User Score
8.1

Universal acclaim- based on 834 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. Jeannie
    Feb 2, 2007
    3
    A dystopic, boring, depressing, confusing vision of the future, and very politicized for our present state of affairs. The "immigrant rights" angle is one case in point. Lots of logical inconsistencies, unsympathetic, poorly-developed characters, melancholy cinematography, gratuitous violence. I would not recommend this piece of left-wing propaganda to anyone remotely optimistic about the A dystopic, boring, depressing, confusing vision of the future, and very politicized for our present state of affairs. The "immigrant rights" angle is one case in point. Lots of logical inconsistencies, unsympathetic, poorly-developed characters, melancholy cinematography, gratuitous violence. I would not recommend this piece of left-wing propaganda to anyone remotely optimistic about the future. And the "music" stunk. Thumbs down! Expand
  2. BrianK.
    Sep 1, 2007
    3
    This movie was terrible. There were just too many plot problems. Children of Men takes place in Britain in a futuristic age where humans can no longer reproduce. The only thing keeping my attention was the hope that the cause of the infertility would be revealed. However, the only provided explanation is that about 20 years earlier, there was a disease going around, causing the change. This movie was terrible. There were just too many plot problems. Children of Men takes place in Britain in a futuristic age where humans can no longer reproduce. The only thing keeping my attention was the hope that the cause of the infertility would be revealed. However, the only provided explanation is that about 20 years earlier, there was a disease going around, causing the change. Since this phenomenon drives the whole plot of the film, I would have preferred to have been given an explanation lasting more than 20 seconds. Also, I don't want to give too much away, but the ending isn't much of a conclusion. Rather, the camera just zooms out and no questions have been answered and the protagonist is still in the middle of his journey. I'm not saying that I wanted everything to be wrapped up neatly; I just want to see at least some form of finality. Another problem of mine was the characterization. In the middle of the film, people try to kill a woman because she's pregnant, yet, as soon as the baby's born, everybody suddenly becomes nice and peaceful. I understand that the director was trying to show the innocence of children, but going from murderous to crying and hugging in a matter of seconds is just too ridiculous. In addition, I had some problems with the filming. There were a couple of times when vision was distracted because of blood from the scene that splattered onto the camera. As a result, there's a whole scene in which the characters are running around, but I was fixated on the drops of liquid that were dripping down the screen. (Trust me, the blood was not there for a symbolic purpose.) In short, the idea of a futuristic world without fertility may have been a good idea, but the execution was dreadful. Expand
  3. BenH
    Jun 1, 2009
    3
    Great 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.
  4. DonaldC.
    Mar 27, 2007
    1
    The 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.
  5. Dec 8, 2010
    1
    I sort of enjoyed the movie for a while until the nonsense about refuge camps and when it started to look like all this film brought up was questions with no cohession. Specifically if you think the characters developed and evolved throughout the movie and that all the different ideas were stuck together well then you are nuts. Yes the music may have been good or the photos, I dont knowI sort of enjoyed the movie for a while until the nonsense about refuge camps and when it started to look like all this film brought up was questions with no cohession. Specifically if you think the characters developed and evolved throughout the movie and that all the different ideas were stuck together well then you are nuts. Yes the music may have been good or the photos, I dont know and dont really care. I disagree that the ending was crap in that if the director was trying to convey how nuts people hand gone by believeing in some mythical humainity project and that it was just an ordinary boat then yes it was actually quite a good ending, if.... I thought thats what it might have been about how he just failed at the finish line and that the woman was saved by fishermen. The camp thing was nuts, if the regime was so oppresive they would have just killed them all and it seemed to morp from an anti fuji thing at start of movie into an anti muslim thing and there were also causcasians in there, very bizare. Plus the fact he was only hit in the arms(v.unlikely) and that being hit in the arms twice killed him(not so likely). Never explaine why infertility was there and what difference one baby could have made. If they had made this about scientists rushing to understand say a cure for a disease and their being a fascist regime only using it on non-illegal immigrants it would have been a much better movie. Or they could have gone down the whole chase route more throughtly and made human project a peacful orginization protecting the baby from the fishies. Or even the "terrorits" could have been **** who created a disease through gene technology by accident, who were hated but were also required to solve the same issue they created, all of these different scenarios would have been much deeper than what was presented -nothing. Expand
  6. Ben
    Jan 5, 2007
    1
    Truly lousy movie. This is one of the worst movies I've seen in years. I consider myself able to appreciate good, thoughtful, movies... but this was utter dreck. Uninspired, lacking a coherent plot, this movie was just mediocre. The attempts to draw parallels to the current US administration, their policies, and the Iraq war were painful (department of homeland security, illegal Truly lousy movie. This is one of the worst movies I've seen in years. I consider myself able to appreciate good, thoughtful, movies... but this was utter dreck. Uninspired, lacking a coherent plot, this movie was just mediocre. The attempts to draw parallels to the current US administration, their policies, and the Iraq war were painful (department of homeland security, illegal immigrants, Iraq, etc), and felt like they were thrown in to make a point rather than add meaning to the movie. Overall plot and character development were weak, with absolutely no explanation of precipitating or tangential factors (why the infertility, what is the human project, etc). Unmoving, uncaptivating, uninspiring, unbelievable, unimaginative, unfortunate waste of $9.50. Expand
  7. ApocalypseBrown
    Mar 3, 2007
    3
    Pathetic! Tries hard to be something it can never be, which is classy.
  8. AnonymousMC
    Apr 18, 2007
    0
    I 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
  9. PnArdyPnArdy
    May 13, 2007
    2
    This 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.
  10. JamesL.
    Jan 6, 2008
    2
    Boring 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.
