The Side Effects Dilemma

So, I've been wrastling with whether or not to post a link to this review for a little while.  You see, I wrote this review a while back, but I hesitated to link it here because I didn't quite approve of one of the edits.  But I decided to go ahead and put it here.  If you care to take a look, please come back here where I will explain my discomfort with it:

http://thebeaveronline.co.uk/2013/03/06/side-effects/

Alright, so that part where it says, "Jude Law, whose serviceable performance is undermined by the ineffective writing."  I didn't write that part.  Now, this is not just some writer's ego going: "You changed the sacred words that I wrote, arghle-blargle-blargle!"  I actually completed understand why the edit was made.  Originally, I just added a parenthetical after the observation about Jude Law: "(this is a criticism of the writing not the performance)."  I guess that is rather vague.  I said that I wasn't criticizing the performance, but I didn't really say anything about it.  I will submit that I had already delivered my criticism of the writing by saying that it was conventional.  But again, I understand that the parenthetical left something to be desired.

My problem is that I actually don't agree with what was added.  I thought Jude Law's performance was better than "serviceable" (and doesn't that word just sound condescending?) and that the writing was actually effective at creating a good thriller (I believe I made that observation about the film as a whole several times in the review).  I'm not quite sure what "ineffective writing" even means.

Anyway, it's better to explain my qualms with it rather than pretending the review doesn't exist just because of one phrase.  This is likely to be my last review for The Beaver, since I'm not sure if they're publishing any more issues for the rest of the school year, and after this I'll no longer be at LSE.  But it's been very fun.