NYT Review of City of Ember Misses the Point

I almost ducked out of a birthday party screening of City of Ember based on an inaccurate review from the NYT.
Damningly, Stephen Holden describes what is plainly a giant star-nosed mole as "an unscary monster that suggests a giant, riled-up rooster on speed" which is wrong on all points touching on anatomy, scale and apparition. The movie is no Hidden Fortress, granted, but then it's not expected to be. Not finding politically sharp commentary in this movie is like not finding a bicycle bell in the blue cheese dressing.