Children of Men

2006 managed to produce two fantastic dystopian science fictions. First came V For Vendetta, an excellent action movie and a sharp critique of our current political climate. And then, as the year came to an end, we got another film with an excellent look into a dark future. However, what makes Children of Men different from V For Vendetta is Alfonso Cuaron's brilliant vision, as well as how personal his film is.

Children of Men takes place twenty years in the future, when humanity is no longer able to reproduce. Its a fantastic idea, and while it may seem a little far-fetched, the film makes it completely believable. The result of this is that we have essentially fallen apart as a race. Horrible things have happened all over the world, leaving Britain as the sole place where human society still exists. However, it doesn't matter. From the second the film starts, you can feel the hopelessness of every person living in the world. Clive Owen's Theo exemplifies this hopelessness. Theo has personally lost a child to the flu right before the infertility struck. And you can see in Owen's eyes how meaningless he finds everything.

Out of that meaninglessness comes hope, in the form of Kee, who has gotten pregnant. Unlike V, Theo is not fighting to bring down England's tyranical government (and the government of Children of Men is definitely tyrannical), he is fighting for hope. While the entire race may hinge on whether he can get Kee out of the country, he also can't let anybody know what he is doing, if he has any chance of his mission succeeding. As a result, the story is much more personal than V For Vendetta.

Director Alfonso Cuaron shoots the film with long, handheld takes, adding to the realism of the film, and drawing us closer to Theo. He crafts a picture of the future than seems frighteningly plausible. Ultimately the film succeeds because it is grounded in the personal. In that way, it joins the pantheon of great science fiction, and I highly recommend it.

A-