Children of Men pseudo-reflection

I really wasn't a big fan of this film. I like the interpretation that the first world's over-reliance on pharmaceutical medication has rendered unnatural peril only absent in an individual living more naturally, within a "third world country." I just cant find much to really comment on beyond that. I think there's two goals as a Hollywood film maker: make a popular movie and make a deep movie. Although I would personally argue that the latter is impossible to some extent in Hollywood beyond "first world problems," I'd say this movie did poorly in both respects. Ill do the optional blog to make up for my unthoughtfulness maybe? Crap that one's even less provocative.

Since it looks like there's no blog about Idiocracy, Ill compare the successes of that to the faults of Children of Men. Idiocracy took the archetypal American, and made his faults more obvious, a process they subtly referred to as evolution. To elaborate on what specific flaws, we must look at the whole progression of the plot and the consistencies constant throughout. At multiple points, the writers are trying to show that baseness and simplicity have overcome enlightenment as the primary concern of the individual. This starts from the moment of the main character's awakening in the future, as the most popular television show is then "OWWWWWW, MY BAWLZZ," the most popular (and only) movie is a similar mindless potty joke, and the average lifestyle consists of consuming and satisfying base necessities with the simplest alternatives (food, sex, and surprisingly no drugs.) Yet, when it comes to the other film, we see a perfectly natural sort of people, with nothing highlighted as wrong or right, progressing through events which didn't necessarily show any tragic flaw. This isn't necessarily a bad thing, in fact, many of my favorite works allow for the reader or viewer to intemperate to support a variety of views just like reality allows. However, in this film, there wasn't enough detail, any highlights, or any characterization deep enough to allow for this whatsoever. Things like Idiocracy, 1984, and Blindness allowed for the depth of circumstances to be explained in full, while not necessarily being too vague as to make counter-arguments always greater than arguments derived from the books (and movie.) Children of Men, however, is the perfect example of a story just the opposite, by being too vague as for its message and not specific enough with the things it did focus on. This is my problem and the root of my inability to analyze it more thoroughly.

Heres a cat being surprised if you dont like my lack of on-topicness.