Way better than Children of Men
-
LifeIsGoodHere — 16 years ago(October 11, 2009 11:19 PM)
There is NO comparisonhowever, this is one of Vin Diesel's better movies. Children of Men was a very intelligent movie and I usually am not a sci-fi nut. It was appealing to more audiences than the typical far-out sci-fi flicks arejust MHO.
-
FactUnderChecK — 16 years ago(November 23, 2009 12:18 AM)
whats with all the children of men love? your all gay. you just like it coz you love clive owen.
children of men wasnt bringing an original idea, it was just like all the other 'planet it chaos' modern post appocolyptic movies with guns. except worse because it had an ambigious ending which ment nothing.
children of men sucked dick. masterpiece?? i bet you all think v for vendetta is a masterpiece as well. -
evil_lawn_gnome — 16 years ago(November 26, 2009 01:22 PM)
Actors are not the only principle reason to enjoy any flick but more a less a staple to the over all feel. Children of Men is a good movie because it made me feel something other than the sound of the bass from a speaker every time Vin Diesel blew something up. My conclusion: COM= Win sltcs6010= FAIL
-
FactUnderChecK — 16 years ago(November 27, 2009 06:56 AM)
surface loving ignorance principle reason, more a less a staple to the overall feel? what are u talking about. please, dont even try to sound intilligent if your going to finish a comment with FAIL.
i didnt even enjoy this movie that much, but children of men is just pretentious much like those who enjoyed it. -
lorddeseiz — 16 years ago(December 12, 2009 01:07 AM)
Children of Man is alot better. The realism in that one is far more intense. I guess you would say that babylon AD is better if you like more flashy shiney over the top eplosions and spiffy gadgets that make no sense and defy all laws of fysics, then yea, babylon is better.
If youre more into raw realism and inteligent acting, Children of man will be better.
Personaly I enjoyed them both, have them both on DVD, but if I had to choose id be CoM. Babylon for a brain at zero shootemup, CoM good drama.
And i dont understand whats everyone seeing in Vin Diesel, he just another dumb muscle ? He would never be able to play Clives part in CoM and be as believable as Clive was. Remember the burial scene of Susan ? Like hell Vin can do THAT.
Any last words ?
Shut the beep up -
dont_b_so_BBC — 16 years ago(December 14, 2009 07:15 AM)
No, it's not just you.
Children of Men was put together much better since no one was messing with the directing/editing of the film and so feel more "realistic/believable" to some people. If nothing else, it was a more coherent/comprehensible, not mention well-crafted film. But I'll take cyberpunk over apocalyptic sci-fi any day.
And the apocalyptic back-story in Children of Men is just as un-realistic as the one Cyberpunk one in Babylon A.D., if not more so while the near-future described in Babylon A.D., with the exception of sci-fi gimmick/device cyber-technology, actually mirrors ours more closely/realistically.
E.g. Some people living it up while others starve, great advances in technology which are just "technical" and don't really bring peace/happiness, etc..
Why do people who don't care keep telling other people not to care? -
ChazzJazz — 12 years ago(August 15, 2013 09:31 AM)
Children of Men was about Clive Owens' character mainlyI did NOT care for Neo-Eve, (maybe because she was black boooooooo LOL ) There was not much interaction between the Neo-Eve and Clive Owens character on any level. It was mainly clive owens and julianna moore for a half of the movie and then she dies,
then the movie switched over to the army protecting eve and then an internal sabotage
And as one earlier poster mentioned, we have two strong female characters in Babylon, that counterbalance a meathead that Arnie used to play.
The meathead was a pawn in a bigger game, not the main lead.
http://myimpressionz.tk