AmP,

haven't you had the time to read f. Z on 'Children of Men' discouraging people from seeing it?
Florestan | 02.07.07 - 3:49 pm | #

Having read the book many years ago I was very disappointed with the movie. I kept waiting for the final scene that brought such hope and it never came.
Larry | 02.07.07 - 3:52 pm | #

Amy linked to a review with a different take on the film. It can be found here:

http://www.mercatornet.com/index...ask=view& id=406
doug | 02.07.07 - 5:21 pm | #

Florestan - no I haven't, but I will now that I know it's out there.

Larry - I'm not disputing that the book could be better than the movie. I definitely got from the movie that the book filled in a great deal of the backstory the movie passes over.

Doug - I'll read that as well.
AmericanPapist | Homepage | 02.07.07 - 6:21 pm | #

I haven't read the book yet either, but I think the movie was great. When was the last time that people were convincingly told that the hope of the earth is a new baby? A baby girl--an African baby? That children are the solution and not a problem? This is an amazing story to have in the public realm.

Neat review, too. Critics have called his vision of the future “dystopian,” but the most chilling element is its utter plausibility, even its familiarity.
Ephrem | Homepage | 02.08.07 - 7:09 am | #

It was not that good...
Sebastian | 02.08.07 - 10:28 am | #

I haven't watched the movie, but I have read the book. I wanted to respond to Ephrem's post. In the book, the baby is not African or a girl. The baby is a boy, and is an allegory for Christ. The child is born amidst persecution (government chasing them) and hopelessness that was nearly universal. If the movie changed the baby to a girl, then they took away all of the symbolism in the book.
Anonymous | 02.09.07 - 3:27 pm | #

I read the review before coming to this site. I enjoyed the review so much I emailed to two friends. I saw the movie last week and thought it excellent. It got mostly pretty good reviews, but it seems that Murphy's take on it truly understood the film. His review gave me a greater appreciation for the work.
Kim | Homepage | 02.11.07 - 6:20 pm | #

Anonymous, I don't know why there would have to be a "baby boy" (a white baby boy?) to be a symbol of salvation in the Christian dispensation. The Lord came; he was a man. Now all of us, men and women, are capable of being recreated in His image--and of furthering the Gospel. Each of us is a light for the world.

I took the arrival of the boat from the Human Project to be the beginning of the baby's life in the Church. Out there on the sea with her mother and godfather, being rescued by the Barque of Peter--the symbolism is there if you want to take it.

But I don't think the Christian symbolism is what is so critical in a big-screen film nowadays. This isn't EWTN; the movie is talking to the whole wide world. And what it is saying is: a little baby is life and hope for the whole human race. It's the most important message for our time, besides the Gospel itself.

I think the movie is very important. I wouldn't be surprised if some people come out of it with very new ideas about the value of human life.
Ephrem | Homepage | 02.11.07 - 9:19 pm | #

Florestan:

Who is f. Z and where can I read the review?

Thanks!

Kim
Kim | Homepage | 02.13.07 - 1:28 pm | #