Sci-Fi Anarchy In the U.K.
Children of Men
Movie review by Nick Olds
When
I bought my ticket, I went over to the snack counter and saw a girl I
used to
fool around with. We were
never gonna settle down, just mindless
attraction. We wanted to see each other naked. And that's
what Children
of Men deals with: No Commitments. Armageddon. No future. It's what the kid with the
Mohawk drawing the
anarchy A on his notebooks has been preaching since the Sex
Pistols hit: the punk nightmare, or dream, depending
on whose side of the
security barrier you’re on. No more kids, no replacements – game
over. Basically, men and
women aren’t attracted to each other any more
and stop having sex. All this happens in 2027, so you've still
got
time
to shake your groove thing (yeah, yeah). But we can still make a
difference. Get on Trim Spa. Get some
Botox. God, haven't you
people seen An Inconvenient Face? If we don't do
something about
ugliness now, Global
Homeliness will destroy our world forever.
That's
a lie. Well, everything after “no more kids” anyway. In
2027, women
can no longer have children. In fact,
there hasn't been a birth in 18
years (so basically, 2009). An epidemic has left every woman
barren.
Until one day in
The planet has become a Third World
nation, which means the old Third World is even worse and refugees are
trying
more than ever to sneak into the wealthy nations. Obviously an
émigré
having Earth’s first kid in 18 years is a
problem. Cue conflict.
What actually
starts as a decent story eventually turns into an action
orgy, like
most movies with a semi-interesting
narrative lately (Blood Diamond,
The Departed, Little Miss Sunshine, etc.).
There's just not enough plot to capture
the audience’s attention for 90
minutes. We need blood. So what if
25 years of watching people get killed
indiscriminately in movies, television
and video games has de-sensitized su to the value of human life?
It's still
fucking
awesome!
That
said, Children of Men is 28 Days
Later meets The Nativity Story, a
post-apocalyptic tale about a mythical child.
An odd comparison, but
you'll know what I mean when you see it. And you will
see
it. But there's still some convincing
to do, I can tell.
First, if you're into
movies set in
mate. And you'll like this. It's another
installment in the modern trend of pro-Brit movies (i.e. Harry Potter
series,
Casino Royale, Shaun of the Dead). Also,
if you're a fan of Clive Owen, he's worth his fish & chips
here. He
seems
like a cool guy; I think we'd be friends in real life. He's
mellow,
quietly on the ball and oddly humorous. Blimey, why
couldn’t he have been
the new Bond? As for Julianne Moore, she's only in the movie for
20
minutes, looks like a
H.A.M. sandwich (Haggard And Mean) and doesn't really add
anything to the story either. But Michael Caine adds a
bit of a laugh as
a daft old scientist, turned-dope grower and it's worth the price of
admission just
for him and Owen
(and the insane violence too, of course).
So, man up and see
Children of Men
for its interesting premise that might not be that far off. Though
you’d never
know it by going to Whole Foods Market, white people in
population. So, who knows? Oh
and that “men
are destroying the world” part.
Obviously that’s as true now as ever
been, maybe more. And just maybe "Children
of Men"
means all mankind, not just the penis equipped. See it for
yourself and decide. And afterwards ask
your plastic surgeon about
what you can do to fight Global
Homeliness. The
future will thank you
for it.