After seeing so many amazing films, independent, mainstream, foreign, etc. from the past ten years, I can't think of a film that from top down, it's direction, photography, acting, editing, sound, score, script, production value, etc., were as spot on as 'Children of Men'. The film is a masterpiece and that isn't a word I ever throw around.

I think about In The Mood For Love, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, There Will Be Blood, and countless others other films this past decade that you and I could name but I can't think of at this exact moment. None of these seem to match up. They could have stronger in one category but they don't match up in every facet of the film.

The only film that rivals it is 'City of God'. If I watch both back to back I'll probably say 'City of God' is better but each time I watch either film my opinion sways from one side to the other.

I can only say with a strong conviction that 'City of God' and 'Children of Men' tie for best film of the decade.

What do you all think of either film? Do you believe that should be considered the best films of the past decade? The past two? I doubt that I can't be convinced that any other film of the past ten years is better than these two but I'd love to here logical arguments.

Children of Men, I found predictable and formulaic.

It 'looked' good, but that's about it.

Sorry to rain on the parade, but I don't think it was up to par with the other movies you listed. Just one contrasting opinion.

I usual find that most people agree that City of God is amazing when I mention it's my favorite film. Some people agree with Children of Men some just shrug as well.

I wrote the post while re-watching the five and after just finishing it now I'd have to sway the pendulum back the other way and say City of God is the better of the two. It's really apples and oranges when comparing the two.

I do feel that Children of Men was robbed at the Oscars. Everyone was on the nuts of Del Toro and 'Pans Labyrinth; (justifiably so since it's a great film) but I didn't hold up as well after repeated viewings in my opinion, unlike COM which unveiled itself to me more and more with each successive viewing.

I really dig the director's prior films; I wanted to like this. But yeah, I really didn't enjoy it. Clive Owen delivering the baby didn't work for me. I saw Michael Caine's last scene basically from his introduction. There's more, but I just didn't think it worked. Good premise, but everything after the premise just fell flat for me.

In The Mood For Love and City of God were both incredible films.

And seriously -- I done said I didn't like that movie,
mostly to make niggas mad, but have admitted with time
that its a damn near masterpiece.


>Children of Men, I found predictable and formulaic.

LOL.

Wasn't shit predictable or formulaic about that movie.

Only a film nerd could even type a lie like that.

You ain't gotta like the movie.

But miss me with that:

"I read that same formula is ____(insert obscure filmmaker/author___
in 19____(insert a decade before 1980)_____"


Nigga, you ain't seen no shit like 'Children of Men'.


FOH

people in the theater when i saw it were suffering from fits of anxiety since you didn't know what kind of trouble Theo and Kee were going to run into next, especially in the three long action sequence takes in the film

Maybe I HAVE been drinking too much coffee with milk!!!!

Thanks player, I'm going to swear off coffee right now, coffee AND milk, and then re-watch Children of Men in a month. I'm sure I'm gonna love it this time!

And don't be mad.

----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

if we were talking about who makes the best external monitor, you can use the word "best". But to try and find the "best" within any artform, where you're dealing in such intangible elements as emotions and beauty.. well, it's just not going to end well.

Of course, you can preface it with "_i think_ Children of Men is the best film of the decade", and then that's all good. You'll probably get more people agreeing with you.

As it is, this is going to be full of people who probably like the film, but will be taking turns to take shots at it instead. Oh, and of course a bunch of people saying why they think 'Moon', 'Up' or some Romanian arthouse film about a young man coming to terms with his sexuality against the backdrop of the Nazi invasion of Poland is a better film.

my favourite film of the last 10 years is Boy, because it's made by people i know and set where and when i grew up. Not everyone's opinions will be as personal as that, but they'll probably all be as different.

(Oh and hai, PTP. i don't come here much. how the fuck are ya?)

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

>my favourite film of the last 10 years is Boy, because it's
>made by people i know and set where and when i grew up. Not
>everyone's opinions will be as personal as that, but they'll
>probably all be as different.

just going through a joel barish time in my life, so it's a bit more raw and personal when viewing it. takes the experience to a whole other level.

but really, when you get to talkin about this level of class in film, i don't see there being right and wrong, like you said. you can't really do that with film, to a degree.

CoM is definitely in my T5 for the decade. i remember being floored walking out of the theater, like i had just seen the future.

great, great film.

>if we were talking about who makes the best external monitor,
>you can use the word "best". But to try and find the "best"
>within any artform, where you're dealing in such intangible
>elements as emotions and beauty.. well, it's just not going to
>end well.

I never make 'best of' posts and create polls but saying '____ is the best film of the decade' will bring people to a discussion on this board so I figured it was the best way to go about it. If you want to get into the intangibles of it all then City of God and Children of Men evoked the greatest emotional response from me in any film I've seen in the past ten years and like inspired the most ideas after I initially watched them, causing me to repeatedly view them time and again to draw more from the films.

>Of course, you can preface it with "_i think_ Children of Men
>is the best film of the decade", and then that's all good.
>You'll probably get more people agreeing with you.

I assumed people would think that it was solely my opinion so i didn't bother with "i think" since it seemed redundant. I left it up to for others state their own opinion with my question at the end of my original post since i was sure not many would agree.

>As it is, this is going to be full of people who probably like
>the film, but will be taking turns to take shots at it
>instead. Oh, and of course a bunch of people saying why they
>think 'Moon', 'Up' or some Romanian arthouse film about a
>young man coming to terms with his sexuality against the
>backdrop of the Nazi invasion of Poland is a better film.
>
>my favourite film of the last 10 years is Boy, because it's
>made by people i know and set where and when i grew up. Not
>everyone's opinions will be as personal as that, but they'll
>probably all be as different.
>
>(Oh and hai, PTP. i don't come here much. how the fuck are
>ya?)

