I find it odd that people can't admit that brilliant movies are flawed or that bad movies have hidden gems. Batman & Robin contains one of my favourite moments in a bat-film (Bruce and Alfred talk about death and the true "mission" of Batman) even though it's a terrible movie.
Why does everybody have to say, "Everything sucked!" about movies they hate?
Can anybody here - who dislikes or even hates this movie - come up with something they did like about the film?
I'll go first: hyperdrive ramming speed was a bad concept that introduces too many plotholes in the Star Wars universe, but the silence as it happened, the stillness displaying such terrifying destruction, and the almost black-and-white photography of ships in space (in those horrifying moments just before devastation) was beautifully done.
Agreed. This film was divisive in having high moments and low moments, and that was a highlight in the way it was shot, to the point that it can even get away with being flawed.
It was beautifully shot. It also provided a good (unintentional?) laugh from me in the third film when they had Meriadoc Brandybuck go, "Can't we just do a Holdo maneuver?" with the response basically being, "Uh, no. That doesn't work. Shut up, and stop asking questions!" They had to explain why you couldn't just lightspeed ram everything and devastate the enemy, and there is no good in-universe reason, so they hand-waved it.
It finally showed people just what a shitty movie director Ruin Johnson is, what a weak-ass writer JJ Abrams was, and revealed just why Kathleen Kennedy was a poor choice for taking over Lucasfilm. We wouldn't have known that without this film. It also was a teaching tool in knowing what "Go Woke, Go Broke" looks like. It made a lot of us aware that PC going hog-wild to the woke level can bring down even the world's most popular franchise.
That's not really what I meant. That's pure negativity.
And Johnson's a fine director. I like Looper, Brick, Knives Out, and Brothers Bloom just fine. I dislike his entry into the Star Wars mythology, but he's not a bad director.
Well how were we supposed to have a learning experience, which can be a good thing, if nothing bad ever happens? And tell me, are those movies classics that everyone knows about, remembers, quotes, talks about, imitates, and buys merchandise for?
Bad experiences that are learning experiences are good, yes. That's a whole other topic, though. Learning from bad experiences is also totally different from either refusing to see positive aspects or just ripping on things. In fact, I'd argue that if all one sees is the negative, then learning won't happen, at least not efficiently, because only one facet of the experience is being viewed.
Are those the criteria for good movies? Because if so, "everyone" (presumably "the bulk of the moviegoing population?) doesn't remember, quote, talk about, buy merchandise for, or even really know about Akira Kurosawa's films. How many people have seen Seven Samurai these days? But, really, I think he was a pretty good director. How about Fritz Lang? Yes, they're imitated, and some people will know *of* them, but that's about it. I don't think that those are good benchmarks for whether a film is good or not.
Of course, now we're into the weird realm of, "What makes a movie good?" And there's so much subjectivity involved.
I'm not saying Brothers Bloom should be regarded as a classic and get a special edition Criterion Collection release. I'm just saying that Johnson's not a bad director. He directed a bad movie (Last Jedi), but he has put out some other really great stuff.
You're probably one of about 5 people on the planet who even know those movies you listed even exist, because the majority of people found them boring, annoying, preachy, terrible, or pretentious, and did the merciful thing and forgot about them.
And by the way, using obscure Japanese films from the 70s doesn't help your case.
Star Wars has been around for 40 solid years, and people still quote it, they still buy merchandise, make fan films, write books, and buy DVD's for their kids to watch it. How old are Ruin Johnson's movies? Like 5, 10-15 years old? And yet nobody cares that they exist, and probably forgot about them 6 months after they came out in theaters. Many people had never even heard of Ruin Johnson before TLJ.
There's a reason Ruin Johnson was banned from doing any more Star Wars films, because everything he touches turns to shit. Of course, we wouldn't have known that unless everyone had seen what he did to the Star Wars franchise with TLJ. The only reason he even got the job to start with was because he had friends in high places, not because he was a good director at all. Small wonder he got no less than 3 million death threats the day the movie opened in theaters.
Nobody should be sending a guy death threats for directing a movie, no matter how crummy. Anybody who did that is immature (at best) and was clearly throwing a tantrum (or they thought (wrongly) they were funny, I suppose).
