Children of Men Film Review

                Many films have theorized their own take on an apocalyptic future for mankind, but few as hauntingly plausible, real, and engaging as “Children of Men”. The film was directed by Alfonso Cuaron, who also directed “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban”, which by the way is my favorite Harry Potter film. The film takes place in the not so distant future of 2027, where nonspecific natural disasters, wars and terrorist acts have ravaged most of the world and left it without government or authority. Britain still stands without relative structure with strict police and even stricter immigration patrol. And to top it all off, for some unknown reason women have become infertile and it has been about 18 years since a child has been born. The story follows Theo Faron (Clive Owen) who is approached by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore) in need of help smuggling the first pregnant girl in 18 years out of the country.

                The first starring role I ever saw from Clive Owen was in “Shoot ‘Em Up”, a campy, trigger happy action movie from 2007. And while he did fine in that film, it didn’t give him much substance to show his acting chops. “Children of Men” however is a very dramatic and character driven film, so the acting means a whole lot more. And Clive Owen does a great job as the protagonist “Theo”. The emotion he shows in the more panicky scenes is very real and believable. Julianne Moore and Michael Caine also have supporting roles in the film. Moore does fine, nothing to write home about though. And Michael Caine gives a fun, lasting impact performance. Even though he’s only in the first half of the film he is easily one of the most memorable characters.

                The only way I can think to describe the film score for the film is operatic. It’s all non-diegetic music is almost all very soft string instruments with operatic vocals in either a different language or just pretty tones. This only comes up during emotional scenes and is there to empower those scenes, which it does quite well. The diegetic music on the other hand ranges from The Beatles to The Rolling Stones. This music comes up during scenes where the characters have a minute to breath and are having fun. It’s a good contrast of music, and helps the audience to sympathize with the way the characters feel in the scene, whether they feel good or bad.

                Now I can’t talk about this scene without talking about its extensive use of “The Oner” technique. Using this technique is very expensive and very difficult, but with no edits or cuts it makes the scenes where it is used feel so much more real in “Children of Men”. And it is used quite often. One of the first scenes is actually a Oner, even if a not particularly long one. This was a smart way to wean the audience into the kind this style of cinematograph. But there are two scenes where the Oner is most notable.

The first is the car scene. Where everyone in the car is talking and having some fun when trouble comes along, and all the while the camera pans and moves throughout the car. You may not even realize it the first time you watch the scene, but it’s really quite impressive. The second is during the climax and the major action scene of the film. It clocks in at around 6 minutes of one take and is phenomenal, with very well choreographed movement, acting, gun fire, and even explosions. There is only part of this Oner that threw me off. At one point of the Oner some specks of what looks like blood gets on the lens of the camera, this took me out of the immersion a bit but I let it slide. I then found out later that it was cg and nothing actually got on the lens during the scene. I guess this was suppose to make you feel like you were actually there with Theo and add to the immersion, but it just reminded me that there was a cameraman and did the opposite.

“Children of Men” gives a thought provoking and disturbingly possible vision of what the near future could hold for the human race. If you’re like me and you liked Alfonso Cuaron’s “Harry Potter and The Prisoner of Azkaban” in pacing, tone, and enjoy character driven films, then you should make “Children of Men” you’re next movie to see.

Princess Bride Film Review

                Normally I hate romantic comedies, but I was pleasantly surprised by The Princess Bride. The Princess Bride came out in theaters in 1987 and is based on the book by the same title, released in 1973. It was directed by Rob Reiner, who directed Stand by Me the year before, with the screenplay written by William Goldman, the writer of the book. The film stars Cary Elwes as the male protagonist, and Robin Wright as the leading lady.

                In The Princess Bride Buttercup (Robin Wright) and Westley (Cary Elwes) are two young people that fall in love and wish to marry. But with no money, Westley leaves to seek his fortune so that he can buy a ring and support his love. Five years later, after hearing news that Westley had killed by the Dread Pirate Roberts, Buttercup reluctantly agrees to marry Prince Humperdinck (Chris Sarandon), heir to the throne of Florin. Before the wedding, she is kidnapped by three outlaws: an extremely short Sicilian boss named Vizzini (Wallace Shawn), a Turkish giant named Fezzik (André the Giant), and a Spanish master fencer named Inigo Montoya (Mandy Patinkin). The outlaws are pursued by Prince Humperdinck with a complement of soldiers, and quite separately, a masked man in black.

                 This film has a similar style of comedy and tone to the Mel Brooks film Robin Hood: Men in Tights. The film has sword fights, kidnapping, murder, and torture. But it’s handled light heartedly and swashbuckler like. Without giving too much away, there is a scene where the villain’s right hand man asks if he wants to be present for torturing the hero and the villain replies “… you know how much I love watching you work, but I've got my country's 500th anniversary to plan, my wedding to arrange, my wife to murder and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped.” And I’ll admit, up until that point I hated the villain (in a good way). He’s a conniving a-hole from privilege that always gets what he wants, but that line is delivered with such sincerity that I had to laugh at it. Which brings me to the acting, I thought was great. The actors fit their roles great and delivered their lines believably. I never had a moment where I thought a line sounded off. If the villain was played by a different actor, the line above may not have had as strong an affect as it did on me.

                One particular aspect of the film that I found endearing is that it is made a frame story. Above I mentioned how the film begins and plays out, well I actually left something out. The film actually begins a boy (Fred Savage) sick in bed when his grandfather (Peter Falk) comes by to read him a story. The story is The Princess Bride which is actually a book that this film was based on. Besides this being a cute Meta wink to the audience, it also serves as the way the film is presented. The story is framed, meaning that an introductory or main narrative is presented for the purpose of setting the stage for a more emphasized second narrative. The film is narrated by the grandfather, and the story is broken up as we go back to the grandfather and sick boy multiple times, reminding us that we are in fact in a story book. In fact, at the end of act two a major plot point is presented and the story immediately because the sick boy refuses to believe what just happened. The boy asks who kills the villain at the end, and the grandfather tells him nobody does. This is a shock and a major spoiler to the end of the film, but the film itself gives it. But I think it works even better this way. Now for the last act of the story, you’re wondering “Why isn’t the villain killed? Does he die by accident? What happens at the end?” You become even more invested in the story rather than deterred.

                Probably the strongest or most obvious theme of the film is that ‘True Love Overcomes All’. Westley goes though just about anything and everything to get to his love. He fights man, nature, beasts, and storms castles for her. Westley even overcomes death for his love of Buttercup. And you don’t have to take my work on the last one. He literally says that that’swhy he wants to come back to life.

                The Princess Bride is not the most thought provoking movie and can seem shallow to the more cynical. But it’s an entertaining film that has great comedic timing, writing, and acting. If you enjoy the silly comedic style of Mel Brooks films such as Blazing Saddles and Robin Hood: Men in Tights, then you should definitely see The Princess Bride. And if you haven’t seen those movies either, go watch those too!