A rarity in cinema these days - an intellectually and emotionally stimulating action film (with a few flaws)

Rating: 9/10 (5 January 2007)

"Children of Men" would be easy to describe as a futuristic thriller about the last pregnant woman on earth and how a reluctant alcoholic with a troubled past makes it his mission to transport her to safety in a world gone mad. But that would make it sound fairly tired and routine.
It would be easier, perhaps, to call it a chase film, a war film, a buddy film, a variation on Wells, a political commentary, a satire, and even  to some degree  a comedy. The truth is, it's all of the above, and it manages to combine all these different aspects into a provocative whole.
The year is 2027. Women are infertile due to pollution, gamma rays, or something to that effect. No one really knows for sure. But the world is a wasteland of disease and pestilence  England appears to be the only country on earth still thriving, its citizens torn apart by political ideologists revolting against the increasingly fascist government by using terrorism tactics, while those in power isolate the people of the country and have them shipped away to enclosed camps where they live like animals (World War II, anyone?).
The rest you probably know from the marketing campaign already: the first pregnant woman in decades is discovered, Theo (Clive Owen)  an ex-political activist  decides to help transport her to safety, etc., while a group of ruthless mercenaries hunt them down to use the baby for their own political leverage.
Owen is an impressive leading man here. He brings to life one of cinema's most recurring characters: the cynical, reluctant anti-hero. But Owen brings Theo to life and gives him a personality  something not many actors do when approaching these types of characters. Theo's progression throughout the movie is believable and moving.
The film was helmed by Alfonso Cuarón, a director of great vision and ambition. Here he captures the grime and grunge of a truly desperate and depleted land  the sad thing is, it doesn't look so terribly far away. "Blade Runner" and "1984" were always distant and had a certain "what-if?" element  but "Children of Men's" futuristic landscape doesn't really look all that far away. Make no mistake, the film is very much a politically driven vehicle  Cuarón isn't exactly subtle in his use of references to current government. (A nametag with the word "Bush" can be seen accompanied by bloodstains and bullet holes alongside it.) We are told that the year 2003 was the beginning of the end, and what is perhaps most horrifying about "Children of Men" is that by today's standards it isn't such a fantastical adventure  it's eerily plausible.
But for all its power and competence, "Children of Men" is not a perfect movie. The screenplay, written by Cuarón and more than a handful of writers (based on a novel by P.D. James), is serviceable but contains some lapses in logic (which, if I were to divulge into, would no doubt spoil many of the film's surprises). The movie is not too long, but certain scenes could have been edited to better effect early on.
The ending, however, is such a visceral and hard-hitting experience that it almost makes you forget the few flaws of the film. Cuarón executes one of the most impressive single-take action sequences in all of cinema  rivaling the opening D-Day invasion segment in Spielberg's "Saving Private Ryan" in terms of realism (blood spatter stains the camera lens as the audience is put into the heart of an intense combat scene). In fact, "Children of Men" has the most realistic violence I've seen in any film from its genre  an important element of the movie that makes the proceedings all the more effective and gut-wrenching. Every gunshot, every death, and every dying scream resonates with an importance that few other "violent" movies are capable of carrying.
"Children of Men" is a breathtaking cinematic experience  exactly what a good film should be. It makes you think while delivering an ample dose of entertainment. It is not by any means a flawless film, but it is one that  as you leave the theater  will have you contemplating everything you just saw, evoking thought and discussion. And the ability to be moved physically, emotionally, and intellectually by a film? That's a true rarity these days.