Seems like a very fair review although I'm not sure how you can give it a 3.5 with so many problems. I still haven't seen the film for myself so I'm trying not to come down on the movie before I've even experienced it. But whenever I read the problems that the film has from people who've seen it, they are always the same problems that I imagined the film was going to have. It really worries me when people say that there are unanswered questions or things that didn't quite make sense. A movie should be able to stand on its own and I don't really think it's fair to assume that everything will be answered and/or make sense in a sequel. I'm more inclined to believe that it's just poor writing. I'm reminded of the quote by Ridley where he said it's going to be about everything. Well how the hell do you make a movie about everything without over-extending yourself? Especially in a film that's only 120 minutes long. Oh well, I'll stop now before I really start to rant. Like I said, I still need to see the movie. Good review tho.