I love edward norton but this just bored me to tears . After a nice build up over the relationship with the girl the film just got slower and slower too torpid levels .
The film then via a couple of taxi driver style references became a full on modern day western in an almost laughable climax . I mean the scene when they wake up in a western film shoot is unintentionally hilarious .
Dreadful confused movie i cant believe it got a prize at cannes .avoid
Edwards performance in this movie can be easily compared to any of his others. It is very strong and moving. And with your western thoughts, the whole theme of the movie and the character, Harlan, is of a cowboy. The climax is only fitting to the entirety of the film.
shareI think this is one of those movies either you really love it or really hate it. I loved this movie, thought it was subtle and beautiful.
Now, for example the movie Elephant, I HATED this movie with a passion, it annoyed the crap out of me, but some people think it is brilliant.
well i'm on the LOVED IT side of the fence.
shareI thought it was awful as well. It was like the character tracy from 13 is now sixteen and meets wannabee western Travis Bickel and all hell breaks loose.
each to their own. That's why we call them opinions.
Opinions are like a**eholes . . . . everyones got one.
Not even my boy Norton could save this piece of dog crap. If you gave Mike Tyson an hour and a pen, he could come up with a better story than this one. Wow. I can't believe I just wasted 2 hours of my life like that.
shareThis is one of the most beautiful and thought provoking films I have ever been privleged to witness. I love westerns and modern-day westerns, yet this movie was a completley different experience. All the characters seem to be longing for something more in life. Edward Norton gives an amazing performance as the tragic cowboy figure trying to find his way down in the valley. This is what cinema is supposed to be like.
sharefor the guys moaning about spoilers - get a life , and you dont want to see this garbage anyway . im doing you a favour .
shareErm, maybe the guy posting spoilers in an attempt to ruin the film for those who have not seen it should get a life. Doing them a favor? Give me a break. Let them see the film without you trying to influence them or ruin their enjoyment first.
shareI dont regard anything i said as being a "spoiler" particularly anyway - how did what i said spoil the film ?
You could have got most of the same info from the back of the dvd box .
do me a favour - this is a forum , youre probably better watching the film 1st before reading the comments if youre so scared of being influenced by the opinions of others . You give me a break fud .
Someone else posted the spoiler, but implying it's okay since the film sucked anyway (your op) is a bit ridiculous.
sharethis pile of rubbish got three stars in the Comcast menu
and the description looked interesting, so I checked it
out. Has to be the worst thing I've seen since Boxing Helena.
Totally blatant rip off of Taxi Driver in the cowboy apartment
scenes.....forget "hommage". Exactly why are we supposed to be
sympathetic toward this cowboy psycho-killer???
Impossibly bad.
You are allowed to change your feelings about a character as the film goes on.
shareMost people have got the gist of how bad this is - of course everyones entitled to their views - But i stand by what i said anyway - this is a clunker and possibly one of the worst films ever seen .
shareYou must not watch many movies.
shareJudging by your profile , a lot more than you .
shareOne of the best performances I've seen in a long lomg time, as underrated as a film can be. Norton fan's will love it, as should all lovers of great acting, writing, direction, and cinema.
share[deleted]
What are you basing that off of? If your basing it off of post history, sorry, I don't see the need to post on every forum for every film I have ever seen, but I'm pretty sure the amount of films whose boards I've bother posting on is quite a bit more full than yours.
sharewow.- this movie is indefensively bad. just awful. not cool, or avant garde, merely senseless, dull and insignificant.
shareNo you just post on one film youve seen - and boy its a rotten movie too.
I wonder if youve actually even watched this tripe with norton ? , like instead of throwing childish nonsense out there why dont you tell us why you like it - that be more interesting .
No you just post on one film youve seen - and boy its a rotten movie too.
Ha, now I know you're a joke.
I wonder if youve actually even watched this tripe with norton ? , like instead of throwing childish nonsense out there why dont you tell us why you like it - that be more interesting .
Actually I've seen this "tripe" with Norton a few times now. And how childish am I for agreeing people shouldn't post spoilers in an attempt to ruin a film for others? Furthermore, you're the one who keeps going off about a film you don't like while I choose to talk about the ones I enjoy.
*spoilers*
I enjoyed Down in the Valley because it took the staples of of a good western and put them in a modern setting. It was almost surreal in that effect, despite reserving logistics for how the plot played out. I think the Harlan character was well developed because the film had us sympathize with him for half of the movie, only to get that sense of betrayal when we see his true character is a delusional psychopath whose whole history and persona has been a lie. Imagine the film Falling Down, where EVERYONE is cheering for William 'D-Fens' Foster, the vigilante taking action against the injustices around him, only to come to the realization that at the end of the day this guy is going to kill his family and himself.
Besides that, the film was well acted, well shot, the music was good for the most part, the only real issue I have with the film is the music editing, especially during the second half of the film. The guitar reverb was okay at first, but became way over used as the film went on, and the final bit of it played over the scene where Harlan gets shot really killed the mood.
