Recently, the prequels have been receiving some form of reappraisal, mostly because some people argue that they feel like one cohesive vision compared to the sequel trilogy.
I guess you have to come up with some excuse to not admit your nostalgia, because there are literally so many franchises that have had different creative teams over the years, and don’t plan out their stories in advance, and they still work.
The first few Harry Potter films feel different from the latter ones, but all of them are still good.
The Nolan Batman movies were famously not planned in advance, and it’s still a great trilogy.
The Bourne Identity has a different filmmaking style from the two sequels, but it still works.
A franchise really doesn’t need a planned out roadmap or a cohesive vision in order to be good, that’s nonsense.

This thing sucks because it makes all the wrong artistic choices: boring story, uninteresting characters, poor and wooden acting, it looks ugly and overly digitized, horrendous dialogue which is overly reliant on exposition, etc.
It’s actually not too dissimilar to _The Rise of Skywalker_, which also makes the wrong story and character choices.
But I guess I’m supposed to like this more simply because its bolder and doesn’t play it as safe?
I’ll take the safe film in this case, simply because it at least gets the technicalities right.

2.5/10 (mostly for that one good scene).