A lot of noir fans took notice of Brick. It spread like wildfire through the noir circles, and most fans of the genre really loved it - myself included. The other films I'm mentioning (excepting Brothers Bloom) were received warmly or enthusiastically by audiences and critics. No, they didn't stick in the zeitgeist the way Star Wars did. That's the bar? Star Wars is the bar? Here are some good movies that didn't have the cultural impact of Star Wars:
Minority Report
Silence
Gangs of New York
Akira
WALL-E
Spirited Away
Dick Tracy
Batman
Logan
Pan's Labyrinth
Manhattan
Match Point
The Neverending Story
Monty Python's Meaning of Life
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Dr. Strangelove
Seven Samurai
Ran
Throne of Blood
In the Name of the Father
Raging Bull
How many films do match Star Wars?
A film can be good without needing to be superlative.
I'm reluctant to blame everything on Johnson given that he's written and directed some great stuff e.g. knives out. I'd say that TLJ came about by a committee of woke snobs all with a different agenda with Kennedy at the helm with no sense of direction.
Not to mention an equally committee-built first instalment filled up to the brim with "mystery boxes".
This is my whole point with this thread, too: we shouldn't write off Rian Johnson's body of work just because of one clunker. Do we not like The Lost Boys just because of Batman and Robin? Yet people perpetually do this: I didn't like the movie, it must be utterly terrible, and everything the director/writer/whoever ever did/does/will do is terrible, too! Why must we box check? Why must we abandon nuance?
How 'bout you, ProgsReturn? Anything about The Last Jedi that you actually dig?
>How 'bout you, ProgsReturn? Anything about The Last Jedi that you actually dig?
I'm trying to think of a single event in the movie that didn't suck. and that was Luke striding out to meet Kylo at the end of the movie (before the revelation, of course).
The fact that this movie basically wrecks all the storylines set up in TFA means this movie's suckness extends far beyond it's actual runtime.
I think the ST is really weird because each movie torpedoes every, single plotline set up by its predecessor. Okay, maybe not *every*, but close. TLJ subverts everything TFA set down and then TROS ignores, contradicts, or undermines everything TLJ did. That's one of many reasons I don't care for the ST.
I can actually think of a lot of stuff I like about TLJ. Here's my complete list:
1. Leia and Poe have a good dynamic. (Shame that she's comatose for most of the movie).
2. The *idea* of questioning the idea of a Star Wars hero (flyboys don't win wars, even Jedi masters get depressed) is good. The execution failed, but I like the idea.
3. Some of the shots are really lovely. I highlighted the best one (the hyperspeed ram)
4. Mark Hamill's performance. He does some great work - doubly impressive with the stagnant scenes. He does get some good moments (R2 showing him Leia's hologram was mighty, and his interaction with Leia was beautiful).
5. Some (*some*) of Luke's teachings are interesting. I wish there were more. The idea of "Don't worry about the Jedi; the Force is what's really important" - great concept.
6. I like Rey's journey into the Dark Cave. I don't know what it meant, but hey, I liked it.
7. The throne room scene. Rey and Kylo each with visions of turning the other. Anything could have happened in that room. Rey going Dark Side (now that's a subverted expectation!), Kylo turning good before the third film, or (my personal favourite) both of them trying to create their own path (and failing in their arrogance) - anything. Maybe my biggest frustration with the film was the fact that nothing did happen and no dynamics changed at the end of that scene whatsoever.
8. Luke coming to meet Kylo Ren. I liked their duel, too. Luke felt like a Jedi Master here. It was very "kung fu movie" master v. student.
That might be my whole list. But there's good stuff in the movie.
You know what really bugs me about the film? It's that feeling of frustration. It flirts with being great and really saying something interesting, but it's muddy and tonally inconsistent and it can't stick the landing. TFA tried to be nostalgic, dumb entertainment, and it kinda succeeded at that. It was fun. But it didn't shoot high. TLJ shot much higher and missed bigger. That disappointment is maybe what bugs me most.
Ah - the thing about Ed Wood movies is that they're Ed Wood movies! You know what to expect from them. Consistently silly. The Disney trilogy were all crap but quality control for TLJ was lower than that of the Holiday Special.
I hated the movie, but recognized some good in it, so here we go.
The first moment that came to my mind was the shoulder sweep. Too bad it was somehow cheapened by the revelation of him being a projection, but was a nice moment and the theater went wild (that ONE time). It brought the true Luke Skywalker to the screen for a few moments. Everything else about Luke was handled awfully, although I also liked the Leia interaction.
