Best of the Decade #2: Children of Men (2006)
Although Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men received three Oscar nominations back in 2007 (none of which it ended up winning), the fact that the movie did not get a Best Picture nod caused a minor uproar at the time and even now seems like a pretty big oversight. Granted, there were a handful of other great films that were also overlooked that year, but much like The Dark Knight, the movie resonated with people so deeply that it inspired a grassroots fan campaign to back it up (which obviously didn’t help). Regardless, the movie has not been forgotten, and stands out as one of the true masterpieces of this past decade in film.
Based on a novel by P.D. James, Cuarón’s dystopian near-future is frighteningly familiar. It’s a world full of poverty, political unrest, terrorism, and of course, a mysterious biological plague threatening to end the human race where it stands. This is a science-fiction film that does so much with so little, dazzling you with ideas rather than extravagant special effects. That’s not to say there aren’t some amazing visuals here, however. The subtle detail and texture in the world is what sucks you in, from the graffiti and billboards in the pre-apocalyptic London streets and the news reports and commercials on the BBC (er… the BCC), to the re-imagining of well-known London landmarks and the odd assortment of treasures in Jasper’s home.
At its core, however, Children of Men is arguably one of the best action films of the decade. The plot is surprisingly simple, but the groundbreaking cinematography and brilliantly staged set pieces are what make this such an intense and gripping experience. The film is known for its breathtaking continuous shot sequences, which, although created with the help of CG, lend a gritty, documentary feel to the proceedings. The climax of the film also makes use of an over-the-shoulder tracking shot, playing on video game aesthetics to immerse the viewer in the chaos of the battlefield. These technical innovations create a wow factor that is both fitting and impressive.
Over the last ten years, a lot of the most exciting talent in Hollywood has been emerging from Mexico, and movies like this are proof of that fact. Cuarón’s 2001 film Y tu mamá también put him on the map, and afforded him the opportunity to go mainstream with Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (now believed by many to be the best of the series). In 2006, he hit his stride with Children of Men, and incidentally, so did fellow Mexicans (and now producing partners) Guillermo del Toro and Alejandro González Iñárritu with their respective films Pan’s Labyrinth and Babel. In both a specific and a broader sense, Children of Men is an amazing cinematic achievement, and in my opinion, totally justified as our #2 pick of the decade.
Check out previous entries from our Top 20 Films of the ’00s.
Comments (32)
good choice, no problems here
Posted by rus in chicago on December 30th, 2009Glendon, your prediction is coming true! You managed to pick which films would be in the top 3 after the first 17 had been revealed. Well, we don’t know what the #1 is yet, but it has to be The Wrestler. Randy! Randy! Randy!
(BTW, I may be a part of the Film Junk crew, but I was not and am not privy to the contents of this “best of” list.)
Regarding this movie, I loved the scenes with Michael Caine. But the rest was ordinary to me. Ha ha. I wasn’t “dazzled” by any ideas it had, but I admit I’m somewhat dense.
Posted by Reed Farrington on December 30th, 2009This is probably my #1 choice. Excellent job once again guys.
Posted by Mike on December 30th, 2009My number 1 choice. Awesome.
Posted by Jordan Raup on December 30th, 2009I love love this film. The part with the baby crying gets me every time. This is better than the Wrestler.
Posted by The Man on December 30th, 2009“How is she?”
“Annoyed”
Whatever.
Posted by Henrik on December 30th, 2009“How is she?â€
“Annoyedâ€
Whatever.
Not that part, the part when every one stops fighting. Gosh!!!
Posted by The Man on December 30th, 2009I don’t understand why The Wrestler is going to be #1…
Posted by Drew on December 30th, 2009I loved this movie. The original music and the soundtrack music were excellent, Clive Owen was fantastic, the visuals, cinematography, and of course, the amazing Michael Caine.
I cried like a baby during this, I’m not ashamed to say!
Posted by Less Lee Moore on December 30th, 2009Oh god, the scene where theyre driving and get get cut off and shot, with the dirtbikes… all shot in ONE SCENE! incredible. Great pick.
Posted by mark on December 30th, 2009Yeah this is my #1, I love The Wrestler but this is a better achievement in filmmaking. I really cant wait to see what Cuaron does next.
Posted by Rusty on December 30th, 2009I’m still holding out hope for the surprise pick for ‘300′. Then again, I didn’t see 8 of the movies on the list so my list would be different. That is if I had a list, and I wouldn’t necessarily rank the list either.
Posted by Maopheus on December 30th, 2009Watch The Wrestler not make it to number 1.
