it too smart for plebs? Just because Cuaron noted on crises going on in the world doesn't make it a smart film
>he watches for the plot
>its very highly rated by people and i have no idea why
because it's brilliantly shot, has a good screenplay with some nice twists, is well-paced and has many memorable scenes
Yes it was fairly standard. And Jesus you still think it's about pointing out problems in our world. Sci-fi is truly wasted on morons.
Then you probably hate Fury Road, Sicario, The Revenant or Kooyanisqatsi.
They are all movie with a bad/mediocre script, but are still good movies just because of the craft.
Also, if they only had a good story and bad/mediocre everything else, we wouldn't even be talking about them right now.
Remember, film is a visual medium first and foremost.
>movie filled with references to real world events and problems
>"it's just sci-fi bro!!!"
I'm not OP but you're retarded
>that taste
wew
>some nigger commits a crime and is nearly convicted. oops one juror holds out and makes them change their minds
a story about a mans non racistness teaching the other jurors to not be racist.
now do that for children of men
Sci-fi that is so obviously based on problems plaguing the modern world and set in the near future is 100% about "pointing out problems in our world."
It was babby's first, OP.
I'm beginning to suspect you don't even know what sci-fi is.
See this is the exact mentality I'm talking about. Totally wasted on morons like you.
It's just recent examples to make sure he knows what I'm talking about (excluding Kooyanisqatsi, that's there just to prove the point)
Why give examples of movies which he probably hasn't ever heard of if he can't even comprehend Children of Men?
Also I forgot to say Jodorowsky is a hack who thinks symbolism isn't anything other than the lowest artistic tool there is.
YOU DO NOT COMPREHEND THAT "MOVIE" BECAUSE YOU ARE AFFECTIVELY IMPAIRED, WHICH IS EVIDENT BY YOUR ATTEMPT AT OVERINTELLECTUALIZING IT, IN A FUTILE ATTEMPT AT APPREHENDING ITS ESSENCE.
IF YOU CANNOT COMPREHEND A "MOVIE" AS RELATIVELY SIMPLE, AND EXOTERIC, AS "CHILDREN OF MEN", I WONDER HOW BLIND YOU ARE TO OTHER "MOVIES" THAT ARE EVEN SLIGHTLY MORE PROFOUND, OR COMPLEX, THAN THIS ONE —I AM NOT IMPLYING THAT COMPLEXITY IS "GOOD" IN ITSELF, OR BETTER THAN SIMPLICITY; I AM MERELY REMARKING ON THE FACT THAT THERE ARE "MOVIES" THAT ARE MORE COMPLEX THAN "CHILDREN OF MEN".
NOONE CAN ENLIGHTEN ONE WHO LACKS EYES TO SEE.
Children of Men points problems in the real world all the fucking time. You literally have no argument to support your thesis that "it's just a narrative bro"
This; also, one of my favorite aspects of the movie is that in an absolutely hopeless and despairing situation, people still find a way to be assholes to one another and try to fuck over/kill as many people as possible. It's very bleak. Despite the ambiguous ending it's still a very, very dour movie.
>youre trying too hard to think about this simple movie, dont think too hard
>there are more complex movies out there, think hard
the fuck are you even trying to say
Then explain what it's about, autist
Holy fucking shit you can't be serious.
The racist part is just a small sub plot of that one character, to dumb down 12 Angry Men to RACISM is idiotic.
Maybe if you said something like the movie shows that todays jury system of "not guilty until proven" is needed because it's better to make sure innocent people aren't locked up so easy in prison with the cost of maybe some actual criminals getting free.
I hope you are not actually this retarded and you are just baiting me
If it were actually about those problems it would be a documentary, or would deal with solutions to them. It's neither of these things. It uses these problems as a "jumping off point," which all speculative sci-fi does. It takes some real thing in the world and then goes "what if..." and creates a whole story from it. The scenario created in Children of Men is not even a realistic extrapolation of events, it's an invented scenario that lets people look at an alternate version of the Earth. Of course, this kind of thing can only be appreciated by people with an interest in societal development and collapse, people like you who only have crude utilitarian views of fiction are incapable of understanding films as thought exercises.
>one of my favorite aspects of the movie is that in an absolutely hopeless and despairing situation, people still find a way to be assholes to one another
this completely expected behavior in these conditions is something that inspires you?
you do understand depression and hoplessness doesnt create a stable society right?
>12 Angry Men was about racism
Was being retarded part of your plan?
Easily impressed plebeians.
>Cuarón treats this exaggerated state of the world as a genre exercise. Cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezski does long Steadicam takes through bombed-out neighborhoods and on motorway shoot-outs that resemble the surreally distanced, uninterrupted viewpoint of a videogame. But these show-offy sequences come 16 years after Scorsese and De Palma pioneered them in GoodFellas and Bonfire of the Vanities. They’re done to impress, yet are so slow and stagey that they’re portentous. Children of Men never explains how the world got this way and so its dread is convincingly sophomoric—as is Theo’s reluctant heroism.
