Children of Men

User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 867 Ratings

User score distribution:
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. May 29, 2014
    5
    Children of Men for the most part is extremely boring and only by the end kicks into another gear that started to grab my attention. Barely anything is explained and nothing is answered.
  2. Nov 22, 2012
    5
    There's no "there" there. Some action scenes, some sadness, no moral of the story. Huge plot holes and unrealistic escapes, etc. Doesn't make you think.
  3. Dec 13, 2011
    4
    Why do so many people consider this to be such a great film? I'm not saying it's bad. It's just okay. Not epic or astounding as many critics seem to believe. Clive Owen seems incapable of epic or astounding. I did really like the cinematography, but this movie just lacked in plot design and character development. Plain and simple. And as far as dystopian thrillers go, I would rank it belowWhy do so many people consider this to be such a great film? I'm not saying it's bad. It's just okay. Not epic or astounding as many critics seem to believe. Clive Owen seems incapable of epic or astounding. I did really like the cinematography, but this movie just lacked in plot design and character development. Plain and simple. And as far as dystopian thrillers go, I would rank it below V for Vendetta and above Judge Dredd, hovering near the level of The Book of Eli. If you wish to see a realistic look into a troubled future, see John Hillcoat's terrific adaptation of The Road instead. Expand
  4. Feb 21, 2011
    6
    I think that this movie is pushing things a little to much. I'm not expecting that a SF movie to be realistic, but is neither a SF nor a realistic movie. I consider this the major defect of the movie. The actors are not impressing much. A part of the idea of having the humanity saved by a birth of a child nothing is notable. Is anyone asking how Kee became pregnant in that circumstances?
  5. TimH.
    May 12, 2008
    4
    This movie Ruend the Book. Any one who watches this movie should have read the book first. The Book Was Way Better.
  6. JackB
    May 3, 2008
    5
    This film was okay. Bleak would be the best word to describe it. It would seem however, that rather that go for the enjoyability factor in a film nowadays, a film critic seems to rate a film by how pretentious it can make them sound. The film was okay. I understood it fully. It just wasn't gripping. It was okay. That is all.
  7. AMovieCritic
    Jun 19, 2007
    4
    I'm a fan of futuristic movies, and I'm a fan of good filmmaking, but unfortunately, director Alfonso Cuaron wasn't able to draw me in. The movie is extremely well-made. Cuaron features several one-take shots, for example, one with one long, uninterrupted shot with 1 camera, while a car is attacked. It's a really cool way to shoot the scene, but does it make the scene I'm a fan of futuristic movies, and I'm a fan of good filmmaking, but unfortunately, director Alfonso Cuaron wasn't able to draw me in. The movie is extremely well-made. Cuaron features several one-take shots, for example, one with one long, uninterrupted shot with 1 camera, while a car is attacked. It's a really cool way to shoot the scene, but does it make the scene more exciting? Unfortunately, no, which pretty much sums up the movie. It's very well shot and well-made, but it's just not exciting enough. Cuaron is not an action director, it's that simple, and while he definitely excels at making atmospheric and artistic movies, his (few) action scenes just fail to really excite. In a futuristic world loaded with terrorist attacks in the streets, women completely unable to have babies, and resistance groups and dictatorships, the movie strangely decides to shove this all into the background and focus instead on the subject of illegal immigration, which, really, isn't all that interesting, especially considering their other choices. The movie ends up bogging itself down after a great first half hour, when we leave futuristic London and spend a lot of time in the countryside or at small houses. The movie makes little effort to establish its futuristic world or characters, which is a mistake. You look at a movie like The Island, where they spend nearly half the movie setting up this world and character....that's how it should be done, otherwise, we have a chaotic world but we are never told WHY things are like this, why women are infertile, etc. etc. etc. Characters and their motives are sketchy throughout. The ending was also very unsatisfying, giving us no insight into what anyone gained by any of this, and makes us wonder why we even sat through it. Again, Cuaron stages some well-shot action scenes, but they lack purpose or excitement. This is a chase movie without the chase, and I couldn't even recommend it as a rental. It's just more sleep-inducing than anything. Expand
  8. DanH.
    May 25, 2007
    6
    Critics are ass backwards. This movie was original yes, but it was also boring, had a weak ending, the story was wack, everything about it was so average it made me sick. But yet, because it threw a new idea in it, critics loved it. Critics, I give YOU a and this movie, a 6/10. Average, nothing special, and weak.
  9. PatC.
    May 21, 2007
    6
    Experience life in a future so bleak that the interesting characters die first. In spite of its realistic street combat scenes, this movie is so taken by its own otherwise-valid message that a sense of unreality emerges that cannot be overcome.
  10. Gordym
    May 9, 2007
    4
    First half an hour was ok. From then though the film simply dragged through to a messy conclusion. Unconvincing, unoriginal piece of filmaking. Still not convinced that Clive Owen makes a decent lead either.