  11. MikeH.
    Jan 10, 2007
    0
    Obviously marketing for this movie deserves a TEN, but the actual content, the actual story, message, moral? ZERO... there IS NO MESSAGE TO THIS FILM. IT IS A CIPHER, it's just a rollercoaster with guns and violence, and the acting comes from being shot at and watching a woman have a baby... there's NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. All bang, no substance, so why are people giving this Obviously marketing for this movie deserves a TEN, but the actual content, the actual story, message, moral? ZERO... there IS NO MESSAGE TO THIS FILM. IT IS A CIPHER, it's just a rollercoaster with guns and violence, and the acting comes from being shot at and watching a woman have a baby... there's NO CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT. All bang, no substance, so why are people giving this film a TOP rating? I smell a HUGE RAT. Expand
  12. Irwin
    Jan 15, 2007
    2
    Hardly original, Children of Men
  13. JeffD.
    Jan 24, 2007
    3
    This 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.
  14. V.Martinez
    Jan 28, 2007
    2
    A stinker...Pop a chewable Prozac before you see this one, because it's bleeping depressing. The world falls completely apart in the next 20 years?? Must be global warming's fault. Underground rebels, fascist soldiers, more chase scenes, cliche here, cliche there. So many unanswered questions that I stopped caring about anything this movie tried to convey, namely that dogs can A stinker...Pop a chewable Prozac before you see this one, because it's bleeping depressing. The world falls completely apart in the next 20 years?? Must be global warming's fault. Underground rebels, fascist soldiers, more chase scenes, cliche here, cliche there. So many unanswered questions that I stopped caring about anything this movie tried to convey, namely that dogs can reproduce, but humans can't (shouldn't?) :0) Maybe Part II will be Puppies of Dogs. Seriously, there are so many people giving this mediocre movie a 9 or 10 that I think maybe our world might look like this in 20 years (me? I'll be in the 'Fugee' section begging for my $9 back). Expand
  15. DavidH.
    Jan 3, 2007
    3
    Indeed the world HAS gone bonkers when film academics give rave reviews to this kind of trite rubbish. Children of Men's meandering plotline is in no way helped by the film's confused allegory. Clive Owen is his usual turgid self. The film's social commentary is by equal measure myopic and simplistic. Action sequences, especially the finale, smack of similarities to films Indeed the world HAS gone bonkers when film academics give rave reviews to this kind of trite rubbish. Children of Men's meandering plotline is in no way helped by the film's confused allegory. Clive Owen is his usual turgid self. The film's social commentary is by equal measure myopic and simplistic. Action sequences, especially the finale, smack of similarities to films such as Downfall and the Pianist, the visuals throughout the film are tiresomely familiar to anyone accustomed to other sci-fi releases such as Blade Runner, Brazil, A.I and Minority Report. To top it all off, the drama is thin, exhibiting not a single memorable character. Shame, the editing is suberb. Expand
  16. RichardF.
    Jan 8, 2007
    1
    What 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.
  17. GeorgeH.
    Jan 9, 2007
    3
    Could have been MUCH better than what the trailers lead us to believe. Standard chase film, nothing new or special and actually pretty tedious. I didn't give a hoot about Clive Owen's character or relationship with Julianne Moore. Michael was was especially annoying as his mentor. I found the most interesting characters to be either mute (the teen playing a futuristic video game Could have been MUCH better than what the trailers lead us to believe. Standard chase film, nothing new or special and actually pretty tedious. I didn't give a hoot about Clive Owen's character or relationship with Julianne Moore. Michael was was especially annoying as his mentor. I found the most interesting characters to be either mute (the teen playing a futuristic video game at the breakfast table) or catatonic (Michael Caine's wife). Someone recently said, "Why is it that all storylines (with few exceptions) that take place in the future have a distinctly black/blue/grey look to them? What futiristic despot banned technincolor? Expand
  18. Joseph
    Feb 12, 2007
    1
    I read many reviews before deciding to go see this movie. Every critic said there was a "clear message of hope" to be found in the movie. However, I found no message of hope. The political message was so painfully blunt and forced that it made me cringe. Unfortunately, that political message is the only part of this movie with any substance. I still wish I had walked out of the theater I read many reviews before deciding to go see this movie. Every critic said there was a "clear message of hope" to be found in the movie. However, I found no message of hope. The political message was so painfully blunt and forced that it made me cringe. Unfortunately, that political message is the only part of this movie with any substance. I still wish I had walked out of the theater when I first thought about it (about 30 minutes into it). Expand
  19. JohnF.
    Feb 3, 2007
    2
    I 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.
  20. JohnT.
    Mar 24, 2007
    1
    After reading all these reviews, maybe I saw the wrong movie. But it was horrible and pointless. Don't waste your time.
  21. MikeyGray
    Mar 31, 2007
    0
    Reminds me of those bad 1980s doomsday scifi action flicks, only with a less interesting plot, and even more lacking in character development.
  22. Matt
    Mar 30, 2007
    2
    Well shot, simplistic, clumsily acted B movie.
  23. DavidT.
    Apr 1, 2007
    3
    Shot VERY Well...Which is Half the Battle BUT a VERY Bad Story Line! Very Anit-Climatic!!!
  24. AideenM.
    Apr 22, 2007
    2
    What 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.
  25. JoK.
    Apr 29, 2007
    2
    Thoroughly 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).
  26. PeterJ.
    May 3, 2007
    3
    When 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...
  27. JohnG.
    May 3, 2007
    2
    Liberal 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.
  28. SibylP
    Jan 1, 2009
    3
    The 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
  29. JacobR.
    Jan 7, 2007
    0
    This 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.
  30. BillyB.
    Apr 14, 2007
    3
    I 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.
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.