EPMC #4: Children of Men

[Heradel]

The management apologizes for the lateness of this post and assures you that those responsible will be shot.
———
Children of Men

Children of Men is a 2006 dystopian science fiction film co-written and directed by Alfonso Cuarón. It was loosely adapted from P. D. James's 1992 novel The Children of Men by Cuarón and Timothy J. Sexton with help from David Arata, Mark Fergus and Hawk Ostby. It stars Clive Owen, Julianne Moore, Claire-Hope Ashitey, Chiwetel Ejiofor and Michael Caine.
Set in the United Kingdom of 2027, the film explores a grim world in which two decades of global human infertility have left humanity with less than a century to survive. Societal collapse, terrorism, and environmental destruction accompany the impending extinction. Meanwhile, the United Kingdom — perhaps the last functioning government — persecutes a seemingly endless wave of illegal immigrant refugees seeking sanctuary. In the midst of this chaos, Theo Faron (Clive Owen) must find safe transit for Kee (Claire-Hope Ashitey), a pregnant African refugee.

—http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children_of_Men

Links:
Amazon:$6 (Widescreen edition)
Netflix
IMDB

————————

For next week (Thread goes up Monday the 28st):
The Day the Earth Stood Still
"The Day the Earth Stood Still is a 1951 black-and-white science fiction film that tells the story of a humanoid alien who comes to Earth to warn its leaders not to take their conflicts into space, or they will face devastating consequences." — Wikipedia.

Links:
Amazon:$7.49
Netflix
IMDB

[wakela]

Lucky Day! I just watched this the other night and wanted to talk about it, but was afraid that I would have to try to resurrect the Escape Pod Movie Review episode comments.

I know everyone likes this one, but I just couldn't get it.
I thought the political commentary was a little heavy handed and tired.  There were several shots of anti-Bush paraphernalia and the obvious Abu Ghraib reference in the internment camp, and this pulled me out of the story.  The director wasn't interested in women becoming infertile, he was interested in criticizing the Patriot Act.   There is nothing wrong with criticizing the Patriot Act, but it felt like when I am reading a forum post about the Koreans developing cold fusion, and a commenter manages to tie that in to Bush being a Nazi.  So I feel like I was duped. 

People often comment that they fear this movie represents where we are currently headed.  I don't believe that, and maybe that's a prerequisite for buying into this premise.

Having said that, I thought the acting was great, the characters were interesting and believable, and the sets were stunningly realistic.  I'd like to see more stuff by this director.

[sirana]

I really liked the visual style of this movies. Handheld camera takes of this length are incredible difficult to do, especially with the amount of action that takes place, but if they are done they really add huge amount of realism to the movie. I liked the Universe the movie is set in and I think it is a realistic projection of what would happen if some world-wide catastrophe would really happen.
The Hamas ralley in the Fugitive Camp, right next to a French demonstration.... just wonderful.

The actors are great, between Chiwetel Ejiofor (the evil fish leader), whom I adore in every film I've seen him in and Pam Ferris (the midwife who does Tai-Chi) there wasn't anyone I didn't like. Clive Owen does his usual great job and I'd really like to see more of Claire-Hope Ashitey.

The plot seems a bit contrived at times and I don't know if it was a good idea to use three different evils (The Fishes under Luke, the Government, Syd). Maybe less would have been less.

Another thing I did like was the fact that even though there are guns galore around him Clive Owen never picks up a gun. He isn't completely pacifist, but he doesn't see violence as the first choice to solve a problem, something that is seen in too few action films.

[oddpod]

i loved it
dose any one ealse think thare are alot of visual simalaratys betwean this and some of the half life 2 stuf?

[Chodon]

I thought this movie was fantastic.  The main battle scene has one single shot, no cuts, for a good 10 minutes or so.  It's fantastic.  It's one of those scenes (like the lobby scene in The Matrix) that I use to test out new A/V equipment.

As far as the political commentary, I give it a meh.  I suppose a world like that COULD happen, but is very unlikely. 

This was one of the few movies I could get my wife to see with me.  She was very quiet through the whole movie.  After we walked out of the theater and into the lobby she absolutely lost it.  She bawled pretty much the whole way home.

I don't think she's going to see any more movies I pick out.