>The political antipathy of Iraq war protestors and War on Terror skeptics is what drives this pretentious action flick. It panders to a decadent yearning for apocalypse as if to confirm recent fear and resentment about loss of political power. V for Vendetta’s mistake was not recognizing that a sense of self-righteous self-annihilation was the new mood. And Cuarón, a true hack, is nothing if not market-savvy. His dystopia evokes the zombie film 28 Days Later, then jacks things up to resemble Elem Klimov’s disasters of war in Come and See.
>Children of Men is only deep on its surface. Cuarón cannot edit scenes for rhythm or real feeling, which is what separates his eschatological set pieces from the wit of Spielberg’s War of the Worlds and Minority Report or Paul Verhoeven’s Starship Troopers—films that treated the experience of social collapse as personal, rather than a game.
>Fact is, Children of Men is too smug to be Orwellian or even satirical. Cuarón combines dread and lack of affect, then gets sentimental. Note his maudlin final shot of a ship christened “Tomorrow”; it ought to expose Cuarón to fans who think this film’s visual style is superior to Apocalypto or Minority Report. Those movies had genuine breadth and excitement; Children of Men is delusionary.
This is your brain on ideology kids.
Wait what girl? The pregnant, Kee?
But that's not messy. It is a dystopia with more than one issues and I never once thought that's messy, because of the good world building.
Nice misinterpretation man. Only few of the jurors are racist, most of them are depending on the overwhelming evidence against him. If it really has to have a point is thinking outside the box, defy everything until proven wrong.
But there is no point in 12 Angry Men, we just get introduced to some characters and see something special and noble to some of them, that we may as well try to implement ourselves. That's not a point or a meaning coming from a plot.
OP is trolling and baiting you for 50 posts now while all of you try with all your power to prove him wrong lmao go OP tell them you don't understand it once more get those sweet You)'s
>holding up Orwell as some kind of champion of dystopian sci-fi
How I know I'm reading the opinion of somebody who barely reads the genre.
>If it were actually about those problems it would be a documentary
Wow
It doesn't need to resemble our reality 100% for it to touch upon real problems. It even goes so far as making direct allusions to Abu Ghraib. You have a manicheistic view of the genre and some sort of narcissistic delusion. Get help, kiddo
Yes thee girl, Cuaron has an eye for talent
>he thinks that genre fiction has any artistic merit Since when did the plebes have access to the internet?
THE STORY IS SELFEVIDENT; WHAT IS IT THAT YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING IT?
Has Armond the cuck ever made a review without mentioning terrorism or POST 9/11 STATE OF SOCIETY?
I am astonished how he manages to sneak it in every single piece of shit there is.
Also lmao for mentioning Scorsese and De Palma pioneering the long take, what an absolute pleb.
>touch on real problems
Yes and? To what end? In your mind does simply referencing something real constitute significance or importance? You just lift this out of context of what the movie does with it. Does it actually explore these problems? No it doesn't. It doesn't study them in the context of reality either. Nor does it propose solutions to them. So where is the relevance to our world? The conclusion: there is none. It's just the premise for a sci-fi story that you are incapable of understanding.
>its very highly rated by people and i have no idea why.
welcome to the club. i fell for the meme too...
even tho i got emotional at some parts, but overall it's shit
Kek.
Simply kek.
Youre the kind of person who watches "Schindler's List" and learns that "Jews arent to be trusted".
>defends Orwell and pretends he cares about artistic merit
It doesn't need to provide solutions; it doesn't even need to study it, but the fact is that the fictional world in CoM is grounded on real world problems exacerbated through the lens of sci-fi. It's a "what if?" scenario based on the real world; it's not a completely outlandish hypothesis
but shows the government as nazis and black girl as messiah's ma.
and weed is goood, duuuude
He's a big outsider.
nah i guess i understand it now.
guess i was too focused on the plot and the setting itself came off as too satirical which threw me off. the camera work is impressive tho especially the ambush scene. but all this great acting and sound design and whatnot seemed to flew over my head
Am I fucking retarded or something?
The driving point of the plot is that the girl is an immigrant herself. The reason they approach the protagonist is because of this. What the fuck would Emma Watson be doing there?
This guy must vehemently hate Lubenzki for making movies good looking for the sake of it and just to convey some very deep meaning.
I dont know what you 2 are talking about, but seriously kill yourself.
CoM came out 10 years ago. I actually watched it in the cinema, unlike you. I also read the novel.
It has absolutely FUCK ALL to do with immigration. The main theme is another.
you're fucking naive
But he's not wrong bud
>It has absolutely FUCK ALL to do with immigration
You're stupid
what its about
dont confuse setting and story.
if i filmed myself walking down a street doing nothing thats not a fucking story. though i guess you morons would praise my film if i used unconventional angles and sound design
It's like you're desperate for the film to have some "higher meaning" and that's why you refuse to admit it doesn't really have any reflection on current events or our world. It doesn't contextualize the problems in our world nor does it propose solutions. What it does is a familiar sci-fi strategy of taking conditions present in our world then creates a fictional series of events in a "what if" chain to create a speculative version of earth. This is classic sci-fi.
