So, see - I'm not alone. Though as I explained, it's not the case that the reviewer didn't like DS.
And something else that's interesting that I didn't notice until after I'd posted last night is that in both the print version of the BC review and the copy up on EW's own Web site the word "actually" (as in "sequel you actually want to see") does not appear in the review. And the fact that it's not there can change the meaning of what Gleiberman wrote considerably. So, a really good question is how did the word "actually" end up being included in the YNN site's version? And interestingly enough, how, considering that the original version on EW's site was posted 3 days before YNN's site "reposted" it, so it's not like it was posted on YNN first?