https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dollars_Trilogy

they 'came to be known as a trilogy' since they both established the genre and came out in a span of 3 years

Henry Fonda is awesome, but so is Charles Bronson. Fuck yes the Once Upon A Time trilogy -- the ending to Once Upon in America puzzles me though.

This is my personal favorite of Leone's films, but Dollars trilogy is his best work. Da man wif no name.

Doesn't Netflix have Dagon and Necronomicron: Book of the Dead? I looove John Carpenter's Apocalypse Trilogy and The Mist RULES! Frank Darabont has also made many a Stephen King flick (Shawshank especially).

Off the top of my head, I would say HP Lovecraft isn't simply about madness driving horrors, it's biological horror, rather than supernatural. So almost anything by David Cronenberg, a lot of Japanese and Korean film, such as Akira, Uzemaki, The Ring movies, (which is based upon a Japanese folklore, but in modern times became biological horror, the Ring is actually a hybrid biological, technological virus), etc.

Also, the Matthew McCant-spell-his-last-name's True Detective breeches the Lovecraftian realm on a subtle and then not so subtle way in the end, such as the concept of "black stars" in a constant daytime of white background. I would say it's pre-Lovecraftian mythos from authors in the 1800s writing nihilistic almost biological horror, more just heavy uncomfortable writing. I can't recall the primary author who inspired Lovecraft beyond Bram Stoker's The Lair of the White Worm.

Anyway. I love horror, thrillers, suspense, nihilism, pulp and gothic literature.

Oh certainly, there are definitely glaring flaws with Rogue One.

The biggest problem for me was how every character conveniently dies IMMEDIATELY as soon as their narrative purpose is done with. And strangely, every character seems completely ready to die in a way that makes the deaths fairly laughable.

Saw: "I'm gonna stare out this window and not even try to escape."

Bodhi: "I'm gonna close my eyes and not even try to toss that thermal detonator back out of the shuttle."

Baze: "Welp, my best friend is dead so I'm just going to Leroy Jenkins those Deathtroopers."

They missed major dramatic opportunities for each character death. Think "Saving Private Ryan" where each character death is meaningful. Caparzo disobeys a command to do something decent and gets himself killed. Wade dies because Tom Hanks wanted to do the right thing and clear the machine gun nest. Fish dies because Upham is too cowardly to climb the steps and fight. And none of those guys resigned themselves to death--they all wanted desperately to live.

A couple of other things that bothered me about Rogue One:

Why did Admiral Raddus take Princess Leia--a Galactic Senators daughter--into a major battle with the Empire, one which most Rebels were convinced was a trap designed to draw out the fleet?

Why didn't Vader just Force pull the Death Star plans out of the escaping rebels before massacring them all?

Why did the Death Star "miss" Scarif base and hit the ocean instead despite them showing it had pinpoint accuracy when blowing up Jedha?

All that being said, TFA disappointed me big time. It was just trying waaaaaaaay too hard to evoke the original trilogy. If I wanted to watch the original trilogy again I'd, you know, watch the original trilogy. And don't even get me started on Kylo Ren. I haven't wanted to punch a character in the face so hard since whiny Anakin from Attack of the Clones.

EDIT: To keep this on topic, I'm annoyed that Plinket didn't point out the actual flaws in the movie and instead focused on the "they didn't explain the Force" bullshit.

I'll bite too. I liked Rogue One.

The three checkboxes thing (characters / story / emotion) seems a bit oversimplified. I think it is possible to have a *great* movie if any ONE of those things is great, and it is possible to have a very good movie without any of them being fantastic.

Beyond that, it seemed like his biggest complaint was that Rogue One requires you to have some basic level of familiarity with the Star Wars universe in order to enjoy it; that it doesn't stand up particularly well on its own. ...Well, duh. Any time a setting / universe is used for more than one film, you're going to have to spend much more time on the exposition and getting people familiar with how things work in the first film (A New Hope) than in later films. Actually, I thought that Rogue One would have been very watchable and enjoyable even for people that are familiar with Star Wars even in only the broadest strokes.

I'm with @SDGundamX. The original trilogy stand as my favorite 3, but I liked Rogue One more than The Force Awakens (and TFA was *way* better than any/all of the prequels).

Huh, this criticism feels more like a Zero Punctuation-type review to me in that it grossly exaggerates actual flaws to make them sound far more problematic than they actually are. He's asking us to view the movie from the perspective of someone who has never heard of Star Wars and that's just so preposterously stupid that I had a hard time getting through to the end of his video. The whole point of this movie is that the lore and the world has already been established--there's no need to re-tread everything and explain every connection. It's not meant to be a "stand-alone" film--nor were Empire or Return of the Jedi, which also rightly assumed that people watching the movie had seen (or at least understood the major plot points) of the previous films.

