In the end, it is the mostly negative reviews from the (predominantly US) press that I find much more unconvincing than the film. They generally fail to substantiate their issues with it and resort to rather terminal blind statements you can’t actually argue with – it’s boring, it’s contrived, I didn’t like the kid, etc. Do you think, is it simply that many reviewers were unwilling / unready to embrace the “elephant in the room”, the 9/11 backdrop, or is it more that they felt compelled to take a stance that would not offend their readerships? If either of these, it is understandable I suppose but hardly dispassionate criticism. Would the same film, about a boy who lost his father in, say, a routine building fire, have been much more warmly welcomed? Though possibly it just wouldn’t have worked at all.

I suspect the non-US (eg. British) critics will be much more favourable on the whole, reflecting the general tenor of my post-screening conversations, and I also think the passage of time will be kind to the film’s longer term legacy.