Haven't seen the movie, won't see the movie...particularly since it would be rather difficult for me to go to a theater at the moment. I want to make a more general comment about film.
Since when has 'it's only a movie' been a defense for factual inaccuracy? Oh, right. Always. "Willing suspension of disbelief" is a, uh...willing suspension. A person watching a film is actively trying to get into the heads of the characters and be part of the movie. Which means the movie in turn has to make active attempts to destroy suspension of disbelief.
For example, suppose we have a vampire story where we pluck from the myriad possibilities of vampire rules that vampires don't have reflections. Well, if the main character is about to be attacked by a vampire but reacts in time because he sees it reflected in a window...good job, that easily could single-handedly ruin the entire movie.
That's what we call inexcusable.
But when we break the rules of real life? Well, y'know, it's only a movie. I mean, come on, physics is hard. You can fall thirty feet and not break anything...probably. Animals basically just exist to kill humans, right? I think I learned that on the Discovery Channel.
tl;dr "bats = bugs" -Calvin