- Studio: Universal Pictures
- Release Date: Dec 25, 2006
User Score
7.8
out of 10
Generally favorable reviews- based on 626 Ratings
User score distribution:
-
Positive: 498 out of 626
-
Mixed: 30 out of 626
-
Negative: 98 out of 626
Review this movie
-
-
Please sign in or create an account before writing a review.
-
-
Submit
-
Check Spelling
- User score
- Most active
- By date
- Most helpful
- Most Clicked
-
BenHJun 1, 20093Great filming.. but poorly developed characters, a complete lack of direction, point or cohesion and heaps of mindless violence and ugliness add up to equal the same old crap we've been shoveled for the last 30 years.
-
-
BenJan 5, 20071
-
-
ApocalypseBrownMar 3, 20073Pathetic! Tries hard to be something it can never be, which is classy.
-
-
AnonymousMCApr 18, 20070I recently rented this movie, and i though it was one of the worst movies i've ever seen. So much more could of been with the plot,. The director failed to keep the movie interesting, everything happened too quick and some of the scenes were pointless and kind of cheesy.
I expected so much more from this film and whoever thinks this movie was good obviosly does not know anything about films -
-
PnArdyPnArdyMay 13, 20072This is one of the most boring and awful blockbusters with horrible acting, decorations, plot, and SFX, I've ever seen. It Definetely doesn't deserve 8 out of 10. Clive Owen plays a legal citizen in the post-apocalyptic world of NWO of the near future. He has to smuggle the last pregnant woman on Earth past the all seeing eyes of NWO spies in the city of London under marshall law.
-
-
JamesL.Jan 6, 20082Boring mindless chase movie. Who's side are we supposed to root for? Problem is you tend not to care. The only thing I was rooting for were the closing credits.
-
-
MikeH.Jan 10, 20070
-
-
IrwinJan 15, 20072Hardly original, Children of Men
-
-
JeffD.Jan 24, 20073This movie has the same feel as "28 days later" yet fails to bring the audience in and allow them to care what's happening to the characters. Storyline had great potential but is filled with meaningless and uninteresting dialog as well as an over-abundance of violence which adds nothing to the story or the progression of the characters themselves. A 2-hour waste of time.
-
-
V.MartinezJan 28, 20072
-
-
DavidH.Jan 3, 20073
-
-
RichardF.Jan 8, 20071What a piece of crap. The set design came directly from the computer game Half Life 2. The story was so thin as to be unbelievable. The premise of a new pregnancy as meaty enough to carry an entire film is laughable. As for the so-called critics- they just use movies as a vehicle for little essays that show their own clever use of words but show no insight into the film itself. Sign me disgusted.
-
-
GeorgeH.Jan 9, 20073
-
-
JosephFeb 12, 20071
-
-
JeannieFeb 2, 20073
-
-
JohnF.Feb 3, 20072I assume the high rating from people is more a political statement instead a true evaluation of the movie. I was very disapointed. The movie was slow and boring. The political message was beaten into us. I expected much better.
-
-
JohnT.Mar 24, 20071After reading all these reviews, maybe I saw the wrong movie. But it was horrible and pointless. Don't waste your time.
-
-
DonaldC.Mar 27, 20071The only thing half way interesting is that the child is born to a young black girl as it should be considering the black women is the mother of earth.
-
-
MikeyGrayMar 31, 20070Reminds me of those bad 1980s doomsday scifi action flicks, only with a less interesting plot, and even more lacking in character development.
-
-
MattMar 30, 20072Well shot, simplistic, clumsily acted B movie.
-
-
DavidT.Apr 1, 20073Shot VERY Well...Which is Half the Battle BUT a VERY Bad Story Line! Very Anit-Climatic!!!
-
-
AideenM.Apr 22, 20072What a waste! So much could have been made of this plot: why was she the only woman to get pregnant? How did it happen? Who's the father? Instead, it was just one long, dreary, chase.
-
-
JoK.Apr 29, 20072Thoroughly depressing - not enough story, too much unintelligable dialogue, drawn out action scene where basically anyone you grow any affection for is violently eradicated (why couldn't they have got rid off the guy with the blonde dreadlocks wayyyy earlier - and him finding them in Bexhill like that? Annoyingly improbable).
