Sean Azze Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 A buddy of mine from Toronto said that Clive Owen Plays the character Theo extremely well, anyone second this? Don't get me wrong - I think Daniel Craig is a great actor, but after seeing Clive Owen in this role with all the little sly remarks and funny quips he makes convinces me that he probably would have been the perfect Bond. Hands down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Phil Rhodes Posted January 7, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 7, 2007 Hi, Clive Owen is a plank. A nicely-hewn, well-seasoned oak plank. If he were any more wooden, you'd be able to discern his age by counting the rings. Given a sufficiently sharp chisel, I'm sure it'd be possible to carve him into a triptych depicting a 17th-century Viennese street scene. The man is practically french-polished, and his popularity never ceased to amaze me. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Azze Posted January 7, 2007 Share Posted January 7, 2007 If he were any more wooden, you'd be able to discern his age by counting the rings. LOL - never heard that one before. Given a sufficiently sharp chisel, I'm sure it'd be possible to carve him into a triptych depicting a 17th-century Viennese street scene. The man is practically french-polished, and his popularity never ceased to amaze me. And I thought the English were protective of their own. I don't suppose you liken Ricky Gervais to a hedgehog high off laughing gas? Cheers, Mate lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 Anyone have any idea on what kind of handheld rig they used on Children of Men? Emmanuel Lubezki used a cool rig for the handheld stuff on The New World and I was wondering if he used the same method. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) I swiped this from the December ASC Mag. The camera is sitting on a block, but it looks like they left the rig on the camera just in case. http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v716/rem...ofMenRig009.jpg Edited January 9, 2007 by Jonathan Bowerbank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Brad Grimmett Posted January 9, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 9, 2007 Anyone have any idea on what kind of handheld rig they used on Children of Men? Emmanuel Lubezki used a cool rig for the handheld stuff on The New World and I was wondering if he used the same method. Anyone have any idea what I'm talking about? From this picture and the other one posted it looks as though it was a regular handheld setup used for Children of Men. It looks like a 235 in the picture I posted, and an Arricam in the other picture. On The New World Chivo used a Klaussen backmount harness with a piece of speedrail attached to the back and a rope or bungee so that the camera was partially suspended right above or on his shoulder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC Posted January 9, 2007 Share Posted January 9, 2007 From this picture On The New World Chivo used a Klaussen backmount harness with a piece of speedrail attached to the back and a rope or bungee so that the camera was partially suspended right above or on his shoulder. As an Op, what would you prefer? After seeing the seemingly extremely hard handheld camera moves in the movie specially during the finally action sequence where the camera op is mimicking Clive diving and dodging bullets. Is that something easily done on a 235? At some point during the sequence the camera gets pretty low shooting up towards Clive, almost as if the camera was being held and the operators hip. What are your thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Easton Sheahan-Lee Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 Just got to this movie yesterday... What can I say, Fantastic! Absolutely wonderful! Great writing, great acting, fantastic lighting and most of all good angles and perspective! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 10, 2007 Share Posted January 10, 2007 btw, if you guys are looking for a comparison between extensive care scenes in "one shot", watch the one in Spielberg's "War of the Worlds" and then see the one in "Children of Men". I prefer the style of the latter. I challenge you to pinpoint where the cuts were (without having read about it previously) :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Durham Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Finally made it to see this flick yesterday. Amazing! The thing that really caught me about it was that the future it presents feels more like the one we seem to be headed for than any other I've seen on film. I had a buddy at work ask me of the movie "what was the reason women couldn't conceive?" My response was "who cares?" Same with the no cloning thing. It's a bit like asking why God forbade the Tree of Knowledge - it kind of misses the point. My jaw was agape at the scene at the end. Definitely the best thing I've seen in recent memory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sean Azze Posted January 12, 2007 Share Posted January 12, 2007 Another article on the vfx - http://www.fxguide.com/article390.