COMMENTS: 90
Ten Ways to Make Hollywood Hate Your Cinematic Masterpiece
Sign up to stay up to date on the latest Movie Mix headlines via email.
There's not a lot of love there, but it's how the babies get made.
Take "Children of Men," for example, by Alfonso Cuarón, the Academy Award-nominated director of both "Y Tu Mamá También" and the only good Harry Potter installment. His movie boasts stellar performances by Clive Owen, Chiwetel Efiojor, Julianne Moore and Michael Caine. It's based on a critically acclaimed novel by P.D. James, and what a story: a desperate chase set in a dismal England of 20 years from now, on a dying Earth that has been devastated by nuclear bombings, immigration conflicts, plague and environmental damage.
Not to mention the looming end of the human race -- for the past 18 years, no babies have been born. Enter a young pregnant illegal who is therefore mankind's last hope, and you have the kick-ass sci-fi premise of a lifetime. By all rights, "Children of Men" should be a blockbuster.
But as J. Hoberman wrote in the Village Voice last month, Universal has done everything it can to bury its treasure, treating the movie "like a communicable disease." Dumped in limited release on Christmas Day and finally released wide this past weekend to just 1,200 theaters, "Children of Men" still managed to come in third, after "Night at the Museum" and "The Pursuit of Happyness." It has also been included on several critics' top-10 lists, and is currently ranked number one on the New York Times' viewing poll.
Cuarón has pulled off the near-impossible: He's made a big-budget, politically charged, visually stunning film -- complete with hot leads -- that grips as much as it entertains. By following these 10 easy steps, you too can make your own $80-million unpromoted masterpiece.
You don't stand a baby's chance in 2027 of winning an Oscar, but hey, at least you'll keep your integrity.
1. Show no mercy. The fascist government of future London (one of the few surviving nations) supplements its citizens' rations with anti-depressants and a suicide pill called Quietus, which is plugged on the ravaged city's moving billboards with the slogan, "You choose when."
Heroes do not take Quietus. They trade in the right to choose when to die by choosing what to live for. In cinematic terms, that means death can come at any time -- even to someone you love, even in the first act.
2. Crack a Joke. Grim settings do not require grim performances. Joan Didion says that we tell stories in order to live, but Lenny Bruce and Richard Pryor knew that jokes are how we bear it.
The humor in this movie, and there is much of it, doesn't lessen its dramatic impact -- rather it helps us connect with these men and women as they struggle to hold on to their humanity in world with no human future. Significant portions, including a car chase in which none of the characters can get their vehicles to start, play like high farce. And even the most essential plot point of the film is revealed not by a text at the bottom of the screen or by a last-minute printed prologue but by a very stoned and barely recognizable Michael Caine telling a joke.
3. Love your backgrounds. The eye candy is stellar: Clive Owen as Theo, an alcoholic bureaucrat who suddenly finds himself thrust into a heroic role, Chiwetel Efiojor and Julianne Moore as rebel leaders, and stunning newcomer Claire-Hope Ashitay in the role of Kee, the young refugee trying to bring her baby to term. There has rarely been a group of actors as likely to warrant nonstop close-ups. But in several of his interviews, the director has discussed the pact he made with long-time cameraman Emannuel Lubezki -- to return to the strategy they followed in "Y Tu Mamá También." In that movie, the love affairs were between not two, or three, but four: A woman, two boys, and Mexico herself. And actors always shared the screen with the world they moved through, and thus Cuarón's political readings of his own country's class wars told themselves. He never had to push the message.
4. On that note. Just hire Lubezki, and do what he tells you to do.
5. Women are neat! And handy! And versatile! The trope of the man who has to carry the woman to safety is one of the oldest in cinema, but Theo's personal connection to his charge is deeper and more moving than a simple love affair. His other female sidekick is a homily-spouting hippie, the kind you wouldn't want to be stuck with on a life-or-death chase -- unless she turns out to be a trained midwife.
6. Beware Captain Kirk. You know that scene, the one where a blowhard pops up between gunshots to explain the moral of the story? It's the scourge of American popular entertainment, from "On the Waterfront" to every episode of "Star Trek" and on to "Crash," "Munich," "Blood Diamond" and all the way through. It sucks. It out Herods Herod, pray you, and Cuarón avoided it.
7. Remember that we warned you: By following Rule 6, you have effectively disqualified yourself from any chance to thank the academy.
8. Be Mexican. Along with his countrymen Guillermo del Toro ("Hellboy," "Pan's Labyrinth") and Alejandro González Iñárritu ("Amores Perros," "21 Grams," "Babel"), Cuarón is redefining how we conceive of genre. One could make some sort of disparaging remark about how the media lump these entirely different artists together just because they are Mexican, if it were not for the fact that they are actually close friends and collaborators. See all three interviewed on Charlie Rose, where Iñárritu explains that "we like to keep our forks in each other's salads."
9. We're not stupid. If there is a bright side to our hyper-accelerated technological death-march, it's that we've adapted some neat new skills: We talk on cell phones, play Tetris, instant-message our friends and watch "American Idol" all at the same time, and that means we can follow the conversation between two characters even while the camera pans around the room to provide us with essential visual cues that help us reconstruct the story. We will get it.
No need for clumsy establishing dialogue, no solemn voiceovers, or subtitled meetings at Parliament. Cuarón uses images to tell us what we need to know: Through graffiti, TV graphics, and even the clippings and photographs on a pothead's desk.
10. Pack your bags: Let's say you get past the producers, there's another hurdle. After they screen your baby, the good folks at marketing can still get you fired -- and replaced by that promising A.D. from "American Pie VIII." Relax. There's always Mexico.
