PDA

View Full Version : So I'm watching Children of Men tonight...



JasonEvans
05-28-2007, 09:01 AM
I've been far more pleased with the strong of DVDs my wife and I have watched over the last couple of months:

Casino Royale, Blood Diamond, the Prestige, The Last King of Scotland, the Departed, Pan's Labrynth and (the only one I didn't like) The Good Shepard. Maybe I should stick to getting DVDs. The next flick we will see in the theater will be Harry Potter, then nothing until The Golden Compass.

you have good taste in DVDs. I would have reccomended all of those except The Godo Shep, which I am on the record as not liking at all (Angelina Jolie's character was horrid and was I really expected to spend 3 hours with a Brad Pitt character who was utterly emotionless the entire film?).

If you are looking for more good DVD choices, allow me to point out a few:

- If you liked the Presitge, check out The Illusionist. I think the acting and plot are both better in The Illusionist, though there is less of a "mystery" to keep you hooked.

- A film I have been reccomending for a loong time but which most folks have not seen is The Matador with Pierce Brosnan and Greg Kinnear. Soem great acting in that and a fun story. I am not sold on the final act, felt a bit forced, but some really great acting in that one and a very fun story about a washed up contract killer.

- You have seen The Queen and Children of Men, right? I think Children of Men was the best film of the past year and The Queen was not far behind. Make sure you turn down the lights, unplug the phone, and really let yourself get immersed in Children of Men. It is violent, but brilliant. The moment you are done watching it, you will want to talk about it with friends. Come to this board as there are many of us here who adored it and have strong feelings.

-Jason "so many movies, so little time" Evans

Cavlaw
05-28-2007, 12:46 PM
I hadn't heard about The Illusionist, but may have to give it a chance. Aside from Ed Norton, I'm skeptical about it having better acting than the Prestige. I'm not much of a Giamatti fan (but like him ok), don't care for Sewell, and can't stand Biel.

I've been interested in the Matador for a long time, but haven't broken down and paid full price for it yet (I can never seem to find it on sale).

I haven't yet seen the Queen or Children of Men. As good as The Queen is supposed to be, any plotline involving Princess Diana just puts me off. It just doesn't interest me. Children of Men struck me as a Clive Owen action flick, and I'm not a big Clive Owen fan... however, the reviews seem to indicate otherwise, so perhaps I should give it a go.

JasonEvans
05-28-2007, 03:45 PM
I hadn't heard about The Illusionist, but may have to give it a chance. Aside from Ed Norton, I'm skeptical about it having better acting than the Prestige. I'm not much of a Giamatti fan (but like him ok), don't care for Sewell, and can't stand Biel.

I've been interested in the Matador for a long time, but haven't broken down and paid full price for it yet (I can never seem to find it on sale).

I haven't yet seen the Queen or Children of Men. As good as The Queen is supposed to be, any plotline involving Princess Diana just puts me off. It just doesn't interest me. Children of Men struck me as a Clive Owen action flick, and I'm not a big Clive Owen fan... however, the reviews seem to indicate otherwise, so perhaps I should give it a go.

Illusionist is an Ed Norton tour-de-force. It is all about him and his performance is great. I thought almost everyone in The Prestige was too over-the-top and mellowdramatic. Norton does his thing in a mostly understated way, which worked for me. The two movies are pretty close in my mind and if you liked one, I think you'll like the other. I just felt the story in the illusionist held up better at the end. The final 1/3rd of The Prestige sorta started to fall apart if you ask me.

Can't you just rent The Matador? Why is cost a factor at all? Be warned, it is far from a perfect film and, like I said, I think it sputtered a bit toward the end, but there is some great acting and a few truly brilliant moments in the movie.

If you hate Di and the royal family, then you can avoid The Queen. I liked it for the intimate view of what life is like for the royals. I am not royal-phile, but I really enjoyed that part of it. The acting is as good as you'll see, but you already knew that.

Children of Men has a ton of Clive Owen in it, but I think the style of the direction is the real star of the film. It is hyper-real and a testament to the great skill of Alphonso Cuaron. If you appreciate the great detail that it takes to be a successful director, you've got to see this amazing pic. There is a ton of action, but it does not come off like your typical action film. The story is much more thoughtful than you usually expect in this kind of film.

-Jason "I cannot fathom how Cuaron was not nominated for Best Director" Evans

Cavlaw
05-28-2007, 09:54 PM
As an aside, we just watched "Children of Men" and thought it was pretty cool.

JasonEvans
05-28-2007, 10:05 PM
As an aside, we just watched "Children of Men" and thought it was pretty cool.