Posted by Scott on December 30th, 2009Hey The Man, I didn’t mean to refer to your post, I just wanted to reflect my thoughts on Children of Men.
Mark, they were not shot in one scene. The multiple takes were duplicated by a computer and then composited together. It’s nothing new.
Posted by Henrik on December 30th, 2009YES!! I was waiting to see where this was going to place on your list. Good spot for a true classic!
Well done guys.
Posted by Marc on December 30th, 2009I think the Wrestler will be no. 1 and if it is I don’t really have much of a complaint about it. I just don’t feel that it’s a lock for it. I don’t think any movie that came out from 2000-2009 is a lock. There were a lot of good movies but very few amazing, absolutely have to be up there movies. For example consider this. Not that the Academy Awards are really indicative of anything, but of the 13 movies already revealed on the list that were eligible for best picture (minus the 2 documentaries and the ones that came out this year) only 5 were nominated for best picture (Fellowship, Lost in Translation, Departed, No Country and There Will Be Blood) . None of the nominees from ‘00, ‘02, ‘04, ‘05, or ‘08 made the list. Only 2 Best Picture winners made the list (The Departed and No Country). Chances are that the no. 1 will not be a Best Picture winner or nominee. Now what does this all mean? Maybe that the Academy is out of touch with what are really good movies that deserve nominations and wins. Maybe the overall quality of movies is lower thus making the selection of nominees and winners a lot more of a crapshoot. There were 3 stone-cold blah, well someone had to win winners this decade: Chicago, Million Dollar Baby, and Crash. No nominees from those years made this list. No movies on this list came out in those years. So obviously the quality of movies over the decade seemed to be concentrated in a few years and tending to be from later in the decade. Now 20 movies is maybe too small of a sample. Maybe 40 or 50 might give you better insight, but I think going to 40 or 50 will really dilute things. But just some interesting insights and things to think about.
Posted by Maopheus on December 30th, 2009Well considering that the “Wrestler” was #1 on each of the Junkcrew’s 2008 list It would seem a shoe in statistically speaking. Although that said “Slumdog Millionaire” Was on each of the 2008 lists and didn’t (unless there is an upset tomorrow) crack the top 20…so you figure it out?
Posted by xego on December 30th, 2009(Spoilers for Children of Men)
Anyone else think Children of Men is slightly overrated? Not in terms of direction, but story. To me, the Fishes role/motives are entirely unclear: unless we just view them as cold-hearted anarchists/terrorists. But if that’s the case, why is Julian leading them? Wouldn’t she have caught wind of something earlier? I thought it would have been more interesting to have them as activists with their heart in the right place, but some misguided methods.
By killing Julian you lose all that.
The rest of the movie works very well, in my opinion, but The Fishes role in the movie prevents it from being the type I’d put in a Top 10 List.
Posted by Mark Davidson on December 30th, 2009So Henrick I take it you don’t like this pick?
Posted by The Man on December 30th, 2009My number three. Its just such a good movie. I kept thinking to myself “should this movie really be THIS high on my list” and every time I couldn’t see any reason to lower it or find a movie I felt more deserving.
As for the number one, at this point I agree it pretty much has to be The Wrestler. But we’ll see. Tomorrow.
Posted by Justice on December 30th, 2009I got this on blu ray for christmas and watched it last night for the first time since the theatre. Awesome pick and as the top five drew near I hoped this would find it’s way on your list. I too imagine that The Wrestler will be in the top spot but when the third spot was announced I began to worry that Sin City might take the second spot instead of Children of Men. I seem to remember that Sin City was Film Junk’s top movie of the year in 2005.
Posted by Nuno on December 30th, 2009Here are some great films that didn’t make the list but should not be forgotten, and revisited.
· Dancer in the Dark – Lars Von Trier
· Billy Crudup with “Jesus’s son†and “Almost Famousâ€
· John Cusak with “High Fidelityâ€
· Shadow of the Vampire – Willem Dafoe
· All the pretty horses- Billy Bob Thorton, yeah remember when he was an ubertalented writer? I would tell everyone to watch “One false Moveâ€
· Quills – Geoffrey Rush
· Snow falling On Cedars – Scott Hicks
· The Virgin Suicides – Sophia Coppola
· American Psycho – Marry Harron
· Minority Report – Stephen Spielberg
· Adaptation – Spike Jonze
· Mystic River – Clint Eastwood
· Master and Commander – Peter Weir
· Syriana – Stephen Gagham
See this is where it gets tough. I like “Best of†lists but when you start deciding between the top three or so the legitimacy of the concept of numerical rating comes into question. We are not judging beans in a chili cook-off here; film is a bit more complex an issue. I guess that is why Ebert went with an alphabetical list this year..or maybe he just lost his nerve?
