Red Letter Media

[DankSmoker]

The "no planning" thing still astounds me. "Hey JJ, Katie babe, we just spent billions on securing rights to the most popular entertainment franchise in the world! How are we gonna handle the tentpole releases?"

And the answer, apparently, was "Just wing that mother."

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

I'll need to see some citation for that because as far as I've seen it was mocked along with everything else.

"The first film kicked things off really well, but if you keep trying to top the previous film, then it's in danger of burning itself out too quickly and go too far. Star Trek will just need a reboot in five years like everything else."

Note that this is effectively the same reaction he had with TFA. Now, look at the "Don't fuck up the cast section" in Part 1.

"The accuracy of the cast of Star Trek is really important. Why? Because the biggest reason here is to trick Star Trek fans into believing these characters are indeed the younger versions that we know and love [...]. Making any kind of radical or creative kinds of changes would have been unacceptable. That, and the reason not fuck up the characters is that they're banking only entirely on nostalgia. [...] You can argue that the characters seem more intense because they're younger and haven't matured yet, or you can say because movie audiences are too impatient and dumb to grasp subtle character developments. Well, both are true."

Except the characters--which is the indispensable part of a story--do get fucked up.

"McCoy is no longer necessary in this new equation. At least, right now. He was shoehorned into this movie because he had to be there."

Likewise, the Spock-Uhura relationship qualifies as fucking up the cast, which Plinkett acknowledges when he asks what she sees in him. Other than subverting a Kirk Uhura relationship, it doesn't make sense on screen. But, they're hyper-charged and that makes them good for an action movie. Except it really isn't because it now begs the question why these character dynamics are the way they are. As RLM said in the Into Darkness review, Kirk and Spock would not be friends, and that's because 09 established their relationship as contentious from the start. It's only because of Old Spock insisting that they're destined to be friends that they're together. But remember, "this movie kicked off the franchise really well."

He also erroneously criticized the Dominion War at the end of the review, which worked out really well and if it weren't for making Gul Dukat the devil, it would have been the perfect end to that entire show. For one, the Dominion War, like the Romulans in TNG, was built up for 5 seasons starting with end of season 2 and it actually happens at the end of season 6. Battles like in Favor the Bold or the Siege of AR-558 were rare and built up to be costly campaigns that had to be fought. Then they would be character driven fallout like Nog getting addicted to the Holodeck to avoid the fact he has an artificial leg or Sisko coming to terms about being a war criminal. There are very few actual battles seen in the Dominion War on screen, but what we do see each time was a knock-down dragged out fight implying several hours had passed. Star Trek 09 was action set piece to the next action set piece, but that's fine in Plinkett's opinion because it's hyper charged. "So what if the plot is a dumb revenge plot?" is his argument. Except it's the breakneck pacing and constant escalation of explosions is what caused the JJ Trek movies to burn out so quickly. Lo and behold, that's what happened in the Disney Wars too. Five planets get blown up in TFA and a few years later, Star Destroyers have Death Star lasers and threaten to blow up the universe. All JJ decisions and were absolutely foreseeable in the JJ Trek movies. In insisting upon the difference between science fiction and action, he created a false dichotomy between character and spectacle when good character-driven Star Trek movies like Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country exist. As Nimoy said, "I don't mind action if it's organic and vital to the script. If it makes some kind of interesting or meaningful statement [...] But as a way of relating to people? As a means of solving problems? No." 09 absolutely uses violence in a shallow way because the primacy of action mattered more than the characters.

What he's done is lowering the standards of storytelling in a torturous attempt to fit a thesis statement that Star Trek 09 was good when it really wasn't. They did the same with TFA and the same with Kenobi. None of them are good, especially when they gave Rogue One a hard time for being nostalgia bait. Their opinions are radically inconsistent and people are picking up on it.

 

[Bush King]

As RLM said in the Into Darkness review, Kirk and Spock would not be friends, and that's because 09 established their relationship as contentious from the start. It's only because of Old Spock insisting that they're destined to be friends that they're together. But remember, "this movie kicked off the franchise really well."

