Children of Men - Page 4

tshort · #31 12-30-2006, 10:10 AM

Watched this tonight and it was definitely great. The cinematography was very good. I didn't like the blood spatter on the lens when they were in the bus, though.

City of God is better, as I would agree it is better than any film for quite some time.

sadpanda · #32 12-30-2006, 10:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Alfonso Cuaron has not just made the best film of the year, he's made, at worst, the second-best film of the past ten years. (City of God is probably better, but I'm not completely sure.)

See it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I saw this the other night. It is the best movie I have seen in ages. It is shot well, written well, acted well and there is a scene towards the end that will be among the best scenes ever shot in any movie.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think I know what you are talking about, and I think I agree.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't realize it at the time, but part of the reason that this scene is so effective is that it is all done in one take with no breaks or edits. Supposedly, it is one of the longest running shots ever and took 4 days to set up.

sadpanda · #33 12-30-2006, 11:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Watched this tonight and it was definitely great. The cinematography was very good. I didn't like the blood spatter on the lens when they were in the bus, though.

City of God is better, as I would agree it is better than any film for quite some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I heard an interesting story about the blood spatter. Can say for certain it is true though. Apparently that scene is one of the longest single shots ever on film. It took four days to set up (I know I am repeating myself from an earlier post). They did the first run through and Clive Owen slipped at the end of the shot. Take two some other minor issue...take three didn't work either. The sun was starting to set and they had time for one more attempt. If they didn't get it done, there would be several more days of set up and lots of cost overruns. They started the shot, everything is going well until Clive gets into the bus and the blood spatters onto the screen. The director yells cut but the cameraman can't hear him over the noise of the tanks and people so he keeps shooting. They get the whole shot done and afterwards felt that it actually worked bettter with the blood and kept it in the movie.

I thought it worked, kind of like a first person shooter game.

KOTLP · #34 12-30-2006, 01:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I didn't realize it at the time, but part of the reason that this scene is so effective is that it is all done in one take with no breaks or edits. Supposedly, it is one of the longest running shots ever and took 4 days to set up.

[/ QUOTE ]
uhh, no, it's not even remotely close

private joker · #35 12-30-2006, 03:06 PM

The longest running shot is a movie called Russian Ark. It is one continuous 96-minute shot. (Of course, being made on video helps, since film rolls are only 11 minutes long). There have been some great single-shot sequences in film history, from Touch of Evil to Much Ado About Nothing to Goodfellas to Funny Games.

The two standouts in Children Of Men aren't as long, but they're so complex and intense that they feel like even more impressive achievements.

colgin · #36 12-30-2006, 07:30 PM

Just saw "Children of Men" this afternoon with bdk3clash and we both thought it was really outstanding and lived up to all the critical priase that is being heaped on it. One of the few movies that actually desrves the adjective "gripping" (which is bandied about so much in film eviews). I do hope Universal gives it a proper broad release and markets it to try to reach somewhat of a broad audience (although the reality is a film this dark is likely to have only so much appeal to the mass mrket).

I don't see that many movies anymore (in theaters at least) but this was definitely one of my favorite of 2006 if not my favorite (need some time to reflect on that).

If you haven't seen it try not to read any spoilers and just go. I plan to read the P.D. James novel as I hear it is significantly different but excellent in its own right.

ClassicBob · #37 12-30-2006, 07:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The longest running shot is a movie called Russian Ark. It is one continuous 96-minute shot. (Of course, being made on video helps, since film rolls are only 11 minutes long). There have been some great single-shot sequences in film history, from Touch of Evil to Much Ado About Nothing to Goodfellas to Funny Games.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tracking shot in Godard's "Week-End" is one of my favorite shots of all time.

colgin · #38 12-30-2006, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The longest running shot is a movie called Russian Ark. It is one continuous 96-minute shot. (Of course, being made on video helps, since film rolls are only 11 minutes long). There have been some great single-shot sequences in film history, from Touch of Evil to Much Ado About Nothing to Goodfellas to Funny Games.

[/ QUOTE ]

The tracking shot in Godard's "Week-End" is one of my favorite shots of all time.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is also one of my very favorite long takes. Arguably the greatest tracking shot ever.

Wow, we are really getting off topic a bunch in this thread, but some very good discussion.

mosta · #39 12-31-2006, 12:47 AM

looking forward to seeing this one if it will come around here. on a side note, I also don't get all the raving for city of god. to me it was filled with painfully one-dimensionaly cartoon-like characters. not one of the worst I've seen, but certainly not on my list for a best.

Buckmulligan · #40 01-06-2007, 12:30 AM

I saw it today... Unbelievabaly impact... Unbelievable film.