Was it a short or a feature length film? What is it about?

when i wrote that reply. lol.

anyway. yeah. you've got a worthwhile selection, taht's for sure. Mine wouldn't be too far off. hell i made a Top 10 list a while back which had CoM in it: http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz/index.php/blog/1-blog/13-my-ten-favourite-movies.html


that was before i watched Boy. It's a tragic comedy, set in the eastern Bay of Plenty, New Zealand, in the 1980s.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBC0bEwlEvg

^^
haha

_________________________
http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz
art.design.comics.blog.etc

>when i wrote that reply. lol.

haha, no worries

>anyway. yeah. you've got a worthwhile selection, taht's for
>sure. Mine wouldn't be too far off. hell i made a Top 10 list
>a while back which had CoM in it:
>http://www.paulwalsh.co.nz/index.php/blog/1-blog/13-my-ten-favourite-movies.html

homie, I've been DYING to watch 'La Haine'. Everyone time I find a torrent, no subs. Every time I try to find it streaming online, no subs or the shit doesn't work. I've thought of buying it, though I hate buying books/movies/etc. that I haven't read or watched before. I'm a big fan of French films, Vincent Cassell and realism in films so perfect for me.

>
>that was before i watched Boy. It's a tragic comedy, set in
>the eastern Bay of Plenty, New Zealand, in the 1980s.
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rBC0bEwlEvg
>
>^^
>haha

This looks hilarious. Do you know how I can see this?

I feel like the movie will only get more relevant with the time. Of all the sci-fi movies of the last two decades, I think its the one that presents the future most likely to occur (not the infertiltely issue so much as breakdown in civil society. The global financial crises could have easily created a future that looked like CoM. SH*t I can see this occuring in Greece in the next couple of years).


I dismiss anyone whose criticism includes the fact that you never know why folks became infertile.

>I feel like the movie will only get more relevant with the
>time. Of all the sci-fi movies of the last two decades, I
>think its the one that presents the future most likely to
>occur (not the infertiltely issue so much as breakdown in
>civil society. The global financial crises could have easily
>created a future that looked like CoM. SH*t I can see this
>occuring in Greece in the next couple of years).

I remember one of the special feature on the DVD were some of the films writers and analysis speaking about how they drew up the entire world and their predictions of the future. I viewed it so long ago but it's something you should watch if you haven't already.

>I dismiss anyone whose criticism includes the fact that you
>never know why folks became infertile.


That was such a big gripe for people in the original post for this movie. Everyone wants every detail explained to them, even though the cause of infertility doesn't matter but what's it's done to society.

now...pull my finger.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayerâ„¢

I like Children of Men a lot...City of God not so much. the latter was entertaining enough but doesn't hold up to repeated viewings and rides on its novelty appeal.

--------

**********

>I like Children of Men a lot...City of God not so much. the
>latter was entertaining enough but doesn't hold up to repeated
>viewings and rides on its novelty appeal.

What is City of God's 'novelty appeal? I don't understand what you mean by that?

I thought No Country for Old Men was great when I initially saw it but far less thrilling and engaging after a second and third viewing. I still think of it as a great film with the help of Brolin and Bardem's acting but the story bores me when I try to watch it again. There are so many characters and plot lines in City of God that I find it hard to believe it doesn't hold up, since it takes multiple views to soak up all the information throw at you.

>I thought No Country for Old Men was great when I initially
>saw it but far less thrilling and engaging after a second and
>third viewing. I still think of it as a great film with the
>help of Brolin and Bardem's acting but the story bores me when
>I try to watch it again.

Every little sound effect, every slight shadow, every camera angle, every small idiosyncrasy of the characters thrills me more and more every single time.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

>Every little sound effect, every slight shadow, every camera
>angle, every small idiosyncrasy of the characters thrills me
>more and more every single time.

See, I agree that you catch on to the little things with subsequent viewings. Coen brothers made my ass twist in my seat with suspense when Chigur was hunting down Brolin in the hostpial and street. The film really hit me when I initially saw it. I'll have to give it any close viewing sometime since I've seen it in full twice and watched chunks multiple times on HBO in the past.

Coen Bros. were on top of their game with this film though. The year this came out my college coincidentally had a semester long retrospective of their films so I saw almost their entire filmography (with the except of Barton Fink). It really helped me realized how great their filmography is and how consistent they are in turning our high quality films, not just in entertainment but technically as well.

was it's driving appeal: a gangster/crime drama done in Brasil was something fresh at the time. had everything taken place in say, New York, it's not as interesting.

however, the themes of cyclical violence (the avenging child killing the hero, the antagonist dying in similar fashion) have been done before and to better effect.

I also am not a fan of the fast forward and flashback editing that the storyline follows, nor did I care much about the laundry list of secondary characters introduced.

--------

>was it's driving appeal: a gangster/crime drama done in
>Brasil was something fresh at the time. had everything taken
>place in say, New York, it's not as interesting.

Thing is, it doesn't take place in New York, so that's pretty irrelevant.

>however, the themes of cyclical violence (the avenging child
>killing the hero, the antagonist dying in similar fashion)
>have been done before and to better effect.

Could you name some films that you believe do this to a better degree than "City of God'? The example of this 'cyclical violence' has been done in movies before but it was just an end for one of the many plot lines in CoM and it affected an admirable supporting character but not the protagonist (Rocket).

>I also am not a fan of the fast forward and flashback editing
>that the storyline follows, nor did I care much about the
>laundry list of secondary characters introduced.

I tend not to be a fan of movies to abuse flashforward/back as well but it worked for me in CoM.

as for themes of repeating violence: The Godfather, The Godfather II, Goodfellas, Menace II Society, The Vengeance Trilogy (same time), American History X, Boyz N The Hood (which hasn't held up well but remains an important work), etc.

OK, those are mostly great movies -- but I didn't think City of God elevated or expressed its themes as well as the mentioned. and to be the best movie of the decade, it should.