You have to understand that Mike was coming from the perspective that Star Trek was languishing after you had fifty bazillion series and films. The most recent ones began to fuck up Picard's character after all the arcs were resolved in the series, and JJ Trek was looking to be a fresh take on the franchise. It was rough and creaky, but it was also exciting and brought in a new audience that could have revitalized the franchise. Star Trek in 2008 was the show for weirdo nerds, in 2009 it was a franchise growing in a new direction. You have to remember the recent ST films were failures too.

There's also nothing against Spock and Kirk being friends solely because Spock is the straight man without emotion. He's half human, remember? Kirk gradually earns Spock's respect in the first film because of his ability to resolve dangerous situations with his intuition and seat-of-his-pants dealings. He doesn't like it, but it works. Star Trek '09 definitely did kick the franchise off well. It was exciting and made you want to see where the characters went next. Of course Into Darkness destroyed any hope you had, but this was not true in 2009.

Star Trek 09 was action set piece to the next action set piece, but that's fine in Plinkett's opinion because it's hyper charged. "So what if the plot is a dumb revenge plot?" is his argument. Except it's the breakneck pacing and constant escalation of explosions is what caused the JJ Trek movies to burn out so quickly. Lo and behold, that's what happened in the Disney Wars too. Five planets get blown up in TFA and a few years later, Star Destroyers have Death Star lasers and threaten to blow up the universe. All JJ decisions and were absolutely foreseeable in the JJ Trek movies. In insisting upon the difference between science fiction and action, he created a false dichotomy between character and spectacle when good character-driven Star Trek movies like Wrath of Khan and The Undiscovered Country exist. As Nimoy said, "I don't mind action if it's organic and vital to the script. If it makes some kind of interesting or meaningful statement [...] But as a way of relating to people? As a means of solving problems? No." 09 absolutely uses violence in a shallow way because the primacy of action mattered more than the characters.

As far as Nu Trek goes, '09s action was pretty grounded. It also used the setting well for the scenes that occured, incorporating the vacuum of space and the teleporters into the action itself. That's quality stuff, it shows a recognition of the craft by JJ to create fun action scenes that make sense in context. As far as anyone knew in 2009, Star Trek was a one off film. It was a fairly big gamble. Breakneck pacing in that context is perfectly fine. It just doesn't work with sequential films that need fifty things to keep the pace up. Something like Wrath of Khan is also not going to be successful today to a wide audience. CGI has progressed far beyond where it was thirty/forty years ago and audiences want fifty spaceships flying into each other.

You also rely to much on the genius of Captain Hindsight. Yes, it's very easy to point and laugh at Mike thinking the guy who created a fun action space movie would be great for Star Wars now because we know the films are shit. It's especially easy when the Last Jedi was made the way it was with zero input from JJ. Mike was talking ten years ago, just as Star Wars was actually sold to Disney. I'm not going to blame JJ for not writing the perfect script for the Rise of Skywalker because he probably had a general outline in his head and then had to deal with 90% of his plot elements disappearing because of the weirdo manlet who directed TLJ.

As they explained in their Force Awakens review, it wasn't amazing but it served a purpose of getting people excited again, introducing a few new characters and plot elements, and so on. Most people enjoyed TFA. The backlash to TFA occured AFTER Last Jedi and Skywalker released. As far as directing a film for a specific purpose, JJ was probably the best choice for TFA.

What he's done is lowering the standards of storytelling in a torturous attempt to fit a thesis statement that Star Trek 09 was good when it really wasn't. They did the same with TFA and the same with Kenobi. None of them are good, especially when they gave Rogue One a hard time for being nostalgia bait. Their opinions are radically inconsistent and people are picking up on it.

Again, you're completely missing their point.

ST '09 and TFA were both introductory films meant to catch an audience in preparation for future developments. ST '09 was far more contentious in grabbing an audience that TFA. Both served their purpose in being soft-reboots that took characters you knew and either slightly changed them for a modern audience or used them to coast you into a new cast with new ambitions. Both were smashing successes, both were fairly exciting, both brought new life into the respective franchise.

RO and Kenobi are not tent-pole movies that are supposed to start a revival of the franchise. RO was released directly after TFA and showed that Star Wars was creatively bankrupt, as Rich put it. They weren't prepared to go anywhere new. Say what you will, TLJ was definitely the most unique (as well as derivative, paradoxically) film in Star Wars history. RO was just nostalgia. There were no characters, no new scenes, nothing was achieved but action for action's sake with old elements we've all seen before. Kenobi is not getting praised by RLM. I don't know how anyone can take this view. It's also not as nostalgia bait with RO. It's not a contradiction because a) their opinions are actually given an explanation and b) the purpose of the films/shows are completely different so their opinions are going to be different.

