Reply to Topic
Not a fan, huh?
That said, it somehow wasn't nearly as awful as its catastrophic successor.
Rate The Last Movie You Saw
The Little Hut (Mark Robson, 1957) 5.5/10
Alf's Button Afloat (Marcel Varnel, 1938) 6/10
Benny Loves You (Karl Holt, 2019) 5.5/10
Undine (Christian Petzold, 2020) 6.5/10
Bizarre mystery romance, with Paula Beer and Franz Rogowski, obsessed with water and how it gives, takes and substitutes life.
Tomorrow Is Another Day (Felix Feist, 1951) 6/10
Caprice (Frank Tashlin, 1967) + 5/10
MASH (Robert Altman, 1970) 6.5/10
Sweetie (Jane Campion, 1989) 6/10
Australian dysfunctional family goes off the deep end when the two sisters fight over who is the more stubborn.
Crumbs (Miguel Llansó, 2015) 6/10
Nine to Five (Colin Higgins, 1980) 6.5/10
Breaker Morant (Bruce Beresford, 1980) 7/10
Supa Modo (Likarion Wainaina, 2018) 6.5/10
Set in Kenya, fatally-ill Stycie Waweru believes she can become a Super Hero and with the help of her village, maybe she can.
High Ground (Stephen Maxwell Johnson, 2020) 6.5/10
The Rack (Arnold Laven, 1956) 6/10
The Bachelor Party (Delbert Mann, 1957) 6.5/10
Still Processing (Sophy Romvari, 2020) 7/10
Quietly-powerful, poetic treasure trove of family photos, home movies and memories of the director's family. Be warned - it's a blubberfest.
Eyes of Fire (Avery Crounse, 1983) 6/10
Father of the Bride (Vincente Minnelli, 1950) + 6.5/10
Death Will Come and Shall Have Your Eyes (José Luis Torres Leiva, 2019) 5.5/10
Marianne & Juliane (Margarethe von Trotta, 1981) 6.5/10
Sisters Juliane (Jutta Lampe), a reporter. and Marianne (Barbara Sukowa), a terrorist, meet in prison where they mostly argue about how to change society.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page
Last edited by mark f; 05-21-21 at 07:25 PM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Silent Movie (1976) - 7 / 10
What I love most about this is that there is only one spoken word in the entire film.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
" Parasite" Best film I've seen in the past couple of years. It just may crack my overall Top Ten. "10/10"
"Vice" Very well done mockumentary and love the moments with Sam Rockwell and Christian Bale. Also have to add that Steve Carroll is at his best. "8/10"
"Vice" Very well done mockumentary and love the moments with Sam Rockwell and Christian Bale. Also have to add that Steve Carroll is at his best. "8/10"
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
'Apples' (2021)
Re-watch of an excellent movie. Seen it several times.
Good movie. Hilary Swank really good in this.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.
"Vice" Very well done mockumentary and love the moments with Sam Rockwell and Christian Bale. Also have to add that Steve Carroll is at his best. "8/10"
X
Favorite Movies
Don't understand the positive opinions at all.
Army of the Dead -
Dammit Zack, just when I was starting to expect better of you.
Army of the Dead -
Dammit Zack, just when I was starting to expect better of you.
__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0
I really just want you all angry and confused the whole time.
X
Favorite Movies
I really enjoyed this. Did a write-up of it on Corri right before it shut down. Very clever little film that's definitely a the-less-you-know affair.
I think I really needed the snooze factor ratings @Nausicaä uses with his mini-reviews.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Army of the Dead (2021)
So, did Snyder spend his hiatus watching Aliens and reading The Passage trilogy? At least to me, Army of the Dead feels like a mix of those two. It also feels like it's almost an hour too long and hasn't much else to offer besides its multiple Aliens tributes. Pretty much my least favorite Snyder with Man of Steel.
So, did Snyder spend his hiatus watching Aliens and reading The Passage trilogy? At least to me, Army of the Dead feels like a mix of those two. It also feels like it's almost an hour too long and hasn't much else to offer besides its multiple Aliens tributes. Pretty much my least favorite Snyder with Man of Steel.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Army of the Dead (2021)
So, did Snyder spend his hiatus watching Aliens and reading The Passage trilogy? At least to me, Army of the Dead feels like a mix of those two. It also feels like it's almost an hour too long and hasn't much else to offer besides its multiple Aliens tributes. Pretty much my least favorite Snyder with Man of Steel.
