Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Review #1840: Doctor Strange in the Multiverse of Madness.

Cast: 

Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Elizabeth Olsen (Wanda Maximoff / Scarlet Witch), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Benedict Wong (Wong), Xochitl Gomez (America Chavez), Michael Stuhlbarg (Nicodemus West), and Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer) Directed by Sam Raimi (#611 - Spider-Man, #1296 - The Evil Dead, #1483 - Evil Dead II, #1495 - Darkman, #1695 - Spider-Man 2, and #1779 - Spider-Man 3)

Review: 

I'm sure you remember the film Doctor Strange (#874), since it was only released...six years ago? To reiterate from long ago, this is based off the character of the same name that was co-created by Stan Lee and Steve Ditko that first appeared in comics in July of 1963. What I remember about the original film was that it seemed to dazzle my younger self with its effects and cast that had generated a bit of amazement and surprise in its sequences (whether an indictment of myself or perhaps the series, I haven't seen the film since the only time I saw it). That film was part of Marvel's Cinematic Universe, which is still kicking around after fourteen years after having gone through various phases (the 2016 film was one of the first of the "third" phase while this one is smack dab in the middle of the ongoing "fourth" phase). That film was written and directed by Scott Derrickson, who was known for films such as Sinister (2012) and The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2014), and Derrickson was slated to return for the film before stepping down in 2020; Raimi was signed on not long afterwards, and this is his first film as director since Oz the Great and Powerful (2013). This film was written by Michael Waldron, his first film credit. Times have changed a bit since then, since I guess one also needed to see superheroes appear in "miniseries" television as well (as opposed to their previous attempts at TV productions), with this film for example serving as a follow-up to WandaVision (2021). Of course, I will provide exactly one statement to the idea of trying to play catch-up to miniseries: movies are the ideal to engage my interest, so it seems too much like "homework" for my taste, but it is what it is. 

So, what does one think of a movie with a title long enough to abbreviate as "Doctor Strange in the M.O.M.?" Come to think of it, I haven't exactly been dutiful in actually seeing each of these Marvel movies in a few years. It isn't because they have degraded in quality, it just seems that the ones that look interesting are sequels rather than trying to introduce a hero (of course, if one stopped watching after Avengers: Endgame, I don't blame you). But hey, here we are with a supposedly "scarier" Marvel movie with a semi-interesting idea with an adversary quite familiar to viewers in going from "they are in that shot and sometimes talk" to "presence". Besides, anything that gives the character of Doctor Strange something better to do than what he did in Spider-Man: No Way Home (2021) should work out, but this is the rambling of a man who just thinks a hero seems more interesting to view without being just a supporting presence. The best thing I can say is that for all the cynical rambling and thoughts I had going into the film, it at least covers some of the expectations it has for itself with useful thrilling imagery with a game cast and director. It isn't exactly a good result, in part because there is a far better movie out now involving a "multiverse", but admirers of Raimi will still find it worth their time as a minor messy work. Cumberbatch walks through the film handily with the confidence one expects from his sense of knowing and timing that handles the demands thrust upon him with worthwhile patience. Of course, Olsen is the one who ends up stealing the show a bit, since her single-minded desire makes for compelling engagement when with Cumberbatch, one who does manage to draw a slight shred of curiosity for the simple desire of wanting to shape the world to have their children with them (no matter how inevitable it ends up being); in that sense, one can say that there is a semi-compelling threat in a Marvel movie. Gomez turns out okay, but in the attempt at trying to mold a young hero, one seems that she is used more for exposition that means one finds more insight in other movies involving the dimensions of being a hero than this (see, I did find a way to reference Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse properly). Ejiofor and Wong are only fleetingly involved in the general action, which results in a fraction of interest when either person banters with Cumberbatch. It is nice to see McAdams, even if her quiet patience is only there to show the apparent differences that have come from six years of comic book movie mythmaking. Yes, there are a few appearances that may or may not be a surprise to you, depending on how much one is invested into the subject material. While it did draw a slight smile, it really seems more of a "coming and going" kind of appearance built to build a boost (and possibly used just to dump exposition) before inevitability sets in. Besides, it does help setup the defining interest that the movie gets for me: setting up moments of horror, or at least the idea of it. There are plenty of decent effects shots that one would probably expect for a movie that just manages to stick its welcome at 126 minutes without pacing itself for too long. I don't think it particularly improves on the original film, but it does at least maintain some of the interest that made the original work without turning into an excuse for reference mumbo-jumbo. At any rate, an average modern movie is probably better than having no movie experience at all, so that might be the best thing I can say for it.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Arrival.