 

[ltlftp]

Mike's point was that JJ is a good director, and he is. Star Wars went wrong because he was given the writing credit too.

Mike even specifically clarified that in the Rise of Skywalker hitb. He literally says that his point with the Plinkett reviews is that JJ should have directed the movie, not "write it with the guy who wrote Batman vs. Superman."

 

[TheHarbinger]

The "no planning" thing still astounds me. "Hey JJ, Katie babe, we just spent billions on securing rights to the most popular entertainment franchise in the world! How are we gonna handle the tentpole releases?"

They also inherited a mess from Lucas who himself dismissed his own ideas for sequels and basically told Disney to do whatever they want. Lucas has walked this back in interviews since then and said he had a vision for the sequels. And that Disney are (((white slavers))). But in reality he was sick of Star Wars and was willing to sell them to anyone.

His sequel ideas were also mediocre. They centered heavily on Darth Maul returning and being the main villain for the entire trilogy, with Maul leading an international crime ring like the Hutt slugs, and then being confronted by Luke and the new Jedi. And then ultimately killed by Luke, with Luke riding into the sunset, leaving the next generation of Jedi to take up the cause. And his prequel ideas were not that great either. Trade disputes and midichlorians and Jarjar and so on.

And how they handled the tentpole releases was pretty cookie-cutter in Hollywood. They have a 'franchise blueprint' that seems to be get used for literally everything nowadays. From Alien, Star Trek, Marvel, Game of Thrones, and even to ridiculous franchises like the 'Dark Universe' that went nowhere.

 

[Bush King]

They also inherited a mess from Lucas who himself dismissed his own ideas for sequels and basically told Disney to do whatever they want. Lucas has walked this back in interviews since then and said he had a vision for the sequels. And that Disney are (((white slavers))). But in reality he was sick of Star Wars and was willing to sell them to anyone.

His sequel ideas were also mediocre. They centered heavily on Darth Maul returning and being the main villain for the entire trilogy, with Maul leading an international crime ring like the Hutt slugs, and then being confronted by Luke and the new Jedi. And then ultimately killed by Luke, with Luke riding into the sunset, leaving the next generation of Jedi to take up the cause. And his prequel ideas were not that great either. Trade disputes and midichlorians and Jarjar and so on.

To this day people still kvetch and speculate about how much "better" it would have been to use Lucas' ideas.

The truth is it would have been far worse. The EU is inconsistent, boring, and stupid enough as it is. That's all Lucas. That's all him.

Lucas sold it off because he understood that the ship had long since sailed without him.

And how they handled the tentpole releases was pretty cookie-cutter in Hollywood. They have a 'franchise blueprint' that seems to be get used for literally everything nowadays. From Alien, Star Trek, Marvel, Game of Thrones, and even to ridiculous franchises like the 'Dark Universe' that went nowhere.

It's shit, but I don't blame them. If you're spending $500 million on a movie and $2 billion of everything surrounding it, you want to have a blueprint for success.

 

[ditto]

Would Mike & Rich really had liked Obi Wan if it wasn't for Ewen McGregor? The cheesy story works because it's an actor they remember and like. If this was just following some random new Jedi I think they'd hate it as much as the sequels.

Also I suprised they continue to hate on RO. It's a very solid movie except for the wonky CGI and its one of the few Disney Wars products that enhances the original movies and also isn't Skywalker adjacent.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Except Mystery Box storytelling doesn't hold up and RLM fell for it twice. I saw both 09 and TFA in the theater and with 09, I had no desire to see it again. In fact, the more I thought about it, the less I liked it because it doesn't hold up. Nero was just as dumb as Shinzon, if not moreso. The man has time travel and doesn't bother to save his family's ancestors? The characters were dumb and loud. "People shouting is drama!" is Plinkett saying it facetiously. The character drama was very clearly secondary to the action. TFA seemed okay at first, but the first thing I did afterwards was buy KOTOR 2, the diametric opposite of TFA in every way. And thinking about TFA, it gets shallower with each viewing because the characters don't actually have depth and in some ways, completely miss the point of Star Wars altogether. Take that TFA lightsaber fight, for example. How does Rey win? By tapping into her anger. That is the antithesis of RotJ and Star Wars as a general ethos. Star Wars, the first one, is a classic movie that stands on its own. Mystery box stories fundamentally can't stand on their own because they have to tease the possibility of better sequels.