  11. chadswee
    May 9, 2007
    4
    I simply dont understand how this movie could possibly recieve the "universal acclaim" status it has. I mean it has an extremely, extremely, weak cast, little to no character development, and while the overall plot idea is fairly good, the director does nothing to answer any questions or make it interesting. To put it plain and simple this movie is- Woman cannot have babies. GuyI simply dont understand how this movie could possibly recieve the "universal acclaim" status it has. I mean it has an extremely, extremely, weak cast, little to no character development, and while the overall plot idea is fairly good, the director does nothing to answer any questions or make it interesting. To put it plain and simple this movie is- Woman cannot have babies. Guy transports girl, who is somehow pregnant to safety. Roll credits. Why, why, why? This movie gets a four because i could at least sit through it. Expand
  12. ChristopherS.
    May 5, 2007
    4
    Weakly entertaining, like watching a long, overproduced commercial for a product you'd never buy. Conceptually trite, with nothing innovative or challenge to help it along, and a rehash of plenty of better films. Interesting cinematography, which does little to hide a lack of any compelling content or concepts. Seriously, you'd think all these glowing reviews were written by Weakly entertaining, like watching a long, overproduced commercial for a product you'd never buy. Conceptually trite, with nothing innovative or challenge to help it along, and a rehash of plenty of better films. Interesting cinematography, which does little to hide a lack of any compelling content or concepts. Seriously, you'd think all these glowing reviews were written by people who had somehow managed to miss the entirety of Western cinema. A real disappointment. Expand
  13. MarkA.
    Mar 23, 2007
    4
    Awful movie. The first half of the movie is devoid of point and seems ad libbed (poorly). The second half is a little better. Too bad, the concept has a lot of potential.
  14. BrutusO.
    Mar 11, 2007
    4
    Pretty boring and obvious dystopian fantasy if you ask me. Another one in the long line of desperately dull and worthy sci-fi movies purporting to deal with gloomy and "serious" topics (Fahrenheit 451, Black Moon, 1984, The Island) by portraying repressive apocalyptic societies of genetic fascists and merciless social engineers. Michael Caine is good as the aging hippy (precisely because Pretty boring and obvious dystopian fantasy if you ask me. Another one in the long line of desperately dull and worthy sci-fi movies purporting to deal with gloomy and "serious" topics (Fahrenheit 451, Black Moon, 1984, The Island) by portraying repressive apocalyptic societies of genetic fascists and merciless social engineers. Michael Caine is good as the aging hippy (precisely because he didn't get too overwhelmed by his own tragedy), but overall the movie was mostly unaffecting and more than a bit trite. The absurdity of the plot device about the mysterious boat taking the baby and the mother away to safety at the end is beyond pathetic. Heavy handed cinema that thinks that juxtaposing pompous topicality and multi cultural rhetoric somehow automatically generates art (Babel anyone?). Guys, get a grip - refugees and internment camps are intrinsically boring as cinema, not fascinating. Needlessly intense and angst ridden, and about as scientific (though not nearly as entertaining) as Day of the Triffids or the Omega Man. Somehow, however, this dismal film ended up with quite a good soundtrack. So it gets one point extra. Expand
  15. TomA.
    Feb 19, 2007
    4
    Pretty lame. I was excited to see the movie after reading several reviews. I wasn't impressed. Clive Owen gave a great performance, as did Michael Caine, but the plot was convoluted and weak. Not recommended.
  16. JasonC.
    Feb 10, 2007
    6
    The idea was interesting, but it felt a bit like a boring version of Blade Runner. Not enough plot twists for my taste. It was a very linear story line with a "that's it" sort of ending.
  17. RachelR.
    Jan 27, 2007
    6
    Not a bad movie, but throughout I was left with a feeling that I had seen this all before and I had seen it done much more cleverly. Twelve Monkeys, 28 Days Later, all better movies.
  18. MikeyP.
    Jan 24, 2007
    4
    Why, why, why? Every year- a couple times a year, unfortunately - the critics latch onto some average-at-best movie and praise it like it's the second coming of "Apocalypse Now." I just don't get it. There's really not much to like in "Children of Men." It's the "A History of Violence" phenomenom. Two words: stay away.
  19. Vs.D.
    Jan 23, 2007
    5
    This movie was boring from start to finish. The characters were in no way compelling. I can't believe it took 5 writers to adapt a plot-driven novel into a film and that, combined, this snoozefest is what they came up with. Skip it.
  20. Leiris
    Jan 22, 2007
    6
    In between the trite dialogue and predicable plot turns there is a very good looking film with something to say. If they took some more of that god-awful Hollywood formula out it could have been remarkable.
  21. JamesD.
    Jan 19, 2007
    4
    Script was lazy not enough history to feel with the characters why would one baby give hope. More imagination could have made this a great film about humanity instead of an action film with good characters.
  22. DavW.
    Jan 15, 2007
    6
    Not bad, although not nearly as good as i hoped. It was a very nicely done movie with a good balance of plot and action, however from the look of the movie I just expected something more than what it actually delivered, a bit of a let down.
