Children of Men - The Movie
 

Children of Men was good but left alot of rocks unturned. Part deux? Probably.

Did you like it?

SC

I really want to see this movie.

Awesome movie, though the uncertainty of the ending and in fact the whole movie is pretty much exactly like the book. It's very small scale (one person makes a difference) and not much concerned with how this changes the world etc.

I would like a sequel because I liked the movie so much, but the author hasn't written one, and I doubt they'll make a 2nd movie without the book.

Why don't you think that they wouldn't make a second movie w/out the book? I guess that I saw so many things that were not addressed. For example, what led to civilization as it was? What happened after the final scene? More background on the development of the Fujis.

I needed more details! :)

SC

Only that the book leaves many of the same questions unanswered. The movie hints at many things that are described more clearly in the book though.

Basically when children stopped being born, people gradually lost hope. There were mandatory fertility tests, but nothing ever turned up. Suddenly, global warming, fossil fuels, rainforests, etc. didn't matter so much. Who cares, no one will be here anyway. A lot of the world disintegrated into war and hopelessness (again, why be nice or not use nukes?). Britain is one of the last standing, and only because of their fascist governement.

The 'fugees (short for refugees) tried to escape to England in hopes of a better life, but clearly this isn't working out for them. How much worse must their homelands be for them to suffer so much only to end up dead?

The final scene is different from the book (much after the farmhouse deviates, though it stays true to the spirit of the story I think) but you never know whether mankind is saved or if this one miracle remains just a fluke.

Sorry, long, but I really liked the book. It's hard to get into but then it doesn't let you go. It's by P.D. James, famous British novellist.

so tell me, do I read it before or after to really appreciate the movie?? been waiting so long ...it is finally in my neighborhood!!

Watch the movie first. The book is different and focuses a lot more on the main character's relationship with his cousin "The" Minister (basically runs the country) They're different enough that you won't really lack information. The movie does a wonderful job at hinting at a whole other world going on around Theo (Clive Owens) For example, there's a glimpse of a billboard that says something like Avoiding Fertility Tests Is Against The Law.... but they never talk about them in the movie.

I saw this movie and really enjoyed it as well.
It seems that this type of post-war highly political genre is popping up lately. It reminded me of "V for Vendetta," but with an ending that did not really hint one way or the other if things were going to change.
It's amazing to see what people can come up with. Who ever thought a "simple" concept could lead to so much drama? Guess I should read the book now.

Thanks Drolefille. I still don't know why wouldn't go into more detail to give it a little more meat. I would have loved to have heard about a single, in-depth reason as to why the women were infertile. I was waiting for that. I was kind of intrigued by that concept and wanted to see what they would come up with. I think that there's still an opp to do a part 2 and deal with that and the Fugees and how things *led up to* what we saw in the current movie. Almost like showing you what happened before - like they did in Star Wars.

SC

It is possible, though the book talks a wee bit more about international relations than the movie does. But never gives any reason for the infertility. I think it has to do with the ambiguous ending. If you know WHY women are infertile, than you have hope of fixing it, without a concrete reason, it leads to the hopelessness you see in the movie.

I would certainly not complain if either the author or Hollywood revisited this world and continued or explained more of the story. I just don't see it happening.

/die-hard sf nerd :)

I found the book extremely different from the movie in terms of the actual action. The relationships that are developed in the book are explained much better. The action is much more simplistic in the book than the movie. But I definitely understand the transition to the movie as a different perspective on the book. The book itself does not give the director tons to work with in terms of action in the movie, there is plenty of info on the state of the world, the hopelessness, an extremely disturbing scene called a quietus, which is somewhat mentioned in the movie but not in the same way as the book.

Overall, the movie is good and the book is good but both for different reasons. I enjoyed both.

Thanks Soror. I think I might enjoy the book b/c I really wanted to see more of a development of those relationships, etc. It was good but it just seemed like a movie that could have really left the audience kind of stunned but it didn't do it.

Keeping my fingers crossed for a part two LOL
SC

I have to agree about the lack of a stun at the end or so. Very openended.

Had the movie spent a bit more time on the hopelessness of the people and the police state that Britain had developed into, the audience might have been a little more hooked. Sorry to burst your bubble but I doubt for a part deux. :(

I concur...
 

I just saw it with a couple of my sorors (I thought more of it than they did). I agree about questions unanswered and the open-endedness of the ending. I guess I'll have to read the book now in order to have a final, "fair" opinion. I give it an "A" for effort, mainly because I like movies with futuristic, Orwellian themes (i.e. Minority Report {a MASTERPIECE, imho}) and I appreciate Alfonso Cuaron's body of work.