« Capote 2, Infamous pictures online | Filmstalker | First mobile filmed feature film? »


Children of Men first reviews

AlfonsoCuaron.jpgChildren of Men has been seen, advanced screenings have allowed a select few in, and a couple of reviews have now popped up on the Internet.

The reviews have some spoilers in them, so I stayed clear of the source over at AICN and read the summaries at Jo Blo.

What he has crafted here is, simply, the most disturbing view of the future I've seen. Now, I've seen a lot of movies and way too much TV. So, like you, I know how poorly the future can be painted on the big screen. This, though, is so fucking effective because it seems so real. It's pure "dare I say it " cinema verite. In the future, that is. With just about every shot and every bit of production design, he has created a raw look. A very real look. Lots of handheld camera, but not shaky-cam. Lots of long, moving takes, but not crisp dolly shots.

And, yet, because of the tone and the vision, I kept thinking that Cuaron, like I said before, was channelling Stanley Kubrick more than anyone else. He puts the audience in the middle of the turbulent urban violence but directly into the heart of the drama. This is how a good documentary would capture Theo's journey. It's insanely well-directed.

Those are incredibly strong words, and may I take a moment to say that it is possible to make handheld films without that damned annoying shaky-cam! It also sounds like there are a real couple of Cuaron fans there, and yet why shouldn't there be? He's a very strong director who is going from strength to strength, and if I had to vote a Harry Potter film the best, his one wins it.

I'm excited about this movie not because of the reviews, but because of the source material, the story, Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, Danny Huston and Clive Owen. The director is something I've never really been struck by as being a drawing point, until these reviews.



The casting is far from exciting (save Caine), the director is not a genius, the plot sounds odd, the reviews are confusing, and my mind is a time bomb.

"The most disturbing view of the future" (¿?)

Really? More than A.I., Minority Report, Blade Runner, Brazil, Strange Days, Soylent Green, or even the remote Metropolis?

"Lots of handheld camera, but not shaky-cam. Lots of long, moving takes, but not crisp dolly shots."

Really? Like a dogma movie, a Lars Von Trier one? Not a storyboard, a visual planification, and sets?

"channelling Stanley Kubrick"


There he goes ranting again. Calm down Peter! *winks*

So this is set in London in the year 2027? In a world where the ability to procreate is non-existent?

Sounds like my kind of movie!!! LOL


Add a comment


Site Navigation

Latest Stories



Vidahost image

Latest Reviews


Filmstalker Poll


Subscribe with...

AddThis Feed Button

Windows Live Alerts

Site Feeds

Subscribe to Filmstalker:

Filmstalker's FeedAll articles

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedReviews only

Filmstalker's Reviews FeedAudiocasts only

Subscribe to the Filmstalker Audiocast on iTunesAudiocasts on iTunes

Feed by email:


My Skype status


Help Out


Site Information

Creative Commons License
© www.filmstalker.co.uk

Give credit to your sources. Quote and credit, don't steal

Movable Type 3.34