The new movie "Children of Men" is set in England in 2027 and appears to be a vehicle for leftwing propaganda, in particular that designed to support illegal immigration. The director/screenwriter is Mexico's Alfonso Cuaron ("Y tu mama tambien") [1], and it's based on a book by PD James.

In the film, England has become a police state and ejects any foreigners and "fugees" (refugees). One of the movie's target propagandees has a review, and his muddled view of these issues is clearly what Cuaron is trying to appeal to:

One of the film's dominant themes - more stressed in the film than the book - is immigration. And the comparisons are obvious. Some right-wing Republicans in the United States wish to restrict immigration. One Republican House Representative recently said he wanted to restrict the flow of people of a certain religious group into the United States, and others have been accused of racism. In another early scene in the film, the audience sees newspapers plastered on a wall, one of which reads "Immigrants Protest Against Government New Racist Policies." An allusion to the immigration protests that occurred in spring and summer of 2006 in the United States while the Republican-dominated House of Representatives passed racist "immigration reform"?

...In the film, the government assaults the population with propaganda to make them afraid of illegal immigrants. At one point, a government propaganda broadcast reminds citizens that "to hire, feed, or shelter illegal immigrants is a crime." Republican-controlled Congress almost passed a bill in the summer of 2006 which would have outlawed any charity provided to illegal immigrants in the US, in a draconian measure which would have seen soup kitchen employees serve prison time. Democrats, ultimately successful in blocking the measure, protested at the time that the bill under consideration put forth by a group of radical right-wing Republicans would have essentially "criminalized the Good Samaritan."

Furthermore, "immigrants" are put into prison camps, and the film's hero works with a group that tries to keep them out of the camps.

These points and the others lead the WaPo's Ann Hornaday to intone:

A bleak portrait of a dystopian future set against a backdrop of infertility, totalitarian politics and death, it plays like a nativity story for our age, a spirited humanistic message, as well as a welcome ray of hope for the future of cinema itself.

Likewise, the NYT's Caryn James says:

But the social problems [PD James] could spot in 1992, like immigration, are even more disturbing now because they are more topical. A member of the novel's ruling Council of England makes a comment that could come from a right-wing radio show in America today. "Remember what happened in Europe in the 1990s?" he says. "People became tired of invading hordes," who expect to "exploit the benefits which had been won over centuries by intelligence, industry and courage."

National Review is less kind, but doesn't call the film on its apparent misstatements.

I realize I'm strongly in the minority here, but I have trouble considering movies to be an art form when they are for the most part simply profit-making enterprises (with profits going to really annoying people) that can also be used to spread propaganda, as in the present case. As soon as I see the first product placement, hear the first strains of wimpy music, or see or hear the first propaganda drop I have trouble enmeshing myself in the "drama" and react to it the same way I would to a biased media report.

[1] Per Wikipedia (FWIW), Cuaron is the son of a "Cardiologist who worked for the United Nations' IAEA sector for many years". One might assume that (like Adam Kidron for instance) he's a bit uppercrust.