So, did Snyder spend his hiatus watching Aliens and reading The Passage trilogy? At least to me, Army of the Dead feels like a mix of those two. It also feels like it's almost an hour too long and hasn't much else to offer besides its multiple Aliens tributes. Pretty much my least favorite Snyder with Man of Steel.
X
Favorite Movies
What, you think it's even worse than Batman Vs. Superman? Damn...
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Not sure if I should jump into this mess once again, but what the heck...
I agree with your comment that "everything Johnson did with [Luke's] arc was a natural extension of what TFA already hinted about him" and about Snoke, Rey's parents, etc. I actually rewatched TFA and TLJ a few days before TROS and I was surprised by how well they both played off each other. Can you say that some of Johnson's story decisions were risky? Sure, but they weren't born out of thin air or came from left field.
As for your final paragraph and "what JJ had planned", that's the thing. It wasn't supposed to be JJ's decision to resolve cause he wasn't supposed to write/direct the final film, which is what I've been repeating ad nauseum since all this mess exploded. And here is where I put the blame on Disney's, Lucasfilm and whoever oversaw the whole project (Kathleen Kennedy?) which, again, is what I've been repeating ad nauseum since all this mess exploded. You can't take a project like this, throw it up in the air, and expect three different directors to create a cohesive trilogy without setting up a basic template for the story. It just makes no damn sense. So if there were any issues with Johnson's direction (which there weren't, until certain groups started complaining) why didn't Disney/Lucasfilm stick their hands into the project? They did it with Rogue One, did it with Solo. Why not this one, IF there indeed were any doubts about where Johnson was taking the story? Again, because the producers weren't worried as critics started raving about TLJ. But when these groups started making all this noise, and all this stupid petitions and threats, the producers got cold feet, felt the need to appease them, brought back JJ and let him backtrack most of the storybeats that Johnson had followed, resulting in an awkward and incoherent mess of a third film. Now, to me, THAT's the one that doesn't feel like part of a natural story arc. But in the eyes of many, they see Johnson stuck in the middle of "JJ's trilogy" and think of him as the odd duck.
Sorry for the rant, but that's how I think it all boils down. The bottom line to me is what I said: it made no sense for Disney and Lucasfilm to let three different directors do whatever they wanted with each film, without establishing first a cohesive story. I've said this before as well, but for all the faults and stupid decisions that Lucas made for the prequels, at least he had a clear and cohesive story. I'll give him that much.
I'll shut up now
While I still haven't seen Rise Of Skywalker, I'd say that The Last Jedi is in the better half of the "Disney Wars" movies, along with Rogue One. At any rate, one criticism of TLJ that I keep hearing that doesn't make sense is that Johnson's creative decisions for it felt like some sort of "middle finger" to what Abrams did with The Force Awakens, or even to the franchise as a whole, which makes little sense to me; for starters, when it comes to what TLJ did with
I mean, I think his films are generally entertaining, but he's definitely a better director than he is a writer.
WARNING: spoilers below
Luke's characterization, while I've gone into greater detail about this elsewhere, it bears repeating that everything Johnson did with his arc was a natural extension of what TFA already hinted at about him, since he was obviously living in exile nowhere near the frontlines for a reason. And, the same basic thing goes for the complaints about what the film did with Snoke, or with the revelation of Rey's parents, because with the former, people are baselessly assuming that there was supposed to be some sort of greater "mystery" to Snoke's identity to have another excuse to complain, when TFA established nothing of the sort about him (so why assume otherwise?), and with the latter, the only thing that TLJ did was merely resolve the mystery of who her parents were; how is that supposed to some sort of snubbing of Abrams "plan" for that sub-plot?
