Quote:
Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder
You can't even compare the two movies. To me, this is the equivalent of the question: Which is better the Harry Potter series or 1984? You can't really say which one is better, but it's easy to say one is vastly more important. Children of Men's depiction of the future was sobering in its realism but also deeply facsinating in the less realistic metaphoric human project and the lack of any new births for years. To take the movie at face value is to get only a 1/10th of the exprience. The Human Project was left to be so ambigious for a reason, it was not simply bad writing. The screenwriters didn't want to give us any realistic depiction of the Human Project IMO. They wanted it to seem to the viewer as it seemed to the people in the movie. A salvation. They wanted to end the movie with idealism, not realism.
That's my take anyway.
|
Obviously its up to each person to subjectively judge how 'good' a movie is. I found Children to be extremely boring, lacking in important plot/story points.
I suppose if people out there want to justify why Children of Men can be rated higher than SW on any list, whatever floats your collective boat, we'll have to agree to disagree. I find generally a lot of people have very wide opinions on most movies... I just never expected a group of critics to rate (what I consider to be) such a sub-par movie so highly.
Edit: man, debating completely subjective points and matters of opinion is so useless, and soooo fun!