Anybody seen "Children of Men"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought the battle scenes were rather well done. They didn't over do it.. they didnt try to make any big "War is bad...mkay" scenes. I liked it.

Of course, I saw the movie in theaters... a little more overwhelming then youtube ;)

I'm told this scene is the longest single "take" in movie history. Notice, that camera never switches!
 
I haven't seen it yet, but what troubles me is that it was not in the book. There is no battle in the book. In fact, there are only two instances of gun play, both from the same gun, a revolver. How ironic, and hypocritical, that in order to make the story more interesting, the anti-gun crown in Hollywood needed to add more guns and violence.
 
There is also another long take

The scene where they are in the car and attacked by a group in the woods and the one lady gets shot in the neck, I think it's a good 6 minutes or so, one take.
 
I watched the clip.

good scenes, and some interesting things I noted, which you often see in movies.


'leader' gets a pistol, only grunts carry rifles! Apparently, hollywood is under the impression that pistols are the sportscars of the gunworld, and the rifle is just your average everyday sedan. Of course, we all know that if a rifle is your average sedan, a pistol is a vespa scooter, oh, and there are some sedans that are far from average.

also, act casually, shoot casually, it is cool. I am thinking of the execution by pistol scene early in the clip, where the shooter doesn't even look at the guy, simply locks eyes with another, raises his arm to the side and shoots the target square in the head. I know this 'casual style' is just acting, the director wants the audience to infer information from how this act is committed, the fact that even the most callous cold-blooded casual killer...or even a guy shooting rats....is going to need to look at his target if he wants to hit it, and aligning the sights sure will help
 
'leader' gets a pistol, only grunts carry rifles! Apparently, hollywood is under the impression that pistols are the sportscars of the gunworld, and the rifle is just your average everyday sedan. Of course, we all know that if a rifle is your average sedan, a pistol is a vespa scooter, oh, and there are some sedans that are far from average.

also, act casually, shoot casually, it is cool. I am thinking of the execution by pistol scene early in the clip, where the shooter doesn't even look at the guy, simply locks eyes with another, raises his arm to the side and shoots the target square in the head. I know this 'casual style' is just acting, the director wants the audience to infer information from how this act is committed, the fact that even the most callous cold-blooded casual killer...or even a guy shooting rats....is going to need to look at his target if he wants to hit it, and aligning the sights sure will help
Click to expand...

Not to be difficult or anything, but IRL, leaders DO get pistols. It frees up their hands to do things like talk on radios and read maps and things. Of course, some leaders also carry a rifle, but the fact remains that the pistol is a traditional signatory of leadership in the military. Also, in case you didnt notice "Dreadlock guy" was carrying a rifle in addition to his pistol, strapped to his back. You can see him shooting it in the building scene.

On the second scene... well, the shooter was pretty close. I think we might be asking too much to have EVERY shooter act as though he was a pro that knew what he was doing. In the real world, once again, there are a lot of dopes with guns. Also...watch the clip again. Dreadlock guy actually does look down the pistol at the guy just before he fires...
 
Gun Wielding Manioac said:
I was pretty sure this movie wasn't made by "Hollywood"... thought it was British?
Click to expand...

Yep, it's a British film. Although It may have had some American funding to supplement the British.
 
Officers not only carry pistols to free up their hands for maps and radios etc, and to provide a last ditch self defense means, but for one other important reason:

To shoot mutineers and deserters. It's virtually a symbol of their battlefield ultimate authority.
 
I thought the urban ghetto repression finale was pretty good. The premise that all of humanity just mysteriously goes sterile was a little hard to swallow but I guess with globalization and civilization all is possible. I hope there are still a few stone age isolated pockets of humanity we know nothing about 'just in case'
 
I enjoyed it at the theater. Was surprised there was not more chatter about it on gun boards, as it has some great battle scenes.

Good gun stuff, and it is a really good movie.
 
One of the most intense movies since Saving Private Ryan. My wife and I liked it a lot.

Glad I was armed because I wanted to pull my pistol to protect my family!
 
I saw it, but I just didn't like it at all. The end was pretty cool though.
 
Not enough screaming, after a few minutes in combat with that many casualties it sounds like banshees have been set free. Sometimes people just collapse when struck, but that is very rare, even head shots from high caliber weapons can leave the inflicted screaming. Think 28 days later for the right sound, with semi-coherent pleas to God and Mama.
 
Not enough screaming, after a few minutes in combat with that many casualties it sounds like banshees have been set free. Sometimes people just collapse when struck, but that is very rare, even head shots from high caliber weapons can leave the inflicted screaming. Think 28 days later for the right sound, with semi-coherent pleas to God and Mama.
Click to expand...

Not my experience at all.
 
Yes,I have and a few scenes were filmed in areas,that I know very well,particulary in Powis Street,in Woolwich(Home to the once famous Woolwich Arsenal.)in the London Borough of Greenwich,Greater London.

What a depressing and grim film it was,not that I object to this-at all-because I have watched 1984,as well.

It's a film,that could become reality in the near-future and I don't mean about the elaborate film,plot,I mean about economic factors in 2020,that BoomStick mentioned sometime ago,in other posts,mentioned in other threads.

Boomstick,said that an unidentified MP stated that,there might be a near-total or a total,breakdown in society,by the year 2020 in the UK and that there might be widespread caos,in the aftermarth,of the first wave.

This could be why,according to the MP,that we have such repressive firearm laws now:to disarm us now,or face widespread caos,like what is featured in this film.
 
Children of Men is nothing more than proof of something I've known about British society for a while now. A culture's dystopic novels and movies tell you alot about their fears, and their hopes and dreams.

Britain is afraid of becoming the "Nazis." So afraid, that it is willing to throw British citizens under the bus whenever possible and destroy the country. That is what this movie is really about.

While not being able to have kids was a major element of the movie, what it really was about was immigration, legal and illegal. Assimilation. What is a Brit? And the "can't have children" is an unconscious realization of Brits that the Anglo-Saxon and Scots people are dying off as a definite group.

The movie advocated unfettered imigration, and assures us that all immigrants to Britain are equally capable of being "British" culturally. What about the movie is insane is that that is patently insane.

Islander descendants of African slaves can assimilate. Segments of the Indian population can assimilate. Segments of the Far East Asian former colonies can assimilate. But, extremist Muslims cannot.

But, as I said, the British are so obsessed with not being "Nazis" they can't see the writing on the wall.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
YouTube and poor gunhandling
Replies
24
Views
941
Banta
B
W
  • Locked
Slow-mo gun fun
Replies
5
Views
646
wisconsin
W
H
  • Locked
Montel Williams and Gun Registration - Give me your opinion on this clip
2
Replies
37
Views
2K
skeet king
S
P
  • Locked
"Why do you NEED a silencer?"
2 3 4
Replies
75
Views
5K
KI.W.
K
The_Next_Generation
  • Locked
Not even jam can jam a Glock!
Replies
19
Views
1K
MagnunJoe
M
Back
Top