I mean, no one knows what JJ had planned for that detail (if he indeed had a plan at all), and it's easy to assume that the true identity of Rey's parents was supposed to be some sort of presumably big payoff, when JJ choose to establish so little of substance about that question in his film, since his writing style assumes that just randomly introducing mysteries is an intriguing storytelling device in and of itself:
I mean, no one knows what JJ had planned for that detail (if he indeed had a plan at all), and it's easy to assume that the true identity of Rey's parents was supposed to be some sort of presumably big payoff, when JJ choose to establish so little of substance about that question in his film, since his writing style assumes that just randomly introducing mysteries is an intriguing storytelling device in and of itself:
I mean, I think his films are generally entertaining, but he's definitely a better director than he is a writer.
As for your final paragraph and "what JJ had planned", that's the thing. It wasn't supposed to be JJ's decision to resolve cause he wasn't supposed to write/direct the final film, which is what I've been repeating ad nauseum since all this mess exploded. And here is where I put the blame on Disney's, Lucasfilm and whoever oversaw the whole project (Kathleen Kennedy?) which, again, is what I've been repeating ad nauseum since all this mess exploded. You can't take a project like this, throw it up in the air, and expect three different directors to create a cohesive trilogy without setting up a basic template for the story. It just makes no damn sense. So if there were any issues with Johnson's direction (which there weren't, until certain groups started complaining) why didn't Disney/Lucasfilm stick their hands into the project? They did it with Rogue One, did it with Solo. Why not this one, IF there indeed were any doubts about where Johnson was taking the story? Again, because the producers weren't worried as critics started raving about TLJ. But when these groups started making all this noise, and all this stupid petitions and threats, the producers got cold feet, felt the need to appease them, brought back JJ and let him backtrack most of the storybeats that Johnson had followed, resulting in an awkward and incoherent mess of a third film. Now, to me, THAT's the one that doesn't feel like part of a natural story arc. But in the eyes of many, they see Johnson stuck in the middle of "JJ's trilogy" and think of him as the odd duck.
Sorry for the rant, but that's how I think it all boils down. The bottom line to me is what I said: it made no sense for Disney and Lucasfilm to let three different directors do whatever they wanted with each film, without establishing first a cohesive story. I've said this before as well, but for all the faults and stupid decisions that Lucas made for the prequels, at least he had a clear and cohesive story. I'll give him that much.
I'll shut up now
__________________
Check out my podcast:
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
25th Hall of Fame
Chimes at Midnight (1965) -
This is both my favorite and the most unapproachable Shakespeare adaptation I've seen. I've noticed some people express difficulties with understanding and following along with the dialogue and that applied to me as well when I first watched this film. Unlike some adaptations of Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth I've seen, I hadn't read the plays this film was based on at the time I first watched it and had a reasonable amount of difficulty with following along, occasionally rewinding the film by a minute or so every now and then to catch myself up. Though I wasn't quite sure how I arrived to the ending, I found both the journey getting there and the destination quite emotionally powerful and I knew I would revisit this film at some point. Going into this film again for this Hall of Fame, I still hadn't read the source material, but I had already familiarized myself with the story of the film. Due to that, I was able to fully enjoy this film and recognize it as the masterpiece it indeed is.
As with my first viewing, I found the story and the character arcs emotionally powerful. What starts out as a disagreement between Hal and King Henry IV over the former's friendship with Sir John Falstaff in the first half slowly develops into a much greater conflict where the only way out of it will involve Hal betraying one of the men. This all culminates in a devastating final act which has an oblique emotional register, heightened by how Falstaff and (for the most part) King Henry IV weren't bad men. Beyond this, I think a lot of thought was put into the various steps of Hal's character arc along the way. Perhaps the most effective sequence in the first half of the film occurs in the tavern after the "failed" heist on a group of pilgrims. While talking to Hal, Falstaff tells him an increasingly elaborate lie on why his group lost all their treasures, boasting that he fought off 100 men while escaping in the process. Of course, Falstaff lies in a similar fashion during the Battle of Shrewsbury, but since the stakes weren't as high during the former incident, Hal reacted to his lie by playfully laughing and mocking his father, someone who greatly disapproved of Falstaff. I also liked the various scenes in the comparably slower second half where Hal's existential conflict was more at the forefront of the film. Overall, I think the strengths of Shakespeare's plays were realized to their full potential for this film.
