Also adding to Snrub's post, the title Children of Men can kind of be seen as a play on "Children of God"

Honestly, I think you could see it from both sides, as seen by the fact that the origin of the baby is never explained. For a person of faith in CoM's future, the baby could be seen as a modern day blessing of god, a jesus and saviour of the human race. For someone like Theo, who doesn't trust giving the baby to the world because he doesn't trust the idea of a baby saviour to override natural evil human behaviour, or doesn't believe in god because of the mess the non-fertile world turned into under his watch, the baby does not belong to god, it belongs to his mother and should grow in private in the seclusion of a group that believes in his humans first side. The movie never really specifies whether the baby is an act of god or just scientific luck, and leaving it up to interpretation and discussions like these debating the two sides of the science-god coin is just the point.

Or something like that.

edit: Box beat me to it

Hardly. I like tons of critically acclaimed films. I don't prefer them always over other films, but I do like tons of films that are considered great films.

1984 > Children of Men....yes I went there.

It's a quote from the Bible.

I'd say the film ideologically comes down on the side of science the moment it makes the joke about Kee's baby being a virgin birth. It purposefully makes the audience think for a split second that a higher power might be responsible before immediately dismissing such an idea as ridiculous.

Again, that's an (unfortunate) handover from the book (distinctly religious) to the film (had to take the title). It means nothing with regards to the thematic intentions of the film.

Yeah, "critically acclaimed" was a bad choice of phrase. I guess what I meant was you always seem to like films that internet people hate, and dislike films that internet people adore.

Also... Theo... theology... that's not a coincidence right? I guess if it was introduced in the book though, not that I've read it...

and Donnie Darko

It's...possible. Not that I do it purposely, but films loved by the internet crowd aren't really my cup of tea? I can say that I liked films like CoM, Mulholland Dr., etc. but I'd never consider them amazing or one of my favorites of all-time. Films like The New World and Donnie Darko (I'm trying to think of other films, nothing's coming to mind), I either find too slow or too weird (so is Mulholland Dr., I guess, but I liked it).

It's no secret that I'm far more mainstream in taste than most people here. Doesn't mean I'm trying to be an asshole about it.

How do the other characters react when they hear the baby cry? This is irrespective of what Cuaron or the film 'thinks', but is it not a miracle birth to them? I mean, there might be a joke about it being a virgin birth, yes, but there is no question that, from the perspective of the film, the birth of Kee's baby would be the most miraculous since that of Jesus. If it is not an outright miracle, it assumes qualities that render it nevertheless miraculous, the most significant of which is its extraordinariness. It's the only birth in an infertile world. For all intents and purposes, it is a miracle.

the best film buff is the one that appreciates the smaller films and loves the good mainstream films.

He likes the old and the new....

Oh, lord, is this nowheresville argument rearing its ugly head again?

Come on trixster, please do not go there, no matter what people say.

a lot of old films are rubbish compared to the new.

If you're referring to the movie version of 1984, then you're a moron, as it's a giant turd.

If you're referring to the book, then you're also a moron, because you can't compare two different art forms like that. I love the novel as well, but to qualify it against a film is foolish and wrong.