Mike even specifically clarified that in the Rise of Skywalker hitb. He literally says that his point with the Plinkett reviews is that JJ should have directed the movie, not "write it with the guy who wrote Batman vs. Superman."

JJ started off as a writer for Michael Bay movies like Armageddon and his style of directing follows the Michael Bay school of directing. Breakneck action scenes, meh characters with a random titillating scene here and there, plot that exists solely to facilitate action scenes. RLM is also a proponent of the Writer-Director model so that the creative vision is in full hands of the director. It's part of why they like Rian Johnson so much, along with Rian watching RLM and caring about their opinion. The two problems with the Writer-Director model is a general lack of oversight (the actor-director-writer model is worse) and it's a crapshoot in practice. Lucas was more of a writer-director in the PT than in the OT, but then there's Nicolas Meyer where him being the writer-director is a good thing.

People say JJ revived the franchises, but even when they were made, he didn't. Star Trek merchandising died due to brand confusion and rights issues between Paramount and CBS, Into Darkness came out four years later and didn't take advantage of 09's momentum. Star Wars, despite TFA's initial success, had EA Battlefront and Filoni Wars attached to it. He was always a flim-flam man, not an artist.

 

[Bush King]

It's part of why they like Rian Johnson so much, along with Rian watching RLM and caring about their opinion.

They've only ever talked about Rian in the TLJ review, and they didn't like or hate him. They only talked about how Rian knows about them, about how they like the writer-director model, and then how Disney just gave both credits to "some guy".

I have no clue where you got them being fans of Rian from.

 

[Protistology]

Nicolas Meyer where him being the writer-director is a good thing.

That's His Holiness Nicolas Meyer I, Rescuer of Franchises.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

They've only ever talked about Rian in the TLJ review, and they didn't like or hate him. They only talked about how Rian knows about them, about how they like the writer-director model, and then how Disney just gave both credits to "some guy".

I have no clue where you got them being fans of Rian from.

From the TLJ review. "I liked Looper." "[Rian Johnson] also happens to watch our programming." "'I like [RLM], but I also fear them.'" The Plinkett review on TLJ was likewise softball with Rian Johnson by going with the comedy angle.

Despite what they say about the Hollywood system, they love getting recognized by Hollywood celebrities like Patton Oswald, Max Landis, and Macaulay Culkin. And it is a rush to know that their opinions were listened to by the Hollywood elite.

 

[kukkia]

Except the characters--which is the indispensable part of a story--do get fucked up.

Honestly, as a big Star Trek autist, I really think that the RLM guys just don't know that much about TOS. They seem to mostly just be TNG nerds, with some Voyager and DS9 thrown in, which is pretty typical. Most Trek fans of their age started with the TNG era shows and have little exposure to the TOS cast outside of the movies.

It's kind of funny to me that RLM somehow ended up being viewed as a bastion of Star Trek knowledge. RLM's TNG-related content (like the old reviews of the TNG films) are fun and dunking on Discovery and Picard is always worthwhile, but they do also make claims that really don't hold up at all, even for TNG. Like saying that the show was typically subtle and not preachy, when in actuality it has scenes like Picard literally lecturing to a 20th century investor type dude about why capitalism is bad.

 

[Bush King]

From the TLJ review. "I liked Looper." "[Rian Johnson] also happens to watch our programming." "'I like [RLM], but I also fear them.'" The Plinkett review on TLJ was likewise softball with Rian Johnson by going with the comedy angle.

"It's part of why they like Rian Johnson so much, along with Rian watching RLM and caring about their opinion."

"I've seen a Rian Johnson movie" is now "I love Rian Johnson"?

The TLJ Plinkett review was also not a TLJ review, it was a Star Wars phenomena review.

Despite what they say about the Hollywood system, they love getting recognized by Hollywood celebrities like Patton Oswald, Max Landis, and Macaulay Culkin. And it is a rush to know that their opinions were listened to by the Hollywood elite.