[eytanz]

I liked a lot of this movie. But I hated the ending, which abandoned any pretense at realism. So, the baby is born, and suddenly all the fighting just stops? And all the factions that, up to three seconds ago were trying to gain control of the baby just let him be carried away? Including the military? Not one of the dozens of soldiers thought to actually carry out their original mission? Not one of the insurgents was crazy enough to just kill the baby under the view that if his faction can't have it, no-one can?

The whole movie was unrealistic and manipulative in its portrayal of humanity, but it was doing so relatively subtly and effectively. The last few minutes destroyed that completely.

[Chodon]

I liked a lot of this movie. But I hated the ending, which abandoned any pretense at realism. So, the baby is born, and suddenly all the fighting just stops? And all the factions that, up to three seconds ago were trying to gain control of the baby just let him be carried away? Including the military? Not one of the dozens of soldiers thought to actually carry out their original mission? Not one of the insurgents was crazy enough to just kill the baby under the view that if his faction can't have it, no-one can?

The whole movie was unrealistic and manipulative in its portrayal of humanity, but it was doing so relatively subtly and effectively. The last few minutes destroyed that completely.

I think it is really tough to judge their actions based on our view of the world.  These people hadn't even SEEN a baby in 20 years.  As far as they all knew the world was ending, so screw it.  Then all that was gone, there was a little bit of hope.  Everything else just went out the window because of this baby.  There was a chance humanity would survive.  It was very dramatic, and the head of the terrorist group TRIED to kill the baby as it was being snatched away.  I thought it was one of the best scenes of the movie.
Also, they set up the fact about how much the world loved the 18 year old who was the youngest person in the world.  People were devastated when he was killed.  I'm sure they would have the same reaction to this baby.

[Darwinist]

I thought this movie was fantastic.  The main battle scene has one single shot, no cuts, for a good 10 minutes or so.  It's fantastic.  It's one of those scenes (like the lobby scene in The Matrix) that I use to test out new A/V equipment.

As far as the political commentary, I give it a meh.  I suppose a world like that COULD happen, but is very unlikely. 

This was one of the few movies I could get my wife to see with me.  She was very quiet through the whole movie.  After we walked out of the theater and into the lobby she absolutely lost it.  She bawled pretty much the whole way home.

I don't think she's going to see any more movies I pick out.

This pretty much sums up my experience.   I thought the movie was great but the polictical messages were a bit over the top.  My wife was a little upset by it, but she thought it was well done and was glad she saw it on the big screen. 

The main battle scene you refer to Chodon - is that the one towards the end, or is it the one where they are ambushed on the road?   Both are super intense and great.   

[eytanz]

I liked a lot of this movie. But I hated the ending, which abandoned any pretense at realism. So, the baby is born, and suddenly all the fighting just stops? And all the factions that, up to three seconds ago were trying to gain control of the baby just let him be carried away? Including the military? Not one of the dozens of soldiers thought to actually carry out their original mission? Not one of the insurgents was crazy enough to just kill the baby under the view that if his faction can't have it, no-one can?

The whole movie was unrealistic and manipulative in its portrayal of humanity, but it was doing so relatively subtly and effectively. The last few minutes destroyed that completely.

I think it is really tough to judge their actions based on our view of the world.  These people hadn't even SEEN a baby in 20 years.  As far as they all knew the world was ending, so screw it.  Then all that was gone, there was a little bit of hope.  Everything else just went out the window because of this baby.  There was a chance humanity would survive.  It was very dramatic, and the head of the terrorist group TRIED to kill the baby as it was being snatched away.  I thought it was one of the best scenes of the movie.
Also, they set up the fact about how much the world loved the 18 year old who was the youngest person in the world.  People were devastated when he was killed.  I'm sure they would have the same reaction to this baby.

This isn't about world view. It's about being human, and being in human-like situations. Look at real catastrophes in this world. Look at Darfur, Palestine, Iraq. Look at people's reactions there. Sure, there is a sizable chunk of people who react rationally, but the fighting never stops, not unless a ceasation is imposed. People living in despair will lash out, often at the very things that can raise them out of despair. Soldiers will obey orders blindly even though the circumstances are different than those predicted when the orders were given. And note that in the movie, the fighting stops way beyond the immediate range of people who actually see the baby. It can't be chalked up to some sort of miraculous optimism about human nature. The baby is born, and all fighting ends. This is not a natural reaction. It is a miracle, plain and simple, in the religious sense. The movie shifted from being a political allegory to being fantasy.

