« 2027, an earthly odyssey » or the long-waited return of realism and true craftsmanship in mainstream cinema

Rating: 10/10 (10 November 2006)

Visionary, honest and intelligent director at work. Celebrate.
This is the most meticulous cinematic work I've seen since Polanski's « The Pianist ». In terms of production complexity, richness and attention to detail, it's up there with « 2001 » (hence the title of this review). Everything, down to the smallest details, has benefited from an incredible commitment to sheer excellency, in-your-face realism, and at no point during the movie has my attention been drawn away by some awkward compromise that are so abundant in mainstream movies (with the exception of some dialog lines that seemed out of place, but they were scarce and were not that annoying).
At the purely cinematic level (dynamic staging + sets + placement of the eye + camera-work + lightning + colour + editing + effects integration), this is something that probably even De Palma couldn't have pulled off. The fluidity is so perfect and all the elements come together so seamlessly that this movie feels like first-class classical music. Actually it's technically so brilliant that it will be very difficult to outperform in the years to come. Yes, it's that good. Viewers who couldn't notice this extraordinary achievement in cinema while claiming they understand cinema, seriously need some education in what the medium really is, or should stop on the spot pretending they know what they're talking about.
Among the 933 movies that I've seen up to this day, I dare say that "Children of men" is the greatest cinematic achievement in the mainstream movie system, with the exception, maybe, of "2001" and "The Abyss". It's not an "aesthetically", "artistic" cinematic work though, it's very far from Kar Wai Wong, Greenaway, Zang Yimou, Jeunet's "Amélie" or Cuaron's own "A little princess". It's downright realistic, in a way no movie of a similar scope has ever been. It's not art-house, yet it should please even the most picky art-house lovers out there, from the mind-blowing film-making craftsmanship.
This stunning cinematic realism is strongly enhanced by several very long (up to 8 minutes!) real-time / single shot very, very complex action sequences, that are extremely powerful and must have been so tricky to pull off that the simple fact to imagine how they did pull it off gives me headaches. Even the overture sequence in "Snake Eyes" pales in comparison (which is a lot to say). In a modern movie world where almost everything we see is made from bits and pieces of heterogeneous scenes loosely glued together by frantic editing, this shines bright and puts to shame a couple of popular directors working with insanely high budgets with an increasingly complacent attitude (you know who I'm thinking of).
I would have very much liked to comment on the substance of the movie (which is almost as excellent as the execution) both at the story and subtext level, but found it impossible to do so without giving away too much plot elements. So I'll just say that if you've been enthralled by the meta-stories from some of these: "Le Procès", "1984", "Brazil", "The Pianist", "Blade Runner", "Hair", "Requiem for a Dream", "A Clockwork Orange", "The Devils", "Minority report", "V for Vendetta", "Merci la vie", "Full metal Jacket", "Andrey Rublyov", "Al-Massir", you'll find in "Children of men" a lot to feed your thoughts and long talks with your friends.
And even if you dismiss all of the subtext, it's still one hell of a ride at the basic entertainment level. Enjoy!