I read reviews to get a gist of the plot. I have never found a reviewer to be fully accurate about whether a film is enjoyable or not. I have to decide that for myself. After all, reviewers hated "Crash" when it came out, but my students loved it. The same with "American History X". Reviewers have different goals that an average filmgoer. This is a problem with all reviews, not just the ones at Salon.

I read the graphic novel and saw the movie. If you don't like politics, philosophy, and ambiguity, you won't like this film. Ms. Zacharek has stated several times in other reviews that she does not like ambiguity.

The film is good because life is ambiguous. As another poster pointed out, the film also touches on the fact that the government DOES have more to fear from the people- regimes govern with the consent of the volk. If the Volk removes consent (Russia in glastnost, The Philliphines and marcos, etc), repressive violence can not ultimately be maintained. After a certain percentage takes to the streets, there's just too many.

By the way, the "flash mobs" in the film and novel come AFTER some of the security has been taken out (the computer, the cameras). THAT's why they can assemble. This film meditiates on our relationship to technology, how it can be turned for or against us, and what DO we give up in return for security.

At the risk of Ms. Zacharek calling it "trite" I quote an Anglo-American revolutionary, "Those who will give up freedom for security deserve neither". Each quote (most were NOT Shakespeare, by the way- they were philosophy mainly) had a direct relationship to an analogous historical event. I don't think Ms. Zacharek's grasp of world history is not very strong, or she would have gotten the links. This film also touches on how many humans hate change, and will do anything, or put up with anything, to avoid change. Imposed change is very disorienting. What are it's effects on human society?

It's a thought provoking film. Go see it, and form you own opinion. Would there be concentration camps again? Would there be scapegoats? You decide.

One single word: jealousy. This article by Saletan at Slate reviews some of the literature. People get jealous, and most voluntary poly relationships studied end because of that. The open marriage movement in the 70s was a polygamy experiment. It didn't woek for just this reason. We've been here before. The default for humans is to require fidelity by ONE person. The adulterer doesn't want the spouse to cheat: the adulterer wants fidelity + spice. Adultery is about entitlement, NOT loving two people.

Here's the article: http://www.slate.com/id/2138482/

Polygamy was normed in Biblical times, and is still practiced today in a few developing nations. In those places, JEALOUSY and violence predated on the jealousy is normal. The women from those nations do NOT want it, they are forced by economic or social circumstances. Women do not WANT to share men- we do it when forced by society or culture. One of the first things educated women do is reject polygamy in their country when they get power. Polygamy has contracted, and ironically the opposition to is is harsher and has increased over the centuries, because of the fidelity/jealousy issue. Polygamy is NOT a common good because of this problem.

Polygamy is about more than sex, despite what some people think. That's the problem. It is practically impossible, finacially or emotionally, to be equally devoted to two people. As the saying goes "If you can't choose between them, you really don't want either of them."

Read the Slate article. Outside of the hothouse of this letters section, polygamy has NO chance of being legalized in the US, because most people reject it, and do NOT equate it to gay marriage.

I've seen letters deleted for being off-topic. I have not seen them deleted for being intelligent and conservative. If it's intelligent and off-topic, it'll be deleted, but that is necessary to keep the section from devolving to the Usenet "God will send you to hell" zero factor. If Salon was deleting all of the intelligent conservative posts, I don't think people would be CALLING for the deletion of stuff that they disagree with. Why call for what is happening already?

I've seen intelligent and unintelligent posts of all political stripes in the various letter sections. I've also seen unmitigated tripe. It's good to be reminded that yes, some humans ARE that stupid, etc. We need to be reminded that not everyone thinks as we do, and that not everyone argues as we do. The increasing "gatedness" and polarization of people's lives (where they live, what schools they choose, where they shop and read, etc)creates people who can not compromise or listen (OK, that would be several posters of varying political stripes around here). This is one of the few places people can be reminded that their group does not speak for ALL, that there ARE different opinions. The clash is brash, but it is also honest (if sometimes lacking in sophistication and/or social skills).

If I want to read things that agree and see some spectacular examples of groupthink, I can go to Democratic Underground, Free Republic, half of the stuff onthe Daou Report, etc. Some of us are not afraid of clashing opinions, and we know when not to answer people who are taking.it. way. too. seriously.