To try and link this story back to its original premises requires so many leaps in logic as to make any conclusions or insights it has utterly pointless, so it's more like you just value the fact that you can make such a link regardless of what you get out of it. It is a total waste to use this story in such a crude way.
No it honestly didnt matter that she was black, she would have been a white immigrant. That makes the people who complain about it all the more funny. Technically emma was born im paris and has a british accent anyways, she does have a place there and speaks french. That doesnt matter the point is yes, the immigrant pregnant girl originally was emma watson to cuaron, she had the part
I agree with Armond here. There are a lot of showoff-y shots in this movie. Intricate cinematography for its own sake
>prime Sup Forums reasoning
>FEELS
>JEWS
>IMMIGRANTS
>"WRONG"
Come back when you learn to form an argument and actually understand the source material.
It would help NOT seeing the world through a lens.
I liked Children of Men a lot, but I just don't understand how some people got an anti-immigration vibe from it? Were they not paying attention or just willfully denying most of the movie to pick and choose the parts they wanted to interpret?
I wasn't really involved watching the movie because I don't care if humanity ceases to exist. I care about other people and their suffering, but I don't care about the future of our species. Am I the only one?
>What it does is a familiar sci-fi strategy of taking conditions present in our world
>conditions present in our world
Now stop
It's like talking to a fucking five year old. I'm done.
Thats complete fodder. Because the cinematography is used in a different manner than usual
you probably praise bland cinematography, or you dont but you need to reconsider Children of men its chirros best.
youtube.com
Heres based Zizek
>"In 2027, in a chaotic world in which women have become somehow infertile, a former activist agrees to help transport a miraculously pregnant woman to a sanctuary at sea."
What do you want to hear?
This must be trolling I am giving up, 6/10 for the bait
>This is classic sci-fi.
apparently gone are they days where sci fi was used to ask new,interesting and morally difficult questions. human rights, religion, nature of selfishness, unity vs diversity etc etc
apparently classic sci fi is "take some problem we already have and put it into the future without teaching anything about it"
There's nothing inherently wrong with flashy techniques or a filmmaker being a bit ostentatious, considering film is an audiovisual medium where style is substance. Only thing that matters in the end is, is it used properly and for good reasons within the context of the narrative, themes, tone, etc.?
When Wachowskis use slow motion in Matrix, it's not just because it looks cool, there's a logic to time slowing down to show off Neo's newly aquired skills and situational awareness. When Snyder does it in Watchmen, he think it looks cool, but he misses the point of the source material, it just ends up looking vulgar and gratuitous.
Same with the pseudo-documentary shaky handheld/quick editing aesthetic of Greengrass, he does it well to reflect the chaotic and unpredictable nature of Bourne and give its action a sense of immediacy and realism, but when Bond tries to copy that style it doesn't work because that's not suited to the character and its pulpy, apolitical roots.
The same principle can be used in Children of Men or any other movie.
Like I said, it's a problem with *some* shots. It's like the opening sequence in The Revenant: a really intricate, technically masterful shot that's pointless and showoff-y and calling attention to itself.
>Heres based Zizek
as a native slovenian i just want to ask what you morons see in this guy. he would literally be laughed out of his home country for his stupidity.
i see no argument from you either, retard just
>muh pol boogey-man
>What do you want to hear?
okay ill rephrase
"what themes does children of men explore, and what do we learn from it"
jesus christ
No future no present.
No kids chaos depair and martial law as a consequence.
Its simple, no offsprings means humanity is dying means people have no hope..
I would say that is about it.
>it used properly and for good reasons within the context of the narrative, themes, tone, etc.?
This questioning contradicts the opening of your own post. Style is substance is an extremely reductive statement: within the context of a conventional narrative film, cinematography, like you said, has a function that goes beyond looking good; it provides a bridge between the source material and intent to the viewer. Like I said, some shots come off like technical extravaganza for its own sake. What do I mean by that? They are excessive and serve no purpose whatsoever except wowing audience for its technical mastery.
>i know its shot well and acted well and all that jazz.
>but the story sux lmao, therefore it's a shit movie
gas yourself
I would say Chivo used the long take gimmick properly only in Children of Men.
It is used only in key scenes for you to get thrown into it and get the full experience of the chaos without any cuts so your brain doesn't have to mentally reposition everytime.
While The Revenant/Birdman/Gravity it's a gimmick where the technique loses it's effect where the key scenes and transitional ones are all filmed in the same way, here I agree that it calls attention to itself too much.
But when I watched Children of Men for the first time I was not even conscious that those scenes were long takes so I would say they were effective.
I think the direction of Cuaron is better than Inarritu and therefore it isnt just because, he also isnt looking for the cleanest shot hes looking for the best take.
lol
Thats because you ignore arguments, which directly refute your views.
I only needed to read 3 sentences to know this was White lol.
Yet his argument still isn't wrong lmao no matter how much you whine like a bitch and direct me to other boards