I like Labaki. I liked this movie.
But... I dunno, there's too much emotional blackmail going on in the movie for my liking.
In terms of Child Poverty Movie Genre, this is more along the lines of Slumdog Millionaire than, say... The Bicycle Thief, to put it briefly.

Good things in the movie:

* It tells most of its story visually, you get to experience the events with the characters rather than via dialogue or some other storytelling device
* It is filmed really well. The camera angles, the framing, the cinematography, all that stuff... really good.
* Soundtrack was not too shabby either
* Lots of realism. Using real people instead of actors, filmed on location... and so on. This is why the movie works so well even though it shouldn't really.
* Good use of levity at times to relieve the viewer from the misery of the events. There's a healthy mix of humour and tragedy in the movie. Although you're pummeled to death by misery in the movie that it loses it meaning, that misery is cut with a bit of levity.

Not so good things:

* Labaki gives away an important event of of the 3rd act in the 1st act of the movie, without any ambiguity or subtlety. Basically, you can figure out what is going to happen at the end from the beginning of the movie. That is bad.
* The movie puts too much on its plate, poverty alone is a big subject, then you add human trafficking, pedophilia, the Kaffala system... etc. Alright, I get it, there's a lot of bad shit going on in the world, you don't need to take them all on at once.
* 105 minutes of realism, then 15 minutes of rose colored glasses at the end. I'm all for a happy ending if you're gonna do realism, either do the whole movie like that or don't do it.
* The ending is a bit simplistic. The movie deals with the subject of poverty, yet it doesn't deal with the CAUSES of poverty. Why were Zain's parents poor? what caused that? whose responsibility is that? but instead of dealing with that, the movie suggests that poor people should stop conceiving. Alright, **we've solved poverty, people!**
* Instead of giving a little space to the viewer for interpretations, the message of the movie is telegraphed at the end. I mean, who needs subtlety when you can just tell people what you want to say via a speech at the end. It shows a lack of trust on the part of the director, like, maybe the idea was too deep for the normal person to understand, she had to make sure to tell us what it is.

It is said that Labaki made this movie after seeing a child in the street so she wanted to tell the story of children like him. Nadine Labaki is not poor, she probably never been poor in her life (nowhere poor as the characters in the movie, at least), so that's why her view ultimately lacks depth and feels too simplistic. It's what you'd expect from someone who's never been poor in their life.

So, is it a movie worth watching? yes, the good things are good, and if you're living in a first world country you will enjoy how this movie makes you feel about poverty and all that stuff, abd unless you've walked those streets and went through these experiences, this movie will be alright for you.