Review #1628: Arrival.

Cast:

Amy Adams (Louise Banks), Jeremy Renner (Ian Donnelly), Forest Whitaker (Colonel G. T. Weber), Michael Stuhlbarg (Agent Halpern), Mark O'Brien (Captain Marks), Tzi Ma (General Shang), with Abigail Pniowsky, Julia Scarlett Dan & Jadyn Malone (Hannah, aged 8, 12, and 6) Directed by Denis Villeneuve (#753 - Sicario, and #997 - Blade Runner 2049)

Review:

"Arrival talks very little about language and how to precisely dissect a foreign language. It’s more a film on intuition and communication by intuition, the language of intuition. That’s something that I find in my work. "

It is easy to see why science fiction can reach an audience on numerous levels. It can range from speculative in its detail that can range from extraterrestrial life to the future or perhaps dealing with telling said sci-fi story that involves the human condition or to focus on an issue. This film is an adaptation of the 1998 novella Story of Your Life by Ted Chiang. There are quite a few details different from novella to film, such as the fact that the alien ships remain in orbit with contact done through looking glasses (112 of them) rather than twelve that appear on Earth for first contact (done in order to generate tension); the character of Shang is not featured in the novel (nor with war), and the ending is changed. Screenwriter Eric Heisserer described the change made to the ending with regards to the lead character by giving her a choice (i.e. free will) despite "what seemed like a deterministic future". Villeneuve was attracted to the novella because it was exactly what he wanted to do in the realm of making a science fiction film, and it would be one that was parallel to his preceding works that seemed dark (such as Polytechnique (2009) and Prisoners (2013), for example) as the eighth feature effort for the French Canadian.

The film poses a different approach to the usual tale of aliens and communication that doesn't pose to simplify the process of the latter but instead wants to look at it with a clear glass. After all, we are talking about a movie that features a viewpoint about language being the sticking point of civilization and conflict, and it all tries to tie that together by the point of its key narrative point midway through the feature. Of course, this relies on one enjoying the film as a journey without needing to focus so much on the destination, where the focus isn't quite where you think it will be. With that regard, it is a fine movie, but it is likely a bit too sterile to truly reach greatness. Actually, it made me wonder about other different kind of sci-fi movies about communication like Contact (1997), or maybe just sci-fi films to compare with in this decade like Gravity (2013). Perhaps the truest thing it inspires is to remind me of Slaughterhouse-Five, the 1969 novel by Kurt Vonnegut that was based on his experiences of the bombing of Dresden that also happened to deal with fate and free will with its jump through time (or so it goes, since I read it about five years ago). Actually, another similar film might be The Day the Earth Stood Still (1951), which involved aliens and an important message for humans. The strange thing is that each of those (minus Contact, which I haven't seen) are all better than this film. There is a confounding mystery to how much a film or novel will stick with you enough to think about experiencing it more than once, particularly with how the journey sticks with you - in that regard, I wish I enjoyed it better, because I wish it was better than just "good" along with the fact that I wish it was more interesting in provoking thought than it really is through a 116 minute run-time that should feel less tedious. Actually, it did inspire one quirk: it is one of those films that will likely confuse you into thinking you should turn up your brightness on your television, unless one does desire a "dirty" science fiction film, as the director put it.

