Alfonso Cuarón's latest film, Children of Men, may either be one of the year's best films or one of the most nicely dressed hollow shells of the past few years. The film's subject is very familiar, with a slight twist. It takes place in a future when the world's people are depressed, and society has broken down, because of some serious world-altering event. Naturally the only surviving government turns into a fascist one, and in this case the world-altering event was that in the year 2027, it had been 18 years since the last baby was born on the planet. Women are not having babies anymore, but if you are thinking, like I was, that no possible explanation could be satisfactory or interesting with such a premise, then this film will not disappoint you as it offers none whatsoever.
Children of Men is the non-science-fiction science-fiction movie, and it's more of a suspenseful drama than anything else. There are only two technological indications, appearing only briefly and having no significance, that make you think this film is taking place in the future: computer monitors appear slimmer and are translucent, and an instance of a secondary character playing a video game.
Of course the notion of women no longer able to give birth in the near future seemed very arbitrary when I'd seen the trailer (HERE), and the film does not explore the subject, which is done intentionally. On one hand, I was quite glad that Cuarón decided to take this approach, since the only alternative to a scientific explanation (since the film tries to be very grounded in reality, this would have been difficult to formulate) would have been a religious one (Cuarón seems to have been aware of this, and a very relieving joke is made as a consequence), in which case the film could have entered cheesy territory.
On the other hand, the premise is not very original to begin with, and rather than try to provide any kind of new twist, or different point of view of an imagined future, Cuarón provides no point of view. No answers, no comments, no insights. So is the ambiguity, Cuarón not answering any questions, something bad? I think the choice is finally up to each viewer, but it was my feeling that too much was left unexplained, and yet this still may be one of the year's best films.
The acting was very good in general, but I thought that Clive Owen and Michael Caine were especially excellent in their roles, and they had very strong support from Julianne Moore and Chiwetel Ejiofor, though I was somewhat disappointed that Ejiofor's role was not more developed.
All of my reservations about Children of Men came after it had ended, but while it was playing I was completely transfixed by Cuarón's direction, as well as Emmanuel Lubezki's cinematography and the very strong performances by the actors. The film is incredibly thrilling, despite the generally subdued approach to the filmmaking. Alfonso Cuarón demonstrates here that he is a master director, and although this may not be his masterpiece, it is a very nice precursor to what we can expect from him. Some of the best and most original action sequences appear in this film, and I am sure that even the film's harshest critics will at least be able to appreciate these moments. Given the fairly conventional story, Cuarón managed to create a new kind of cinematic language, and this certainly deserves special praise.
I am still fairly ambivalent about Children of Men. It could have been longer, with perhaps more attention given to the state of this future British society. So, do I recommend the film? Yes, I think anyone who was curious about it should watch it. I think many people who enjoy something different, made without the intention of appealing to the broadest audience, can enjoy Children of Men very much. I also believe that I will be watching it again. The film has a high “repeat viewing” quality, especially since it's shorter than two hours, and its strength is not in the plot or ending, but rather in the visual thrills and the story's development.
Filmgoers in the UK can already see Children of Men, but North American audiences will have to wait until December before forming their own opinions, or becoming ambivalent as this ambiguous, and yet wholly riveting film can make them feel.
OR