They mentioned one tweet where he said he knew of them in a way that possibly implied he thought they would hate his film.

They then spent an hour in the TLJ review and for several months after on BotW absolutely shitting on TLJ and Rian Johnson's mannerisms and quotes. Yeah, it sounds like they think very highly of him and really care about how those in the industry think.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

Honestly, as a big Star Trek autist, I really think that the RLM guys don't really know that much about TOS. They seem to mostly just be TNG nerds, with some Voyager and DS9 thrown in, which is pretty typical.

I'm not a TOS fan either, but it's clear that there are big differences between JJ Trek characters and TOS characters. Big enough that character dynamics have to radically change to make the JJ cast work better and Beyond was really the only movie to attempt to do so, with middling results given the house style established in the Bad Robot series. There has to be a villain, there has to be lots of action set pieces. Like, I get the impression that Beyond was originally meant to be a bigger version of Galileo Seven with the entire crew getting stranded and getting picked off by some monster, but because it's an action series first, not a horror series, it never got the tone or pacing right. Which makes me feel sad for Beyond because it really was an earnest attempt at storytelling.

 

[kukkia]

Agreed. I have a bit of a soft spot for Beyond. It's not a great film but it was at least trying to be a bit more TOS-like than the previous two films.

 

[Kramer on the phone]

Saw a bunch of the regular Star Wars 'antis' ranting and raging about this on Twitter within minutes of it being posted, really upset about the review because... you know, Kenobi is the worst thing ever right now. I just watched the review and as someone who hated Kenobi so much I gave up halfway through the 3rd episode... I think their review was totally fine. I hate this show more than I've hated any of the recent Star Wars trainwrecks but I'm totally fine with their review.

They hate Star Wars. They shit all over the prequels, they literally launched their entire Youtube career by famously shitting over the prequels. They shit all over the Disney products. They've shit over everything but the original trilogy (which they still don't even seem to have a great opinion off). It's weird that people really are stunned by RLM just not giving a shit that the show is crap and repeatedly saying "I just don't care anymore, it's all trash. Star Wars fans are a fucking cult." They repeatedly say it only looks good in comparison because of how shit Picard is, especially since Mike and Rich both are massive Star Trek fanboys. Now, I don't like Star Wars so never watched Picard, but pretty much everyone seems to agree with them that Picard S2 is worse than this.

People are acting like they've come out and said "This is an amazing show and I love it, I can't wait for more of it!" Instead they came out and said "Modern Star Wars fans are fucking retarded, they are in a cult, they are obsessed with this shit no matter how bad it is, how badly it all fits together, how cheap it looks, how boring it is. It is terrible and a guilty pleasure and it'll definitely get worse and I'll never think about it again"

The biggest praise they gave it is it is better than other Star Wars products because it's cheaper and has more practical effects and doesn't include constant backflips. If anyone is stunned that RLM prefers cheaper, shittier practical effects opposed to 8 billion spaceships flying around, they've clearly never watched RLM before.

They couldn't even do predictions because "There is so little story"... but no, people are freaking out that RLM apparently love the show... they don't.

So yeah, good review, funny to see them shit all over this and their praise of certain parts doesn't make me upset.

No. It isn't even funny bad if you like Star Wars. If you hate Star Wars, I'm sure it's funny bad but if you liked it at all, it's just boring and depressing.

you're such a spineless faggot. go ahead and defend DSP and Ethan Ralph next

"a guilty pleasure" -Mike
"This show is......entertaining" -Jay
"This show is super ok" -Rich

 

[Flexo]

"The first film kicked things off really well, but if you keep trying to top the previous film, then it's in danger of burning itself out too quickly and go too far. Star Trek will just need a reboot in five years like everything else."

Note that this is effectively the same reaction he had with TFA. Now, look at the "Don't fuck up the cast section" in Part 1.

"The accuracy of the cast of Star Trek is really important. Why? Because the biggest reason here is to trick Star Trek fans into believing these characters are indeed the younger versions that we know and love [...]. Making any kind of radical or creative kinds of changes would have been unacceptable. That, and the reason not fuck up the characters is that they're banking only entirely on nostalgia. [...] You can argue that the characters seem more intense because they're younger and haven't matured yet, or you can say because movie audiences are too impatient and dumb to grasp subtle character developments. Well, both are true."

