On Apr 8, 12:59=A0pm, Erik Max Francis <m...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > Well, it's not *necessarily* an exception. The process could have
starte=
d
> > reversing itself, and the young woman at the focus of the story may
just=
> > have been the first of many. It would have to be a pretty slow process
f=
or
> > nobody else to have noticed it, though. And of course it makes the
entir=
e
> > story pointless, since everybody else will start having babies
regardles=
s.
> > Oops.
>
> Right, so I doubt that's it :-). =A0Also, in the movie, she's rather far
> along in her pregnancy, so it's hard to believe that she's the first of
> many unless she's way ahead of the curve. =A0But, like you say, that
kind
> of makes the story pointless, and still leaves everything open as to why
> it happened and then why it suddenly stopped.
Myself, I'm very skeptical about calling "Children of Men" a science-
fiction movie, since there is no science in it: it seems to be built
largely around Christian symbolism and ham-handed analogies to the War
on Terror. (Perhaps the text version is different?)
|
