A great film, but not 'The Children of Men'

Rating: 7/10 (21 September 2006)

This is a very difficult review to write, because I am torn in two very opposite directions over this film, its relationship to P. D. James' book and the political statements it makes.
As a film, it is probably the best piece of British cinema made in years. It is extremely well shot, obviously had a decent budget and the attention to future detail has you scouring the screen to make sure you miss nothing. There are two long single takes that are technical tours de force and one in particular will probably go down in cinema history. These takes, filmed with hand-held cameras had me thinking of Stanley Kubrick and that perhaps he at last has a worthy successor.
Clive Owen gives a career-defining performance and is the ultimate reluctant hero and Michael Caine is just wonderful and obviously enjoying himself immensely. The supporting cast, especially Ferris and Mullan are excellent and inject the film with a useful dose of humour and colour.
Unfortunately, great cinematograpghy and even great acting does not a great film make. That has to lie in the story.
In the opening credits it reads 'Based on the book by P. D. James' and therein lies the problem. The additional words 'very loosely' should probably have been included. James' story is one of great beauty and is concerned primarily with the cycle of life, of death and re-birth and there is an overt spiritual element to the book. The screenplay abandons most of this and instead becomes a polemic statement about the treatment of illegal immigrants. The issue of universal infertility, the centrepoint to the book, is buried under these political statements to the point where it is barely relevant.
Whether or not you will be emotionally engaged by this film will ultimately depend on your views on immigration and can accept that at any point in the future the UK, with the most liberal attitude to immigration in the western world, would ever start to close its shores.
Perhaps the director's nationality has something to do with this, I could understand that and empathise with it, but why not give the film a different name, a slightly different scenario and make a better film for it.
As someone with personal experience of infertility, I expected to have my heart strings tugged by this one, but it didn't happen because the film isn't about infertility or the effect it would have on our society. James' story goes into lots of detail on how people cope with having no children and it is this that shapes their attitudes. The film has none of this except the odd nod and even the Quietus, a key element in the book, is reduced to almost nothing and not even properly explained.
Finally far too many points of plot are left unresolved. Maybe this is an attempt to highlight the confusion of the times, but I found it frustrating and a destraction. A few important things appeared to happen for no particular reason except perhaps as the set-up to a piece of action.
Definitely worth seeing, but read the book if you really want to explore the concept.
8/10 for technical achievement and acting. 5/10 for writing.