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jordon on Jan 13, 2007 12:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah, and anothe thing, how was this Human Project funded???
Anyway, still a good movie, but there were some inconsistancies. The movie was incredibly successful in making me hate some of the characters, such as the pregnant girl's friend who came along with them initially. All that new age crap. I can't stand hippies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: Jordon
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: marxalot
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: Jordon
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: cordas
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: aonghus36
» But would people see the movie if it were true to the book?
Posted by: Callibrarian
» RE: But would people see the movie if it were true to the book?
Posted by: Jordon
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: Colton
» Hippies...
Posted by: Naomi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cordas on Jan 13, 2007 12:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really am stuck to desribe what I loved about this movie and basicaly it comes down to everything. It looks great, sounds great and keeps you thinking from the start to the last second about what this film means and says about the human condition. Whilst it uses most of the clichies available to this genre they never intruded and there wasn't a whiff of gorgonzola about them. Also the casting and acting was brilliant.
All I can say is this is a must see film that is going to become one of those cult classics like the above mentioned films. PLEASE PLEASE go and see this, try and make hollywood understand that the global public want films that make them think and aren't all nicey nice romcoms, farce comedies, huge budget specail effects or talking animiated animals.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Watch this film.
Posted by: sigridfroid
» See Also: Late 60's / Early 70's futureshock films
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: See Also: Late 60's / Early 70's futureshock films
Posted by: redjenny
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 13, 2007 1:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: it's pretentious crap from a pampered snob's novel
Posted by: mazel
» RE: it's pretentious crap from a pampered snob's novel
Posted by: justaperson
» The post by kenhymes is incoherent garbage
Posted by: Ghoulman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kate_24 on Jan 13, 2007 4:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that any government would have come forward, abolished its anti-immigrant policies just because one of them had gotten pregnant. It runs contrary their interests, it would ruin their superior position. It has been happening like that forever, it's happening today, and I doubt there are many people at all who really would let go easily of their own wealth for others. Of course, there are always idealists. But idealism has long since died for most people. We're all subject to our own interests ...
... but back to the movie: In case you haven't seen it, you might not want to read on, because I'm giving away tiny bits and pieces of what happens ...
I went in initially to see Clive Owen, but was also interested in the story itself, although I haven't read James's book. I thought the movie was very-well produced; the special-effects looked extremely real. And the acting was superb.
Of course, the story is - to a degree - predictable. The movie has also been accused of using very simplistic Christian symbolism (although less than the book apparently): Fishes, the Tomorrow, Kee almost like the Virgin Mother, the soldiers kneeling down as if to pray as they hear the baby cry ... which made me think that of course that is simply because Western cultures lack other symbols.
And one should assume that the birth of a child suddenly stops all the violence and destruction, but it does only for a few seconds before the killing continues. It's woeful, and it is pathetic, too, but it's what humans do, it's what we've been doing all the time ...
Anyway, what got me most was the very end of the movie, after the screen went black: hearing children laugh and play. Can you imagine to never hear that wonder-full sound again?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ctguy on Jan 13, 2007 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, this is a great film -- incredibly filmed, great acting by all the players, a riveting, fast-paced story with a lot to think about behind it.
There are "gaps" in the explication of the situation -- but I did not feel the need to have it spelled out why people mistrusted the government, or how the general degradation of our environment led to global infertility. The arc of the story follows the same curve I see today in the papers, just further on down the line.
This is a movie that will end up in cinema courses and watched for years to come. If you want a terrific action film without a lot to think about, rent "Crank." If you see film as an art and a craft, as well as a way to convey some righteous reactions to our fascist power structure, you should see "Children of Men."
There are two, one-take, extended tracking shots that are by themselves worth the price of the ticket. Go.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Crank....sweet jesus
Posted by: Elmowilcox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 13, 2007 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, for what NOT to do in a film. The plot brought new meaning to ennui, the acting contrived, the cinema photography common, the special effects cheap.
The only good thing of the movie was the ending credits.
People who like this film should get out more.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: what? cinematography!
Posted by: Ghoulman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hole11 on Jan 13, 2007 6:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyhow, we don't want to see bleak futures like what were produced during the cold war (if there was one). I remember seeing reporters or newclips of USSR and China and it always looked bleak and cold, but guess what? There is just as much color and flowers there as any capitalist system. All in all the use of the Orwellian bland future has been overpayed and it's the main reason why I don't want to go to the movies to see Children Of Men or whatever it's called.
Chase movies don't make much sense either. Someone is always running and being chased by everyone and anyone. Sure I can understand a fight scene or two and the hero running away, no problem but an hour of more of being chased is not my kind of movie. Battlestar Galactica is probably the best science fiction on television now but the humans being chased by robots make the plot unappealling.
Firefly (series) and Serenity (movie) for which the series is based on is better than nearly anything I have seen since Blade Runner and the short series on Fox network called The Profit. These shows also got very short runs and are more interesting than any cop, attorney or reality based entertainment being produced yesterday and today.
Why the short lifespan and shun by the general public? I would guess that these shows do not have good product placement for advertisers and get people thinking about or against government approved medicine and systems.