-
-
PeterJ.May 3, 20073When I ready all of the reviews for this movie I could not wait to see it. The storyline looked awesome in retrospect. I was so disappointed that this turned into some kind of future concentration camp movie. I know the premise of this movie was unrealistic to being with, but I was looking for something a little more believeable...
-
-
JohnG.May 3, 20072Liberal fear mongering. Keep your politics out of the plot and perhaps this movie would have been better. Characters were boring, the case boring, the action scenes boring. I don't mind having to think through a movie, but you can be more clever than this drivel.
-
-
BrianK.Sep 1, 20073
-
-
TimH.May 12, 20084This movie Ruend the Book. Any one who watches this movie should have read the book first. The Book Was Way Better.
-
-
MartyH.Jun 6, 20080This was a truly awful film, what a waste of nearly 2 hours. The film ended as abruptly as it started and left so many things unanswered, it made me wonder what the point was in sitting through such doom and gloom. There is no genius in this film at all, despite what others may say. I would not even give it one star! Your time would be better spent watching paint dry! You have been warned!
-
-
SibylPJan 1, 20093The cinematography, the art direction, are interesting, the cast is good except for Miriam and Kee (not so much), but all have been put to the service of a bogus vision. What the heck is the point? Infertility is hardly a problem in the real world. Overpopulation is more of a problem. In
-
-
BenWDec 27, 20062It is one thing to suspend belief for the plot's main storyline, but another to ignore the inconsistencies strewn throughout the movie. Why would the soldiers let them just wander off after discovering the only baby born in the last 18 years?
-
-
HollyR.Jan 10, 20073
-
-
JudyT.Jan 13, 20072Pointless message movie. Says nothing about brotherhood and people being inspired to come together.
-
-
DamonC.Jan 13, 20073
-
-
CraigG.Jan 13, 20074While 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?
-
-
JamesD.Jan 19, 20074Script 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.
-
-
PaulL.Jan 2, 20074
-
-
BarryG.Jan 22, 20070
-
-
MikeyP.Jan 24, 20074Why, 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.
-
-
GlennS.Jan 26, 20073Most depressing movie I've every seen, bar none. I spent a year in Viet Nam, and this movie made me physically ill.
-
-
LMJan 27, 20071Generally when these things try to make statements, they give some sort of action call at the end. The only take home message I got was make babies while you can. On the bright side of things, it might be a good husband/wife outting. Just make sure you set up the college fund first.
-
-
BetsyB.Jan 5, 20072This movie made no sense. I haven't read the book but I hope it is not as terrible as this movie. Acting was OK, but there were so many ridiculous holes that I pretty much laughed my way throuth this one.
-
-
AlyJan 6, 20071
-
-
JacobR.Jan 7, 20070This movie was completely pointless. the premise is that people can't have kids, yet one DOES WHILE WE'RE WATCHING THE MOVIE! what the hell was the point? there obviously was never a problem, apparently outside of england people CAN have babies.
-
-
staszJan 9, 20071times like this make me think somebody gets paid for writing reviews and it's not me. Movie has no point and it's absolutely boring. Worst ending in a while as well. Perfect fit for my "whooppie doo" collection.
-
-
VM.Feb 15, 20070This movie is the definition of pretentious. And it is boring. Be warned.
-
-
BrutusO.Mar 11, 20074
-
-
MarkA.Mar 23, 20074Awful 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.
-
-
AlexMar 26, 20070
-
-
BillyB.Apr 14, 20073I expected a whole lot more from this movie. I thought it started out good, but then it just kept building and building into nothing. The effects were excellent and the action was ok, but the story line really wasn't too great and confused me in many parts. Michael Caine doesn't make a very good hippie either.
-
-
DavidC.Apr 21, 20072
-
-
PennyApr 22, 20070This was absolutely one of the worst movies I have ever seen. Bad acting, bad script and boring.
-
-
BarryC.Apr 4, 20071Film blunders from nowhere to nowhere, are we supposed to know what is happening?. I simply cannot understand the acclaim this pretentious film is getting. Cinematography is excellent, that is the only positive thing that I can say.