I don’t want to take anything away from the visceral impact the film has. Or be the turd in the punchbowl either, but is “Children of Men†really the 2nd best film of the Decade? I mean what are the criteria here? Acting performances, Clive Owen is good but compared to whom? Geoffrey Rush in “Quillsâ€, Sean Penn in “Mystic River†or Christian Bale in “American Psychoâ€, Paul Giamatti in “Sideways†or any role that Philip Seymour Hoffman has played in the past 10 years. You see where I am going here?
As far as story goes it is a straight-line narrative; Baby McGuffin must get from point A to Point B. Nothing wrong with that but compared to say: “Michael Claytonâ€, “Adaptationâ€, “Syrianaâ€, “Eternal Sunshineâ€, or “Babelâ€?
As for Set Design “Children of Men†gets very high marks deservedly so, but there have been others: “Slumdog Millionaireâ€, “The Proposal†and “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford†had some pretty lived in worlds created for them.
I think the strength of the film and it’s high placement on the list must really boils down to it’s Director and Cinematographer delivering a few of the best action set pieces we have seen in a while. And that is legit, that is a big part of what I want to see when I go to the movies. However I don’t think “Children of Men†has the heart that these other examples I have listed here have (none of which made your top 20) I think a few set pieces as great as they are, are two thin a hanger for such a mantle…x…aka Jack…or maybe now Jackshit?
Posted by xego on December 30th, 2009The Man: Not particularly.
Posted by Henrik on December 30th, 2009Mark Davidson – its been awhile but is it possible there is splinter groups within the fishes, etc. The filmmakers showed in the dinning room scene there is a lot of division, which I imagine is common in activist movements. Is the killing of Julian a way to gain control over the activists plus rally converts? Ultimately, doesn’t Clive’s character take the mother and baby to the conclusion that Julian wanted, therefore, allowing Julian to outfox the other faction that lead to her death.
Posted by rus in chicago on December 30th, 2009@Xego: Right on about lists and ordering them especially once you get up to the top 3 or 5. You’re really splitting hairs at that point. What’s to say that one movie is really better than the other? I suppose it’d be easier to break it down to groups: movies you really liked, the ones you kinda liked and the ones you hated, etc. I suppose that’s OK, but ranking every one when there’s no objective criteria for doing so is ineffective to me. You can’t even go by something like star ratings. All four star movies are not the same of course. I liked some of your alternate choices. Syriana was a pretty good underrated one in the vein of the Altman/Soderbergh intertwining storylines type movies. It featured another good against-type performance from George Clooney as well. Master and Commander, a really good actioner and it also has that historical authenticity and feel that seems lacking in a lot of other period movies. It’s also a really good movie to show off surround sound especially during the cannon battles. You feel like your house is collapsing.
Posted by Maopheus on December 30th, 2009This is a movie that I really liked. It is sometimes hard to watch because there is so much darkness going on in a future that seems more and more possible. Very well acted and directed, and I really liked the ending. Totally not ordinary.
Posted by Mason on December 30th, 2009@Nuno, I don’t see Sin City belonging on this list, but for me, it’d be right there in no.’s 20-30 for sure. I love this movie, everything about it in terms of look and feel, I thought tonally it was just right. The mixture of the live action with the green screens, it struck the right balance between cartoony-ness and realism. Now if they had been able to get Jessica Alba to get naked (hell she does play a stripper) then it’d be number 1 for sure!
Posted by Maopheus on December 30th, 2009Thanks Maopheus…
Posted by xego on December 31st, 2009My number 1 pick.
Posted by Bouz on December 31st, 2009I have to say, I never really put much thought into this film the first time I saw it, except for the unusual way they shot a lot of the scenes (and the whole movie of course) which I totally loved.
But when a lot of you dudes started talking tons about this film in the comments that you thought it might get a really high “rating”, I had to rewatch it, and oh my God is this a great film. I was so greatly entertained that I had to rethink my own (unposted) list. It is truly an amazing film. Deserved!
Posted by EricWest on December 31st, 2009Getting closer…good choice.
Posted by Soop on December 31st, 2009That’s why I love this blog
Posted by Kyriacos on December 31st, 2009And no this movie is not overated anyone who argues that overates himself
Leave a Reply