But for some reason cops and attorney shows will always be with us to remind everyone that we have a system that will chase you down, catch you and convict you if you should go against the grain. Oh, and the only bleak future is for those who wind up behind prison bars.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blade Runner Is Better And Got Worse Treatment
Posted by: natasha42
» RE: Blade Runner Is Better And Got Worse Treatment
Posted by: hole11
» RE: Blade Runner Is Better And Got Worse Treatment
Posted by: Norbom
» YOU ARE A PINHEAD
Posted by: angstotheclown
» RE: YOU ARE A PINHEAD
Posted by: Dboy
» WYSIWYG
Posted by: hole11
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blugene on Jan 13, 2007 6:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd love to read an article that was actually about what the title of this article said it was about, but I really feel that rehashing someone else's story and giving away a film's plot and suprises is not a good way to promote a film. Spoilers should be clearly marked, not slipped in under a misleading title. The author would promote a mystery film by saying 'it is great, because the butler did it and you never see it coming."
Writing about and reviewing film and theater does not require a retelling of the story when a skilled person is doing the writing. See GB Shaw as an example.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Sampling The Product Does Not Spoil It
Posted by: hole11
» RE: This will not enhance the viewership
Posted by: stoicnag
» RE: This will not enhance the viewership
Posted by: blugene
» RE: This will not enhance the viewership
Posted by: stoicnag
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CriminallySane on Jan 13, 2007 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hollywood doesn't make movies explicitly for smart people because there are fewer of them.
I would here remind those readers who have waded through the comments to this point that Hollywood is in fact the present incarnation of "show business". As in the business of putting on shows. And when you're in any business, you work to succeed in that business by that business' measures - in Hollywood's case, that means selling movie tickets, and getting TV ratings.
Blaming someone because their product is too popular is just plain silly. Of course, in this case, it probably feels a whole lot better to say that than saying anything disparaging about those people who buy the tickets to the movies featuring Ben Stiller or animated dinosaurs. Can't slag them, on the off chance you have of scolding them into buying into your movie of choice rather than the usual shipment of Hollywood escapism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I don't agree, its not that people are "dumber" rather less educated but still smart.
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: I don't agree, its not that people are "dumber" rather less educated but still smart.
Posted by: CriminallySane
» Hahahaha, you are criminally insane!!!!! Good name!
Posted by: Prophit
» "Hollywood" and Ms. Avni
Posted by: rsmithandco
» I don't like most movies set in the future either.... it shows were we will end up if we....
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Voicedude on Jan 13, 2007 8:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....they want "Borat"!
(at least, that's what Hollywood would have us believe!)
Last night, I was at a 10 PM showing of "Pan's Labyrinth" which, for all intents and purposes, should have been empty. But it was packed! Who knew that a WWII / Fantasy film in Spanish with no stars could have done it? Maybe audiences want more substance than Hollywood thinks. After all, three of the year's most interesting films (Babel, Children Of Men, & Pan's Labyrinth) came from the afore mentioned Mexican directors....
VIVA LA CINEMA MEXICANA!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» bad example...
Posted by: Michael in CA
» Correción
Posted by: Mex
» It's a little of both...
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gregor on Jan 13, 2007 10:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hollywood isn't smart enough
Posted by: CriminallySane
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fischbach on Jan 13, 2007 10:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: angstotheclown on Jan 13, 2007 10:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Boomerang on Jan 13, 2007 1:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't read the rest of the article, but don't be so hard on Hollywood, they're focused on the money. They have to be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: unitedstatesofstupidity on Jan 13, 2007 2:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Children of Men, in a pathetic excuse for "wide release" showing in only 1,209 theaters, raked in $8,435 per theater!
I think it's very clear that if Children of Men was put out in 3,000+ theaters it would do very well, especially with pretty much every critic out there LOVING it (91% rating at rottentomatoes). No matter how controversial the message is, it seems like a no-brainer to expand the release just looking at raw economics.
So why isn't this happening? Are the distributors brain dead? Do they not want to make money?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not release this in more theaters?
Posted by: Artkansas
» Although...?
Posted by: vangogh69
» a bankable babelicious blonde
Posted by: Artkansas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Melvin on Jan 13, 2007 4:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Show the way
Posted by: babs
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 13, 2007 6:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 13, 2007 8:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the general problem that arises with films like this - they are not quite science fiction, and so they attempt to be believable - but the notion that 'No human babies have been born for 18 years' is just not believable. Somewhere there'd be human babies... maybe with a higher incidence of birth defects, but it really isn't believable that no babies would have been born. It's a nice plot twist, but I'm guessing you are just supposed to believe it.
Take the Matrix movies, for another example. Very nice plot line - the machines live off the humans, because the humans blasted the sky blocking off the sun... except theres the problem of what the humans eat - since we get all of our energy from eating plants (or animals that eat plants) and plants need the sun... so you just have to suspend disbelief if you want to enjoy the movie and the underlying themes.
I mean, this movie might have been better if aliens had been involved - you know, an alien species in spacecraft come and sterilize the human race as part of their nefarious plot to take over the world, and one human manages to have a child - now that would fly, being complete science fiction. Might be a little cheesy, and the aliens would have to be defeated somehow...whatever.
Basically, if there was so much radiation released that no woman could have children for 18 years, everyone would be dead; all animals on the planet would also have died out (and the plants too), and the only thing left alive would be radiation-resistant bacteria.
Still, I'm going to go and see it. Sometimes you just have to suspend disbelief - imagine you are a stalwart Republican listening to Bush's speech the other night, for example. There are people out there who swallowed every single word of it - imagine those people running the world. Now that's a frightening possibility for a movie! But wait... Blair is backing Bush... that's already happened??!!!