I can forgive a lot of unrealistic human psychology, strange coincidences, and hollywood storytelling in an otherwise enthralling movie. But I cannot forgive a miracle.

[sirana]

The baby is born, and all fighting ends. This is not a natural reaction. It is a miracle, plain and simple, in the religious sense. The movie shifted from being a political allegory to being fantasy.

I can forgive a lot of unrealistic human psychology, strange coincidences, and hollywood storytelling in an otherwise enthralling movie. But I cannot forgive a miracle.

For me that part didn't feel unrealistic. I think for the people that haven't witnessed a human baby born in 20 years the experience would be the same as if an alien appeared or if someone was levitating during a battle (but without the negative connotations that aliens or magic have). I aggree that they might continue to fight, but I think it is equally likely that they act exactly like they did in the movie.
What did feel unrealistic though was that as soon as there was another minor explosion they suddenly forget about the baby completely and go on fighting (which conveniently enables the heroes to escape). That felt a little cheap to me.

[DKT]

First off, why is this movie only $6?  Does it have absolutely no features on it or something?  I rarely ever buy DVDs anymore, but I'm severely tempted to buy this one.

I absolutely love this movie, from the writing to the acting.  I loved the scene in the school between Clive Owen's character and the mid-wife. 

I didn't have a problem with the fighting ceasing when the baby was born.  It was the first birth in 20 years, humanity was on the brink of extinction, and then all of a sudden a baby cries.  For a couple minutes, everyone is reminded that they are all part of the same species, that they're all human. 

I love that scene, and I love that it only lasts for a couple of minutes, until an explosion goes off and everyone starts trying to kill everyone else again.  Right back into the violent cycle.  Actually, I think that's some very good social commentary right there.

I'm really looking forward to seeing what Cuaron does next.  I thought his other films were pretty good, but Children of Men is a movie I don't think I'll forget.

[Heradel]

This isn't about world view. It's about being human, and being in human-like situations. Look at real catastrophes in this world. Look at Darfur, Palestine, Iraq. Look at people's reactions there. Sure, there is a sizable chunk of people who react rationally, but the fighting never stops, not unless a ceasation is imposed. People living in despair will lash out, often at the very things that can raise them out of despair. Soldiers will obey orders blindly even though the circumstances are different than those predicted when the orders were given. And note that in the movie, the fighting stops way beyond the immediate range of people who actually see the baby. It can't be chalked up to some sort of miraculous optimism about human nature. The baby is born, and all fighting ends. This is not a natural reaction. It is a miracle, plain and simple, in the religious sense. The movie shifted from being a political allegory to being fantasy.

I can forgive a lot of unrealistic human psychology, strange coincidences, and hollywood storytelling in an otherwise enthralling movie. But I cannot forgive a miracle.

You're identifying the effect of the miracle, not the miracle itself. The first thing we learned about this world is that as a species they're in mourning over the death of the youngest person. Second thing's the terrorism, but that scene of unadulterated grief... I think the baby scene made total sense, because that baby is a miracle. First child in twenty years, first reminder that the way you leave this world is going to matter, first parental moment that those soldiers and revolutionaries are having. These people weren't thinking about the future — there wasn't going to be one. People were going to die and the youngest would be there to turn out the lights on the human race. The fact that a child is born is a miracle to them. They don't understand why there are no children, it's beyond them.

For a child to be born in that world... anything would stop. At least for that moment, since we as humans only seem to be a capable of having moments of clarity before returning to the idiocy of the daily. I certainly teared up a little during that scene.

I didn't feel a deus ex machina there, it's never explained how the pregnancy happens, but it's never really explained how they stopped, so I guess that's ok. There was some political allegory, but I only rarely connected it back to the real world.

First off, why is this movie only $6?  Does it have absolutely no features on it or something?  I rarely ever buy DVDs anymore, but I'm severely tempted to buy this one.

I'm pretty sure it doesn't have any other features, it's just the movie. There's an HD-DVD version (not that you'd want it unless you already had a player), but I couldn't quickly find a featureful version of the movie. Maybe they're saving it for a later release.

