I haven't seen a lot of movies this year (still need to see "The Queen," "The Departed," and "Letters from Iwo Jima"), so it's fainter praise than deserved that the dystopia-themed "Children of Men" is the best movie I've seen in 2006. The reviews that don't like it complain about the lack of exposition, but the fact that the movie treats its audience as intelligent enough not to need spoon feeding was one of the things I liked most about it. Yeah, there are a lot of interesting things happening off-screen I would have been curious to see fleshed out, but they're not necessary to the structure of the movie, and Cuaron doesn't let them get in the way. Every frame is dense with subtle supporting detail that creates an immersive universe of a post-apocalyptic 2027; the exposition is visual, rather than verbal, a refreshing change of pace from the "message" monologues of most Hollywood movies. The acting, led by Clive Owen and Michael Caine, is superb. (We are fortunate if indeed Emma Watson's scheduling conflict prevented her from playing Kee; the movie is much better for the choice of Claire-Hope Ashitay.) I could take issue with the ending (the movie would have worked better for me without the last sixty seconds or so, though that would have changed the meaning), but the plot and the missing "why"s are not so much the thing as the amazing set pieces. There are two single-take shots in this movie that movie buffs are going to be talking about for decades the way they do about the "Goodfellas" Copacabana scene or the opening scene of "The Player" or the El Rancho nightclub scene in "Citizen Kane." Don't read the reviews: the less you know about the movie going in, the better.