do you think the reviewer has actually seen it based on that review? i am not so sure.
i could have written that review, as it is very vague, simply says the film is a tour de force, a bit of gushing, but most importantly, no real specific details or points to note about the plot, any of the new characters, any of the scenes etc etc
it is so knockabout vague, it doesn't even bother to mention anything specific that most internetters would know anyway?
read it again, and see if you get what i mean