Rocket's coming of age story while trying to escape the gangs around him was alright, but again, it didn't amaze me. he got lost in the supporting plots, as his personal conflicts seemed tame (chasing girls, getting punked by kids, choosing to run the pictures at the end).

--------

©

When the Chief is in the house...ohmigod

I can't remember where exactly I put it in the PTP "Best of the Decade" post, but it was really fucking good.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

A firm #1 and #2. Don't make me decide which is #1. Both are just perfectly made.

I don't even know what would follow. Probably something Pixar.

My movies: http://russellhainline.com
My movie reviews: https://letterboxd.com/RussellHFilm/
My beer TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@thebeertravelguide

I went into with no great desire to see it and I left loving it but I prefer There Will Be Blood to No Country For Old Men, even though I'm a long time Coen's Brother fan. I don't know. I just don't see the profound greatest that everyone else saw in it.

NCFOM stands up because it is stripped down, no frills essential story telling. No a single superfluous shot or line of dialogue. And yet it was able to tap into its theme of hopelessness and despair so perfectly.

The Road was the perfect companion piece for NCFOM. I read it around the same time I saw the movie so was very much attuned to the futility of it all theme and it made aspects of the film resonate with me in ways that left me shook..


**********

Felt they really dropped the ball
should of been more terrifying & immensely bleak as original story...

If perfection is the criteria, then CoM is on an even shorter list, IMHO. Rewatched City of God after we did the Favorites of the Decade thing, and while I still love it though not as much as before, the acting wasn't as strong as I remembered it being.

Oh, the times (pre-child) when I could do stuff like that.

City of God and Children of Men are right up there and together, but they were hardly alone as great movies in the decade. There were a number of nearly flawless movies to come out.

Memento

The Incredibles

The Prestige

District 9



good times, good times

box

box
___
Just looking out of the window
Watching the asphalt grow
Thinking how it all looks hand-me-down

n/m

--

"You can't beat white people. You can only knock them out."

No Country for Old Men
The Dark Night
Children of Men
City of God
Momento
The Incredibles
The Royal Tenenbaums
40 Year Old Virgin
The Prestige
25th Hour
Talk to Her

**********

im not a huge fan of children of men i liked it but it didnt deliver as much as i had hoped. not sure if i will ever watch it again.


other favorite films from the 2000s are

there will be blood
darks days
the king of kong
hot fuzz
oh brother where art thou

but thats not a compete list im sure there are a few others

It's a clever, stylish movie. The story is nothing special, and socio-political aspects are pretty simplistic.

Great cinematography and some really impressive long takes.

Michael Caine as an old hippie is also inspired casting.

--------

hell-below.com

>The story is nothing special,
>and socio-political aspects are pretty simplistic.

Though I loathe Zizek's type of film criticism, I like what he says about the film here and that's how I look at the socio-political aspect of CoM:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgrwNP_gYE

BTW, you watched the Happy Together Blu-ray yet? I saw some screenshots over at DVDBeaver. It looks fuckin' gorgeous.

>Though I loathe Zizek's type of film criticism, I like what he
>says about the film here and that's how I look at the
>socio-political aspect of CoM:
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pbgrwNP_gYE

I don't disagree with much that Zizek says here. The attention to detail in the background of this film is great, and it gives the film a wonderful atmosphere.


>BTW, you watched the Happy Together Blu-ray yet? I saw some
>screenshots over at DVDBeaver. It looks fuckin' gorgeous.

Had a Happy Together viewing last weekend. It looks incredible. It's so hard to tell with Doyle previously when he means for the image to look grimy or when it's just a shitty transfer. The black and white in this film is really beautiful--worlds apart from the old DVD.

I think HT might be better than ITMFL. Less of a consistent stylish mood, but more raw and personal I think.

--------

hell-below.com

From the massive meta-list we did a few months back:

1. Yi Yi
2. In the Mood For Love
3. The Pianist
4. Syndromes and a Century
5. The White Ribbon
6. Three Times
7. Cache
8. What Time is it There?
9. 2046
10. Spirited Away
11. Ten
12. No Country for Old Men
13. Wind That Shakes the Barley
14. I Don't Want to Sleep Alone
15. A Serious Man
16. The New World
17. Zodiac
18. Twentynine Palms
19. Nobody Knows
20. There Will Be Blood

--------

hell-below.com

>From the massive meta-list we did a few months back:
>
>1. Yi Yi
>2. In the Mood For Love
>3. The Pianist
>4. Syndromes and a Century
>5. The White Ribbon
>6. Three Times
>7. Cache
>8. What Time is it There?
>9. 2046
>10. Spirited Away
>11. Ten
>12. No Country for Old Men
>13. Wind That Shakes the Barley
>14. I Don't Want to Sleep Alone
>15. A Serious Man
>16. The New World
>17. Zodiac
>18. Twentynine Palms
>19. Nobody Knows
>20. There Will Be Blood

*hi fives* for IMFL, 2046, Zodiac and The New World being on your list. I really want to see The White Ribbon.

>It's a clever, stylish movie. The story is nothing special,
>and socio-political aspects are pretty simplistic.

LOL. That's a compliment. All the best films make their
politics "simplistic." Otherwise you end up with a dogshit
confusion maker like 'Syriana'.

Simple is almost always better.

Understated is underrated.

And the movie didn't have a resounding "message."

It was about some interesting phenomenon in an interesting
setting.



>Great cinematography and some really impressive long takes.
>
>Michael Caine as an old hippie is also inspired casting.

Caine was great

I don't mean to suggest that a movie should deliberately make its message more complicated or harder to understand.

But while distilling complex ideas to a powerful image or feeling is a virtue, sometimes simplification can be a disservice. Especially without focus.

The movie casually throws in lots of contemporary political imagery. Abu Ghraib, Gaza. Putting third world poverty in a western European context. All interesting imagery.

But does it all add together? Or is it just superficial 21st century collage? It doesn't have to have a singular "message" but you don't get points unless you do something with it. Yeah, Bush and the Patriot Act are bad. So is torture. So is restrictive immigration policy. What does that all have to do with a world where nobody can make babies? A world without children is more amenable to oppression? Why?