Personally, I find his criticism of the characters wholly lacking as well. Why did he not like the characters? Why did he not find them compelling? I personally loved them all. One flaw in the movie is that there are so many things going on that most of the characters don't get enough screen time for us to get really deeply attached to them, but then again none of the characters are meant to survive the movie so that could be intentional? Certainly a few of the characters (Baze, Chirrut, and Bodhi) suffer from being one-dimensional as a result of this.

Fair enough if he doesn't want to check the character box because of that, but he never explained why the story and emotion boxes weren't checked. I mean, my wife cried both at Jin's father's death and Jin and Cassian's deaths. They were the three characters that were the most fleshed out of the cast. We understood their motivations and their internal conflicts (Jin's father between protecting his family and helping the Empire, Jin's struggles with trust after the feeling of betrayal at being left behind by both her father and Saw Gerrera, Cassian's struggles with duty and morality further complicated by his growing feelings for Jin). And their deaths were meant to underscore the harsh reality of the rebellion for the common foot soldier.

For me, this movie is probably the 4th best Star Wars movie to date after the original trilogy--much better than The Force Awakens, in my book. It's fine if Plinkett disagrees, but his video is completely disappointing as it doesn't really explain or give examples of how he came to this opinion. He just makes a blanket statement and then proceeds to monologue as if we should take his opinion as fact without him offering any evidence.

I enjoyed past reviews from Red Letter Media a lot. They were insightful and detailed. They made me watch some movies in a new light and gave me a better understanding of them. However....

Go fuck yourselves, you whiny bitches!

You know what these people deserve? Everytime they turn on any screen of any kind to watch something even slightly related to sci-fi, it only plays Episode 1. They can't pause it, they can't stop it. And the Pod race as well as the 3-way lightsaber fight are edited out in their entirety. Just to make sure the relentless shittiness contains no form of relief.
We're finally getting decent Star Wars movies and all we get it 'But it ain't the original trilogy!!111!!'.
You people need more dialogue about the uncomfortableness of sand between your ass-cheeks. Or battle scenes characters only survive by entering slapstick-routines.
Sure, TFA and R1 certainly aren't perfect, maybe not even good, but they are surely much better than the awful shit Lucas shat down our throats the last 3 decades on the big screen.
The characters aren't likable enough? Have you met fucking teenage Anakin? I wanna slap the midichlorians out of that whiny bitch-face everytime he's on screen. He's so unlikable, the first time I didn't want to choke him until the Force left his body was when he murdered a classroom full of schoolchildren. That's what it took to make me go from 'I'm supposed to sympathise with this whiny-faced asshole?!' to 'Ok, he's the villian now. I'm supposed to feel this way about him'
There's not enough context? Go fuck yourself. Should we go and add extra flashbacks to Batman vs Superman on how Bruce Wayne's parents got shot? Just in case you don't get why he's Batman yet?
If you don't know what the Force is or who's Darth Vader, get the fuck out of my movie theater, mom! You're clearly here because somebody else dragged into this 'space war movie'.
I get it, the new movies aren't the perfect jewels of film-making your 5-year old self remembers the original trilogy to be ('Let's scrap the Wookies and invent the more Teddybear-like Ewoks, for the toy-sales!') but this is your response?
You're an teenage Anakin. A whiny, insufferable, bitch-faced asshole.
I welcome a healthy, critical discussion about movies any time. What I won't accept is this ridiculous display of ungratefulness after we suffered the prequel trilogy.
Star Wars is finally getting decent again. And you people shit all over it like the last 3 movies were even worth watching.
I'd rather watch Twilight than endure the creepy, awkward romance sub-plot of Episode 2 again. At least Twilight made laugh. And don't get me started on those tax disputes that started all that crap in the first place.
If you can't appreciate a Salami Pizza because there's no Pepperoni on it, you aren't worth any Pizza at all.

It's not a movie about Christmas, but it's a movie I often watch at Christmas, so it's a Christmas movie, like the original Star Wars trilogy or the original Indy movies.

Also, this kinda feels like Affleck trying to be Damon - it's a mashup of Good Will Hunting and the Bourne trilogy -

Good Bourne Hunting

I'm thinking you probably don't understand Star Trek. The TNG movies were no work of art, but they were still decent Star Trek movies. Now none of the Star Trek movies, not even the first 6 (with the exception of the Motion Picture, and arguably The Voyage Home) truly represent what Star Trek is with relation to their respective TV shows, as they choose to focus more on space action and conflict, but all of them stuck with the core premise that Gene Roddenberry laid out: To explore the human condition and show how mankind can better itself.
The TNG movies certainly could have done better, and while First Contact was pretty darn good (especially if you consider how it relates to the Borg "trilogy") I've come to see Generations and even Insurrection in a more forgiving light. Heck, as painful as it is to admit, even Nemesis had a lot of potential, judging by the scenes that were cut. (But that's being REALLY generous.)
However, none of the new movies come anywhere near what the old movies were. Yes, Star Trek 2009 was actually a better movie than several of the previous movies, but otherwise, all of them, even what I'm seeing in this new trailer, lack the vision laid down by Roddenberry. And also, it's very hard to appreciate a Star Trek movie that doesn't have its core points laid down in a TV show, as it really is best suited for the TV medium. Without that character and setting development, you can really only get by with nostalgia and action.

