Rate the latest movie you've seen.

[Mr.Obvious]

Empire Strikes Back or A New Hope as the best Star Wars movie?  I admit, that's a tough one for me.  A New Hope had the classic hero's journey with a complete character arc, an amazing supporting cast, and an iconic climax.  The beginning might be a little "boring" but imo it's necessary to set up the juxtaposition of Luke's simple rustic life with his life in the Rebellion.

Meanwhile, Empire Strikes Back was a hell of a gutpunch and introduced a lot of the darker themes of Star Wars, as well as the iconic Hoth battle and the fan-favorite bounty hunter Boba Fett.  Overall, I think Empire has a narrow lead.

Now that all 9 (plus two prequels) movies are complete, I've seen a lot of people post rankings.  Here is my ranking.

1) Empire Strikes Back
2) A New Hope
3) Return of the Jedi
4) Rogue One
5) Rise of Skywalker
6) Force Awakens
7) Revenge of the Sith
8) Attack of the Clones
9) The Last Jedi
10) Phantom Menace

(Solo excluded because unseen)

Gonna keep this spoiler free.

Okay, so I just came back from The rise of the Skywalker. Went to watch it with my sister in the cinema. She liked it. Had, I think, a bit of a crush on one of the actors involved. She enjoyed it.

And me? I know this might be an unpopular opinion... But I liked it too. I had fun watching it. It was entertaining. Was it the best star wars film? Hell no. My sis and I agreed on that immeadiately. Was it the best in it's own trilogy? Fuckno. Could it have been better, you're goddamn right it could have been. But all in all, I don't think it should get as much crap as it does. IMHO.

Now that I've seen all the films, except for Solo, I have come to a personal conclusion though. I like the sequel trilogy movies more than the prequel trilogy's movies. Honestly. The only 'blemish' on the original trilogy is that it can be rather slow paced at times, like a lot of movies from that time. Not really a blemish as part of it, I think, is because we are simply spoiled by modern cinema's high-pace action.
The prequel trilogy, however, somehow kept that slow pace, only speeding up immensly in short bursts. The sequel trilogy fully embraced the high velocity and went the extra mile. It really is much more of a modern visit to the star wars universe. Does that make the movies better? Not per se, but they do make 'em more enjoyable if you just go in to have fun. If you don't keep them to the 'STAR WARS-standard', they are quite enjoyable, much more than the prequels. Again, to me. Plus, for all that they do wrong, the sequels do touch on something I miss dearly in the prequels. Namely the atmosphere of the OT. The despair, the fighting a lost battle against all odds. The prequels, ironically the only saga where in the end the good guys actually lose, for the most part feels like the opposite. With golden times, the jedi at their peak, foes consisting of stupid droids, ... And with technology at it's shiny peak abound as well. I know that's one of the goals of the PT. To show a much better time before the empire. But in the OT and in the ST, you see scars of war everywhere. Broken ships, abandoned settlements, Ruins of civilisations unable to function under a barren stretched out corrupt empire; collapsed under the weight of their failing intergalactic infrastructure... You see outdated tech being used in a vein effort, simply because it's all that's left. And that's part of the charm the PT, nor the clone wars, could , for me, ever truly capture. Also, apart from a few actors, the acting in the ST is better than in the PT.

Now with all that said: Yes, I prefer the movies, per movie, of the ST over the PT. The movies, as movies, not as part of the STAR WARS saga or as an arch, work better: per movie. That's the key.
But! And this is a BIG but: i think the PT arch is more worthwhile than the ST. It might be strange to say, but the movies of the PT are on the whole, worse. But their story and what they add to the lore and the story and worldbuilding of the franchise as a whole, is worth so much more than the sequals. It works more as an arch, because throughout the three films of the PT there is a clear vision of where the story should go. That cohesiveness is lost in the sequals.  It's also not fun to see where a lot of the characters of the OT end up. Their send-offs... some are better than others, but none are what they should be. And the PT is indeed repetitive. It's the OT in a new jacket. Flashier. Faster. Better graphics. But it's not something new.  It's often , apart from the atmosphere as described above,  unsuccesful in it's homage because unlike the PT, which also tried to rhyme with the OT, the ST brings little new to the table.

Anyway, time for my top ten, excluding solo

1) The empire strikes back.
2) A new hope
3) Return of the Jedi
4) The force awakens.
5) Rogue One
6) Revenge of the Sith
7) The last jedi
8) The rise of Skywalker
9) The phantom menace
10) The attack of the clones

With the addition that I don't remember much of the attack of the clones, simply that I was bored out of my mind and only enjoyed obi wan, dooku and palpatine. Will give it a go soon, probably, as the gf wants to continue watching the star wars saga.

[Hydra009]

I like the sequel trilogy movies more than the prequel trilogy's movies.

Absolutely.  While the prequels have their moments - I do appreciate the big battle setpieces and the space opera courtly intrigue - a huge amount of it was just really stupid "are you an angel?"-type lines and a glaringly tedious shot-reverse-shot with a bunch of ugly CGI in the background.  While the EU has done a lot to flesh out a lot of prequel characters - the films are absolutely not good and do not deserve to be romanticized.

The sequel trilogy fully embraced the high velocity and went the extra mile. It really is much more of a modern visit to the star wars universe.