>It was about some interesting phenomenon in an interesting
>setting.

And there's no shame it being that. But it doesn't make it the best film of the decade.

--------

hell-below.com

>I don't mean to suggest that a movie should deliberately make
>its message more complicated or harder to understand.

Actually, you are.

>But while distilling complex ideas to a powerful image or
>feeling is a virtue, sometimes simplification can be a
>disservice. Especially without focus.

LOL.

No, the purpose of a film is to tell you a story. Just
because it makes you feel smart to break down every
scene into its "sociopolitical implications" doesn't
mean a film has to do that to be good. Sometimes a cool
sci fi story is a cool sci fi story.

>The movie casually throws in lots of contemporary political
>imagery. Abu Ghraib, Gaza. Putting third world poverty in a
>western European context. All interesting imagery.


LOL -- Abu Ghraib? Are you serious?

Its about a world without kids. It happens to take place
in Europe. The world is fucked up and poor. They weren't
putting nothing into "context." They were trying to create
a mood of hopelessness and chaos. They achieved. All that
other shit you mentioned has nothing to do with the movie.

You act like the director was just shouting direct political
messages in the film. No, he wasn't. He set out to make a good
MOVIE that HAPPENED to say, subtly, things about society.

The problem with artsy people like you is that you forgot what
the fuck the purpose of a move it is:

Its supposed to tell a story.

If I want to watch a documentary, I'll go watch one.

When I watch Sci-Fi, I want good storytelling, and good action,
and good directing, and interesting characters.

I got all of that and then some in 'Children of Men'.
>But does it all add together? Or is it just superficial 21st
>century collage?

The latter leads to better movies. The point of the setting
is to SET UP the plot, and it does that.

>It doesn't have to have a singular "message"
>but you don't get points unless you do something with it.

Wrong. You get points for telling a good story with compelling
characters in a good setting.

It don't have do nothing with nothing but generate an enjoyable
film. If it succeeds in making a social commentary in the meantime,
fine. But the former is the PURPOSE of the movie.

All that other shit is not necessary and is secondary.

>Yeah, Bush and the Patriot Act are bad. So is torture. So is
>restrictive immigration policy. What does that all have to do
>with a world where nobody can make babies? A world without
>children is more amenable to oppression? Why?

LOL -- the movie is good independent of the Bush administration,
or Abu Ghraib, or any of that shit.

Its a good movie because its a good movie. Sure, the very understated
biblical tone was cute irony(they did it perfectly), but the film
was fascinating and outstanding because of the actual interaction
of the characters, the storyline, the setting, etc. It didn't have
to make specific comments on world events to be great. Its great
because its great.

If anything, your complain applies to 'V for Vendetta' which
was CLEARLY making a DIRECT SOCIAL COMMENTARY. I like 'V', but
if it had fucked up in telling its DIRECT message, it would have
been a bigger trainwreck, because much of the story hinged on the
effectiveness of the social commentary.

Children of Men, on the other hand, is the PERFECT Sci-Fi movie:

Sure, makes you think about the world. But does so by expanding
our imagination so much, that we are taken into a DIFFERENT world
outrageously different than our own.

And because of that, we can sit and watch and enjoy the
fucking movie, and not have to think about Abu Ghraib.

It was fucking good.


>And there's no shame it being that. But it doesn't make it the
>best film of the decade.

No, the fact that its a great movie with a great setting with
great acting and great directing and great cinematography makes
it a great movie, one of the very best of the decade.

----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

>No, the purpose of a film is to tell you a story. Just
>because it makes you feel smart to break down every
>scene into its "sociopolitical implications" doesn't
>mean a film has to do that to be good. Sometimes a cool
>sci fi story is a cool sci fi story.

This is my point. It's a weak story. If the story was any good, then it wouldn't need to rely on the setting and camerawork. But it's not.

The film is a serious of episodes. Mostly death-defying escapes. Not a lot of real character conflict (Clive's one major decision is to help out Kee, after that it's a lot of running and ducking and delivering babies).

It's perfectly serviceable as the backbone for an action/adventure movie. But in terms of storytelling it's not much more than Crank for kids in AP Civics.


>LOL -- Abu Ghraib? Are you serious?

Uh, yes. Did you not see this guy in the movie?

http://www.keenewire.com/wrobel/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Abu-Ghraib-tm.jpg

Very prominently, there are direct quotations of famous Abu Ghraib photos. It's not like I'm going out of my way to find that shit.

If Cuaron doesn't want people to think he's trying to say something, he shouldn't make repeated references to major serious issues of his day.


>You act like the director was just shouting direct political
>messages in the film. No, he wasn't. He set out to make a
>good
>MOVIE that HAPPENED to say, subtly, things about society.

What does it say about society exactly? That a world without children would suck? Pretty profound.


>The problem with artsy people like you is that you forgot
>what
>the fuck the purpose of a move it is:
>
>Its supposed to tell a story.

No, I like a good story. This movie doesn't have one.

I'll take a simple genre film that tells a good story over Children of Men any day.


>Its a good movie because its a good movie.

This is apparently the crux of your argument.

--------

hell-below.com

And its a perfect analogy-

When thirsty, I'll take a 10cent glass of Kool-Aid
over a 6 dollar frappalattemochachino bullshit.

>This is my point. It's a weak story. If the story was any
>good, then it wouldn't need to rely on the setting and
>camerawork. But it's not.

Actually, the story is not weak at all, but to each his
own. You thought "more should have been done" with the
"context."

LOL.


No, it shouldn't have.


You just need that to make yourself feel smart.

>The film is a serious of episodes. Mostly death-defying
>escapes. Not a lot of real character conflict (Clive's one
>major decision is to help out Kee, after that it's a lot of
>running and ducking and delivering babies).

