Children of Men at DVinfo.net

Chris C. Collins · April 9th, 2007, 07:26 AM

I'm sure this forum will be divided 50/50 for this one.
-One half being the half who hasn't heard of it/seen it.
-And the other who has seen it, loved it, and I beat them to making this thread.

I saw this movie in theaters when it first came out and I didn't know what to expect. I was invited from a friend and of course my first impression was disappointment because the last thing two things he invited me to were Epic Movie and Stomp the Yard.

So I went into the theater expecting to leave it with disgust, boy was I wrong.

The cinematography in this is absolutely groundbreaking. Alfonso Cuaron, the director, wanted to utilize the element of real time to make his view into the future more realistic. So what he has is like 10 minute long action scenes that are, that's right, ALL ONE SHOT.

This movie is really amazing, and was nominated for Best Cinematography at the Oscars. It got beaten by Pan's Labyrinth, I think.

It's hard to explain this movie without telling you all the amazing steadicam shots, but just GO SEE IT NOW. It's stunning.

Here is a making of feature.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A55xTYXMpI

And here is a little preview of the amazing continuous shots from these movies. This one is great, although this clip doesn't show the entire shot.
WARNING CONTAINS SMALL SPOILER!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAxUbCnnGKM

SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!

Mike Teutsch · April 9th, 2007, 07:36 AM

Chris,

You might want to check out this thread started on October of last year:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=Children+Men

Mike

Emre Safak · April 9th, 2007, 09:08 AM

I thought it was all right, but I expected much better. Cinematographically it was fine but the writing lacked conviction, in my opinion. It left little impression on me. Nothing to ponder.

Charles Papert · April 9th, 2007, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris C. Collins

It's hard to explain this movie without telling you all the amazing steadicam shots, but just GO SEE IT NOW. It's stunning.

Stunning it is, but there are no Steadicam shots. Most of the film is handheld.

Chris C. Collins · April 9th, 2007, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charles Papert

Stunning it is, but there are no Steadicam shots. Most of the film is handheld.

Oh really? I could have sworn I heard "steadicam" in that "making of" feature.

And sorry about making another thread, I'll use the search button next time. ;)

Charles Papert · April 10th, 2007, 01:54 AM

Just watched the feature, which was well worth it because it had plenty of shots of the utterly fantastic Doggicam car rig. The scene in the car absolutely blew me away when I first saw it, but I assumed it involved a lot of CGI--I was doubly blown away when I learned that most of it was shot practically.

No mention of Steadicam in there. The story that I heard is that Chivo (the DP) was pushing it to Alfonso Cuaron who was insisting that handheld be used instead--ultimately Alfonso won out and I believe there are no major Steadicam shots in the film (might be a little one here or there). The handheld work by operator George Richmond was world-class.

Matt Newcomb · April 13th, 2007, 10:59 PM

I think this film proved that beautiful footage alone doesn't make a good movie. It looked great, but I just didn't feel connected to the story at all.

April 9th, 2007, 07:26 AM	#1
Chris C. Collins Regular Crew Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Muskegon, Michigan Posts: 75	Children of Men I'm sure this forum will be divided 50/50 for this one. -One half being the half who hasn't heard of it/seen it. -And the other who has seen it, loved it, and I beat them to making this thread. I saw this movie in theaters when it first came out and I didn't know what to expect. I was invited from a friend and of course my first impression was disappointment because the last thing two things he invited me to were Epic Movie and Stomp the Yard. So I went into the theater expecting to leave it with disgust, boy was I wrong. The cinematography in this is absolutely groundbreaking. Alfonso Cuaron, the director, wanted to utilize the element of real time to make his view into the future more realistic. So what he has is like 10 minute long action scenes that are, that's right, ALL ONE SHOT. This movie is really amazing, and was nominated for Best Cinematography at the Oscars. It got beaten by Pan's Labyrinth, I think. It's hard to explain this movie without telling you all the amazing steadicam shots, but just GO SEE IT NOW. It's stunning. Here is a making of feature. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4A55xTYXMpI And here is a little preview of the amazing continuous shots from these movies. This one is great, although this clip doesn't show the entire shot. WARNING CONTAINS SMALL SPOILER! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAxUbCnnGKM SEE THIS MOVIE!!!!!!!!!!!

April 9th, 2007, 07:36 AM	#2
Mike Teutsch Inner Circle Join Date: Oct 2004 Location: Port St. Lucie, Florida Posts: 2,614	Chris, You might want to check out this thread started on October of last year: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthrea...t=Children+Men Mike __________________ Chapter one, line one. The BH.

April 10th, 2007, 01:54 AM	#6
Charles Papert Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 6,810	Just watched the feature, which was well worth it because it had plenty of shots of the utterly fantastic Doggicam car rig. The scene in the car absolutely blew me away when I first saw it, but I assumed it involved a lot of CGI--I was doubly blown away when I learned that most of it was shot practically. No mention of Steadicam in there. The story that I heard is that Chivo (the DP) was pushing it to Alfonso Cuaron who was insisting that handheld be used instead--ultimately Alfonso won out and I believe there are no major Steadicam shots in the film (might be a little one here or there). The handheld work by operator George Richmond was world-class. __________________ Charles Papert www.charlespapert.com

April 9th, 2007, 09:08 AM	#3
Emre Safak Trustee Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Brookline, MA Posts: 1,447	I thought it was all right, but I expected much better. Cinematographically it was fine but the writing lacked conviction, in my opinion. It left little impression on me. Nothing to ponder.

April 13th, 2007, 10:59 PM	#7
Matt Newcomb Major Player Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 212	I think this film proved that beautiful footage alone doesn't make a good movie. It looked great, but I just didn't feel connected to the story at all.