What frustrates me about Dana Steven's reviews is that I frequently notice she misses or misinterprets clearly stated plot elements-- just little things, like that Wahlberg lives in New York City, not Philadelphia, and takes the train because of that fact.

In Lady of the Water, another Shyamalan film, she said it was a plot hole that a character could see a dog made from grass who attacked late in the film, but others couldn't earlier. The movie clearly told us that the dogs camouflaged themselves in grass, and the second attack is in a concrete hallway-- they didn't just go invisible.

There are countless other examples of this rather fast and careless approach-- I'd want my reviewer to pay careful attention to what happens in a movie and make a judgment on that. Granted, I know this is difficult, and that one or two misinterpretations of the plot of a movie you didn't even like probably aren't going to make a large difference, but it does bother me.

I just came to The Fray to voice exactly the same opinion. How can anyone, let alone a professional movie critic, sit through that movie believing that Wahlberg, Deschanel, and Leguizamo fled Philadelphia and not New York? That is not just un-observant, it's plain stupid. For the 4th time now, I call for Dana Stevens' job. Her reviews are garbage. Why does Slate keep her on? She does not understand these movies. I don't mean that she doesn't understand some deeper meaning; I mean she doesn't understand the simple surface stuff like who the people in the movie are, where they are, what they are doing, and why they are doing it. It blows my mind how anyone can be so dense. The fact she gets paid for this garbage blows my mind all the more.

FIRE DANA STEVENS

The main characters do not flee New York; they all live in Philadelphia. Quit attacking the reviewer for getting something right.

They are told that NYC was attacked; they leave Philly fearing it will be next. When they're on the train, the people they are talking to on their cell phones tell them that PHILADELPHIA has been struck, and that upsets them because they are from PHILADELPHIA.

The rest of the film takes place in rural Pennsylvania.

There's a lot of "simple surface stuff" I guess you didn't understand, like the shots of the Philly skyline, the way everyone continuously talks about Philadelphia, or the fact that when the audience is introduced to the 1st of the main characters, the word "Philadelphia" appears on the bottom of the screen. I'm sorry none of that was "simple" enough for you to catch onto.

It may be a little unclear because of the initial central park takes, but they do in fact flee from Philadelphia. My friend who was sitting next to me, a world traveler originally from Indiana, made the same mistake (he is not familiar with the two cities). Rittenhouse Square looks similar from the shots Shyamalan offers, but is certainly distinct from Central Park. Also the train station is 30th Street Station in West Philadelphia.