Good-- I'm glad you liked it. Some of those long, no-cut scenes were pretty amazing, eh?

-Jason "what did you think of the ending of Children?" Evans

A-Tex Devil
01-05-2008, 12:35 AM
... instead of hitting the town.

That last "one take" scene has to be a top five (if not the best) film making achievement of all time. I kept waiting for a cut, but blood on the camera and all, it kept going.

With today's technology, they probably cut away a time or two without the viewer noticing, but man, that's an all time scene.

I know Jason Evans has discussed this before, but.... man.... one take....

And Chiwetal Ejiofor is one underrated actor (watch Serenity or American Gangster for more).

And while I'm proselytizing --- EVERYONE WATCH THE WIRE!! The "greatest television show ever" tag is not hyperbole. It's a frickin' Dickens novel for modern times.

DevilAlumna
01-05-2008, 12:41 AM
Just started watching it on DVR delay.

Chiwetal Ejiofor's best role had to be as the cross-dressing lounge singer, Lola, in "Kinky Boots."

Cavlaw
01-05-2008, 01:24 AM
Children of Men was awesome, and the long take was just amazing. I've heard Atonement has a similarly long take that has filmophiles drooling, and I may have to sit down and watch it when it is released on DVD to see it.

snowdenscold
01-05-2008, 07:29 AM
Children of Men was awesome, and the long take was just amazing. I've heard Atonement has a similarly long take that has filmophiles drooling, and I may have to sit down and watch it when it is released on DVD to see it.

Yeah, CNN had an article the other day about Atonement's long take, as well as other famous ones. I still haven't seen it yet though.

Oh and of course I know Chiwetal best from Love Actually =)

Exiled_Devil
01-05-2008, 10:35 AM
I think I read that the take was done in multiple takes - and I agree wtih you that it still an amazing shot whether it is one take or six.

I mentioned before that Children of Men had me mesmerized - afterwards I wondered about plot issues and motivations, but during the movie I was totaly immersed. I have since found that this is the best reaction I have had to a movie in two years - I don't know if it is me or the movie industry.

Chiwetal is a great underated actor. I wonder if he gets more meaty roles in UK films.

exiled

wiscodevil
01-05-2008, 11:09 AM
Children of Men was awesome, and the long take was just amazing. I've heard Atonement has a similarly long take that has filmophiles drooling, and I may have to sit down and watch it when it is released on DVD to see it.

ha that's interesting, since it was my least favorite scene in anotherwise great flick. go figure.

no country for old men was great and juno was also very good. next on my list - persepolis, there will be blood and diving bell and the butterfly.

mr. synellinden
01-05-2008, 11:58 AM
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2007/12/29/atonement_brings_the_long_tracking_shot_back_into_ focus/

The most famous of recent times is the one in Goodfellas but this story has a great discussion of the most well known/admired in film.

JasonEvans
01-05-2008, 10:37 PM
I have dug up some old posts on Children of Men from May of last year and added them to this thread. I hope it does not screw up how people are able to read this thread!

--Jason "experimenting with my moderation powers!!" Evans

billybreen
01-05-2008, 10:40 PM
I have dug up some old posts on Children of Men from May of last year and added them to this thread. I hope it does not screw up how people are able to read this thread!

--Jason "experimenting with my moderation powers!!" Evans

Does doing so inflate your post count? Cheater! ;)

JasonEvans
01-06-2008, 08:16 AM
Does doing so inflate your post count? Cheater! ;)

Yeah, my post count really needs inflating :rolleyes:

No, I don't think copying posts from one thread to another inflates your post count.

I've been buried under the primaries/politics lately, which is why I have been posting a bit less than usual!!

--Jason "the frigggin' Michigan Primary is going to keep me from seeing a screening of Cloverfield... I am MAD!!!" Evans

duke74
01-06-2008, 10:03 AM
Yeah, CNN had an article the other day about Atonement's long take, as well as other famous ones. I still haven't seen it yet though.

Oh and of course I know Chiwetal best from Love Actually =)

Me too, although he was really stiff in that movie. Not a lot of character to like. Mark (Keira K's secret admirer) was way more interesting, and in the end more likeable (vulnerable).

Olympic Fan
01-06-2008, 11:26 AM
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2007/12/29/atonement_brings_the_long_tracking_shot_back_into_ focus/

The most famous of recent times is the one in Goodfellas but this story has a great discussion of the most well known/admired in film.