The technical merits of this film are also great. As others have mentioned, the Battle of Shrewsbury is the main highlight. Not only is it technically impressive, but it's also edited quite frenetically and lovely to look at with the gusts of steam rising from the ground as it goes on. I also love how, in spite of all the brutality in that sequence, Welles still injects some humor into it with the occasional shots of Falstaff cowardly hiding throughout the battle. For 1965, it's a pretty breathtaking sequence. I also liked the various camera angles in the film, specifically with how the camera would look up at some characters to make them appear powerful and domineering, while looking down at other characters to highlight their inferiority. Finally, the various beams of sunlight which shined through some openings in Henry IV's castle into some darkened areas of it made for a pretty effect.
Overall, I'm glad I got to rewatch this film for this thread. Though it took me a few viewings to fully warm up to it, it was definitely worth it. My advice to anyone who couldn't keep up with the dialogue is to look up the plot to familiarize yourself with any details you were fuzzy on and rewatch the film with subtitles.
Chimes at Midnight (1965) -
This is both my favorite and the most unapproachable Shakespeare adaptation I've seen. I've noticed some people express difficulties with understanding and following along with the dialogue and that applied to me as well when I first watched this film. Unlike some adaptations of Romeo and Juliet and Macbeth I've seen, I hadn't read the plays this film was based on at the time I first watched it and had a reasonable amount of difficulty with following along, occasionally rewinding the film by a minute or so every now and then to catch myself up. Though I wasn't quite sure how I arrived to the ending, I found both the journey getting there and the destination quite emotionally powerful and I knew I would revisit this film at some point. Going into this film again for this Hall of Fame, I still hadn't read the source material, but I had already familiarized myself with the story of the film. Due to that, I was able to fully enjoy this film and recognize it as the masterpiece it indeed is.
As with my first viewing, I found the story and the character arcs emotionally powerful. What starts out as a disagreement between Hal and King Henry IV over the former's friendship with Sir John Falstaff in the first half slowly develops into a much greater conflict where the only way out of it will involve Hal betraying one of the men. This all culminates in a devastating final act which has an oblique emotional register, heightened by how Falstaff and (for the most part) King Henry IV weren't bad men. Beyond this, I think a lot of thought was put into the various steps of Hal's character arc along the way. Perhaps the most effective sequence in the first half of the film occurs in the tavern after the "failed" heist on a group of pilgrims. While talking to Hal, Falstaff tells him an increasingly elaborate lie on why his group lost all their treasures, boasting that he fought off 100 men while escaping in the process. Of course, Falstaff lies in a similar fashion during the Battle of Shrewsbury, but since the stakes weren't as high during the former incident, Hal reacted to his lie by playfully laughing and mocking his father, someone who greatly disapproved of Falstaff. I also liked the various scenes in the comparably slower second half where Hal's existential conflict was more at the forefront of the film. Overall, I think the strengths of Shakespeare's plays were realized to their full potential for this film.
The technical merits of this film are also great. As others have mentioned, the Battle of Shrewsbury is the main highlight. Not only is it technically impressive, but it's also edited quite frenetically and lovely to look at with the gusts of steam rising from the ground as it goes on. I also love how, in spite of all the brutality in that sequence, Welles still injects some humor into it with the occasional shots of Falstaff cowardly hiding throughout the battle. For 1965, it's a pretty breathtaking sequence. I also liked the various camera angles in the film, specifically with how the camera would look up at some characters to make them appear powerful and domineering, while looking down at other characters to highlight their inferiority. Finally, the various beams of sunlight which shined through some openings in Henry IV's castle into some darkened areas of it made for a pretty effect.
Overall, I'm glad I got to rewatch this film for this thread. Though it took me a few viewings to fully warm up to it, it was definitely worth it. My advice to anyone who couldn't keep up with the dialogue is to look up the plot to familiarize yourself with any details you were fuzzy on and rewatch the film with subtitles.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Snooze factor = Z
[Snooze Factor Ratings]:
Z = didn't nod off at all
Zz = nearly nodded off but managed to stay alert
Zzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed
Zzzz = nodded off and missed some of the film but went back to watch what I missed but nodded off again at the same point and therefore needed to go back a number of times before I got through it...
