Chen G.

Yeah, I would have liked it to be much funnier, given it’s reputation. But than, humor is so subjective that it not only varies completely between audience members, but also for the same audience member across several viewings.

Consistent is absolutely the last word I’d use when describing anyone working in a creative field, including composers.

Think about when the bad in “The Good, the Bad and the Ugly” sits down and eats soup for a minute or two. Just this repetitive, mondane action for a relatively long period of time, without some exciting music under it (as opposed to final showdown) and without anything too clever with regards to camerawork. It’s especially appearant because the previous sequence was much more exciting. Makes the impact of the violence that ensues that much greater.

Yeah, it’s just that different filmmakers have different fortes: Steven Spielberg’s the master of the reveal, Martin Scorcese is the master of constantly moving the camera, and Sergio Leone - well, he’s the master of the build-up, which is why his films are so long. If you think about the plot of any of his westerns - there really isn’t too much happening, and often the plot doesn’t come together until an hour into the film. Think about the final showdown in The Good, the Bad and the Ugly - it’s somewhere in the neighborhood of five minutes of close-ups until someone shoots someone else. Tons of buildup for a very brief, but effective, effect. In films like “Once Upon a Time in America” he also does another kind of buildup: through numbness. He intentionally bores the audience to make the impact of what follows that much greater. I think it was William Wyler who said: “if you want to shock an audience - bring them almost to the point of boredom before doing so.” Leone’s films do all of this much better than all the “epics” of his time, and his compositional choices were decades ahead of their time. And his partnership with Morricone, pfff. That’s part of what makes the sustained buildup work: that it’s so often filled so very well by Morricone.

I don't think that the fact that The Last Jedi is deconstructive is what enraged fans: I think its the particular way that Johnson went about deconstructing the series. While I don't agree with them, I can certainly empathize with the likes of @Mattris for character choices that they feel are inconsistent with Luke's character. If you really, really think about that moment with Ben - it kind of doesn't add up. I didn't mind, though. Conversly, if all those attempts of unpacking the Star Wars archetypes actually stuck, if they had been conducive to the characters' stories, and had they led to something that's meaningful and impactful (they didn't, really) than I think a lot more people like Mattris would be accepting of it. But in order to do so, Johnson will have had to a) craft a much stronger film than he ended up presenting, and b) make episode IX, not VIII. You can't spend everyone's time with what is essentially a middle chapter upstaging the tropes of the series, only for the next film to embrace them.

Yeah, I remember you don't like it (although I do), but the point remains. The Last Jedi is a film that thinks (and convinces its fans) that its more balsy than it actually is. Its not at all the bad film that @Mattris is making it out to be - but its really not that good, either.

Yeah, but you know its not going to stick for very long, come Episode IX... Its the equivalent of the cliffhanger of Infinity War. Baller on the face of it - but not really.

But there absolutely is. Its actually one of the more resolute middle chapters I've seen in quite some time, ending not with a cliffhanger or even so much as a set-up of the next film. Again, I'm referring to Chris Hartwell's review where he said that Rian "gobbled up more story than was necessary for this middle chapter." It may be depressing, but it is resolute. I just think this movie gets a lot of praise for story choices that really aren't so revolutionary. Ultimately, the kind of deconstruction that Johnson offers is mostly cosmetic. If he had real cojones he would let the Jedi truly end.

What risks, though? Other than that one scene where Luke is shown contemplating killing Ben, what real, serious risks did this movie truly take? And really, at the end of the day - to me - these questions of whether the storytelling was bold, or the director's voice prominent - all fall by the wayside of the end result. That being, me watching the movie and asking myself "Am I entertained? am I feeling something?" which, with The Last Jedi, I did. Just barely, however. With The Force Awakens - I was significantly more entertained - and that's what counts.

Leone's films can get a bit overlong: The original American cut of The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is just the right length; but the recent "extended" cut is overlong. And its not like its some studio cut - its essentially a redubbed version of the film as Leone presented it in "his" country. As for "Once Upon a Time in America" - I dunno. From memory, a few sequences run a touch too long, but not so much that I'd call the film as a whole "overstuffed". Its just operating in a different mode with regards to pace than most films do. As for wit - Leone's got it in spades.

