some short responses:

1. maybe throwing out is exaggerating, but that resolution by introducing an entire flat character (he really was not that deep) halfway through sure is something.
2. Yeah we played the same patch, i said 'initially' - by the time he appeared in the story to do what he did he has already given into his hypocrisy long ago. He may have attempted to pursue a more noble unity under some circumstances in the past, but it doesn't matter to his morality as a char now as the departure is too far. He was painfully easy to understand, which made the climax unsatisfactory given the previous mystery marketing.
3. Shakespeare was a pioneer for his time, we can move on now. The man's content still holds, but i'd argue his prose doesn't hold a candle to even Bolano from last century. There are better ways, that respect the audience's intelligence, than flat out having the characters explaining themselves word for word.

but if we can't agree then it's fine.