Oh but why don't we talk about the acting, too. After all, there's only four performances to really highlight, since two spend their time dealing with the Heptapods in glass, while the other two basically spend time looking at screens and/or talking about exposition. In that sense, it is fruitful that Adams does what she needs to do to keep the film interesting in compelling depth, one that deals with the challenge of dealing with communication between two worlds with the proper patience needed to make the balance between duty and care seem compelling and useful. Renner doesn't exactly have as much to say (given the final result it is a bit troubling), but at least he does what is needed in a light touch of exposition-delivery with competence. Whitaker is there merely to provide authority (because hey, how many sci-fi films have a recruiter to help with something "sciencey" to understand), and that results in a somewhat alright role, although it seems more apparent in the first half. Stuhlbarg may have an interesting line of work, but he seems more in the background with all of those screens with stowing doubt than anything too interesting. O'Brien and Ma are used in parts, while the scenes spent with Adams and (one of) the on-screen children seems to muddle the film more than really help it. To be clear, there are aspects of the film that are interesting to go through with its journey beforehand, such as with its opening half, which does generate a row of interest both in the nature of linguistics alongside where it could go with the creatures, and the effects that come from showing the aliens are fairly interesting. It creates a semblance of tension that does in some way make one not know exactly where it will go but not worry too much about it, moving as a puzzle box that keeps turning the edges around. In theory, its message of hope when it comes to communication is an interesting one, and it will certainly stick well for folks looking for a film that doesn't want to skip the usual procedures of a sci-fi film (although it may side step other moments) without being thought of as subversive or esoteric. Of course, the borderline between good and great comes with the twist that eventually comes into play (at least the one that seals the film up, not so much just the obvious one) - it sure is a shame I didn't care for the twist, and it is the fact that the film likes to close itself on where it began that makes it seem to think it has looped itself into a perfect circle when in fact it only seems to have mangled itself into the fear of smug inevitability (interestingly, its original ending dealt not so much with language but with a solution that would need to be constructed in the next 3,000 years, but it was a viewing of Interstellar (2014) that inspired the change). In other words, it is the kind of science fiction film that aspires to be on the level of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), but it can't even touch The Martian (2015) in resonance. I don't mean to dissect the film as I do, but it is my touch of disappointment with the level of how "good" it is when compared to its relative legacy in the five years since its release that makes me do so, as I find it to be a decent look upon communication within the realm of science fiction without quite landing all of its touches. The best way to watch it is to do so without looking much into its plot details or comparisons to other media, as instead it would be best to let it communicate all on its own, which in some ways will reach with its main performance and its dealing with people and communication, for better or worse. In a sea of great, good, average, and downright awful science fiction films, it doesn't hurt to pick one in the second category like this one - just go with it on its terms and let it talk from there.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars

Hugo.

Review #1559: Hugo.

Cast: 

Asa Butterfield (Hugo Cabret), Chloë Grace Moretz (Isabelle), Ben Kingsley (Georges Méliès / Papa Georges), Sacha Baron Cohen (Inspector Gustave Dasté), Ray Winstone (Claude Cabret), Emily Mortimer (Lisette), Jude Law (Mr. Cabret), Helen McCrory (Jehanne D'Alcy / Mama Jeanne), Michael Stuhlbarg (René Tabard), Christopher Lee (Monsieur Labisse), Frances de la Tour (Madame Emile), and Richard Griffiths (Monsieur Frick) Directed by Martin Scorsese (#990 - Taxi Driver, #992 - The King of Comedy, #1276 - Mean Streets, #1463 - Raging Bull, #1496 - Goodfellas, #1544 - The Departed)

Review: 

"And in my film, the cinema itself is the connection--the automaton, the machine itself becomes the emotional connection between the boy, his father, Méliès, and his family. It's about how it all comes together, how people express themselves using the technology emotionally and psychologically. It's the connection between the people, and the thing that's missing--how it supplies what's missing." - Martin Scorsese

"Every second the actor playing different scenes ten times has to remember, while the film is rolling, exactly what he did at the same point in the preceding scenes and the exact place where he was on the stage." - Georges Méliès

Yes, this is a film by Martin Scorsese, but as is the case with his films, there is certainly more than meets the eye with that statement. In this case, one can start with a legendary director that lived over a century before this film existed with Georges Méliès. He has been long overdue for a spotlight with his films (or at the very least more than one sentence), as he did a large amount of films (most of them falling under the category of "short", but this was late 19th/early 20th century filmmaking). He was inspired to create from a young age, whether that meant drawing all over his books or with puppet-making. As one might see from the film, he developed an interest in stage magic, which led to him having his own theatre to do said performances; he did indeed find inspiration with a showing of the Lumière brothers' cinematograph in 1895 (attempts to buy it were unsuccessful, but by 1896 he had found a projector to use and modify as a camera for his films). He made over 500 films in his lifetime (although less than half survive), with the most obvious highlight being A Trip to the Moon (1902), displaying the first iconic shot ever put to film that is shown a century later with this feature. Melies declined by the end of the 1910s due to a variety of factors ranging from World War I to finances, though he did find a living working a candy/toy stand in the Gare Montparnasse, while having a rediscovery from journalists prior to his death in 1938, which included the Chevalier de la Légion d'honneur alongside a variety of future influences.

