clearly, I'm no good at responding in a timely fashion...
anyway, his primary case for defense was a chart he made where he broke down all the reviews in to broad categories such as not like the original, characters do dumb things, too much psychobabble, don't like london, Sharon Stone is too old, and my personal favorite, "liked it, but gave low marks because others would make fun of them." the Ebert review fell in to the latter category. so he used this chart and breakdown to dismiss all of these criticisms as if none of them had any merit. let's just say I wasn't swayed.
as for the plot, I would say that in the end I guess it makes sense, it's just beyond convoluted. by and large all the characters are college educated professionals (at the least), and yet they all make wild assumptions, rash decisions, and break their ethical codes on a regular basis without any thought of consequence. it's like they all live in a bubble where no one ever warned them about the dangers of getting involved with someone who drove a sports car off a bridge at a hundred miles an hour while on drugs and getting finger blasted by a soccer player. while in heels. I don't expect these characters to have an Abed level of genre awareness, but a little common sense couldn't hurt.
I have never sighed so long and so often in frustration while watching any movie as I did while trying to make it through this massive piece of shit.