Not mentioned, but one that has always fascinated me is from the film "The Longest Day". It comes late in the movie, just before the French commandos assault the casino (an action that actually occurred several days after D-Day, but never mind).

The shot starts with a closeup of French soldiers taking cover in the town below the Casino and pulls back as they scramble for better position. Without a cut, the shot gets longer and longer, crosses a watercourse that bisecs the town, then rises as it pulls back above and behind the casino to show the entire battlefield.

I have never been able to figure out how -- using the technology available at that time -- that the shot was set up. It moves much too far and too high for a crane shot (even a moving crane could not have crossed the waterway) and is much too steady (in an era long before steadicams) for a helicopter shot.

I suspect they use a wire to withdraw the camera, but if so, they must have had some elaborate system to remove the wire for the first minute of the shot since a normal wire track would be visible in the latter part of the shot.

If I saw the same shot in a current movie with all the steadicams and CGI available, I wouldn't blink, but for it's time, it is an amazing tour de force.

Also: does anybody remember "Rope" -- Hitchocock's trick film. The trick is that the entire movie is shot in 10-minute takes (which was the limit of the film rolls used at that time). The only "cuts" in the film are not really cuts, but moments when the camera briefly passes behind a vase or something, so the cameraman can change reels.

It's all done indoors (aside from one shot that flies out the window), so it's easier to see how it was done, but its a wonderful example of Hitchcock's cleverness and his habit of working from within self-imposed restrictions.

Clipsfan
01-08-2008, 05:05 PM
Yeah, my post count really needs inflating :rolleyes:

No, I don't think copying posts from one thread to another inflates your post count.

I've been buried under the primaries/politics lately, which is why I have been posting a bit less than usual!!

--Jason "the frigggin' Michigan Primary is going to keep me from seeing a screening of Cloverfield... I am MAD!!!" Evans

That's a real pity, as I'm curious as to what that movie is even about.

billybreen
01-08-2008, 05:10 PM
That's a real pity, as I'm curious as to what that movie is even about.

Haven't we seen JJ Abrams do the dance where he builds a ton of hype about a monster before giving us a crappy reveal, or a total non-reveal as often happens in Lost. I hope that's not the case here, but I'll be surprised.

DevilAlumna
01-11-2008, 12:38 AM
Haven't we seen JJ Abrams do the dance where he builds a ton of hype about a monster before giving us a crappy reveal, or a total non-reveal as often happens in Lost. I hope that's not the case here, but I'll be surprised.

I haven't had time to watch this yet, but TED Talks just posted a video of JJ Abrams, about 18 min. long.

http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/view/id/205


J.J. Abrams traces his love of the unseen mystery -- the heart of Alias, Lost, and the upcoming Cloverfield -- back to its own magical beginnings, which may or may not include an early obsession with magic, the love of a supportive grandfather, or his own unopened Mystery Box.

dukegirlinsc
01-11-2008, 09:52 AM
As an aside, we just watched "Children of Men" and thought it was pretty cool.


It's on my netflix queue. Is it worthy to be moved to the top spot?

Exiled_Devil
01-11-2008, 11:14 AM
I read a little spoiler about cloverfield and although a spoiler by Abrams standard, it gave less information than your average trailer. Th monster is described slightly, and part of the movie is contextualized.

I'm psyched for this movie.

MulletMan
01-21-2008, 02:36 PM
It's on my netflix queue. Is it worthy to be moved to the top spot?

No. We rented Children of Men this weekend, and Jason, I have to tell you that I thought the movie sucked. Big time. My wife was of the same opinion. I am going to guess that our problem was that we both actually read the book, and that other than the simple idea of the theme being similar, there was almost nothing that resembled the novel. There was no character development, hell... some of the characters weren't even the same!!! The book was introspective about what the world might be like in that situation, and how different people might react. The movie was a bunch of shooting. Half the time you couldn't even tell why people were shooting at each other, or who was who! Terrible. Awful. :mad:

NovaScotian
01-21-2008, 03:21 PM
The movie was a bunch of shooting. Half the time you couldn't even tell why people were shooting at each other, or who was who! Terrible. Awful. :mad:

you need to watch it again, i swear its not that confusing. i understand that if youve read the book its a different experience, but take it for just a movie and it will blow your ^$%^$%^$% right off your body.

also, hey everyone, how sick is there will be blood?

xenic
01-21-2008, 06:57 PM
http://www.boston.com/ae/movies/articles/2007/12/29/atonement_brings_the_long_tracking_shot_back_into_ focus/

The most famous of recent times is the one in Goodfellas but this story has a great discussion of the most well known/admired in film.

How about The Player?