The film is adapted from 2007 novel The Invention of Hugo Cabret by Brian Selznick, with John Logan serving as screenplay writer. One can hope that they do not grow tired of seeing a director's vision come out on screen with such interest and efficient, regardless if it is a great director or not. It is interesting in that sense to see a film from Scorsese aimed differently from his usual audience - basically, one can watch the film with their children or by themselves and have a good time. It is a film with a deep respect for its audience alongside cinema that makes for a fairly fabulous achievement (one filmed in 3D, although obviously I can't recreate the experience of said 3D). The film runs at a generally enjoyable pace at 126 minutes that unfolds itself and its surroundings with careful planning that makes a worthy adventure with plenty of visual appeal while also drawing upon the past with a well-touched stroke of the pen. The film is tasked with needing two worthwhile child actors to bridge key gaps in the film, and Butterfield and Moretz do fairly well with generating the presence needed to capture the wonder and curiosity needed from each that should be expected from films like this. Kingsley is capably up to task with inviting mystery and interest in those moments he is around, particularly when explaining who he was as compared to now. Cohen is up to task in some bumbling amusement without preening distraction, proving a useful foil and occasional focus. Others have smaller focus but do just fine with those little moments, whether that means a dutiful Stuhlbarg or Lee (who can make a few lines seem fun even after over 200 appearances, the most appropriate person for a love letter to cinema). It drives an interesting mystery well enough to useful conclusions that run the expected gamut of emotion with a nice atmosphere and understanding from Scorsese and his crew that lands for those who desire something with a mostly consistent balance of first and second half to go with a game cast for a worthwhile feature for its crowd of cinema and beyond.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

A Serious Man.

Review #1552: A Serious Man.

Cast: 
Michael Stuhlbarg (Lawrence "Larry" Gopnik), Richard Kind (Arthur Gopnik), Fred Melamed (Sy Ableman), Sari Lennick (Judith Gopnik), Aaron Wolff (Danny Gopnik), Jessica McManus (Sarah Gopnik), Alan Mandell (Rabbi Marshak), Adam Arkin (Don Milgram), George Wyner (Rabbi Nachtner), and Amy Landecker (Mrs. Vivienne Samsky) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, and #1517 - The Big Lebowski)

Review: 
"There were Jewish characters, but in regards to whether our background influences our film making who knows? We don't think about it. There's no doubt that our Jewish heritage affects how we see things."

It all started out with an idea for a short. The Coens envisioned a short film that would be about a conversation between a kid has with an elder rabbi that they described as a sort of "mysterious figure" after his bar mitzvah. Naturally this would spiral into  Some of the characters present in the film had inspiration from people the Coens knew growing up in Minnesota (such as with Melamed's character), with this taking place in 1967 (being shot in Bloomington but set in the Coens' birthplace of St. Louis Park) that reflect their upbringing in spirituality in study as children (Ethan once described wanting to explore the "incongruity" of Jews living in the Midwest as its own "strange subculture" - interpret that however you will). This is their 14th feature film together, which like most of their previous work they also served as editor for in a decade that was their busiest and most prominent as directors/writers/editors/producers (seven in total, which ranged from crime drama to dark comedy).