-
-
BenF.Apr 7, 20073Great effects. It's just too bad it's another mental exercise. What about those of us who do get it and still thought this movie was boring? Like that one child would even make a difference in that world. I was waiting for a stray bullet to hit the baby. That would have given this movie some meaning.
-
-
RichardK.Apr 8, 20071Hey everyone, read the book and THEN rate the movie...this adaptation is utter garbage; only the general plot survives. I bet the author of the book did not approve this drivel. An over-hyped waste of time and money. What a disappointment.
-
-
BrettB.May 4, 20071Terrible film based on a great novel. The acting was atrocious, especially considering the high-quality of the actors. The high ratings of the critics suggest a mis-calibration or a misquotation by this website.
-
-
ChristopherS.May 5, 20074
-
-
chadsweeMay 9, 20074
-
-
GordymMay 9, 20074First 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.
-
-
AMovieCriticJun 19, 20074
-
-
ChristopherJ.Jun 6, 20073
-
-
AmyOct 24, 20080
-
-
PaulJ.Feb 15, 20081
-
-
JoeB.Feb 6, 20082Dull. Boring. Pointless. Not entertaining. Not much of a message. Sometimes hard to understand dialog. Need I say more.
-
-
JosefB.Mar 20, 20081
-
-
kenaDec 26, 20092Very mediocre movie, did not live up the ratings in the least. no explanation, character development, or message whatsoever.
-
-
LeventeSJun 25, 20091
-
-
HarryW.Jan 11, 20071
-
-
BadbadbadJan 13, 20071So if the future is f***ed, how do people still have such beautiful flat screen TVs and telejournalism still so ordered? Perhaps everything is done out of England. Very likely.
-
-
ClayJ.Jan 14, 20072Did anyone notice that all the other mammals in the movie (lots of cats, dogs, farm animals) seemed to have no trouble at all reproducing? Humans are MAMMALS! A totally stupid storyline! Horrible movie!
-
-
seao.Nov 7, 20072A very, very bad film, full of the usual dystopian cliches and a plot that amounts to nothing. The acting is poor (the 'fugees (ugh) in the early scenes seem to have been bussed in from a zombie movie).and the characters are all badly drawn. The exposition at the beginning is unbelievably clunky. Avoid. Avoid. Avoid.
-
-
AndrewG.Jan 19, 200701) Premise is a more secular rip off of the god awful "Left Behind" series. 2) Reminded me of War of the Worlds in the way that most of the action played out. 3) Stupid, unbelievable things happened at very important points in the movie.
-
-
SethC.Oct 19, 20071
-
-
ShermanS.Jan 23, 20073
-
-
GlennF.Jan 28, 20072Random, nihilistic, and violent. I kept waiting for an explanation for the improbable political and military decisions, which never came. Defies scientific explanation as well. Well-shot sequences in a boring bummer of a film.
-
-
CassandraFeb 12, 20071Behold a boring leftist fantasy (replete with cheap, already dated, political shots) masquerading as something deep. Fine acting (mostly wasted) and technical virtuosity do not a good story make. I
-
-
BobS.Feb 16, 20073THe film's story seems to be made up as they went along. It is often just inane. Although I liked much of the acting, story is important too and this film lacks a coherent one, and we have violence for the sake of violence. A wasted effort.
-
-
TomA.Feb 19, 20074Pretty 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.
-
-
AaronL.Apr 15, 20072It is ironic how many of the good reviews for this film cite ignorance as the reason why others have hailed this movie as abysmal. Ignorance is failing to uncover the logical fallacies inherent in this deplorable attempt at enlightenment. This film only contains true meaning for those too ignorant to see past mirage that is this vile realm.
-
-
JohnI.May 11, 20070
-
-
MarkkJul 18, 20082The first half hour or so is ok but then the film just completely collapses. What a horrible script. It turns into a mindless chase flick. If you like checking your mind out when you watch dumb films see it but everyone else should avoid it.
-
-
earwaxDec 29, 20063Nicely filmed. plot kind of sucked. too many unanswered questions. totally implausable premise. to hard accept the idea that humans can't reproduce.
-
-
Dec 8, 20101
-
Dec 13, 20114
-
70Children 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.
-
80Picture 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.
-
80Owen 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.