Actually, no. What makes Clive Owen's character
compelling is that he does most of what he does
out of instinct and reflex...he's not a perfect
leader revolutionary. The death of ole girl sort
of inspired him, but his character is mostly in-line
with many protagonist stories: flawed character who
rises to the occasion.

Its actually much better that way, and far more realistic.


>It's perfectly serviceable as the backbone for an
>action/adventure movie. But in terms of storytelling it's not
>much more than Crank for kids in AP Civics.

That's false, but ok.


>Uh, yes. Did you not see this guy in the movie?
>
>http://www.keenewire.com/wrobel/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Abu-Ghraib-tm.jpg

>Very prominently, there are direct quotations of famous Abu
>Ghraib photos. It's not like I'm going out of my way to find
>that shit.

LOL -- yes, you are going out of your way. I'm just as
intelligent as you, enjoyed the movie more than you did
and never saw that. Now that I know its there, I still don't
give a motherfuck, because little random symbolism like that
has nothing to do with why the movie is good.

LOL

>If Cuaron doesn't want people to think he's trying to say
>something, he shouldn't make repeated references to major
>serious issues of his day.

Or maybe you should lighten up and watch the movie.

Because it actually did a fabulous job of *not*
being preachy. It didn't tell a single lasting message,
or tell one narrative, or provide one commentary. It
told a great story. All that other little shit is
negative.


>What does it say about society exactly? That a world without
>children would suck? Pretty profound.

LOL.

That's actually the best kind of movie -- make it VERY simple.

Because what makes messages profound is not the message, but
the way they are portrayed, and the portrayal of a childless
society was fucking fantastic. The constant anxiety, the panic,
in a society where building for the future is all but rendered
irrelevant by the lack of a next generation. The film didn't
preach it. It painted it for us, and it was done well.

You'll admit it eventually.

>No, I like a good story. This movie doesn't have one.

No, you like movies that you can overanalyze so you can
make yourself feel smart.

Actual smart people like our movies simple, because our
real lives are smart.

I'm telling you its true.


>I'll take a simple genre film that tells a good story over
>Children of Men any day.

No, you won't.


Your reasons for not liking it are bogus. Just
admit it.





----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

>Actually, the story is not weak at all, but to each his
>own. You thought "more should have been done" with the
>"context."

I think a) it should have had a more compelling story. B) If it's going to swim in the deep end with the big kids and discuss torture and immigration and civil liberties, it should have something to say.

All that said, I LIKE the movie. Just I like Crank and I liked the first Mummy. They're all fun. But none of them are the best movie of the decade.


>Actually, no. What makes Clive Owen's character
>compelling is that he does most of what he does
>out of instinct and reflex...he's not a perfect
>leader revolutionary. The death of ole girl sort
>of inspired him, but his character is mostly in-line
>with many protagonist stories: flawed character who
>rises to the occasion.

Right. He's by far the most interesting character because he has some choices to make. But mostly it's "run and duck, duck and run." You could say the same about lots of action protagonists.



>LOL -- yes, you are going out of your way. I'm just as
>intelligent as you, enjoyed the movie more than you did
>and never saw that. Now that I know its there, I still don't
>give a motherfuck, because little random symbolism like that
>has nothing to do with why the movie is good.

Here's the guy who made the movie talking about it:

"You see those things and the direct reference was Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, that is the same reference as concentration camps in the second World War. It is so interesting that you say that because in this documentary that we’re doing for the DVD, Slavoj Zizek who is a Slovenian philosopher, he talks about infertility in the film and he says that the real infertility is the lack of historical perspective..."

You don't seem willing to accept that the movie you love aspires to all the "latte-sipping" things you claim to hate.


>No, you like movies that you can overanalyze so you can
>make yourself feel smart.
>
>Actual smart people like our movies simple, because our
>real lives are smart.
>
>I'm telling you its true.
>
>No, you won't.
>
>Your reasons for not liking it are bogus. Just
>admit it.

Your constant stream of baseless claims and predictions is hilarious. Thank you for telling me what I think and how I will feel in the future. It warms my heart.

--------

hell-below.com

And that 7 dollar shit you drink from Starbucks also
has tons of fattening bullshit in it.

>I think a) it should have had a more compelling story. B) If
>it's going to swim in the deep end with the big kids and
>discuss torture and immigration and civil liberties, it should
>have something to say.

LOL -- watch a documentary, you miserable boho ass
nigga. Don't nobody want that preachy shit in the middle
of a movie.

If you want someone to preach to you, go read a book
or some shit.

Smart people like science fiction to be about the action
in the story. The setting is just that a SETTING. It ain't
gotta be a soapbox to shout about Abu Ghraib.


>All that said, I LIKE the movie. Just I like Crank and I liked
>the first Mummy. They're all fun. But none of them are the
>best movie of the decade.

LOL.


>Right. He's by far the most interesting character because he
>has some choices to make. But mostly it's "run and duck, duck
>and run." You could say the same about lots of action
>protagonists.

Except most "action protagonists" aren't jaded activists
in a world with miserable fertility problem, in a society
with chaos and violence, who are rather serendipitously
forced into a situation to care after a teenage girl who
is the first pregnant woman on earth in 18 years.

All of this was effectively communicated in the movie. You
just didn't like it....why again?



>Here's the guy who made the movie talking about it:

>"You see those things and the direct reference was Guantanamo
>and Abu Ghraib. Nevertheless, that is the same reference as
>concentration camps in the second World War. It is so
>interesting that you say that because in this documentary that
>we’re doing for the DVD, Slavoj Zizek who is a Slovenian
>philosopher, he talks about infertility in the film and he
>says that the real infertility is the lack of historical
>perspective..."

>You don't seem willing to accept that the movie you love
>aspires to all the "latte-sipping" things you claim to hate.

No, Einstein. I'm saying Children of Men is DIFFERENT from
its peers because it didn't FORCE the social commentary. It
let it grow organically from the setting and story. It was
an autonomous sci-fi movie that was good on its own. All of
the other stuff was dressing.


