I can understand how your review might not have inspired Charles to see the film. I don't mean this as criticism of the writing or the issues you brought up in the review; more just that it seemed like a fairly tepid review when it came to a question of "Should I see this film or not?".

Children of Men is a film that's worthy of a larger audience than it's getting, and your review, I thought, didn't effectively hone in on the things that make it a compelling movie. It is compelling, as you say now, despite the fact that the plot is not as fully realized as it could have been (I tend to think of this as one of the film's strengths rather a weakness).

After seeing Children of Men, I remember being surprised that your review (which I'd read prior to seeing the movie) wasn't more enthusiastic. When I went back to re-read it, I found myself wishing you'd cut everything between the first and last two paragraphs of your review, and spent more time talking about issues similar to what you're discussing in this post.

David: I'm of two minds about Children of Men—as is, I think, almost everyone I've talked to about it (not counting those on Slog, who seem to be more full-throated in their enthusiasm). Some people love the scenario and feel let down by the chase thriller (eg Josh Feit, Tim Keck); and vice versa. I'm in the latter camp. It's not that I don't think the scenario is intriguing; I do. But I also find it frustrating. I do not agree that it fits the definition of science fiction as set forth by Steven Shaviro, and therefore cannot be championed by reference to that definition. But overall, I think it's a thrilling, fascinating film (this right here is a fascinating debate), and that's why people should see it. Mmm, ambivalence.

Meryl Streep for Devil Wears Prada, wtf?