I know most people like it, but...

Rating: 6/10 (19 January 2007)

I found the movie disturbing, not necessarily for the violence or the bleak scenery, but rather for the dismal view it gave of the capabilities of mankind.
Set twenty years in the future, _Childen of Men_ gives a view of a sterile Earth, a world where no children have been born in over 18 years. Supposedly, scientists have no idea why this has happened and are powerless to stop it.
The two biggest problems I have with this premise are: 1) There are three billion examples of each human gender on Earth. The scriptwriters would like us to believe that every single one of the females has suffered exactly the same fate from, one would suppose, exactly the same reason. This would have to assume that every female on earth is equally susceptible to one particular pathogen, a supposition which, scientifically, is so unlikely as to be almost impossible.
2) Science is an ever changing and ever improving series of disciplines. We are in an age where we wield an almost unimaginable power over our own existence. Yet, the movie would want us to believe that scientists have essentially given up on trying to solve what is arguably the worst possible catastrophe that mankind could possibly endure. With IVF births being practically commonplace these days, we are supposed to believe that in two years, scientists will suddenly become impotent (no pun intended) to solve a fertility problem? To me, that's an almost absurd supposition.
Admittedly, these are seemingly picky reasons for objecting to this movie. Still, these and other implausibilities made it impossible for me to suspend my disbelief long enough to enjoy this movie. I can toss aside belief when the premise of the movie is sheer fun (as in _Men in Black_), but in a movie which is trying to send a message, these kinds of inconsistencies serve to make the message laughable, not laudable.