Whoa there Crunchy... I just said the movie was entertaining, and had some brilliant technical virtuosity. I didn't say it was high art, though it definitely stood out last year since not many good movies were released. Children of Men was more about setting and atmosphere to me. It wasn't about WHY the atmosphere exists. It just does. I mean, why would people who have lived in that place want to discuss what the cause was if not to satisfy an audience like us? I'm not saying it can't be done in a subtle fashion, I'm just saying I didn't find it necessary.
Perhaps you were looking for something different than I was. You obviously want everything explained to you, but I didn't require that. I just think your comments were too brutal. Lack of budget? Lack of vision? Neither seemed a problem. Lack of exposition? Sure, now THERE is an accurate criticism. I would agree there in a heartbeat, despite disagreeing it was a problem.
By the way, I am one of those people who was saying last year that Children of Men reminded me of Half-Life 2. I wouldn't really compare it to Cold Fear, though I've beaten that game too. Anyway, I'm not going to get bent out of shape by the fact that you disliked Children of Men. It's not a masterpiece, and I'm not going to defend it as if it was. As I said, I just found your criticisms a bit harsh for a film that did things, technically, that have never been done in film before. I think, in a way, that movie will spark a revival of decent action scenes in the movies. I know I haven't seen action scenes that impressed me that much in some time...
|