[eytanz]

This isn't about world view. It's about being human, and being in human-like situations. Look at real catastrophes in this world. Look at Darfur, Palestine, Iraq. Look at people's reactions there. Sure, there is a sizable chunk of people who react rationally, but the fighting never stops, not unless a ceasation is imposed. People living in despair will lash out, often at the very things that can raise them out of despair. Soldiers will obey orders blindly even though the circumstances are different than those predicted when the orders were given. And note that in the movie, the fighting stops way beyond the immediate range of people who actually see the baby. It can't be chalked up to some sort of miraculous optimism about human nature. The baby is born, and all fighting ends. This is not a natural reaction. It is a miracle, plain and simple, in the religious sense. The movie shifted from being a political allegory to being fantasy.

I can forgive a lot of unrealistic human psychology, strange coincidences, and hollywood storytelling in an otherwise enthralling movie. But I cannot forgive a miracle.

You're identifying the effect of the miracle, not the miracle itself. The first thing we learned about this world is that as a species they're in mourning over the death of the youngest person. Second thing's the terrorism, but that scene of unadulterated grief... I think the baby scene made total sense, because that baby is a miracle. First child in twenty years, first reminder that the way you leave this world is going to matter, first parental moment that those soldiers and revolutionaries are having. These people weren't thinking about the future — there wasn't going to be one. People were going to die and the youngest would be there to turn out the lights on the human race. The fact that a child is born is a miracle to them. They don't understand why there are no children, it's beyond them.

For a child to be born in that world... anything would stop. At least for that moment, since we as humans only seem to be a capable of having moments of clarity before returning to the idiocy of the daily. I certainly teared up a little during that scene.

I'm sorry. I saw violence, first hand. I lived through it. I've had mindless rage directed at me, I've felt it myself towards others, and I've known people killed by it. Twice in my life I missed out on being blown to shreds by terrorist attacks, once by leaving my office a few minutes late and once by having lunch a few minutes early.

Violence does not just suddenly stop. Not for something you need to be able to think to appreciate. Anyone who believes otherwise has never truly experienced it.

And let me give you another perspective. Imagine that your life, your future, all destroyed because no-one can have children. You have no hope - not just the species, but no personal hope. You are a poor refugee, or you are a soldier in a dying state. You have nothing, you face violence and opposition on a daily basis. You are also well aware that if you had just been born fifty years earlier, you would have lived in what seems now like a golden age. Hell, even ten years earlier would have given you a long period of happiness you never experienced. And then you discover that one person did have a baby. Is that baby going to give you hope? Or is that baby a symbol of all that was taken away from you, of the hope *you* could have had, if only it had come to you, twenty years ago. This baby means that you have not only lost it all, but you have been supplanted. It will inherit the earth, from you. Why would you let it live?

Of course, not everyone will feel that way. Maybe 19 out of every 20 will feel as you say, though I think it's hopelessly naive to think awareness will come to anyone in the middle of a combat. But if even only 5% of the people feel as I say, that would be enough to restart the fighting. Just one stone thrown, or shot fired, and someone else will shoot back, and the whole chaos will begin anew. History teaches us that much.

I resent the ending to this movie because it trivializes hatred, it trivializes anger, and it trivializes misery. It makes it appear that those things are solvable if only the solution to whatever caused the hatred, anger and misery would show up. That's wishful thinking. Hatred, anger and misery are three of the most powerful forces in the human psyche. They need to be recognized as such, if their influence on our world is ever to be lightened up. This movie ultimately is a propoganda tool for those who wish to dismiss the world's real problems in favor of promised miracles. I find it deeply saddening, though not surprising, that so many are happy to believe it.

[eytanz]

I'm sorry. I saw violence, first hand. I lived through it. I've had mindless rage directed at me, I've felt it myself towards others, and I've known people killed by it. Twice in my life I missed out on being blown to shreds by terrorist attacks, once by leaving my office a few minutes late and once by having lunch a few minutes early.

Before it seems like I'm claiming something I'm not, I should point out that while all of the above is true, I never experienced conditions anywhere near those experienced by people in this movie. And the vast majority of my life has been violence-free. I don't think this weakens my argument, though.

[Heradel]

I rewatched the scene a minute ago, there's a cease-fire order given by one of the soldiers that causes the fighting in the near-vicinity to stop (it's shouted down the line), there's still machine-gun fire in the background though. And then one of the Fishes fires an RPG at one of the government's tanks, and the fighting starts right back up again. There is certainly a sense of awe and hope, but the number of Fishes in that building was something like a dozen or less (we only see four, one of whom's dead by the moment of violence), and the few we saw were changing position.