Who needs horror movies these days? Just look around...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Jan 13, 2007 9:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If your out there babe, thanks for the songs!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildeyes on Jan 14, 2007 8:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in some ways i liked the movie, but i thought the criticisms of this age and governments like this one simply weren't compelling. i don't know. i wish i liked this movie more, because i love dystopia films (Brazil!), but this one just didn't do it for me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: video game
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jan 14, 2007 9:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. There has been plenty of promotion of this movie on Dish Network. It sure sounds like an interesting theme but like millions of others, my family does NOT go to R rated movies. I personally went to see Matrix. You know what. That movie would have been just as interesting and insightful if the two hyped up violent scenes which caused it to be rated R were edited out????
2. IF one investigates the top twenty money making movies of all time, you will find very few R rated movies on the list, yet the majority of movies made by Hollywood are R rated.
From these facts and having a doctorate in business, I deduct that Hollywood is NOT driven by the market but has other non-monetray motivations. Either that or they don't seem to learn from their many failures.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: IF THE MARKET REALLY DETERMINED WHAT MOVIES WERE MADE THEN....
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: IF THE MARKET REALLY DETERMINED WHAT MOVIES WERE MADE THEN....
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Actually, Midnight Cowboy was...
Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: IF THE MARKET REALLY DETERMINED WHAT MOVIES WERE MADE THEN....
Posted by: poppop_schell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 14, 2007 9:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" perfectly nails Hollywood for rubbing off voters the other way and LAUGHING their ways to the bank. Do you really think they oppose the cons?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 14, 2007 11:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2007 2:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another Moronic Statement about the film industry.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2007 2:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another for Albrecht above
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vangogh69 on Jan 14, 2007 5:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon on Jan 14, 2007 7:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just another sorry-ass example of the 'apocalyptic fervor' and pessimism (read: deathwish for the World) currently sweeping certain segments of the leftist populace in The West.
It was also rife with pathetic, pseudo concentration camp-esque imagery, no doubt inserted by the Jews that were largely responsible for ther making of this film (yes, I watch the credits and notice the names) -- there is no doubt that these filmmaking Jews were trying to work out their own unconscious feelings and not-too-distant collective memories regarding dirty huddled masses in cages and in camps being mistreated, sickening ghettos, ghetto uprisings, etc.
Again, this was a mediocre and totally bland film, even wince-worthy many times throughout. Surely we as a society/culture can figure out better ways to spend tens of millions of dollars rather than dumping it down the drain to make dumb, even borderline ridiculous films that sear ultra-violent, 'scary' imagery in to the oh-so-sensitive brains of the hoi polloi?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jan 14, 2007 9:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jaby on Jan 14, 2007 11:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do have to say, though, Clive Owen is hot and Michael Caine did an excellent job as the only remotely interesting character in the movie. Best movie in the past decade? I don't think so. Did the author not see "Team America: World Police?" What about some love for "The American Astronaut?" The good news was that when I came home "The Three Amigos" was on. Ahh, that's better.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaciain on Jan 15, 2007 9:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JDMB on Jan 16, 2007 9:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
see all three interviewed on Charlie Rose
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gerdhansel on Jan 17, 2007 8:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hollywood simply doesn’t like films that make you work. Their primary target audience is adolescent males who like their entertainment nice, simple and obvious. When it comes to entertainment, most Americans are aging adolescents who also refer to put their brains in neutral when they got to the movies.
Film critics are another matter. I’ve read a lot of reviews about great films like Children of Men and Apocalypto, and I think a lot of these critics are simply not being honest about their reactions to these films.
Take Apocalyto. One critic will say, “The acting was wooden, the storyline was hackneyed and the characters were stereotypes.” His real reason for hating the film: “I hate that bastard Mel Gibson, and I’ll never give that anti-Semite jerk a decent review, ever!”
Or consider Passion of the Christ. One review might read: “Pornographic violence is not entertainment. Ethnic stereotypes were an awful distraction. Pace of film was too plodding.”
What they really feel is: “All movies about the crucifixion of Jesus are by definition anti-Semitic. The nerve of this drunken Catholic Aussie -- making a Passion-play movie in our enlightened day and age. I just know he’s a closet Holocaust denier. What a stab in the back to all the Hollywood Jews who made him a star.”
And finally, consider Children of Men. Critics will say: “What a dull film! Colors washed out, ethnic stereotypes out the wazoo, awful cinematography. No characters I could identify with, and I was bored to tears.”
And his real reaction?
“For starters, all the Biblical symbolism and imagery are a huge turn-off for me. I don’t even want to see Nativity scenes on church lawns at Christmas-time, much less endure a movie about Mad Max meets Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus. I had enough of that crap shoved down my throat in Catholic school. Now Brokeback Mountain -- that was my kind of movie.”
Or the more common reaction: “Children of Men was a total downer. I hate downer films. My friend loved the damned thing and I thought he was nuts. He tried to explain the movie to me for a solid hour when we went to Starbucks afterward, and I still don’t have a clue. I go to the movies to be entertained and eat popcorn, dammit! Now Happy Feet -- that was my kind of movie.”
Brainy films have to be politically correct, like Babel or Syriana, or the art-house crowd will turn up their noses. The proles and Philistines hate downer films, period. And ten years from now, Children of Men will be considered a prescient classic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why people really hate children of men
Posted by: jaby
» All Movies Since Star Wars Sucked Can't You Tell?
Posted by: hole11
» RE: All Movies Since Star Wars Sucked Can't You Tell?
Posted by: jaby
» only caricatures, not real people
Posted by: gerdhansel
» RE: only caricatures, not real people
Posted by: jaby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: michaelo on Jan 18, 2007 4:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The message of this "treasure of a sci-fi" movie that eco hostile states create human disaster is neither new nor ... "revolutionary." The premise that the revolutionary of the past (60's?) has now succombed to profit over progress is not new either. Its a cliche.
