Not Bad, Not Great

Rating: 6/10 (9 January 2007)

I went into "Children of Men" expecting a very good movie. A friend told me it was one of the best movies he had seen all year (meaning 2006). Unfortunately, I was somewhat disappointed. While I didn't think the movie was bad, I don't see what the incredible hype is all about. I did think it was above average (hence why I gave it slightly better than a 5 rating), but it wasn't the type of film I would be truly excited to see again.
On the plus side, the cinematography was excellent, and the war scenes/explosion scenes were top notch. I thought the one extended scene that Cuaron shot without a cut (which apparently cost $1 million to shoot) was incredible and the blood droplets that hit the camera added some realism to the shot in my opinion. I know some people have had mixed reviews on this scene, but I really enjoyed it and felt like I was really there running through the shrapnel and gunshots. I also thought the acting was quite good. Clive Owen was great, and I really enjoyed the quirky character that Michael Caine portrays. Julianne Moore was solid as well, although I don't understand why people are saying she deserves an Oscar nomination (she just isn't in enough of the movie to warrant that honor).
Here is what I didn't like about the movie. First off, I felt like there were some things Cuaron (the director) was trying to say in his film that he decided to drive into the viewer's brain instead of being subtle about it. He names the xenophobic government's wing that wants to keep foreigners out of England "The Department of Homeland Security." Yes, Alfonso, we understand that you are making a point about treating aliens in a poor way. You didn't need to go that far and link it to America trying to keep illegal aliens from crossing the Mexican border to make said point. Also, the boat at the movie's end which is supposed to bring hope for the future is called (surprise!) "Tomorrow." If you are going to use that little subtlety, why not just name Kee's character Mary, her baby Jesus, and Theo's character Joseph? I feel like because of the message he is trying to get across to the audience, Cuaron gets a free pass in how he does it. I thought he could have gotten the point across in a much more subtle manner and not treated us like we couldn't understand simple symbolism. Granted some of this could have been taken directly from the novel, in which case my problem is more with the author than with Alfonso Cuaron.
A few plot points also troubled me. I'm pretty confused as to how the group of anarchists keeps finding Kee and Theo throughout the film. Do they have some sort of tracking bug on them or something? Michael Caine's cabin is in the middle of the woods in a remote place that even the government doesn't know exists. How do these guys manage to find it? Then they somehow manage to find them again later on in a city of people who have been arrested and is filled with war zones? Give me a break! Also, why would the government be giving out suicide kits to citizens when the human race is slowly being diminished? Shouldn't they be trying to keep people alive for as long as possible to try and find a way to prolong the species? Perhaps the biggest problem I had was with the main point that we as human beings should take a look at where we are headed before it is too late. It is a very good message, but why does it make sense that if women are infertile, the world would fall into anarchy? Maybe I am just too optimistic, but I would think there would be more "The Human Project" stuff going on where countries tried to solve the problem and less total anarchy and violence. I just feel like there would be less war and more working together to discover what was wrong in a situation like this. I guess that is the main thing that troubled me about the story.
In the end I would recommend a viewing of the movie as I thought its positives outweighed my problems with it. I just thought it could have been better.