>Your constant stream of baseless claims and predictions is
>hilarious. Thank you for telling me what I think and how I
>will feel in the future. It warms my heart.


Just being honest, sparky.


----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

Worth a try maybe?

http://www.adesblog.com/images/whatisinyourcoffee.png

--------

hell-below.com

Excellent through and through.

No Blade Runner, but damn good.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*Effasig*

i can't think of a single weakness of that movie. severly overlooked movie, imo

I've had a hard time watching Pan's Labyrinth again because its not just a channel surfing random watching type movie.

**********

I don't understand.

I been telling y'all to netflix this for years
now.

Just do it...move it up the queueueueueue ahead
of the Bonzai love dream by Katuauskakjfadsfdafda
Mashimotoyakikikikikiki. That one can wait.

This is superb filmmaking and I haven't seen a film
with better acting in a long, long, time



----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

I was disappointed from the lack of praise it received. Don Cheadle should have gotten a nomination of some sort and, it was Taraji using her ghetto ass role to her best ability

Certainly one of the better biopics of the decade.

And its about 10,000 times better than any biopic
since...damn near 'Man on the Moon' or 'Boogie Nights'.

I will NEVER forgive the arthouse crowd for ignoring
'Talk 2 Me'.

It was almost a perfect movie: light, funny,
but powerful. It gave good insight, didn't preach, but
taught a lesson...it was just stellar.



----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

Saw it in the theater, and enjoyed it quite a bit. I don't tend to like most biopics these days, but that was better than most I've seen this decade. It was anchored by two GREAT performances and one really good one. I agree that the pool hall scene was great, and the whole MLK-shooting aftermath was really powerful. I wouldn't put it in my top 5, but I agree that it's really underrated.

-----------------

www.albumism.com

Checkin' Our Style, Return To Zero:

https://www.mixcloud.com/returntozero/

It contained some of the best acting I've seen in a movie all decade, but the script was a paint-by-numbers biopic and the direction was conventional (though effective) as well.

I still feel like "Ray" was a better overall film.

Understated is underrated. 'Ray' was heavy handed
and melodramatic at times. A tad overdone.

'Talk 2 me', on the other hand, was LIGHT, funny, has
replay value, and can be watched in multiple moods.

Its as versatile a biopic as I've ever seen.

It was just about dude's life...it also happened to be
an entertaining, good movie.

I liked Children of Men & City of God a lot the first time I saw em but neither have held up as well as the others on repeated viewings for me.

©

When the Chief is in the house...ohmigod

I LOVE all three of those films as well. The Assassination of Jesse James was criminally underrated. No one gave it much attention but I'm glad people are slowly starting to see it, even though it really hasn't broken through the cinephile crowd yet.

25th is one of my favorite Spike joints and it arguably has his best cast in a film to date with Norton, Pepper, Hoffman, (I can't remember the father's name) and Rosario. Even a young Anna Paquin was great in her role. The Fuck You scene is a classic, this is the film that cemented my life long Rosario lust (He Got Game lit the flame) and I became a Barry Pepper & Hoffman fan.

Memento... it's amazing. There's nothing I can add.

>I LOVE all three of those films as well. The Assassination of
>Jesse James was criminally underrated. No one gave it much
>attention but I'm glad people are slowly starting to see it,
>even though it really hasn't broken through the cinephile
>crowd yet.

I'm glad I got to see it on the big screen when I did, but it's still great on DVD as well. I understand all the love for There Will be Blood & No Country for Old Men, but this one overall just won me over more than the others. Nick Cave needed an Oscar nomination for that score.

>25th is one of my favorite Spike joints and it arguably has
>his best cast in a film to date with Norton, Pepper, Hoffman,
>(I can't remember the father's name) and Rosario.

Brian Cox played Monte's Dad & did a great job along with the others.

Even a young
>Anna Paquin was great in her role. The Fuck You scene is a
>classic, this is the film that cemented my life long Rosario
>lust (He Got Game lit the flame) and I became a Barry Pepper &
>Hoffman fan.

As far as Spike, He got A game performances from everyone involved & it's quite a credit to him that this ranks so high in his catalog as one of his most unconventional films.

>Memento... it's amazing. There's nothing I can add.

I've enjoyed all of Nolan's films since then but that's still his masterpiece. Maybe he can top it with Inception.

I think in the new Millennial when you consider Great Works they have to reflect Global Issues. No longer can we talk about the greats and only talk about stories about White Folks only and their perspective of the world.

**********

White novelist, white director, white protagonist.

The one major character of color is an object--a passive symbol of maternity and hope. The white man basically spends the entire movie rescuing her. And then (SPOILER) he dies for her sins.

--------

hell-below.com

So you're actually wrong.

>White novelist, white director, white protagonist.
>
>The one major character of color is an object--a passive
>symbol of maternity and hope.

Wrong.


>The white man basically spends
>the entire movie rescuing her. And then (SPOILER) he dies for
>her sins.

LOL.

LOL.


----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

Wait, you're telling me this isn't a white dude?

http://somethingoffensive.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/childrenmencast9.jpg



>>The one major character of color is an object--a passive
>>symbol of maternity and hope.
>
>Wrong.

She's not much of a character. "I only trust Clive Owen. I will go wherever you say. I'm scared. I want to name my baby silly, funny names. Oh shit, I'm scared again. Thank you for dying for me, Clive. I'll name my baby after your baby--your name is better than my name."

That's pretty much her arc.



>>The white man basically spends
>>the entire movie rescuing her. And then (SPOILER) he dies
>for
>>her sins.
>
>LOL.
>
>LOL.

Yeah, it is pretty funny. And kind of dumb. Which is why the film doesn't work if you think about it too much.

--------

hell-below.com

>Wait, you're telling me this isn't a white dude?
>
>http://somethingoffensive.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/childrenmencast9.jpg

Too bad he's Mexican. So yes, you're wrong.