That his sister revolutionary and co-parent of their dead child has risen to lead the next wave of revolution in a now establised fascist state is creative and progressive. Great so far?
Just as the story gets interesting - he's kidnapped by her for the sake of the "uprising" by her and her co-revolutionaries ... they seem to breach the gap of their traumatic separation and the death of their child ... leads one to ... ummm hope.
Julianne Moore is terrific ... a great role model for the days to come...sooner than later, I fear.
Then Hollywood and the current Corporate State umm ... intervene in a pre-emptive move that would just tickle the fuck out of Karl Rove: Her co-revolutionaries turn into the same kind of opportunistic, murderous beasts as currently housed in the White House: They murder her to make her a martyr ... and to take the baby (first in ummm...18 years?) as a rallying symbol for their own use!
This is NOT a treasure ... and certainly NOT a revolutionary film. To see it as such questions the politics of both the film makers and this particular reviewer. HELP US ALL if that is progress!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hole11 on Jan 18, 2007 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wake up Hollywood. I am still waiting to see it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Jan 19, 2007 11:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shey on Jan 20, 2007 6:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But what a tragic message to be sending.
Our world would benefit tremendously from a good dose of infertility. Every environmental disaster that is now playing out on our earth, threatening our very survival, is the end product of over-population. From the melting of the polar ice caps (& now, the glaciers of Greenland , as well), to the epidemic of childhood asthma & deaths from emphysema in the older population, to the inevitable break down of society so brilliantly portrayed in HBO's "The Wire", it's all because we are simply too many for the earth to support.
And please don't anyone trot out the red herring of "distribution of wealth and goods" and over-use of the earth's resources by the privileged few. Of course these things are problems, but they are *symptoms*, not causes. Symptoms of the disease destroying the body of Mother Earth that is human over-population, end of story.
When someone has the courage to make a film of John Brenner's brilliant "Stand On Zanzibar", I'll be the first in line to see a movie about the real root of all that ails the world, and threatnes to destroy the human species.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Jordon on Jan 13, 2007 12:46 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Oh yeah, and anothe thing, how was this Human Project funded???
Anyway, still a good movie, but there were some inconsistancies. The movie was incredibly successful in making me hate some of the characters, such as the pregnant girl's friend who came along with them initially. All that new age crap. I can't stand hippies.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: Jordon
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: marxalot
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: Jordon
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: cordas
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: aonghus36
» But would people see the movie if it were true to the book?
Posted by: Callibrarian
» RE: But would people see the movie if it were true to the book?
Posted by: Jordon
» RE: Decent Movie, Better Book
Posted by: Colton
» Hippies...
Posted by: Naomi
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cordas on Jan 13, 2007 12:59 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I really am stuck to desribe what I loved about this movie and basicaly it comes down to everything. It looks great, sounds great and keeps you thinking from the start to the last second about what this film means and says about the human condition. Whilst it uses most of the clichies available to this genre they never intruded and there wasn't a whiff of gorgonzola about them. Also the casting and acting was brilliant.
All I can say is this is a must see film that is going to become one of those cult classics like the above mentioned films. PLEASE PLEASE go and see this, try and make hollywood understand that the global public want films that make them think and aren't all nicey nice romcoms, farce comedies, huge budget specail effects or talking animiated animals.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Watch this film.
Posted by: sigridfroid
» See Also: Late 60's / Early 70's futureshock films
Posted by: eddie torres
» RE: See Also: Late 60's / Early 70's futureshock films
Posted by: redjenny
Comments are closed-
Posted by: kenhymes on Jan 13, 2007 1:50 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: it's pretentious crap from a pampered snob's novel
Posted by: mazel
» RE: it's pretentious crap from a pampered snob's novel
Posted by: justaperson
» The post by kenhymes is incoherent garbage
Posted by: Ghoulman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Kate_24 on Jan 13, 2007 4:14 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I don't think that any government would have come forward, abolished its anti-immigrant policies just because one of them had gotten pregnant. It runs contrary their interests, it would ruin their superior position. It has been happening like that forever, it's happening today, and I doubt there are many people at all who really would let go easily of their own wealth for others. Of course, there are always idealists. But idealism has long since died for most people. We're all subject to our own interests ...
... but back to the movie: In case you haven't seen it, you might not want to read on, because I'm giving away tiny bits and pieces of what happens ...
I went in initially to see Clive Owen, but was also interested in the story itself, although I haven't read James's book. I thought the movie was very-well produced; the special-effects looked extremely real. And the acting was superb.
Of course, the story is - to a degree - predictable. The movie has also been accused of using very simplistic Christian symbolism (although less than the book apparently): Fishes, the Tomorrow, Kee almost like the Virgin Mother, the soldiers kneeling down as if to pray as they hear the baby cry ... which made me think that of course that is simply because Western cultures lack other symbols.
And one should assume that the birth of a child suddenly stops all the violence and destruction, but it does only for a few seconds before the killing continues. It's woeful, and it is pathetic, too, but it's what humans do, it's what we've been doing all the time ...
Anyway, what got me most was the very end of the movie, after the screen went black: hearing children laugh and play. Can you imagine to never hear that wonder-full sound again?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: ctguy on Jan 13, 2007 5:40 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
To me, this is a great film -- incredibly filmed, great acting by all the players, a riveting, fast-paced story with a lot to think about behind it.
There are "gaps" in the explication of the situation -- but I did not feel the need to have it spelled out why people mistrusted the government, or how the general degradation of our environment led to global infertility. The arc of the story follows the same curve I see today in the papers, just further on down the line.