Now some of the fan works, on the other hand, seem to do their source material better justice. I avoided them for quite some time, but after hearing about some of the good ones, I've started to look into them and have been pleasantly surprised. They are certainly rough around the edges, but they do seem to stick to Roddenberry's vision a lot better. Heck, that Axanar thing looks pretty compelling, if they ever get to complete it.

I remember Neal Stephenson touching on this in his Baroque Cycle trilogy. In the book, they boiled urine to make phosphorous, and then used it as molotov cocktails if memory serves.

Sadly, it happens to most of the actors that get tied to long term sequels. Only a few manage to break out of it, usually because they take other roles similar to the ones they had, they were already famous before the role, or they are just really good actors.

I mean, think about the original Star Wars trilogy, other than Harrison Ford the rest of the cast kind of disappeared; although I guess you could give Mark Hamill a nod for his voice acting work later on.

There are a LOT of similarities. It definitely blurs the line between "reboot" and "homage", but I'd argue that isn't necessarily a bad thing.

I think it will take a few years for me to digest and figure out where I think it ranks in my personal assessment of the Star Wars movies.

That being said, I'm excited about the future of Star Wars again -- the prequels came very close to destroying any optimism that I had in that regard.

For the moment, consider Episode VII but ignore the plot and parallels / homage / blatant copying between it and A New Hope. In all three prequels combined, there wasn't a single character that was interesting; that we could identify with. Anakin was annoying -- in kid form and adult form. Ewan McGregor did OK with the material and directing he was given, but the script and writing in general did NOTHING to connect prequels Obi-Wan with the original trilogy. Padme, Jar-Jar (ha!), Palpatine, Dooku, etc. -- not a single memorable, interesting character that made me want to learn more about them. Sam Jackson's Mace Windu was probably the closest, but didn't get enough screen time or depth to really establish interest.

Already I feel confident in saying that in terms of characters, Episode VII is massively, overwhelmingly better than the prequels. Rey, Finn, and Poe are each individually far more interesting than every character from the prequels combined. AND, I want to see how those new faces interact with the old stars also. Luke, Leia, even Chewbacca (my personal favorite of the OT) all seem like they will continue to be very important to the story moving forward -- and continue to develop their own story arcs in addition to the new cast.

The Force Awakens wasn't *perfect* -- I tend to think it leaned a bit too much on revamping A New Hope also -- but it was very good and very entertaining. And I am definitely excited about the future of Star Wars again.

Exorcist 3 was way better than the second movie, although technically it is a sequel to the first.

Mad Max Fury Road was better than... well, all of the Mad Max movies.

Die Hard 3 was WAY better than the snooze fest sequel. Samuel L. Jackson, man.

Star Trek 6: The Undiscovered Country is WAY better than the original, 3, 4, and 5. So sometimes the sequel is good and then it takes 4 more movies before you get a good one in.

James Bond arguably got better with age. Maybe not the most recent ones, but Golden Eye was amazing. Great games can also be spawned from over making a franchise!

The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly is hands down the best of Sergio Leone's Dollars Trilogy. It wasn't just a western, it was an epic civil war movie in the west. And the ending with the Mexican stand off; soundtrack?!?! Hot damn! Not that the "sequel" sucked but the third was the BEST.

I know there are a couple good horror series that had a better third or fourth movie. Any Hellraiser is better than Hellraiser 2, same goes for Halloween. Though I can't say they were ever as good as their originals. It's still a hope I reserve for horror movies that make it past their shitty sequel.

The next Ring might be awesome. "Might." It's had a fairly massive career spanning 4 countries, 12 movies, 2 telvis ion series, 2 video games and a bunch of manga. Movies most people don't even know exist. I think the seventh iteration of the Ring (2002's American Ring) is the best.

And, while it might just technically count, it's worth noting that while i like Gaspar Noe's despair trilogy, his third movie Enter the Void is the only movie in the trilogy I can enjoy watching a third or fourth time. I once recommended his movies and alienated an entire office space. The only movie anyone enjoyed was his third movie.

Ghostbusters 3 will probably be better than 2. Blasphemy!! Hah, we will see. Girl power!

I think Batman also got better because of Nolan. Does that count? I mean, if a franchise goes on that long, it's all just sequels, despite the so-called canon and concept of "rebooting" a FAKE universe.

(Does Harry Potter count as the third movie in the Troll series?)