Zzzzz = nodded off and missed some or the rest of the film but was not interested enough to go back over it
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Seven Brides for Seven Brothers (1954) -
Watched it in the middle of the night and if it weren't for me laughing out loud I'd have thought it was only a feverish dream. What a hysterical film!!! It had me saying WTF a couple of times. I also had to stop the film during the kidnapping scene because I was laughing so hard I started coughing. Sorry, my taste in art film is very refined, but my taste in comedy is plebeian and I love cartoonish slapstick goofiness with all my heart.
The songs were OK. The choreography was amazing. The cinematography was pretty good: lovely colors and nice camera sweeps. Add a lot of silly jokes... Me gusto!
Truly an outrageously good time. I love and find it incredibly funny how the brothers literally steal girls by putting blankets on their heads. They also sing how it's okay if they're crying a little bit now because in reality they actually really love it! Would've been even funnier with potato bags instead of blankets. I mean, this is pretty wrong but come on, it's not like you're gonna take away any wrong notions from this kind of film. JUST HAVE FUN. And apparently, the best way to have fun is kidnapping a woman. And then she will fall in love with you and sit at home peacefully knitting a sweater for you. Stockholm Syndrome style! Sounds good! The only thing this is missing is rapes and a harsh noise soundtrack but we have to wait another 40-something years for that. God Bless Japan.
Watched it in the middle of the night and if it weren't for me laughing out loud I'd have thought it was only a feverish dream. What a hysterical film!!! It had me saying WTF a couple of times. I also had to stop the film during the kidnapping scene because I was laughing so hard I started coughing. Sorry, my taste in art film is very refined, but my taste in comedy is plebeian and I love cartoonish slapstick goofiness with all my heart.
The songs were OK. The choreography was amazing. The cinematography was pretty good: lovely colors and nice camera sweeps. Add a lot of silly jokes... Me gusto!
Truly an outrageously good time. I love and find it incredibly funny how the brothers literally steal girls by putting blankets on their heads. They also sing how it's okay if they're crying a little bit now because in reality they actually really love it! Would've been even funnier with potato bags instead of blankets. I mean, this is pretty wrong but come on, it's not like you're gonna take away any wrong notions from this kind of film. JUST HAVE FUN. And apparently, the best way to have fun is kidnapping a woman. And then she will fall in love with you and sit at home peacefully knitting a sweater for you. Stockholm Syndrome style! Sounds good! The only thing this is missing is rapes and a harsh noise soundtrack but we have to wait another 40-something years for that. God Bless Japan.
__________________
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.
Look, I'm not judging you - after all, I'm posting here myself, but maybe, just maybe, if you spent less time here and more time watching films, maybe, and I stress, maybe your taste would be of some value. Just a thought, ya know.
X
User Lists
Just viewed another gem in "I, Tonya". Another great mockumentary that seems to be all the rage within my radar. Also must add that the soundtrack is outstanding.
"7/10"
"7/10"
Last edited by John Dumbear; 05-22-21 at 02:27 AM.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I am female.
The damned 'gender neutral' safety switch in my head was accidentally left in the 'off' position
By Source, Fair use, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?curid=57247626
Leave No Trace - (2018)
The forests and wilderness are beautiful in Debra Granik's Leave No Trace but there is a whole lot of pain deep down, unseen at a glance but sorrowful on full inspection. There's also a deep conflict going on between Will (Ben Foster) and 13-year old daughter Tom (Thomasin McKenzie.) Will is a veteran with scars and nightmares that have left him completely unable to co-exist with anyone bar Tom - so they lead a lonely life in a national park with occasional trips into town for food and supplies. When social workers find them and force them to lead a more connected lifestyle, Tom discovers what she's been missing out on - but can Will settle down, or will his demons force him to run again?
Ben Foster and Thomasin McKenzie do a fantastic job, for their conflict is one that lives deep down, and only bubbles to the surface in innocuous ways. There's no yelling or demands or stomping of feet. You can see the pain eating Will alive, and also the overwhelming love father and daughter have for each other. For a while everything seems as balanced as the ecosystem they're living in at the start, but drip by drip teenage Tom is being torn from her father by a force as natural as the forest. The film is beautifully shot, and wonderfully scored. Based on the novel My Abandonment by Peter Rock, which in turn was based on a true story.