This is a movie that will end up in cinema courses and watched for years to come. If you want a terrific action film without a lot to think about, rent "Crank." If you see film as an art and a craft, as well as a way to convey some righteous reactions to our fascist power structure, you should see "Children of Men."
There are two, one-take, extended tracking shots that are by themselves worth the price of the ticket. Go.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Crank....sweet jesus
Posted by: Elmowilcox
Comments are closed-
Posted by: douglashoyt on Jan 13, 2007 6:17 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yeah, for what NOT to do in a film. The plot brought new meaning to ennui, the acting contrived, the cinema photography common, the special effects cheap.
The only good thing of the movie was the ending credits.
People who like this film should get out more.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: what? cinematography!
Posted by: Ghoulman
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hole11 on Jan 13, 2007 6:29 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Anyhow, we don't want to see bleak futures like what were produced during the cold war (if there was one). I remember seeing reporters or newclips of USSR and China and it always looked bleak and cold, but guess what? There is just as much color and flowers there as any capitalist system. All in all the use of the Orwellian bland future has been overpayed and it's the main reason why I don't want to go to the movies to see Children Of Men or whatever it's called.
Chase movies don't make much sense either. Someone is always running and being chased by everyone and anyone. Sure I can understand a fight scene or two and the hero running away, no problem but an hour of more of being chased is not my kind of movie. Battlestar Galactica is probably the best science fiction on television now but the humans being chased by robots make the plot unappealling.
Firefly (series) and Serenity (movie) for which the series is based on is better than nearly anything I have seen since Blade Runner and the short series on Fox network called The Profit. These shows also got very short runs and are more interesting than any cop, attorney or reality based entertainment being produced yesterday and today.
Why the short lifespan and shun by the general public? I would guess that these shows do not have good product placement for advertisers and get people thinking about or against government approved medicine and systems.
But for some reason cops and attorney shows will always be with us to remind everyone that we have a system that will chase you down, catch you and convict you if you should go against the grain. Oh, and the only bleak future is for those who wind up behind prison bars.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Blade Runner Is Better And Got Worse Treatment
Posted by: natasha42
» RE: Blade Runner Is Better And Got Worse Treatment
Posted by: hole11
» RE: Blade Runner Is Better And Got Worse Treatment
Posted by: Norbom
» YOU ARE A PINHEAD
Posted by: angstotheclown
» RE: YOU ARE A PINHEAD
Posted by: Dboy
» WYSIWYG
Posted by: hole11
Comments are closed-
Posted by: blugene on Jan 13, 2007 6:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I'd love to read an article that was actually about what the title of this article said it was about, but I really feel that rehashing someone else's story and giving away a film's plot and suprises is not a good way to promote a film. Spoilers should be clearly marked, not slipped in under a misleading title. The author would promote a mystery film by saying 'it is great, because the butler did it and you never see it coming."
Writing about and reviewing film and theater does not require a retelling of the story when a skilled person is doing the writing. See GB Shaw as an example.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» Sampling The Product Does Not Spoil It
Posted by: hole11
» RE: This will not enhance the viewership
Posted by: stoicnag
» RE: This will not enhance the viewership
Posted by: blugene
» RE: This will not enhance the viewership
Posted by: stoicnag
Comments are closed-
Posted by: CriminallySane on Jan 13, 2007 8:39 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hollywood doesn't make movies explicitly for smart people because there are fewer of them.
I would here remind those readers who have waded through the comments to this point that Hollywood is in fact the present incarnation of "show business". As in the business of putting on shows. And when you're in any business, you work to succeed in that business by that business' measures - in Hollywood's case, that means selling movie tickets, and getting TV ratings.
Blaming someone because their product is too popular is just plain silly. Of course, in this case, it probably feels a whole lot better to say that than saying anything disparaging about those people who buy the tickets to the movies featuring Ben Stiller or animated dinosaurs. Can't slag them, on the off chance you have of scolding them into buying into your movie of choice rather than the usual shipment of Hollywood escapism.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» I don't agree, its not that people are "dumber" rather less educated but still smart.
Posted by: Prophit
» RE: I don't agree, its not that people are "dumber" rather less educated but still smart.
Posted by: CriminallySane
» Hahahaha, you are criminally insane!!!!! Good name!
Posted by: Prophit
» "Hollywood" and Ms. Avni
Posted by: rsmithandco
» I don't like most movies set in the future either.... it shows were we will end up if we....
Posted by: Prophit
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Voicedude on Jan 13, 2007 8:47 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
.....they want "Borat"!
(at least, that's what Hollywood would have us believe!)
Last night, I was at a 10 PM showing of "Pan's Labyrinth" which, for all intents and purposes, should have been empty. But it was packed! Who knew that a WWII / Fantasy film in Spanish with no stars could have done it? Maybe audiences want more substance than Hollywood thinks. After all, three of the year's most interesting films (Babel, Children Of Men, & Pan's Labyrinth) came from the afore mentioned Mexican directors....
VIVA LA CINEMA MEXICANA!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» bad example...
Posted by: Michael in CA
» Correción
Posted by: Mex
» It's a little of both...
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Gregor on Jan 13, 2007 10:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Hollywood isn't smart enough
Posted by: CriminallySane
Comments are closed-
Posted by: fischbach on Jan 13, 2007 10:23 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: angstotheclown on Jan 13, 2007 10:27 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Boomerang on Jan 13, 2007 1:33 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I didn't read the rest of the article, but don't be so hard on Hollywood, they're focused on the money. They have to be.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: unitedstatesofstupidity on Jan 13, 2007 2:12 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Children of Men, in a pathetic excuse for "wide release" showing in only 1,209 theaters, raked in $8,435 per theater!