The idea of a weapons merchant selling TIEs and X-Wings alike is an interesting one. Del Toro was even a good actor for that. So the idea and the casting was good - nothing else, as this too was handled badly and ultimately went nowhere.
The Holdo Maneuver was great visually, I'll give you that.
Some of the Yoda interactions were good, even on the verge of great. Ultimately what he said did not make sense in the context of the ST and the OT, but the dialogue was well written and you can tell that Hamill enjoyed acting with that old puppet (CGI-thing) again.
At the very end I hated the broom flying into the kid's hands, since in a world where droids can do everything, why would they keep kid slaves and why would they clean stables with brooms... my head hurts thinking about it, but let me find the one good bit in this: it was reminiscent of the end of one of my fave series, Buffy, where Buffy figured out how to wake up the potential slayers all around the world. This idea of "inspire someone to be a Jedi" is an interesting new one for SW, and I wouldn't be against seeing it played out. A galaxy full of Force powered individuals, some good, some evil, some just average would be - again I'm using this word - interesting to see. Provided whoever films it, cares about the idea and tries to have it make sense inside the SW universe, it could even be good to see. But of course, this idea was completely dropped when IX came out, so we'll never know.
Great points on both the ups and downs of the film.
I liked more of Luke than you did. First of all, regardless of the material, Hamill's performance was top-notch, and it made me sad that they used him so poorly.
Some of Luke's teachings were interesting and I wanted more exploration in those areas. When he's trying to tell Rey that the Force is bigger than the concept of "Jedi", I was very intrigued. It made me think of somebody going, "The idea of God is bigger than religion!" and that's a cool philosophical idea.
I hated that Luke just gave up, though, and it felt especially cheap that it happened off-screen. Maybe I could've bought it if I watched it happen, but not off-screen. So I thought they handled his character poorly and did him dirt, but I thought there were some positives to his interactions with Rey. Not many...
Yeah, the "common enemy" or "useful evil" of a weapons merchant is interesting. Hard to work into Star Wars, and if it was going to happen, it should've been the main focus of the movie, if not the trilogy. I thought the "message" of the good guys being a little corrupt just because they're buying weapons from somebody who is also supplying the Empire was stupid. It's like, gang members buy Glocks. They use those Glocks to shoot each other, innocent people, and cause mayhem. Are the cops morally worse because they buy Glocks to defend people against the gangs? Bit of a stretch, isn't it? (Not that cops can't be corrupt or a problem, too, unfortunately - but it's not because they buy weapons from the same place gangsters buy 'em).
Excellent points, also, with the broom kid. On the idea of keeping human slaves in a droid-verse: yes, but the Prequels already had that. Anakin and Shmi were Watto's slaves even though Anakin could just grab random junk and make C-3PO. My take on it is that some people are just kinda horrible. Evil behaviour (like slavery) doesn't have to make sense. Could be a status thing. Or a power thing.
When he's trying to tell Rey that the Force is bigger than the concept of "Jedi", I was very intrigued. It made me think of somebody going, "The idea of God is bigger than religion!" and that's a cool philosophical idea.
Back when I worked a repetitive menial job, I listened to a lot of books on audio. One of my favorites - that I could listen to multiple times - was Star Wars: Darth Maul Shadow Hunter.
There was a short passage in that book about the nature of the force. That there is no such thing as a light side and dark side of the force. That the force was above such petty concepts of light and dark. The fact of the matter is that there was simply the force. How someone used it was what mattered. The Jedi saw the force as an end in itself an the Sith knew that it was a means to and end - and that end was power.
Yeah, that's philosophically interesting. Even the idea that the denizens of the Star Wars universe have very different conceptions of the Force is cool. I liked that this movie was willing to explore that a little bit and poke around at some of the larger spiritual aspects of the Force.
I enjoyed the Yoda scene for the great look of the puppet and that Yoda had some good wisdom to lay down. I thought it was odd that he was acting "kooky" again, but other than that it was enjoyable. Hamill's performance was solid throughout the film, so him and Oz doing some good stuff - yeah, that was okay.
There is a philosophy in the Talmud that says if the Sanhedrin (court) reaches a unanimously "guilty" verdict, the defendant should be acquitted. The reasoning is that if only guilt is seen by the court, they aren't seeing the whole picture.