I can't speak to the violence on a personal level, I haven't lived with much of it in my life beyond bullying, though both of the places I've lived were scarred by it a few years ago. I'm very sorry you have.

In the context of this scene though, it's a small rebel group, and a massive force of soldiers. The building is mostly filled with fugees. I would imagine the cease-fire order to be pretty well respected by the soldiers, and it seems like the Fishes are busy/not in position.

I didn't think it trivialized those forces, they ignore the long-term effects of a new child being born since the movie ends minutes later. The cycle of violence is a hard one to brake, I'll quote King on it because my experience with it is limited.

The ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral, begetting the very thing it seeks to destroy. Instead of diminishing evil, it multiplies it. Through violence you may murder the liar, but you cannot murder the lie, nor establish the truth. Through violence you may murder the hater, but you do not murder hate. In fact, violence merely increases hate. So it goes. ... Returning hate for hate multiplies hate, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars. Darkness cannot drive out darkness: only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate: only love can do that.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

Stunning, bleak, and somehow (for my mind) uplifting.

eytanz - I understand what you are objecting to, and I partly agree with you; if this was supposed to be realistic, then it would have been completely devoid of hope.  However, there are a few things about this specific situation that I feel justify the scene we saw played out:
* the fighting was very intense and we saw most of the Fish killed as Theo made his way to the baby
* the fighting did not "stop" per se... it did pause as the people between Theo, Kee and Froley/Bazouka/Dylan made their way to the door
* the soldiers were order to cease fire, and knowing what I know of British soldiers, they would stop, until...
* the "peace" WAS broken, relatively quickly, by another shot from the building, and mayhem broke out again.

As far as turning into fantasy, it didn't feel that way to me... not in the sense of a complete disconnect from the possible.  At least, that miraculous parting of the factions didn't make it so... once the Fishes were all dead, Theo & Co. were surrounded by mothers and professional soldiers, and I can buy that they would have stopped for that minute.  You should also consider, as realism goes, these were people who were working chaotically toward their own goals, and often against each other, who all literally wanted to carry that child safely to Tomorrow.  Kind of a major thematic element, and all of the "political commentary" around it played into that.

As for political messages, well... the only particular message I kept getting was "man, people really are a bunch of shitheads!"  All the rest is Pov and character development. 


Edit: forgot to mention - I have seen four humans born into this world.  if I hadn't watched the special features, I would have sworn that I saw a fifth, and not a CGI baby.  Well done.

Second Edit: inserted in purple the stuff I meant to say; never proofread yourself while half-asleep. 

[eytanz]

In the context of this scene though, it's a small rebel group, and a massive force of soldiers. The building is mostly filled with fugees. I would imagine the cease-fire order to be pretty well respected by the soldiers, and it seems like the Fishes are busy/not in position.

I didn't think it trivialized those forces, they ignore the long-term effects of a new child being born since the movie ends minutes later. The cycle of violence is a hard one to brake, I'll quote King on it because my experience with it is limited.

I'm running out of things to say about this that aren't repititions of what I've already said, so I'm leaving it here. It's a matter of perception as much as anything else, I think - it's not just the interpretation of the scene's significance that is in question, but also a lot of the details that aren't directly shown need to be filled in (such as what the people were thinking as they viewed the baby, why the fighting stopped, and so forth). While I stand by my reaction, I can see why others may view it differently.

Thanks for the King quote, by the way. I have heard it before, obviously, but it's always worth seeing again.

[Heradel]

I'm running out of things to say about this that aren't repititions of what I've already said, so I'm leaving it here. It's a matter of perception as much as anything else, I think - it's not just the interpretation of the scene's significance that is in question, but also a lot of the details that aren't directly shown need to be filled in (such as what the people were thinking as they viewed the baby, why the fighting stopped, and so forth). While I stand by my reaction, I can see why others may view it differently.

Thanks for the King quote, by the way. I have heard it before, obviously, but it's always worth seeing again.

Obviously we've walked different paths, and we'll see different things in art. I didn't see it as saying that things would get better immediately, just that after a long, dark night, a bit of hope had broken on the horizon. Maybe it doesn't work out and the baby's a freak accident, but maybe the baby switch gets turned back on in humans and we go on as a race. But it's fair that you see it different, art's not supposed to hit everyone the same.

