Ok, well, here's a link to Roger Ebert's review. Now, you may say "He's a stinking biased leftist" and to some degree I'd probably agree with you.
But, having seen the film, can you tell us where (if anywhere) Ebert's review is off-track? Here's an excerpt:
"I Am David" tells the story of a 12-year-old orphan boy who escapes from a Bulgarian forced labor camp and travels alone through Greece, Italy and Switzerland to his eventual destiny in Denmark. He has awfully good luck: Along the way, he meets mostly nice people who do what they can to help him, and there's an enormous coincidence just when it's most needed. Benji encounters more hazards on his travels than this kid.
I know, I know, I'm supposed to get sentimental about this heart-warming tale. But I couldn't believe a moment of it, and never identified with little David, who is played by young Ben Tibber as if he was lectured to mind his manners. In an era with one effective child performance after another, here is a bad one.
Ok, it brought your family to tears, but unless Ebert is just making it all up - it doesn't sound like much of a movie. Carefully structured to tug at the heartstrings maybe, but "the second best movie of the year"? Really? How many have you seen this year?
I was intrigued enough by this thread to read a number of reviews of the film, and it just doesn't seem worth seeing. Glad you liked it, though (especially after driving all that way); movies are supposed to affect the viewer.
It is not a realistic movie. But it is very real.