Except the characters--which is the indispensable part of a story--do get fucked up.

"McCoy is no longer necessary in this new equation. At least, right now. He was shoehorned into this movie because he had to be there."

Likewise, the Spock-Uhura relationship qualifies as fucking up the cast, which Plinkett acknowledges when he asks what she sees in him. Other than subverting a Kirk Uhura relationship, it doesn't make sense on screen. But, they're hyper-charged and that makes them good for an action movie. Except it really isn't because it now begs the question why these character dynamics are the way they are. As RLM said in the Into Darkness review, Kirk and Spock would not be friends, and that's because 09 established their relationship as contentious from the start. It's only because of Old Spock insisting that they're destined to be friends that they're together. But remember, "this movie kicked off the franchise really well."

That's literally critiques of the characters. It's like your entire problem with the review is that they didn't critique the things in a very specific way you wanted.

"The curtains are blue. It kind of clashes with the set."
"Can you believe it? They just noted the clash when any master of pantone would....[insert long autistic argument which doesn't actually go against anything RLM said]."

If it upsets you that much they didn't sperg out then do your own Plinkett review and see if this channel will host it for ya.

https://youtube.com/c/hackfraudmedia

What he's done is lowering the standards of storytelling in a torturous attempt to fit a thesis statement that Star Trek 09 was good when it really wasn't. They did the same with TFA and the same with Kenobi. None of them are good, especially when they gave Rogue One a hard time for being nostalgia bait. Their opinions are radically inconsistent and people are picking up on it.

Saying the movie is as disappointing as your granddaughter being a stripper is... quite the stretch in claiming the movie is good. The radical inconsistency seems to be far more about your expectations and putting words in their mouth than any actual understanding of their points.

I think it's just pretty obvious their passion wasn't into the '09 critique like it was the TNG films and prequels.

 

[Drag-on Knight 91873]

That's literally critiques of the characters. It's like your entire problem with the review is that they didn't critique the things in a very specific way you wanted.

"The curtains are blue. It kind of clashes with the set."
"Can you believe it? They just noted the clash when any master of pantone would....[insert long autistic argument which doesn't actually go against anything RLM said]."

If it upsets you that much they didn't sperg out then do your own Plinkett review and see if this channel will host it for ya.

https://youtube.com/c/hackfraudmedia

Saying the movie is as disappointing as your granddaughter being a stripper is... quite the stretch in claiming the movie is good. The radical inconsistency seems to be far more about your expectations and putting words in their mouth than any actual understanding of their points.

I think it's just pretty obvious their passion wasn't into the '09 critique like it was the TNG films and prequels.

Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. Plinkett makes the argument that hypercharged characters are good for the movie. I say they aren't and the fact that JJ Trek has slipped from the minds of people is proof that Michael Bay-esque storytelling doesn't hold up.

More to the point, it's had splash-on effects on TFA too. TFA has the same kind of problems 09 had. JJ delivered what he always delivered, but for some bizarre reason, RLM is bedazzled by JJ's filmmaking when it's not that much different from Michael Bay, whom they make fun of all the time. They simply have inconsistent opinions and low expectations so people are questioning what they're thinking.

 

[byuu]

when in actuality it has scenes like Picard literally lecturing to a 20th century investor type dude about why capitalism is bad.

An episode from the hated first season is hardly representative of TNG as a whole.

 

[Bush King]

Sounds like you're putting words in my mouth. Plinkett makes the argument that hypercharged characters are good for the movie. I say they aren't and the fact that JJ Trek has slipped from the minds of people is proof that Michael Bay-esque storytelling doesn't hold up.

JJ Trek is currently featuring a half dozen shows, most of which are entering their second or third season. It is at it's most successful point, whether we like it or not.

More to the point, it's had splash-on effects on TFA too. TFA has the same kind of problems 09 had. JJ delivered what he always delivered, but for some bizarre reason, RLM is bedazzled by JJ's filmmaking when it's not that much different from Michael Bay, whom they make fun of all the time. They simply have inconsistent opinions and low expectations so people are questioning what they're thinking.

They have mentioned Bay maybe five times in 15 years.

I can't imagine being this retarded. RLM is "bedazzled" by JJ yet releases an hour-long review trashing his final Star Wars movie.