I think it's very clear that if Children of Men was put out in 3,000+ theaters it would do very well, especially with pretty much every critic out there LOVING it (91% rating at rottentomatoes). No matter how controversial the message is, it seems like a no-brainer to expand the release just looking at raw economics.
So why isn't this happening? Are the distributors brain dead? Do they not want to make money?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Why not release this in more theaters?
Posted by: Artkansas
» Although...?
Posted by: vangogh69
» a bankable babelicious blonde
Posted by: Artkansas
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Melvin on Jan 13, 2007 4:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Show the way
Posted by: babs
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 13, 2007 6:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: thoughtcriminal on Jan 13, 2007 8:59 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
This is the general problem that arises with films like this - they are not quite science fiction, and so they attempt to be believable - but the notion that 'No human babies have been born for 18 years' is just not believable. Somewhere there'd be human babies... maybe with a higher incidence of birth defects, but it really isn't believable that no babies would have been born. It's a nice plot twist, but I'm guessing you are just supposed to believe it.
Take the Matrix movies, for another example. Very nice plot line - the machines live off the humans, because the humans blasted the sky blocking off the sun... except theres the problem of what the humans eat - since we get all of our energy from eating plants (or animals that eat plants) and plants need the sun... so you just have to suspend disbelief if you want to enjoy the movie and the underlying themes.
I mean, this movie might have been better if aliens had been involved - you know, an alien species in spacecraft come and sterilize the human race as part of their nefarious plot to take over the world, and one human manages to have a child - now that would fly, being complete science fiction. Might be a little cheesy, and the aliens would have to be defeated somehow...whatever.
Basically, if there was so much radiation released that no woman could have children for 18 years, everyone would be dead; all animals on the planet would also have died out (and the plants too), and the only thing left alive would be radiation-resistant bacteria.
Still, I'm going to go and see it. Sometimes you just have to suspend disbelief - imagine you are a stalwart Republican listening to Bush's speech the other night, for example. There are people out there who swallowed every single word of it - imagine those people running the world. Now that's a frightening possibility for a movie! But wait... Blair is backing Bush... that's already happened??!!!
Who needs horror movies these days? Just look around...
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Mr. Heathen on Jan 13, 2007 9:34 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
If your out there babe, thanks for the songs!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: wildeyes on Jan 14, 2007 8:12 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
in some ways i liked the movie, but i thought the criticisms of this age and governments like this one simply weren't compelling. i don't know. i wish i liked this movie more, because i love dystopia films (Brazil!), but this one just didn't do it for me.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: video game
Posted by: vangogh69
Comments are closed-
Posted by: poppop_schell on Jan 14, 2007 9:22 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
1. There has been plenty of promotion of this movie on Dish Network. It sure sounds like an interesting theme but like millions of others, my family does NOT go to R rated movies. I personally went to see Matrix. You know what. That movie would have been just as interesting and insightful if the two hyped up violent scenes which caused it to be rated R were edited out????
2. IF one investigates the top twenty money making movies of all time, you will find very few R rated movies on the list, yet the majority of movies made by Hollywood are R rated.
From these facts and having a doctorate in business, I deduct that Hollywood is NOT driven by the market but has other non-monetray motivations. Either that or they don't seem to learn from their many failures.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: IF THE MARKET REALLY DETERMINED WHAT MOVIES WERE MADE THEN....
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: IF THE MARKET REALLY DETERMINED WHAT MOVIES WERE MADE THEN....
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» Actually, Midnight Cowboy was...
Posted by: vangogh69
» RE: IF THE MARKET REALLY DETERMINED WHAT MOVIES WERE MADE THEN....
Posted by: poppop_schell
Comments are closed-
Posted by: maxpayne on Jan 14, 2007 9:32 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" perfectly nails Hollywood for rubbing off voters the other way and LAUGHING their ways to the bank. Do you really think they oppose the cons?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Jan 14, 2007 11:11 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2007 2:48 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another Moronic Statement about the film industry.
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gellero on Jan 14, 2007 2:57 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: Another for Albrecht above
Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Comments are closed-
Posted by: vangogh69 on Jan 14, 2007 5:32 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Aufklaerung_Baboon on Jan 14, 2007 7:28 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just another sorry-ass example of the 'apocalyptic fervor' and pessimism (read: deathwish for the World) currently sweeping certain segments of the leftist populace in The West.
It was also rife with pathetic, pseudo concentration camp-esque imagery, no doubt inserted by the Jews that were largely responsible for ther making of this film (yes, I watch the credits and notice the names) -- there is no doubt that these filmmaking Jews were trying to work out their own unconscious feelings and not-too-distant collective memories regarding dirty huddled masses in cages and in camps being mistreated, sickening ghettos, ghetto uprisings, etc.
Again, this was a mediocre and totally bland film, even wince-worthy many times throughout. Surely we as a society/culture can figure out better ways to spend tens of millions of dollars rather than dumping it down the drain to make dumb, even borderline ridiculous films that sear ultra-violent, 'scary' imagery in to the oh-so-sensitive brains of the hoi polloi?