>She's not much of a character. "I only trust Clive Owen. I
>will go wherever you say. I'm scared. I want to name my baby
>silly, funny names. Oh shit, I'm scared again. Thank you for
>dying for me, Clive. I'll name my baby after your baby--your
>name is better than my name."

LOL

See, that's what I mean about boho niggas and their
whining?

LOL

Fuck you expect her to be, a nuclear engineer?

She's probably a damn teenager.

She's the first pregnant woman in 18 YEARS in the
WORLD.

She prolly poor and naive, as most kids her age
are. She's in a fucking daze, because she don't
understand everything.

She don't know what the fuck is going on, and she acted
like it. She NAILED her role. She trusted the woman, who
died. Apparently the woman said she should ONLY TRUST
Owen, which is why the girl trusts Owen. She does what a
young kid would do -- trust Owen.

See how easy that was?

LOL

See how you MISSED that basic fact with your boho Latte
goggles?

LOL


>That's pretty much her arc.

And your arc is not getting the facts straight.


*shrugs*

>Yeah, it is pretty funny. And kind of dumb. Which is why the
>film doesn't work if you think about it too much.

Or it works really well if you have actual things to
do with your time and don't overanalyze shit for not
reason.

----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

>Too bad he's Mexican. So yes, you're wrong.

Now you're just being silly. You think race is invisible within the borders of Mexico?



>Fuck you expect her to be, a nuclear engineer?

The point is not the character's intelligence. You can have a nuclear engineer or president of the united states or a magical genius who is equally a non-character. What matters is her role in the story. She's a pretty symbol, a damsel in distress who never acts for herself. When Clive Owen goes into the building at the end, she's huddling on the wall that's CLOSEST TO THE TANK that's shooting at her, helpless until he shows up.

She's totally passive without Clive's help. You can argue whether this is realistic behavior or not, but she's not an active character at all.


>She don't know what the fuck is going on, and she acted
>like it. She NAILED her role. She trusted the woman, who
>died. Apparently the woman said she should ONLY TRUST
>Owen, which is why the girl trusts Owen. She does what a
>young kid would do -- trust Owen.

The issue is not the actress. She's perfectly fine. And, sure, let's say she acts believably. But Owen, the stereotypical heroic white man, is the protagonist who saves her repeatedly.

I don't blame Cuaron--you think Universal would have laid out an $80 million budget for Kee as the protagonist? But it doesn't make the film some radical third world call to arms. It's a safe, stylish Western adventure movie.


>Or it works really well if you have actual things to
>do with your time and don't overanalyze shit for not
>reason.

Shit to do with my time like not pay attention to the movie?

--------

hell-below.com

>Now you're just being silly. You think race is invisible
>within the borders of Mexico?

You mean all Mexicans aren't and short and indigenous?


Jesus Christ, Martin Luther King -- He's Mexican.

Kick and scream all you want to, you're wrong.

The director is Mexican.

Cry me a river.



I mean, you're a bad poster. From the way it sounds,
you're black, like I am. I still have to claim you,
bad posting and all.


The Director is Mexican. Don't mean there isn't
diversity within Mexico. It just means that he's
Mexican and you're mad.



>The point is not the character's intelligence. You can have a
>nuclear engineer or president of the united states or a
>magical genius who is equally a non-character. What matters is
>her role in the story. She's a pretty symbol, a damsel in
>distress who never acts for herself. When Clive Owen goes into
>the building at the end, she's huddling on the wall that's
>CLOSEST TO THE TANK that's shooting at her, helpless until he
>shows up.

Uh -- she's the first pregnant woman the world has seen
in 18 years. She's a kid, who has no idea what the
fuck is going on.

But somehow its bad filmmaking for them to make her seem
helpless, even if helplessness is perfectly realistic given
those circumstances.










*scratches head*













LOL.

I tried to see your side, then realized that you didn't
have one.


>She's totally passive without Clive's help. You can argue
>whether this is realistic behavior or not, but she's not an
>active character at all.

LOL -- if its realistic, than your criticism falls apart.
Its either realistic, or it isn't. She's a pregnant kid
in a world with no pregnant women. She should be absolutely
shell-shocked and afraid.

Guess what?

She acts shell-shocked and afraid. If anything, she acts
MORE intelligent and has MORE depth than was required of
her, since the only real important thing about her is that
she is pregnant. The film does a good job of focusing on
the things that it needs to focus on and letting everything
else fall by the wayside -- they don't delve too deep into
how she got pregnant. It seems like immaculate conception,
but we don't KNOW that, because it doesn't really fucking
matter. I LOVE that about the movie.

It doesn't try to tell you too much about her back story,
just enough so the story can move forward.

Also -- the place she's going to at the end -- we have no
fucking idea what this place is, and the movie doesn't
strong arm an explanation. Perfect.


>The issue is not the actress. She's perfectly fine. And, sure,
>let's say she acts believably. But Owen, the stereotypical
>heroic white man, is the protagonist who saves her repeatedly.

LOL -- he's a bummy, frustrated, lost, cynical loser. He's
the best kind of hero. He was once young, brash, intelligent
and brave, and has been broken by the negativity in the world.

The girl provides a chance at redemption for him. He's far from
the savior of a damn thing. He just rises to the occasion, the
way regular flawed people do all the time. Its the perfect type
of protagonist for the setting.

Jesus Christ. Just fucking stop.


>I don't blame Cuaron--you think Universal would have laid out
>an $80 million budget for Kee as the protagonist? But it
>doesn't make the film some radical third world call to arms.
>It's a safe, stylish Western adventure movie.

LOL -- "radical third world call to arms?"

Who the fuck said that?

Its an outstanding sci-fi film is what it is.

Don't nobody care about any of that other shit you
said, and most of your opinions are rooted in falsehoods
anyway.


Do better.


