What a day.
Occasionally a film comes along that is so good and so well done that one scarcely appreciates it. All aspects are virtually flawless, to the point that the lack of negatives almost detracts from the positives because of the abscence of contrast. Last year, Capote and Downfall fit that bill as good movies that got even better the more you thought about them. 2006's winner in that category is Alfonso Cuaron's Children of Men. (Go ahead; someone mention The Prestige.)
Though it has a old-fashioned, almost primal feel, Children of Men occurs in a not unfamiliar future. The year is 2027, almost two decades after two things have swept the planet: infertility and violence. Because of the latter, Britain is now isolating itself to the extreme, forcing all immigrants out of the country or into refugee camps. Amidst this chaos resides Clive Owen in his mundane existence as a typical office worker at the Ministry of Energy. Of course his life soon takes a drastic turn, which leads to the intriguing main thrust of the film.
Cuaron's future is not awash in technology like Minority Report. Nor is it as desolate as Mad Max. The best comparison is probably something in between such as Blade Runner, which portrays a world as more advanced in a technical manner, but one that has harshly regressed emotionally, socially, and politically. Cuaron's work is much more plausible though; one intentionally unexplained leap aside, the movie is much more grounded and less farfetched. As he did with Prisoner of Azkaban, Cuaron establishes the mentality of the film with remarkable efficiency. Scant seconds into the film, one has a solid grasp of his future's funereal nature, due to key opening shots, glances, and words. This deft ability to create mood is part of what makes Children is the most impressively crafted picture of last year.
While the bleak art design contributes heavily to the film's success, the lengthy single-take shots are what make Children unique. M. Night Shyamalan uses one-take scenes better and more consistently than any other director I know, but at least for this movie, Cuaron usurps his throne. The difference is that the camera in most of Night's shots is largely static during quieter, simple scenes; Cuaron does the same, but also moves his lens over miles of turf during complex action sequences, creating relatively eternal shots that literally caused my head to shake and jaw to drop in stunned disbelief. In a lesser movie, the extreme continuity might be a stunt, but the timing and pace of the (apparently) unbroken shots are executed so immaculately that any other possible way of making the movie seems amateurishly subpar.
As the plot veers through its series of chaotic events, Clive Owen's grim determination holds the film together with help of a strong supporting cast. He is the everyman the viewer latches onto as both proceed through parts unknown. Appreciably understated as he often is, Owen allows the intensity of rest of the cast, including Julianne Moore, Michael Caine, and Chiwetel Ejiofore, to shine while he and his character subtly ease through the movie. Owen's steady drive is what propels the film even though his Theo doesn't always possess the necessary motivation. Political overtones aside, if Children has a weakness, that is where it lies: a few points of plot and character are underdeveloped or ignored. Most are MacGuffin-esque enough that they don't truly matter, but the handful of unexplored plot devices do distract a wee bit from an otherwise fantastic film.
Children of Men is the polar opposite of so much depressing, minimalist art house fare. Instead the end result is a superb and brilliantly executed blend of drama and action, with plenty of emotional moral issues mixed in to attract the mind and heart as well. Recommended to anyone who appreciates quality cinema, even if you're not one who often sees independent films of this ilk.
Bottom Line: One of the best movies of 2006. 9 of 10. I'm going there, hesitantly.
(Side note: if you're planning to see the film, but haven't viewed the trailer, then don't watch the trailer.)


8 Comments:
Paul, it's OK. It's a 9. Your system needed a tweak and if any film deserves it, it's this one. I mean...the guy gave a character's full background in a series of pictures on a wall behind a desk. An entire plot-developing conversation happens out of focus. This movie is 9/10 quality. You're OK, and so is the 9/10. It's OK!
I'm glad to know they're still listening to Radiohead in 2027.
*possible spoiler* And is it just me, or is Michael Caine's appearance (if not character) modeled after a late John Lennon? Did anyone else catch that resemblance?
What about the way Cuaron handles emotions so well in the film? And by handles I mean he knows how to create emotions for the audience. I thought the one-take shots helped here as well. If every cut is a breath of air, then Cuaron forces you to be dragged along with the characters, holding your breath for as long as the camera keeps rolling unbroken.
The little bits of hilarious humor scattered through the film might have bothered or distracted some, but I loved it. It seemed to be another quality of "realness" for the film: people do say really funny things, even in the midst of chaotic situations sometimes.
The movie is nothing if not engrossing. Whether you liked it or not, I bet you weren't ever bored during the movie.
Pull my finger!
IMDB's Summary of CurseOTGF:
"The ill-fated romance between an imperial bodyguard and a prince takes the lovers on a dangerous journey where royal family secrets are revealed."
I'd like to know what translation they were watching...
*spoilers*
COM-I think the fact that he played with cliches made a big impact on me. Rather than presenting Kee as Mary, they bluntly do away with it. It made the movie seem more self aware, which I like.
*spoiler*
The "I'm a virgin" line was pretty funny though.
I seem to remember you having "Eats Shoots and Leaves" on your reading list. Am I just making that up? If I'm not, what'd you think of it? I saw it at Barnes and Noble and wanted to read it.
-Ben
I think my review of Curse of the Golden Flower may be about six words.
The whole hold-your-breath thing was definitely a strength of the single shots. Even if you didn't recognize them, I think they helped.
Eats, Shoots & Leaves...very good and entertaining book if you're picky about the English language. So I enjoyed it thoroughly.
I didn't include the comma in the title because the panda is erasing it on the cover and I was unsure how to make half a comma.
That's funny, because I actually looked the book up to see if there was a second comma in the title. I know there are stylistic differences on whether or not to put one in before an "and" when making lists. There's just something about getting the title right for this sort of book.
The fact that you thought about it probably means you'd like the book.
Post a Comment
<< Home