10
Oct 06

What Is Wrong About Children Of Men?

Do You See + FT7 comments • 3,067 views

Clearly, as seen in the motion picture, children come out of women. Actually as in a “so graphically it cannot be real” way a baby comes out of a woman. And lo, this is a miracle because:
a) Every baby is a miracle
b) This baby is the first to be born in eighteen years.

Problem is by the time we get to the birthing sequence, the importance of this baby free world has been subsumed by the relentless action movie around it. This is fine. I am not sure what I would do with a serious stab at this world without babies plot. It is nice that Cuarón has at least though a bit about what his world will be like. And with the exception of more pets (clever) its not much different. But a world without babies = a world without hope? Perhaps that is a metaphor too far.

Oddly, same day I saw Children Of Men I saw the DVD of Aeon Flux. And double oddly, they both have the same premise. The utopia Ian Flux is fighting against is based on infertility too – here we are two hundred years in a future where all the kids are clones. And you know what, its a damn fine solution for Clive Owen’s world. Charlize also looks better in black lycra, but Clive seems to be having more fun – riffing on being John McClane from Die Hard a couple of times (how hard is it to find a pair of shoes in the UK?) Other points of comparison would be Little Miss Sunshine: since when did vehicles stop starting in movies?

But what is really wrong in Children of Men? Well there is one glaring continuity error which pulled me right out of the film, which is unfair to what is otherwise the best action film of the last few years*. Final battle in Bexhill-On-Sea, where the army attack a tower block, there is clearly a London Bus Stop outside this soon to be condemned building. Amateurs. And Oh No: Its Banksie in Battersea Power Station.

So go see, because of the flaws as well as the “how did he film that” fun. Go see for the terrific Pam Ferris performance (British Oscar hope for best supporting actress), for Clive Own finally proving how stupid the Bond idea really was, for an excellent use of Julianne Moore (easy money) and for the fun. Its politics are as hokey as those of similarly set V For Vendetta, but while that seemed interior and stagey, this is in the mud. But remember women have children.

*Not starring Jason Statham obv.

Comments

  1. 1
    Andrew Farrell on 10 Oct 2006 #

    District 13 stars the French Jason Statham, and so gets a pass in that way.

  2. 2
    Pete Baran on 10 Oct 2006 #

    He was Jason Statham’s stunt double in The Transporter – so almost the same person.

  3. 3
    katstevens on 10 Oct 2006 #

    I thought this was going to be about Channel 5ive’s “Birth Night”. Blee!

  4. 4
    mark c on 10 Oct 2006 #

    bu bu but I thought Jason did all his own stunts in Transporter

    illusions = shattered

  5. 5
    Admin on 10 Oct 2006 #

    (oddly, both kat and mark’s comments were marked as spam. sorry you two.)

  6. 6
    katstevens on 11 Oct 2006 #

    Ah! I wondered why they didn’t come up.

  7. 7
    Grousemangel on 2 Dec 2014 #

    Blithering idiots review…. if youre watching a movie you either spend the duration looking for continuity mistakes or actually watch it for what it is and let yourself become absorbed by it. A world without human fertility isn’t so far away, that’s a scary prospect.

Add your comment

(Register to guarantee your comments don't get marked as spam.)


Required

Required (Your email address will not be published)

Top of page