  23. CraigG.
    Jan 13, 2007
    4
    While I agree with many of the reviews that the cinematography was excellent, the character development and plot were both nonsensical and somehow oversimplified. Tell me again how why those soldiers just let Clive Owen and Kee just walk out of that building?
  24. David
    Jan 11, 2007
    5
    I'm really torn on this movie. The underground hype has really blossomed and I was very excited to see it. Maybe that worked against me. Perhaps if I'd gone in with mediocre expectations, I would have been pleasantly surprised. I gave this movie a five because it does propose a plausable future in a realistic manner. But, like so may other viewers, I was left with more questions I'm really torn on this movie. The underground hype has really blossomed and I was very excited to see it. Maybe that worked against me. Perhaps if I'd gone in with mediocre expectations, I would have been pleasantly surprised. I gave this movie a five because it does propose a plausable future in a realistic manner. But, like so may other viewers, I was left with more questions than answers. I didn't expect every question to be answered, but so many are left resolved. What is the Human Project? Why is NO ONE questioning how this girl got pregnant?!!! Arrgghhhh... Still, probably worth the admission just to say I saw it. Expand
  25. DaricW.
    Jan 10, 2007
    5
    Cinematically, a good movie. It had great presentation. That earns it a five. Nothing else does. The parallels it tried to draw to current US policy were amazingly flawed.
  26. AugustusS.
    Jan 9, 2007
    6
    Children of Men is the story of a sterile future. Literally: women can no longer conceive children. In the almost 20 years since children have disappeared from the planet, everything is chaos. The world has been thrown into disarray, except for Britain, which
  27. Dylan
    Jan 7, 2007
    5
    Sure, it's well-done, but the plot line wasn't terribly coherent. The real climax occurs in the middle, and the rest just seems forced/contrived. It kept my attenton, but by the end, I can't say I was glad I watched it.
  28. FrankV.
    Jan 5, 2007
    5
    I didn't quite understand the point to this movie? The comparison to the 'modern-day' are pretty obvious even if it's the stereotypical anarchic world of the future. But how did it get to be that way? That isn't well explained. And why smuggle Kee and her baby to The Human Project? It just didn't make sense. In spite of the rave reviews of this hot new I didn't quite understand the point to this movie? The comparison to the 'modern-day' are pretty obvious even if it's the stereotypical anarchic world of the future. But how did it get to be that way? That isn't well explained. And why smuggle Kee and her baby to The Human Project? It just didn't make sense. In spite of the rave reviews of this hot new director the film looked like it was filmed in the grungiest place that could be found. There is lots of shrapnel flying, which reminded me of Saving Private Ryan. I can't imagine society going that way even if there is no hope. This movie is grim and ultimately unsatisfying. Expand
  29. JeffS
    Jan 4, 2007
    5
    Underdeveloped characters and a plot with too many unanswered questions. Nicely shot, but that is not enough to lift it out of mediocrity.
  30. PaulL.
    Jan 2, 2007
    4
    Well acted, but the premise of the movie was too implausible and the cynicism was just too much. Basically all the women on Earth become infertile for some strange reason and no one can figure out why. As a result, the world goes on a murderous rampage and I can't figure out why. Life is even more valuable than ever, yet the most inhumane acts and behavior seem as much a part of Well acted, but the premise of the movie was too implausible and the cynicism was just too much. Basically all the women on Earth become infertile for some strange reason and no one can figure out why. As a result, the world goes on a murderous rampage and I can't figure out why. Life is even more valuable than ever, yet the most inhumane acts and behavior seem as much a part of normal life as throwing out the garbage. I guess there are some Biblical undertones, but not really. It's just a vehicle for the writers' and filmakers' very cynical view of society. Too cynical to suspend disbelief for me. Expand
  31. [Anonymous]
    Jan 2, 2007
    5
    It seemed to me as if this movie was one large indecision. It couldn't decide what movie it wanted to be because sometimes it felt like it was an action-thriller and then it throws in waaaay to much unbelievable humor followed by a hint of a biblical allusion and then a political jab all suggesting that I shouldnt have bothered. Rent it.
Metascore
84

Universal acclaim - based on 38 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 37 out of 38
  2. Negative: 0 out of 38
  1. Reviewed by: David Ansen
    70
    Children of Men leaves too many questions unanswered, yet it has a stunning visceral impact. You can forgive a lot in the face of filmmaking this dazzling.
  2. Reviewed by: Derek Elley
    80
    Picture more than delivers on the action front -- not in bang-for-your-buck spectacle but in the kind of gritty, doculike sequences that haul viewers out of their seats and alongside the main protags.
  3. Owen carries the film more in the tradition of a Jimmy Stewart or Henry Fonda than a Clint Eastwood or Harrison Ford. He has to wear flip-flops for part of the time without losing his dignity, and he never reaches for a weapon or guns anyone down. Cuaron and Owen may have created the first believable 21st-century movie hero.