Yes. I wouldn't know about every character - Holdo and Rose (ironically, the two new characters) did do stupid stuff, and you could say that Rey's overly naive for going to Kylo but I think the latter's excusable. Ultimately, you can't be too judgemental of characters in movies - you're supposed to empathize with them. That's JJ Abrams fault. What did you want Rian Johnson to do, stop his film dead to provide an explanation? On the one hand, you do want the different films of a trilogy (or a longer series, in its entirety) to fall into place, but on the other - you can't really expect a filmmaker to spend a significant chunk of his movie retconning another filmmaker's missteps. When I first saw this in the theater, I appreciated that move for how bold it was. In a movie that feels like it thinks that its so very balsy when it really isn't, that was perhaps the one choice that I was truly impressed by. But that was all but promised by The Force Awakens: we knew Luke was going to be desperate and that he will have turned his back to the struggle. On the one hand, I don't get what's there to praise (because its not like its a truly original, brave or surprising choice on Johnson's part), and on the other - I also don't get what's there to dislike so much, since its what we were in for, essentially from the first line of the crawl in The Force Awakens. On the whole I suppose that, having Luke and Han (and effectivelly Leia, too) killed - and really just seeing them so old and weary - can be depressing to some. But that flaw a) could be worth it, in the grand scheme of things, if IX leads to a truly powerful conclusion and b) it is a flaw that's inherent to the concept of the sequel trilogy. Its something you should either come to terms with when you approach these films, or you'd be better off ignoring them alltogether.

The Fox fanfare does work in tandem with the opening crawl of Star Wars very, very well.

But to JJ’s credit, he did choose a piece of desert quite distinct to that of the original Star Wars: Tatooine (which is the name of the actual place) is a rocky, north-african desert, where’s the deserts of Abu Dhabi are much more the rolling sand-dunes type of desert. Wadi Rum, though? I dunno.

I could drive out there and let you know... Anyway, wasn’t Jedha that on-the-nose Jerusalem equivalent what got blown up in Rogue One? If so, it can’t really be in Episode IX. These films don’t really do none-linear/flashbacks.

<uber-pretentious mode>You do course know that technically, the difference between the two is that film is shot on film-stock, whereas a movie can be shot on film, tape or digital.</uber-pretentious mode> 😉 Only after the midpoint: before the midpoint it is (rather ingeniously) a science fiction film. That's why it flies by, even though for the first half of it nothing really happens. Aliens is an unusual case where the sequel switched genre from sci-fi horror, to sci-fi action. That's why I never put stock into the Alien vs. Aliens comparison: even though one's the sequel of the other, they're not really comparable.

We needn't conflate variation with lack of unity, though. A film can have all sorts of different shots, and still have a unified sense to its visuals or camerawork. Same goes for tone.

Good example. But not all films conform to it. I adressed this issue before, and I don't wish to reproduce it, but the point is: yes, you can have more than one tone in your film.

The rarities alternate is also nice. Not nearly as... energetic (for lack of a better word), but it has that wonderful Numenore theme.

If you look close enough, many movies (if not most) somewhat change genre around the midpoint. The midpoint twist is an important structural "fulcrum" of the movie, and because we're so used to it, we can accept when it "splits" the film in half, whether its genre-wise, tonally, or otherwise. Not at all. The idea that a film must adhere to any one tone is a folly of internet "critics", really. After all, the name of the game of cinema is variation: variation of visuals, variation of action and - yes - variation of tone. Without variation audiences become saturated and ultimately bored.

A film's tone often changes significantly, too, around the midpoint.

It is a thriller, too. Like I said, composite genre.

Few and far between are the films that truly belong to any one genre. More often than not, films are of a composite genre. One of the reasons being that films often change genre around the midpoint. Alien isn't a horror film in the first half - its a science-fiction mystery film, which than becomes a science-fiction horror film. Similarly, Jaws starts out as something of a horror film (kinda) but come the midpoint it turns into an adventure film.

Oh, absolutely.

Didn't get around to see it, either. But its Sergio Leone - it can't be a bad film.

You might find Enya's album version of Aniron useful: Also, no edit of The Fellowship of the Ring Soundtrack will be complete without some of the stuff that's in the fan-credits of the film. Especially the magnificent early version of The Breaking of the Fellowship. And of course you'd also need to look through the Rarities Archive, and a few other nuggets that circulate in JWFan.