Sometimes you just have a film where the amusement comes in wincing at what is going on, where certainties and perceptions are never what one might think are coming, particularly when needing answers that suit tradition. Sometimes it all comes down to having one bump in the road turning out to spiral into something way worse, as perspective gives way to irony. Paradox and ambiguity are at the forefront here in a film that reaches as darkly amusing at times, one that will likely benefit from a re-watch for those who find its mesh of fictional and autobiographical work to prove a useful fable that fits upon telling (supposedly helpful) fables of its own involving dybbuks and symbols, which go hand-in-hand with moments that range from attempts at avoid bribes/blackmail to strange neighbors. This was the first starring role in film for Stuhlbarg, who had been acting in the theater since 1992 and in minor film + TV roles since 1998. He does quite well with a role that almost seems to be an observer in his own story, capturing pathos with a well-infused sense of anguish and confusion that manages to reflect well for a viewer in what is found and not found with him to look upon without having to spelled out for us. He reflects the alienation and hollow charade that can come from the conflict of certainty versus mystery of life, one who has been described as fitting the mold of the Book of Job (a Hebrew Bible book on divine wisdom and suffering) that might as well fit into a parable for the times now, which he does with well reflection. Kind makes for an interesting creature of habit in his time on screen, one that reflects his on-screen brother with careful and distinct sad quality. Melamed utilizes his time as a greatly captured creature of smug confidence, warm to the point of overheating that makes an amusing curiosity. Lennick fits the mold of no-nonsense interest that gravitates towards said serious folks with brazen confidence. Wolff and McManus do fine as the children of their own path of life and spirit, while Wyner provides the best laugh in the whole film in a scene near the end and Landecker does well in one elusive scene. The ending is as offbeat and elusive as the mysteries that came before it, which certainly will be interesting for those who find it worthwhile to fit its revolving message of mystery without needing a direct answer (or for others something of a cypher). It is a peculiar movie, fitting best for those with prior experience with the films of the Coen brothers or for those who like something with its own way of telling a story about mystery and certainty that work itself just well enough for satisfaction in the long run.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Shape of Water.

Review #1061: The Shape of Water.

Cast: 
Sally Hawkins (Elisa Esposito), Michael Shannon (Colonel Richard Strickland), Richard Jenkins (Giles), Octavia Spencer (Zelda Delilah Fuller), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dimitri Mosenkov), Doug Jones ("Amphibian Man"), David Hewlett (Fleming), and Nick Searcy (General Frank Hoyt) Directed by Guillermo del Toro (#425 - Pacific Rim)

Review: 
Admittedly, I can't tell which was more surprising: the fact that this was the winner of Best Picture (beating such films as Get Out (#909) and Dunkirk (#980) while also winning Best Director, Best Original Score, and Best Production Design) or the fact that this came to my local theater in the middle of March, different from how I usually review films in the Theater Saga. In any case, enjoy a interesting case for Movie Night.

The world of fantasy can provide an outlet for creative movies on both a visual and story lervel that can have things just be what they are while dealing with subject that other genres can have shortcomings with. While this film may not be perfect with everything that it does, it is at the very least a fine achievement. It is interesting to note del Toro's level of involvement with this project, serving as director, co-writer, and producer, which makes the seem to be a clear passion project for him, and he projects that with an abundance of visual flair and imagination that works for what he intends - for the most part. I found that the film worked best when it showed off its characters and style more so than its story. Maybe it will go down as a great classic, maybe it will not, but I think it will at least find a place in the places of fantasy and romance people's hearts.

 It is evident that del Toro wanted his film to achieve a look that would sell his film as something to care for and appreciate, with Dan Lausten's cinematography along with Paul D. Austerberry, Shane Vieau and Jeff Melvin with production design and Alexandre Desplat's music, all striking at the chords for good effect. The main cast all do a fine job, with Hawkins shining in delivering a capable performance through the way she moves her face (since she communicates only through American Sign Language) and through her physicality that shines through and through. Shannon manages to turn what could've been just a cliche adversary and manages to make it feel interesting and useful to want to keep watching in a ruthlessly effective way. Jenkins does a fine job being the counterpart to Hawkins, being useful to watch. Spencer also provides a bit of levity along with sense to the film that helps give the film focus. Stuhlbarg also proves to be fairly nice in his role, and Jones does a decent job under all that makeup. The story by del Toro and Vanessa Taylor is a bit familiar in some of its notes, but it is at the least entertaining enough to make something worthwhile, having a fairy tale involving what is essentially inspired by movie monsters or arguably Beauty and the Beast. It falls into sentimentality at times, and perhaps it takes itself a bit too seriously, but there is enough drive and spirit to push itself over the finish line and succeed with elegance, which might've felt ridiculous or weirder in other hands. Are there moments in the film that seem a bit silly? Yes, particularly some parts with Hawkins and Jones, but also a bit in the climax (which I can't really spoil), but there also manages to be enough interesting moments too with the cast that makes up for it. I find the movie fine enough to recommend, provided that you are in the mood for what it tries to tell through its passion.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Doctor Strange.

