Before I proceed with my very personal thoughts about this movie, I have often read in SPCNET Forums about the definition of a review. It doesn't matter whether the review is good or bad, but what is a review? Is it a retelling of the plot, scene by scene, or a summary of the plot which will take up 90% of the so-called review and then the rest filled with OOHs and AHHs about favourite this or favourite that? I have often received emails which said my reviews are like critical analyses, and the way I described the series or movies sounded like people dying at a critical stage because of lack of good performances, good script, etc. I will take that as a compliment and I feel a review is actually an analysis, with some background, and then your opinion based on your perception of that background. No plot of a series or a movie is the same since everybody sees things differently, and so emphasis when writing a review is different. If you prefer the positive things, you will of course write about your favourite stars' performance. If you, like me, would rather focus on the negative, then of course nothing seems right with the movie or series. A review is all about analysis of an emphasised point of thought consisting of personal opinions built upon biased but never prejudiced perception of the point. That perception can be of a fan, of a sceptic, of a viewer, a professional reviewer, of any racial and social background. That is why sometimes 10 people will have the same verdict built upon 10 different opinions. In the end I am very sure there is a consensus somewhere in the verdict.