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg lamshöft Posted January 15, 2007 Share Posted January 15, 2007 (edited) Wow! I was amazed by the movie and by it's cinematography! I've never liked hand-camera - but it worked very well and suited the style - just like "James Ryan". My Question: Are those long-shot-scenes real? Some of them were mentioned by the director but isn't it possbile with f/x- technology to "fuse" (what's the English word?) scenes, even if they contain people or other moving objects? It also had a nice technical quality - has somebody found out how the DI was made? Everybody who isn't shure about watching it because of bad critics ("unrealistic", "missing answers: why are there no children anymore?" - simply not important for the story) should think about it again. Some movies of the last weeks were pretty cool (the Departed, the Prestige) - but this one was fantastic and the best one I've seen last year! Edited January 15, 2007 by georgl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 (edited) The car scene was comprised of 3 shots...2 "seamless" cuts. The first cut was when a certain person gets shot, the second cut is when they exit the car as the cops catch up to them. You can read all about it in last month's ASC Magazine...the one with Bond on the cover. Edited January 16, 2007 by Jonathan Bowerbank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member Max Jacoby Posted January 16, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 16, 2007 The September 2006 Arri News tells differently: according to an interview with Gary Thieltges from Doggiecam Systems there are 8 cut points in there and they shot the scene over 8 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Tyler Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Just read this and it made me laugh! :o Top 5 Film Mistakes of 2005 By Kathryn LaGamba A & E Columnist Worst Cinematography: ''Children of Men'' While ''Children of Men'' was a very powerful movie, the cinematography was some of the worst since ''The Blair Witch Project'' -- except the horrible cinematography in ''Blair Witch'' was intentional. The camera was all over the place, and they seemed to use handheld cameras most of the time. During fast-paced action scenes, the camerawork could make many sick to their stomachs. It was out of focus, and in one scene, there was blood splattered on the camera lens for a good five minutes. This movie seemed more like an independent film than a heavily advertised Hollywood blockbuster. From: http://www.da.wvu.edu/XMLParser/printstory.phtml?id=25377 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chayse Irvin ASC, CSC Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Man... those are all the things i loved about the cinematography. Just read this and it made me laugh! :o Top 5 Film Mistakes of 2005 By Kathryn LaGamba A & E Columnist Worst Cinematography: ''Children of Men'' While ''Children of Men'' was a very powerful movie, the cinematography was some of the worst since ''The Blair Witch Project'' -- except the horrible cinematography in ''Blair Witch'' was intentional. The camera was all over the place, and they seemed to use handheld cameras most of the time. During fast-paced action scenes, the camerawork could make many sick to their stomachs. It was out of focus, and in one scene, there was blood splattered on the camera lens for a good five minutes. This movie seemed more like an independent film than a heavily advertised Hollywood blockbuster. From: http://www.da.wvu.edu/XMLParser/printstory.phtml?id=25377 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Premium Member David Mullen ASC Posted January 17, 2007 Premium Member Share Posted January 17, 2007 I hope I get a bad review from her too -- it would mean a lot to be in the same league as that movie's cinematography! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Bowerbank Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 (edited) If blood getting on a lens means bad cinematography to her, than she must really hate any of the fantastically shot battle sequences from Saving Private Ryan. Oh by the way, apparently according to her all those movies are from 2005 What a dumby Edited January 17, 2007 by Jonathan Bowerbank Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Wallensten Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 Amazing film, mostly because of the cinematography and the production design, but I also liked the story quite a bit. In the radiointerview with the director (the link is earlier in this thread) I understand it as if the long one-take scene in the end is actually made in one take, without hidden cuts. But at one point in the scene blood spills on the lens. Did anyone notice whet the bloodstaines disappeared? Either there must have been a cut or the someone cleaned the lens during the shoot without me noticing (like Michael Salomon did in the end of "The Abyss"). Anyone knows? Adam Wallensten Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Felipe Perez-Burchard Posted January 17, 2007 Share Posted January 17, 2007 In the radiointerview with the director (the