Review #874: Doctor Strange.

Cast:
Benedict Cumberbatch (Dr. Stephen Strange), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Karl Mordo), Rachel McAdams (Christine Palmer), Benedict Wong (Wong), Michael Stuhlbarg (Dr. Nicodemus West), Benjamin Bratt (Jonathan Pangborn), Scott Adkins (Lucian), Mads Mikkelsen (Kaecilius), Tilda Swinton (the Ancient One), and Zara Phythian (Brunette Zealot) Directed by Scott Derrickson.

Review:
It's good to back in the theater again, and this time with friends to watch it with. When it comes to these Marvel films, it always seems that I can't not be surprised by the end product, no matter how good (or great) they usually are. There's always something to be surprised or amazed by, and the way that this movie universe is built makes for a diverse amount, and even if I don't know much about the comic book they usually end up being pretty good. The same can be said for Doctor Strange as well. It's an entertaining film, in part due to its cast and effects. Strange manages to change throughout the movie in terms of his manner, and Cumberbatch succeeds in conveying that, convincing in his mannerisms and timing, even getting time to say some quips. He's not as arrogant as Tony Stark for example, but he displays some sort of humility and some sort of charm. Ejiofor is also pretty good in portraying a character as rigid as the script allows him to be. McAdams isn't given too much to do, but at least she isn't meant to just be a love interest this time around, having a bit more independence and some sort of grace in the role Any movie that begins with "Shining Star" and "Feels so Good" wins at least some vote by me. The rest of the cast is exceptional, with Mikkelsen playing a fairly entertaining villain (even if half the time he's wearing what looks like glitter...long story), and Swinton and Wong are also pretty good, achieving some sort of mystical allure. The climax is also pretty good, demonstrating some creativity, with two credits scenes at the end that are also pretty well done (par for the course). The effects are where the film excels at, whether during some action or when Strange first meets the Ancient One. It looks really stunning, along with having a good fit with a film as mind-bending as this one, having some fun with the weirdness that goes on. There isn't technically a big bad villain to beat, but this film manages to still go along with a winning formula with its own kind of flair and own kind of imagination to succeed.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Movie Night: Men in Black 3.

Review #647: Men in Black 3.

Cast
Will Smith (Agent J), Tommy Lee Jones (Agent K), Josh Brolin (1969 Agent K), Jemaine Clement (Boris the Animal and 1969 Boris), Emma Thompson (Agent O), Michael Stuhlbarg (Griffin), Mike Colter (James Darrell Edwards II), Nicole Scherzinger (Lilly Poison), and Michael Chernus (Jeffrey Price) Directed by Barry Sonnenfeld (#005 - Get Shorty, #077 - The Addams Family, #078 - Addams Family Values, #211 - Men in Black, #212 - Men in Black II, and #454 - Wild Wild West)

Review
10 years? It took 10 years to do this? (I mean the wait between films, not length of production) I wonder how long it'll take to make the next one, hopefully not 15 years. I don't know which is more surprising, the gap or the time travel plot. Actually the time travel plot is more surprising, though it is at least inventive and not just "stop the alien from destroying the world" again. Actually it is kind of like that, though at least it's more focused on stopping the past from changing, and Agent K again, though at least Jones and Brolin are enjoyable. The makeup and the effects (by Rick Baker) this time are pretty decent, they've evolved in a sense, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.  The characters are pretty good, I guess the villain is alright, but comparing him to the past two is all a matter of choice, though I still prefer D'Onofrio from the first film, at least Clement does his best. It is at least fun to watch Smith and Jones once again, and while the movie lacks Rip Torn (who they kill off), Emma Thompson is a good replacement. I do like the twist at the end with K, the ending of the movie is just good enough. The movie is not as good as the first, but it at least is better then the second film, which is all you need, I suppose.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.