Children of Men review

 Number 390 on the top 1000 films of all time is Alfonso Cuaron's 2006 dystopian thriller 'Children of Men.'

Based on P.D James' book of the same name, Children of Men is set in a slightly futuristic London where humanity has become infertile and can no longer have children. This plus an influx of refugees and asylum seekers to the UK has led the country to the brink of collapse. Enter former activist turned civil servant Theo Farron (Clive Farron) who is tasked in helping refugee Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey) in escaping the chaos. Julianne Moore co-stars as Farron's estranged wife and activist leader Julian while Michael Caine plays former journalist Jasper Palmer. Chiwetel Eijofar, Pam Ferris and Charlie Hunnam all co-star.

Infertility has always been a theme that's interested audiences and readers. What happens if we can no longer reproduce? Margaret Atwood first tried answering that question in her 1985 book 'The Handmaid's Tale,' which was recently adapted into a TV series that enraptured the world. Arguably, she was just laying the groundwork for P.D James and later Alfonso Cuaron.

In Children of Men, Cuaron portrayed a hellish future. This is far away from the techno-dystopia of Blade-Runner. If anything, Cuaron wanted to show an anti-Blade Runner. And he succeeds. The London he shows is dirty, despotic and completely hopeless. It doesn't look all that different from our own. Children of Men is set in 2027 - only 2 years on from when I'm writing this review - 21 years on from the making of the film and 35 from when the film was set. This is not a long-distant future, but it's in the here and now. Refugees are rounded up, caged, deported, some shot on sight. That's still happening in parts of the world as we speak. The similarities are scarily real.

Cuaron's use of cinematography and tracking-shots all contributed to this film's success. The film is well-known for its use of multiple one-take tracking shots that raised the tension to a fever pitch. I think we can all remember the film's most famous scene of Farron and the other Fishes desperately trying to outrun the bandits on the road. Another particularly famous scene comes during the film's climatic fight scene - another one-take scene, where the camera is splattered with blood. Cuaron wanted to reshoot it, but cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki insisted they leave it in. It was a great decision and one of many that contributed to Lubezki's well-earned Oscar nomination for Best Cinematography.

Speaking of Oscars, Children of Men was nominated for three: Cinematography as we mentioned, editing and adapted screenplay. There were no acting nominations. I question if this was a bit of an oversight. I've only seen Clive Owen in a few films, but they've generally been supporting or villainous roles. This is the first time I've seen as a leading man and he was good. He held the screen well, as he showed Farron's transformation from hapless bureaucrat to unlikely hero - am I the only one who cheered when he absolutely clobbered the corrupt prison guard Sid? Although I also found it annoying that Farron didn't pick up a stray gun when he had a chance - it would have been nice to have seen him personally kill the other villains of the film.

Speaking of villains, Chiwetel Eijofar filled this role well. As the de-facto leader of the activist group Fishes, he's desperate for the violence and killing to stop, but could you argue that his quest for justice has clouded his own moral compass. He will stop at nothing to achieve his goals even if that means he has to break the rules. I think Eijofar showed the conflict well, proving why he went onto be Oscar-nominated down the line. Similarly, you had Charlie Hunnam as a tertiary antagonist - his role was small, but still memorable. He played Patric - an activist whose cousin dies in an ill-thought out operation.

*Spoilers ahead* But let's give some love to the women as well. Granted Julianne Moore only has a small role due to her character's early shock death, but she was also good as was Pam Ferris. Ferris' turn as former midwife turned activist and martyr was a far cry from her villainous role as Trunchball in Matilda. A very versatile actress. And I even enjoyed Michael Caine as the ageing hippy and journalist Jasper Palmer.

If I were to criticise the film for anything, I think it could have been slightly longer. At 110 minutes, it's slightly shy of the two-hour mark and I think we could have used more time to explore more of the backstory of the world - especially with the 'Fishes' activist organisation. We quickly learn that they are behind Julian's death in a shady plot to use Kee's baby as a political symbol. Patric and his cousin spearhead this operation but his cousin is killed in the process. This sends Patric into a revenge arc which is never fully fleshed out.

Similarly, we never really find out how Kee became pregnant or what caused the infertility crisis in the first place. But I think much of this was down to Cuaron and his deliberate choice to eschew any explanations. He doesn't like exposition or backstory instead allowing audiences to come to their own conclusions.

My conclusion? This was a great film that left me wanting so much more. Time to read the book!