7/10
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Not sure if I should jump into this mess once again, but what the heck...
I agree with your comment that "everything Johnson did with [Luke's] arc was a natural extension of what TFA already hinted about him" and about Snoke, Rey's parents, etc. I actually rewatched TFA and TLJ a few days before TROS and I was surprised by how well they both played off each other. Can you say that some of Johnson's story decisions were risky? Sure, but they weren't born out of thin air or came from left field.
As for your final paragraph and "what JJ had planned", that's the thing. It wasn't supposed to be JJ's decision to resolve cause he wasn't supposed to write/direct the final film, which is what I've been repeating ad nauseum since all this mess exploded. And here is where I put the blame on Disney's, Lucasfilm and whoever oversaw the whole project (Kathleen Kennedy?) which, again, is what I've been repeating ad nauseum since all this mess exploded. You can't take a project like this, throw it up in the air, and expect three different directors to create a cohesive trilogy without setting up a basic template for the story. It just makes no damn sense. So if there were any issues with Johnson's direction (which there weren't, until certain groups started complaining) why didn't Disney/Lucasfilm stick their hands into the project? They did it with Rogue One, did it with Solo. Why not this one, IF there indeed were any doubts about where Johnson was taking the story? Again, because the producers weren't worried as critics started raving about TLJ. But when these groups started making all this noise, and all this stupid petitions and threats, the producers got cold feet, felt the need to appease them, brought back JJ and let him backtrack most of the storybeats that Johnson had followed, resulting in an awkward and incoherent mess of a third film. Now, to me, THAT's the one that doesn't feel like part of a natural story arc. But in the eyes of many, they see Johnson stuck in the middle of "JJ's trilogy" and think of him as the odd duck.
Sorry for the rant, but that's how I think it all boils down. The bottom line to me is what I said: it made no sense for Disney and Lucasfilm to let three different directors do whatever they wanted with each film, without establishing first a cohesive story. I've said this before as well, but for all the faults and stupid decisions that Lucas made for the prequels, at least he had a clear and cohesive story. I'll give him that much.
I'll shut up now
I agree with your comment that "everything Johnson did with [Luke's] arc was a natural extension of what TFA already hinted about him" and about Snoke, Rey's parents, etc. I actually rewatched TFA and TLJ a few days before TROS and I was surprised by how well they both played off each other. Can you say that some of Johnson's story decisions were risky? Sure, but they weren't born out of thin air or came from left field.
As for your final paragraph and "what JJ had planned", that's the thing. It wasn't supposed to be JJ's decision to resolve cause he wasn't supposed to write/direct the final film, which is what I've been repeating ad nauseum since all this mess exploded. And here is where I put the blame on Disney's, Lucasfilm and whoever oversaw the whole project (Kathleen Kennedy?) which, again, is what I've been repeating ad nauseum since all this mess exploded. You can't take a project like this, throw it up in the air, and expect three different directors to create a cohesive trilogy without setting up a basic template for the story. It just makes no damn sense. So if there were any issues with Johnson's direction (which there weren't, until certain groups started complaining) why didn't Disney/Lucasfilm stick their hands into the project? They did it with Rogue One, did it with Solo. Why not this one, IF there indeed were any doubts about where Johnson was taking the story? Again, because the producers weren't worried as critics started raving about TLJ. But when these groups started making all this noise, and all this stupid petitions and threats, the producers got cold feet, felt the need to appease them, brought back JJ and let him backtrack most of the storybeats that Johnson had followed, resulting in an awkward and incoherent mess of a third film. Now, to me, THAT's the one that doesn't feel like part of a natural story arc. But in the eyes of many, they see Johnson stuck in the middle of "JJ's trilogy" and think of him as the odd duck.
Sorry for the rant, but that's how I think it all boils down. The bottom line to me is what I said: it made no sense for Disney and Lucasfilm to let three different directors do whatever they wanted with each film, without establishing first a cohesive story. I've said this before as well, but for all the faults and stupid decisions that Lucas made for the prequels, at least he had a clear and cohesive story. I'll give him that much.
I'll shut up now
X
Favorite Movies
|
|