BTW, your welcome to come over to the Children of Men forum and share your complaints about why it was rotten, as you say.
shareNo you just post on one film youve seen - and boy its a rotten movie too.
Ha, now I know you're a joke.
============================================================================
OH the irony in the idiotic statement above - in particular when youve been arguing the case for allowing the expression of individual opinion , What a hypocritical fanny you really are . Away and choke the chicken instead of throwing it .
Thats the usual antics of a teenager which you clearly must be .
Oh joy, I answer your question and you choose to respond to the part of my post that doesn't matter, and you do so as if you hadn't started throwing out the insults first. B-b-b-b-b-brilliant!
shareIt doesnt matter to you maybe but it was ok to call me a joke , just cos i didnt like the same film as you - thats the real joke here.
When i can be arsed i will post you exactly why "children of men" is a pile of stale manure - a soiled air filter of a movie on that site - then you can follow up as you please.
You came on here moaning about spoilers (which i hadnt) then went on about allowing people to make their own minds up about the film and then turnaround and have a go at me for doing just that about children of god !
If youve not seen the film and have an easily swayed mind dont go on forums where people are actually discussing the film !! Its that simple .
I didn't complain about the spoilers (the spoiler comment wasn‘t even directed at you, btw), I complained about your follow up, and that whole attitude that some IMDB forum members carry around. It’s not even about liking or disliking a film, it’s the intention to ruin a film for someone just because you didn’t like it.
Go back and read the first post of yours that I responded to here and tell me who is being pompous. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0398027/board/nest/69746052?d=72252779#72252779
As for Children of Men, there is no accounting for personal taste, but there are just some films that I don’t see how anyone could hate. Maybe not think it’s the greatest thing ever, but call it rotten? If it’s just personal taste, that’s all well and good, but if you have other issues feel free to air them out. Lots of people didn’t get the film, but that’s no ones fault but their own.
but there are just some films that I don’t see how anyone could hate.
===============================================================================
And there are some films i just dont see how anyone could like "down in the valley" being one of them .
And the director will have to take a lot of the credit for lots of people not getting "children of god"
Class though , you pull ME up for being pompous and then make the most incredibly "up your own ass" statement like the one above.
Your views on "down in the valley were interesting and valid" but its hard to take you seriously when you say things like the above statement .
Maybe I should be more clear. I understand how personal taste comes in play when judging a film, but those who say it down right sucks, say it is rotten, or say it isn't even worthy of a 1/10 have their heads up their ass. There are plently of aspects about the film that one should find redeeming qualities against the parts they did not like. I didn't like the shaky camera, but I enjoyed the long shots. I didn't like the acting by one actor but another was fantastic. I hated the music but the CGI effects were amazing. The character development was bad but the plot was interesting. You get what I am saying?
And no, it's not the filmmakers fault that *some* people need to be spoon fed every aspect of a film. It's not the filmmakers fault that some people like to talk to their friends and post on the interent while watching movies. It seems that the majority of viewers understood the film, while a good, say, quarter of them did not. Don't get too caught up over my use of the phrase "a lot", it doesn't mean "most".
BTW, it's called Children of Men, not Children of God. I hope you have got the plot down better than you have the title.
Just priceless , pull me up for a typo error and follow with a snide comment - its clear what film im talking about .
I got the plot of children of men , and dont get me wrong its fun to watch clive owen get progressively dirtier by the minute and michael caines unintentionally hilarious dope smoking character but seeing the buses full of refugees and political prisoners with "homeland secuirity" labelled on them just had me in fits of laughter . Ludicrous and a bit silly in todays climate.
And god you state the obvious - of course its the directors responsibility to get the story across to the audience , maybe they might need to watch it again , maybe they had a bad day before hitting the cinema , whatever , but its HIS job, and cuarons a good one too. But I was feeling fine that day and just came away seriously underwhelmed .
TBF - it was better than "down in the valley" , their were segments of this that made me seriously wonder if i had picked up a comedy by mistake ."Most" people seem to feel the same here . Maybe edward should stay away from stetsons - he doesnt suit them ....
TBF, you called it "Children of God" twice.
So I assume you didn't like the film because it made references to current issues? That's true, it purposefully makes notion of contemporary issues and imagery, but did it not cross your mind that perhaps Cuarón showed all the issues in fair light? Due to nuclear fallout and famine, hundreds of millions of people are mass migrating to the west, probably crashing the economies of every country they pass through, until they hit coast. Britain was just fortunate enough to have a body of water between them and the refugees.
Evan Rachel Wood is smokin
Nuff said
I totally agree that this movie was awful. I rented it this weekend as its only just come out in Britain and it started off well but it did get slower and slower with no explanation if what was going on. Why did Harlan walk round dressed like a 1970's cowboy for a laugh, there was no explaination of where he came from and why he behaved in that way?>>> all I thought was THATS 2 HOURS I CANT GET BACK
shareHarlan obviously had daddy issues and had been in and out of reform and juvenile detention centers. The rancher persona was something he made up in an attempt to become a new person. I don't believe it is ever stated why he chose the rancher persona, probably because it was uncommon in that area, but there was an explanation of where he came from.
share