link is earlier in this thread) I understand it as if the long one-take scene in the end is actually made in one take, without hidden cuts. But at one point in the scene blood spills on the lens. Did anyone notice whet the bloodstaines disappeared? Either there must have been a cut or the someone cleaned the lens during the shoot without me noticing (like Michael Salomon did in the end of "The Abyss"). Anyone knows? Adam Wallensten Well I think it was in one of the interviews linked already here (or maybe not, I've listened to a few now) Cuaron mentions that he had actually called "cut" on this 9 min take when the blood splatteres the lens, but it was in such a low voice (must have been sad) and with all the explosions going off, that nobody heard him, and he realized that maybe he should let it keep going... at the end of the take both Lubezki and Clive Owen where cheering thinking it had been the best take and that the blood was an added bonus. (I'm paraphrasing here). He further explained that they had to then add digital blood to match; the blood disapears when the camera points up at the stairwell, so my only guess is that maybe there is a cut / fuse when Owen runs into the building and the camera quickly pans across a dark wall... This is just a guess mind you. Regarding the amount of takes stitched together in the car scene, there must be a lot of inconsistencies going on here. On the podcast for the fxguide link above, it says they were six shots (5 cuts)... I wonder what it actually is! Best, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nate Downes Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 The wife and I just went to see this, and we were blown away. The cinematography was beautiful, the storyline compelling. The subtle bits the director added in really added to the flavor and power of the movie. And the blood on the lens added for me, honestly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Sweetman Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Comparing it to "Blair Witch" is an outrage! "It was out of focus," sounds like she's either talking about the projector or doesn't know what she's talking about. But she doesn't elaborate, she leaps straight to 'blood on the lens' in the same sentence - what the heck kind of qualifications does this person have to be judging cinematography? Sigh. Just read this and it made me laugh! :o Top 5 Film Mistakes of 2005 By Kathryn LaGamba A & E Columnist Worst Cinematography: ''Children of Men'' While ''Children of Men'' was a very powerful movie, the cinematography was some of the worst since ''The Blair Witch Project'' -- except the horrible cinematography in ''Blair Witch'' was intentional. The camera was all over the place, and they seemed to use handheld cameras most of the time. During fast-paced action scenes, the camerawork could make many sick to their stomachs. It was out of focus, and in one scene, there was blood splattered on the camera lens for a good five minutes. This movie seemed more like an independent film than a heavily advertised Hollywood blockbuster. From: http://www.da.wvu.edu/XMLParser/printstory.phtml?id=25377 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy_Alderslade Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Comparing it to "Blair Witch" is an outrage! "It was out of focus," sounds like she's either talking about the projector or doesn't know what she's talking about. But she doesn't elaborate, she leaps straight to 'blood on the lens' in the same sentence - what the heck kind of qualifications does this person have to be judging cinematography? Sigh. She' not allone, in the UK's Daily Mirror the review mentioned Peter Mullan as 'a security guard with a conscience.' Has the reviewer actually watched the film? hint - a car battery, smashy-smashy... http://www.mirror.co.uk/tvandfilm/atthemov...-name_page.html I see this all the time in British newspapers, blatently obvious mistakes that could have only been made had they not watched the movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Maeda Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 (edited) The blood on the lens thing reminded me of that beautiful moment in "The Life Aquatic" by Wes Anderson where a single blood drop finds its way onto the lens, signaling to the audience that, while things seem to be resolving above water, below something must be seriously wrong. A good example of a director asking for something and a DP delivering perfectly. Personally I didn't get "children of Men". It was pretty to look at and the sound was nice but I didn't see where it was going...war is bad for babies? Still everybody loves it so I must be missing something. Good handheld work, btw, and what's his name was great as the aging hippie. Oh and I liked his friend the cop...he was right out of "Brazil"! jk :ph34r: Edited January 21, 2007 by jasonkollias Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georg lamshöft Posted January 21, 2007 Share Posted January 21, 2007 Maybe some interesting scenes: Is there any HDTV-release (HD-DVD or Blu-Ray-Disk) planned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now