----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

There's a lot of silliness going on here, but I want to make sure we're not talking past each other on Cuaron.

The original poster said "No longer can we talk about the greats and only talk about stories about White Folks only and their perspective of the world."

My response is that the major players in this film (studio, producers, original novelist, main character, and director) were, in fact, white people. And that the film did not reflect a "global" point of view. Rather, it has the veneer of globalism but is just another sort of privileged white person's view of the world.

Now, am I mad privileged white people are making movies? Of course not. Unfortunately, the majority of great films have been made by them (hopefully the 21st century corrects the faults of the 20th in that respect). And this, as I've said repeatedly, is a GOOD movie. Hats off to the people who made it.

You responded that Alfonso Cuaron, co-writer and director, was NOT white but in fact Mexican.

Obviously I do not dispute the fact that he is of Mexican nationality. But, not being him, I would argue that his experience of the filmmaking world is very much that of a white director. There are Spanish directors, Argentinian directors, Brazilian directors, Greek directors, what have you, that do not experience the same level of (conscious or unconscious) prejudice that a Nigerian filmmaker, or a Pakistani filmmaker, or an indigenous-looking Latin American filmmaker would face.

I don't wish to get into racial semantics about fixed definitions, because obviously they are all constructs. But if you ask the financiers of his films, or his actors, or the European press that adores him, "Is Cuaron a white person?" they would almost certainly say yes and wonder why you even asked the question.

I'm interested in your actual perspective on this issue, if you do genuinely disagree with me.

Obviously anyone who's an actual Latin American filmmaker (or other artist looking for funds/press/etc. outside of their home country) would be great weighing in here...

--------

hell-below.com

>There's a lot of silliness going on here, but I want to make
>sure we're not talking past each other on Cuaron.

No. I'm right, and you're wrong. That's the problem.

>The original poster said "No longer can we talk about the
>greats and only talk about stories about White Folks only and
>their perspective of the world."

Who cares.

>My response is that the major players in this film (studio,
>producers, original novelist, main character, and director)
>were, in fact, white people. And that the film did not reflect
>a "global" point of view. Rather, it has the veneer of
>globalism but is just another sort of privileged white
>person's view of the world.

Okay. 'Star Wars' was white too. So are a lot of movies
that I love. Some movies that I love are black, or Indian,
or whatever.

Not sure what this has to do with your inability to get
the basic facts straight about 'Children of Men'.

>Now, am I mad privileged white people are making movies? Of
>course not. Unfortunately, the majority of great films have
>been made by them (hopefully the 21st century corrects the
>faults of the 20th in that respect). And this, as I've said
>repeatedly, is a GOOD movie. Hats off to the people who made


That was (not) DEEEEEEEP, brother.


>You responded that Alfonso Cuaron, co-writer and director, was
>NOT white but in fact Mexican.

He is Mexican.

>Obviously I do not dispute the fact that he is of Mexican
>nationality. But, not being him, I would argue that his
>experience of the filmmaking world is very much that of a
>white director. There are Spanish directors, Argentinian
>directors, Brazilian directors, Greek directors, what have
>you, that do not experience the same level of (conscious or
>unconscious) prejudice that a Nigerian filmmaker, or a
>Pakistani filmmaker, or an indigenous-looking Latin American
>filmmaker would face.


Good god, what are you saying.

>I don't wish to get into racial semantics about fixed
>definitions, because obviously they are all constructs. But if
>you ask the financiers of his films, or his actors, or the
>European press that adores him, "Is Cuaron a white person?"
>they would almost certainly say yes and wonder why you even
>asked the question.


Who fucking cares. He is Mexican. He been making movies
with Mexican people in them, with the spanish language,
repping his culture. For you to call him anything other
than Mexican is baseless and retarded.

In fact, he made movies with white people in them,
and the RETURNED TO MEXICO to make movies in Mexico
with Mexican actors/actresses. He reps his culture,
and is very socially conscious.

So miss me with that shit.

>I'm interested in your actual perspective on this issue, if
>you do genuinely disagree with me.

I'm not interested in sharing my perspective on race here,
because its not relevant. You're only dancing around now
because you're wrong.

Just admit that you're wrong.

>Obviously anyone who's an actual Latin American filmmaker (or
>other artist looking for funds/press/etc. outside of their
>home country) would be great weighing in here...


Doesn't matter, because you're wrong.





----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

Basically your point is that someone from Mexico can never, ever be viewed as white.

I think you're living in a totally different universe.

We don't have much else to say to each other.

--------

hell-below.com

>Basically your point is that someone from Mexico can never,
>ever be viewed as white.

LOL -- no, my point is that you're wrong and you need
to admit it.

But if you want to resort to lying, that's fine with me.


>I think you're living in a totally different universe.
>
>We don't have much else to say to each other.

You haven't made a good point in this entire exchange.


But I won't hold it against you.


----------------------------


O_E: "Acts like an asshole and posts with imperial disdain"




"I ORBITs the solar system, listenin..."

(C)Keith Murray, "Cosmic Slop"

Just off the top I rock with before Children of Men:
Eternal Sunshine
Batman 2
probably Batman 1
Little Miss Sunshine
Born Ultimatum
Royal Tennenbaums
Raising Victor Vargas

I probably could come up with 15 more

<---https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01DL9AVTQ

would be that shitty, I would never believe you.

But, dammit, it managed to do it.

Shitty action for an action movie. Bunch of loud shit blowing up, whoopdie doo. Let's see some real shit.

You want a movie where the back cover is the alley-oop and the execution is that Shawn Kemp tomahawk boomshakalaka? Minority Report. That shit was a sick idea with legit action scenes.

But who am I? You guys watch movies for your artsy-fartsy reasons. Children of Men was a letdown, just like every other movie I've seen with Clive Owen starring.

-------
"A man who is good enough to shed his blood for his country is good enough to be given a square deal afterwards. More than that no man is entitled, and less than that no man shall have." - TR