From reading that article, I got the notion that the review is nothing more than an amateur car enthusiast. I'm an AVID enthusiast that knows basically everything about cars off the top of my head, and from that, I come to a conclusion that anyone that claims the CT is a bad car, just from looks alone, is an absolute MORON!
People always complain about there not being as much room as other SUV's, such as the CRV, Forester, and etc. I guess they are too stupid to realize that the CT is in a totally different segment, and people who look at it most likely don't look at it because the back-cargo area is a true necessity.
From my personal experience, which most likely will fall into similar experiences with the members reading this, absolutely every person that I have shown the CT to, loved it. The only people who keep on talking crap are quick reviewers, journalists that get paid to write craptastic articles, and everyone else that has never even gotten the chance to experience it in person.
I think that makes me like it even more.
Being an avid car enthusiast, I've moved from liking cars from aesthetic reasons, to liking them from mechanical reasons, and the way they are put together "underneath" the body panels that a novice "car enthusiast" would be lured into.
The CT is one of the best, mechanically put together, car I have ever seen that is aimed at the regular family target market. From the evenly distributed exhaust piping, exhaust run covers, mechanical "evenness," power distribution, mechanical distribution...it's all near perfect, and all from 30k! You can tell me it's a bad car, but you'd truly be the stupid fool doing so.
From my point of view, and from what I like, comparing the CT's mechanics to that of the Venza, is the same thing as comparing a Kia to a Mercedes. Ever taken a look underneath the Venza? Don't!
On this same note, The Acura ZDX is also niiice for the same exact reasons as the CT, but people dog that also!