Chen G.

More than delivered. Outside of Solo, every film did comfortably over a billion dollars. That's amazing. I didn't for a moment think she would be let off. No one in their right mind would.

True. That aspect certainly holds it back from greatness. But as a film its still a joy to watch. Its fun, while still having darker passages. It flows quite nicely (much better than The Last Jedi). The production design is excellent, and the way its photographed is unique and engaging but also doesn't call attention to itself (again unlike The Last Jedi).

It most certainly does; at least for me. I think part of why I'm on the fence on The Last Jedi is not due to the merits and demerits of the film itself, but just in the general feeling (made all the more potent by the film's semi-deconstructive theme) that this series had run its course, for me. Really, fans should have been up-in-arms from the moment the intention to make more Star Wars films was made public: This series had a beginning (whether its the original Star Wars or The Phantom Menace for you), a middle and an END. Anything added to that is technically redundant, from the perspective of the series as a single story. Maybe a single, seventh film would have worked, either to rinse the after-taste of the prequel trilogy (for those who find it so distasteful) or to tie a bow on the ho-hum film that is Return of the Jedi. But three films and multiple spinoffs? It was overkill, for me, from the word go, although I'm still willing to give the next film a chance to prove me wrong.

False. JJ Abrams movies are characterized (and in times plagued) by the camera being on steroids, constantly moving and/or cutting. So to see him deliver The Force Awakens in long takes was a real surprise, coming from him; and a real treat. All the more impressive is that he doesn't overdo it. When you're going for long takes, its all-too-easy to make them too long, to the point that they start calling attention to themselves. That may be my main reason to leaning for this film over Johnson's: the camera doesn't call attention to itself. Abrams is confident and more established as a big-budget director, that he doesn't have to stand between me and the movie and say "look at me! I can direct a movie! Isn't it great?!" True, there are a lot of scenes where I felt like he was one take away from a much better cut of the scene. It should be said, his camerawork isn't terribly engaging, either. I was shocked by how little the camera moves in his films, how scarcely he pushes in for a close-up, and how high-key the lighting is in his films. That's partially why films like Empire Strikes Back and The Last Jedi feel so "different".

If ever there was a franchise deserving of this statement, Faige's Marvel Studios is the one. If you want to craft a continuous franchise, it boils down to one of three choices: Have one writer/director/producer tackle all entries and make them simultaneously - The Lord of the Rings way. Pros: uniformity and a single thrust throughout. Cons: its a major and risky undertaking and doesn't necessarily lends itself to every kind of story. Have individual writers/directors and give them free reigns (within reason) with their respective entries - the Star Wars way. Pros: you get different "flavors", as it were, within the same series. Cons: if any one director has a particularly distinct voice (e.g. Rian Johnson), his entry will stick out, and the stylistic uniformity of the franchise will be compromised. Have individual writers/directors, but only insofar as they adhere to a certain aesthetic and certain storytelling caveats - The Marvel way. Pros: uniformity, controlability on the part of the studio. Cons: you're effectivelly creating uniformity through sticking to the lowest common denominator, rather than the highest one. I prefer the first choice, but if I had to choose between the other two, I'd go with the former. Its not so clear-cut how much of gender differences can be attributed to social construct and how much to the genetics, but what is clear is that the genetic component is very present in those differences, much more than the "equality-of-outcome" folk would have you believe. On average, women have different interests, different personality traits, etcetra - regardless of how they were raised. In some of the most egalitarian countries in regards to gender (the Scandinavian countries are often cited as an example) women rush to "sterotypically female" jobs (nurses, teachers) all the more. In films, it holds therefore that the action-adventure genre be dominated, in front of and behind the camera, by men. Its a distinctivelly masculine genre.

Thank god for that!

Because of genetics. Well, a mixture of both genetics and those things.

If you get the performance right within two takes, than you've most likely spent dozens-of-takes-worth time on rehearsals. The only difference is that, if you're shooting on film, the cameras aren't rolling.

Of course it is, its a piece in the action-adventure genre. What precent of the female population is attracted to that genre, in and of itself?

They aren't. Maybe "pulling" out of an actor isn't the right term. "Helping the actor pull a performance out of him or herself" may be closer to the truth. Its sorta like a coaching process. The director creates the environment, talks the actor through the scene (especially today where a lot of elements aren't there on-set), and makes the necessary room for either rehearsals and/or takes, and than the actor has the best possible environment to produce the best results. E.g. Clint Eastwood consistently gets excellent performances from his cast, in spite of the fact that only does two takes per scene, because he does a lot of rehearsals. On the other end of the pendulum swing is someone like David Fincher who takes dozens upon dozens of takes on the day, to similar results. The fact of the matter is that great actors paired with bad directors usually create bad to mediocre performances, and okay actors with great directors often excell. The director has the bigger role in making a performance good or bad, than the actor.

Honstely, I didn't find the second half that engaging, either. More often than not, I find it overwrought when the finale of a film is split into more than two "pronges". Compare the number of parallel storylines in the finale of The Empire Strikes Back (two) to Return of the Jedi (three) to The Phantom Menace (four). Even though the latter is a prequel, with each film, the finale became more "ambitious" with regards to parallel storylines, but its impact was the inverse of their number.

It does. That's because it a) doesn't rely (intentionally so) on constant changes in location to keep up the pace, as adventure films are wont to do, and b) because the temple and what's being done there (and therefore, the plot) isn't revealed until quite late in the game.

I suppose we could have been treated a sliver of that theme in the end-credits suite rather than a "Throne Room" retread and re-retread.

I can't believe Honest Trailers didn't incorporate the "So-Low" pun. This movie was just asking for it. From day one.

One word: a roadshow fan-edit! same movie, just with intermission and entr'acte music between blurays!

No need to fix what ain’t broken.

See, @Jurassic Shark gets it!

Hey, I’m as human as the next guy. Occasionally I give-in to the JWFan epidemic of movie quotes. Just occasionally, thankfully.

Urgh, don’t remind me. That and the Duduk for everything vaguely Middle Eastern. Who would have thought one could have his fill of such a beautiful instrument so quickly?

Because it’s a Rian Johnson film, and it’s “artsy” and “meta” - the kind of film that movie buffs love to love, but average filmgoers are more cavalier about.

It’s a doily, not a tablecloth!

Nope. Indiana Jones 5 should include a time-traveling device that undoes everything that happened and brings us back to the moment in which The Last Crusade ends. Its only one of the best endings in the history of film.

Okay, but isn't Indiana Jones basically a cartoon with live action painted on top?

They do make a neat little trilogy, but than again I'm not much of a fan of either of the three films.

I saw it not too long ago. There are some parts where the synth choir sticks out in watching the film, and it does sound dated. Otherwise, I think its great. But still...