@Arken: By your reasoning I shouldn't be able to enjoy Jules Verne, or Hackers, Demolition Man, or anything else set in the "not-too-far-future" of the late 90s and early 2000s. The stories only use the 'science' as a what-if setting, and do not depend on the sciency elements being spot on - Heck, no one today believes that science fiction is meant to be accurate, so why should they in the future?
@KhaiJB: Yet it includes the Enterprise. By that line of thinking, they may have as well included BSG since they did movies for both the classic and new series.
@El Kabong: Not bunk, outdated. Think of each additional particle/force discovered as being a refinement. It happens all the time, in all aspects of science. The thing is, we just can't jump all the way to the last chapter and say "All that needs discovering has been discovered" -- Like the a pile of rocks, science happens one pebble at a time. Sure, one can theorize as to what the end result *may* look like, but the details only reveal themselves step by step.
TL;DR version: Science is a process, not a fixed step.
The vision of the two girls reminded me of Lilith. And The Shining.
That aside, one thing which may be relevant is that the 2nd girl only showed up after the first one fed the cup of blood to the doll, maybe implying that the blood turned the doll into the 2nd girl.
@Rumtum: My thoughts exactly. It's just a slow dismantlement. Though it occurred to me that they could have just filmed the construction of a building and played it backwards to achieve the same effect.
@KevlarAllah (Smug Menace): Oh don't get me wrong, it was an entertaining movie. It's just that it didn't meet my expectations, which were set higher than usual. If I'd had gone to see it with nothing in mind other than "hey, this looks like action-y fun" then there would have been no problem. But it just didn't measure up to all the oohs and aahs I'd been hearing about it.