Chen G.

This! and that!

Also, Sean Connery not playing a tough guy in a film that isn't an action film, isn't the same as having him play such a character in a film that is (kinda).

Yes. And one of the best dysfunctional-family dynamics in Spielberg's (considerable) body of work on the subject.

And a manifestation of one of the thematic threads of the film, according to Steven Spielberg, at least.

I do find Johnson's use of bathos egregious in some spots, the one you speak about not being the least of which. To speak to your issue with Hamil, its not the actor who determines the quality of a performance, its the director: its he who is tasked with "pulling" the right performance out of the actor. Under a director like George Lucas, Hamil was...serviceable. Under Irvin Kirshner he was much better, even though he spent most of the time talking to droids, puppets and a masked stand-in - not the most helpful environment. I'd say he's very good in The Last Jedi, although I can't say the same for all the cast.

This. I'm not the biggest fan of the movie, but I'm perfectly happy giving it credit where credit is due. I think people are under the impression that when a filmmaker is using his film to unpack a genre or a film series, it necessarily stems from the filmmaker's disdain for the genre/series. It doesn't. ...making an immersive film, I would say. At some point, stylization starts to act as a buffer for the audience. Heck, it happens on Johnson's own Brick. That's not how trilogies are made.

There's a 1:1 correlation between the Hebrew and Latin alphabet (being that they have a shared origin), so the spelling of the word is the result of how its spelled in Hebrew. Latin doesn't have a J because ancient Hebrew (and modern Hebrew, for that matter) doesn't have that, either.

And because that's a more accurate transliteration of the biblical Hebrew name of God.

Not foreign, just misguided. Its like comparing a car to ice-cream.

I wouldn't know how to make such a comparison. They're works in two different mediums.

Doesn't Skyfall's credits carry the tagline "A Sam Mendes film", too?

I like Christopher Nolan, but I would never consider Sam Mendes to be a step down.

Sure, but I'm not one to let an individual story beat taint the entirety of a story.

Interesting perspective. I'd say its the best of three. Its plot retreads a lot of Raiders, granted, but the story is simultaneousy more funny and more weighty. It also balances a larger cast more effectivelly, with Salah, Brody, the Villain and the Femme Fatale all making their contributions to the plot, and the end notes are such a wonderful conclusion of this series, that they should have made anyone working on Kingdom of the Crystal Skull resign, if they ever saw them during pre-production. I didn't have problem with the location of Petra, even though its probably a four or five hours from my home by car.

It’s not at all complicated. It’s just that I felt more affected by the film the second time around. I suppose some of it stems from knowing where the story ends, after having watched all eight films previously.

No! He's one of Marvel's only legitimately great characters. We don't need there to be chance to screw him up. We know more than enough about his backstory, journey and ultimate fate. To put any more of it onscreen would just be demystifying.

Same here. I gave up on the books very early on, and didn't continue following up the films shortly thereafter. But having rewatched them (in fact in this time of year, which is a holidays' time here) I found a couple of them outright great, including the film you express dislike to; and as a series (Fantastic Beasts currently notwithstanding), it actually has a better overarching ebb-and-flow than, say, Star Wars ever did or would. That isn't to say that I can't understand your dislike, if you only explain why you dislike this particular film. I'm genuinely interested.

There's no problem in having a disagreement, but its worthwhile for both sides to present their arguments, in hope of an inteligible discussion. I, for one, would be very much interested in the reasons as to why you didn't like the film.

Its possible that upon rewatch I'll find that I like Order of the Phoenix more, as well. Although that film, like The Half-Blood Prince, was a grower for me: I wasn't taken-in on first viewing. But upon rewatch? fantastic.

There are other films in the series that can claim to the title of the best entry. Namely, The Order of the Phoenix, and possibly even The Half-Blood Prince. But I'd say yes, The Prisoner of Azkaban is probably the best.

It’s fine for a trailer. The gender of the lead is immaterial, anyhow.

Yes.

Which is exactly the way to do a superhero movie. Better than Superman the movie!

Its not like I'm being particularly opinionated on the subject. Do YOU think the issue of the film is in the editing bay? If so, what is the issue? As for why I'm interested in the discussion in the first place, that's because my main interest in films is in film series and in the way an overarching story emerges or is crafted as such a series progresses, and how each entry services (or in this case, doesn't) it. That's all the conceptual level, which is inherent in the premise. It has nothing to do with how the film's own narrative is executed, so watching it is immaterial to the subject.

Still, for the most part what I hear of this film is issues with photography and a general lack of heft, not so much editing issues. At least, not ones that can be overcome by recutting the film after-the-fact.