Where Do We Go From Here is a great speech, and he's certainly one of the ideological progenitors of my pacifism.

[eytanz]

I'm running out of things to say about this that aren't repititions of what I've already said, so I'm leaving it here. It's a matter of perception as much as anything else, I think - it's not just the interpretation of the scene's significance that is in question, but also a lot of the details that aren't directly shown need to be filled in (such as what the people were thinking as they viewed the baby, why the fighting stopped, and so forth). While I stand by my reaction, I can see why others may view it differently.

Thanks for the King quote, by the way. I have heard it before, obviously, but it's always worth seeing again.

Obviously we've walked different paths, and we'll see different things in art. I didn't see it as saying that things would get better immediately, just that after a long, dark night, a bit of hope had broken on the horizon. Maybe it doesn't work out and the baby's a freak accident, but maybe the baby switch gets turned back on in humans and we go on as a race. But it's fair that you see it different, art's not supposed to hit everyone the same.

Oh, I fully buy the story's suggestion of the baby as a ray of hope. But not in the way that the end of the movie presents.

To stop the cycle of violence, you need to give people time to think, and build up hope. One of the paradoxes of human existence is that a flesh-and-blood baby in the middle of a gunfight would not make any difference (I believe), while the knowledge that someone, somewhere, had a baby would. Ideas are more powerful than the events that give rise to them, and ideas can sway any tide (in any direction). But ideas can only develop slowly, over time, time which the people in this scene did not have (remember, none of them knew about the pregnancy until a very short time before the scene). And I'm not just saying that the baby would have been killed. The military was there to gain possession of the baby. They might not wish to harm it, but why would they let it be carried away outside their control? How come not a single soldier thought "why don't I just run and grab the baby, the man and woman carrying it are too weak to stop me?"

Anyway, not trying to continue the argument, just trying to explain further why I just don't buy this scene as anything remotely realistic.

[Russell Nash]

The military was there to gain possession of the baby. They might not wish to harm it, but why would they let it be carried away outside their control? How come not a single soldier thought "why don't I just run and grab the baby, the man and woman carrying it are too weak to stop me?"

I finally watched this last night. 

We find out from Syd that the military will be coming into the area to wipe out armed resistance.  Lukes group gets tied up in the mess and so does the baby, but neither of them are the specific reason the military is there.  The soldiers had no idea the baby was there until they heard the cries.  The baby is obviously not armed resistance, therefore they don't know what to do with it.

I was spellbound by the long takes in this film.  Long steadycam (not handheld, long hanheld shots make me seasick) shot followed by long steadycam shot.  I really hate the quick cut style, so I luxuriated in this. 

I thought the unneccesary over-the-top part was Clive Owen dying in the end.  It was just a slap in the face for no reason.  I would have liked it better if we knew when he got shot and we had to wonder if he would make it or not.

[Tango Alpha Delta]

The military was there to gain possession of the baby. They might not wish to harm it, but why would they let it be carried away outside their control? How come not a single soldier thought "why don't I just run and grab the baby, the man and woman carrying it are too weak to stop me?"

I thought the unneccesary over-the-top part was Clive Owen dying in the end.  It was just a slap in the face for no reason.  I would have liked it better if we knew when he got shot and we had to wonder if he would make it or not.

He had to die, though... it was his penance for never telling anyone that he needed "A hard top with a decent engine and make sure it’s got a big trunk. "

[Russell Nash]

The military was there to gain possession of the baby. They might not wish to harm it, but why would they let it be carried away outside their control? How come not a single soldier thought "why don't I just run and grab the baby, the man and woman carrying it are too weak to stop me?"

I thought the unneccesary over-the-top part was Clive Owen dying in the end.  It was just a slap in the face for no reason.  I would have liked it better if we knew when he got shot and we had to wonder if he would make it or not.

He had to die, though... it was his penance for never telling anyone that he needed "A hard top with a decent engine and make sure it’s got a big trunk. "

I admit he had to die (ignoring most of what TAD wrote.).  I just didn't like the way it was tacked on.

[Bdoomed]

ya know i believe it was a book first.

[DKT]

ya know i believe it was a book first.

It was, although I'm told that aside from children no longer being born, the rest of the movie bares little to no resemblance to the book.

[Bdoomed]

guess its a "based on" rather than an adaptation