I agree and disagree with that.  JJ certainly has a tendency to have people running around a lot to make a film "exciting" *coughStarTrekcough* and imo, that does help speed things up, but it also doesn't give the audience a chance to breathe or process anything emotionally.  That's only a good thing in small doses.

And I chaffe at the implication that JJ's eccentricity is tantamount to "modern" filmmaking.  Series like the Mandalorian as well as hugely successful modern films like the Joker do NOT follow that style and do just fine.

Does that make the movies better? Not per se, but they do make 'em more enjoyable if you just go in to have fun.

This is absolutely JJ's mo.  I will say this about him - and I'll leave it to the audience decide if this is a begrudging compliment or savage insult - he pumps out excellent popcorn movies.

Plus, for all that they do wrong, the sequels do touch on something I miss dearly in the prequels. Namely the atmosphere of the OT. The despair, the fighting a lost battle against all odds. The prequels, ironically the only saga where in the end the good guys actually lose, for the most part feels like the opposite.

I 100% agree.

But! And this is a BIG but: i think the PT arch is more worthwhile than the ST. It might be strange to say, but the movies of the PT are on the whole, worse. But their story and what they add to the lore and the story and worldbuilding of the franchise as a whole, is worth so much more than the sequals.

Yes, the worldbuilding was by far the best thing about the prequels.

With the addition that I don't remember much of the attack of the clones, simply that I was bored out of my mind and only enjoyed obi wan, dooku and palpatine. Will give it a go soon, probably, as the gf wants to continue watching the star wars saga.

My standout memory of attack of the clones and the only reason I rated it as highly as I did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkwdAl7sroQ

[Sal1981]

Freaks 9/10

Feels like a horror flick with he traditional creepy old house, an ice cream truck that lures children to their doom (or is it something else), and demon like supernatural powers that possesses humans and murders them, but described as science fiction in at least one review.  As the movie ended I found myself puzzling over what genre it was.  It differed from most horror films in that it has an intensely interesting and creative plot, but its creep factor was beyond most science fiction.  Whatever classification it falls under, it had my attention.  I'm getting this one for my private collection.  I'm looking forward to watching it again.  It may be of interest to some movie fans here.

Just saw it. Would recommend too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Battle of Geonosis was cool. Too bad they had to fuck it up with all that CGI bullshit.

[Munch]

Battle of Geonosis was cool. Too bad they had to fuck it up with all that CGI bullshit.

But I thought cgi was the best thing ever!

[SGOS]

Just saw it. Would recommend too.

Good, I wondered if others would enjoy it too.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

But I thought cgi was the best thing ever!

If you say so.

[Baruch]

If you say so.

Gozira is cgi, except when he is a Japanese man in a rubber suit ;-)

[trdsf]

Show me where the cgi was in Shawshank redemption, or green mile, or citizen Kane, or Schindler's list.

Funny thing is, until 2001 and Star Wars, Citizen Kane was one of the most effects-heavy movies made.  Welles pushed every border there was -- although his effects were used to compose a shot to forward the visual component and emotional feel of the story.

Today effects are instead of the story.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

You should resolutely refuse to go shows you don't like.

[Munch]

Funny thing is, until 2001 and Star Wars, Citizen Kane was one of the most effects-heavy movies made.  Welles pushed every border there was -- although his effects were used to compose a shot to forward the visual component and emotional feel of the story.

Today effects are instead of the story.

Yeah. Practical effects were harder to pull off, but when done right were very effective and left their mark. Good cinematography comes down to directors using what they have and using it well, look at something like who Framed Roger rabbit, the cinematography in that movie is fantastic, the real world blending with the animation timeless, and because of the effort put into it, it became rewarding.

With cgi replacing many methods of practical effects and animation, unless directors are prepared to put the effort in, then it just looks cheap and poorly put together, especially when people know it can be used far better.

The way gollum was used in something like lord of the rings, especially in return of the king, it was so well done that people loved the portrayal. It was a case of less is more, because they used practical effects along with cgi to make things stand out more.

[Munch]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1MpfM7Mb7AE

I feel now I would class Ricky Gervais as a British national treasure on par with Stephen Fry and Ian Mckellen after his final speech at the golden globes.

The best kind of humor, is one stepped in truths people don't want to hear.

[Baruch]

I like actors, playing their parts.  I don't need to look under the IT or Joker makeup.

[Munch]

I like actors, playing their parts.  I don't need to look under the IT or Jocker makeup.

indeed. I can enjoy actors and what they do, I just don't feel its appropriate to use their platforms in the way they've been doing for years now to spread political messages, because as he said, they really haven't got a clue. Like when you have someone like benedict cumberbatch making some big statement about bringing more refugees in, but won't open it own doors to several of his mansions to them, apparently because he had a baby.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/857507/Benedict-Cumberbatch-housing-Syrian-refugees-Government-rejects-20-000-migrants-EU

Gervais is right, these people need to stfu, just accept their awards and don't get preachy on stage when their not prepared to follow in kind.

[Sal1981]

A Monster Calls - 8/10

A decent movie dealing with loss, in a peculiar way.


The Endless - 5/10

Discount HP Lovecraftian story.