Children of Men

I finally saw Children of Men, (as a dvd rental) on Friday night, Children's Day eve, as it turns out. I liked it, but I'm not sure if it was just the believable look, the art direction and most of all, the premise of the thing, the recognizable alternate future, that I liked.
One thing that I never care much about is the acting. The way I see it, acting is almost always believable enough to suspend disbelief. If not, I'd give it a zer0, if it is adequate, as almost everything is, a 1, if it is exceptionally believable, to the extent that it is impossible to believe that it is acting at all, a 2. In other words, I only observe three levels of distinction. Even in real life, people don't usually deliver their lines efficiently or with the right sound. Also, I would prefer that most actors retire after one film so I could see different actors in every film. Most people want to see the same actors again and again.
My significantO wasn't too crazy about it, though, needing an entire viewing of LIAR LIAR to decompress. I think I could have been spared all of that if Jim Carrey had been cast in the film in place of Clive Owen, and had taken a Life is Beautiful approach (Roberto Benigni directing in place of Alfonso Cuarøn -- Oøps). But that would have been another film.

The Japanese title is TOMORROW•WORLD, which reminds me of tomorokoshi, corn, and TomorrowLand in Disneyland every time I hear it. They managed to use a decent translation of the original title everywhere else, so I wonder why the Japanese got stuck with an embarrassingly clumsy title like TOMORROW•WORLD? Going for the teen Disney audience? All that tells you is that it is set in the future, a science fiction or speculative fiction story. There is also quite a major difference in the poster art, or cover art, used for promoting the movie and dvds.