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: BobbyGreyFriar on Jan 14, 2007 9:45 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: jaby on Jan 14, 2007 11:58 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I do have to say, though, Clive Owen is hot and Michael Caine did an excellent job as the only remotely interesting character in the movie. Best movie in the past decade? I don't think so. Did the author not see "Team America: World Police?" What about some love for "The American Astronaut?" The good news was that when I came home "The Three Amigos" was on. Ahh, that's better.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: cmaciain on Jan 15, 2007 9:13 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: JDMB on Jan 16, 2007 9:15 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
see all three interviewed on Charlie Rose
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: gerdhansel on Jan 17, 2007 8:56 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hollywood simply doesn’t like films that make you work. Their primary target audience is adolescent males who like their entertainment nice, simple and obvious. When it comes to entertainment, most Americans are aging adolescents who also refer to put their brains in neutral when they got to the movies.
Film critics are another matter. I’ve read a lot of reviews about great films like Children of Men and Apocalypto, and I think a lot of these critics are simply not being honest about their reactions to these films.
Take Apocalyto. One critic will say, “The acting was wooden, the storyline was hackneyed and the characters were stereotypes.” His real reason for hating the film: “I hate that bastard Mel Gibson, and I’ll never give that anti-Semite jerk a decent review, ever!”
Or consider Passion of the Christ. One review might read: “Pornographic violence is not entertainment. Ethnic stereotypes were an awful distraction. Pace of film was too plodding.”
What they really feel is: “All movies about the crucifixion of Jesus are by definition anti-Semitic. The nerve of this drunken Catholic Aussie -- making a Passion-play movie in our enlightened day and age. I just know he’s a closet Holocaust denier. What a stab in the back to all the Hollywood Jews who made him a star.”
And finally, consider Children of Men. Critics will say: “What a dull film! Colors washed out, ethnic stereotypes out the wazoo, awful cinematography. No characters I could identify with, and I was bored to tears.”
And his real reaction?
“For starters, all the Biblical symbolism and imagery are a huge turn-off for me. I don’t even want to see Nativity scenes on church lawns at Christmas-time, much less endure a movie about Mad Max meets Mary, Joseph and the baby Jesus. I had enough of that crap shoved down my throat in Catholic school. Now Brokeback Mountain -- that was my kind of movie.”
Or the more common reaction: “Children of Men was a total downer. I hate downer films. My friend loved the damned thing and I thought he was nuts. He tried to explain the movie to me for a solid hour when we went to Starbucks afterward, and I still don’t have a clue. I go to the movies to be entertained and eat popcorn, dammit! Now Happy Feet -- that was my kind of movie.”
Brainy films have to be politically correct, like Babel or Syriana, or the art-house crowd will turn up their noses. The proles and Philistines hate downer films, period. And ten years from now, Children of Men will be considered a prescient classic.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
» RE: why people really hate children of men
Posted by: jaby
» All Movies Since Star Wars Sucked Can't You Tell?
Posted by: hole11
» RE: All Movies Since Star Wars Sucked Can't You Tell?
Posted by: jaby
» only caricatures, not real people
Posted by: gerdhansel
» RE: only caricatures, not real people
Posted by: jaby
Comments are closed-
Posted by: michaelo on Jan 18, 2007 4:09 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The message of this "treasure of a sci-fi" movie that eco hostile states create human disaster is neither new nor ... "revolutionary." The premise that the revolutionary of the past (60's?) has now succombed to profit over progress is not new either. Its a cliche.
That his sister revolutionary and co-parent of their dead child has risen to lead the next wave of revolution in a now establised fascist state is creative and progressive. Great so far?
Just as the story gets interesting - he's kidnapped by her for the sake of the "uprising" by her and her co-revolutionaries ... they seem to breach the gap of their traumatic separation and the death of their child ... leads one to ... ummm hope.
Julianne Moore is terrific ... a great role model for the days to come...sooner than later, I fear.
Then Hollywood and the current Corporate State umm ... intervene in a pre-emptive move that would just tickle the fuck out of Karl Rove: Her co-revolutionaries turn into the same kind of opportunistic, murderous beasts as currently housed in the White House: They murder her to make her a martyr ... and to take the baby (first in ummm...18 years?) as a rallying symbol for their own use!
This is NOT a treasure ... and certainly NOT a revolutionary film. To see it as such questions the politics of both the film makers and this particular reviewer. HELP US ALL if that is progress!
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: hole11 on Jan 18, 2007 7:19 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Wake up Hollywood. I am still waiting to see it.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: chomsky on Jan 19, 2007 11:55 AM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Comments are closed-
Posted by: Shey on Jan 20, 2007 6:02 PM
Current rating: Not yet rated [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
But what a tragic message to be sending.
Our world would benefit tremendously from a good dose of infertility. Every environmental disaster that is now playing out on our earth, threatening our very survival, is the end product of over-population. From the melting of the polar ice caps (& now, the glaciers of Greenland , as well), to the epidemic of childhood asthma & deaths from emphysema in the older population, to the inevitable break down of society so brilliantly portrayed in HBO's "The Wire", it's all because we are simply too many for the earth to support.
And please don't anyone trot out the red herring of "distribution of wealth and goods" and over-use of the earth's resources by the privileged few. Of course these things are problems, but they are *symptoms*, not causes. Symptoms of the disease destroying the body of Mother Earth that is human over-population, end of story.
When someone has the courage to make a film of John Brenner's brilliant "Stand On Zanzibar", I'll be the first in line to see a movie about the real root of all that ails the world, and threatnes to destroy the human species.
[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]
Matt Damon and Morgan Freeman's Invictus Film Release Kicks Off New Campaign For Universal Declaration of Human Rights
'Moon': New Sci-Fi Movie Indicts Our Culture of Exploitation
At the Washington Premiere for 'In the Loop': When Moviemakers Meet Wonks




