The clip at the end of the Revenge of the Sith review that juxtaposes Luke's decision to trust in his own abilities and the Force rather than fancy targeting computers in A New Hope with George Lucas's increased reliance on CGI and technical wizardry while filming the prequels. The entire comparison is incredibly clever and the editing brilliant. The whole moment manages to be, frankly, emotionally affecting.
A brief moment in the Revenge Of The Sith review:
Plinkett: I want to debunk a few myths about why [this film] is good, okay? Number one, "because it's dark," no.
His comparing Citizen Kane to Revenge of the Sith and making it work, using their similar plots to point out WHY Citizen Kane is a well loved film (because it uses clever acting, scripting and angles to convey its plot) and why Sith is so bad (because it uses stale shots and wooden dialogue that says the plot instead of allowing it to happen naturally).note Plinkett admitted that an actual comparison wasn't fair, because they had different goals, but he did point out the similarities in the plot not only between the two films, but the creators (Orson Welles, George Lucas) themselves, too.
When The Force Awakens review finally dropped, he spent the first half of the running time taking the entertainment industry to task on a few things:
First, he took Lucas to task for his passive-aggressive comments since selling the franchise to Disney.
Then he takes to task writers of internet click-bait articles that still defend the Star Wars prequels and try to find narrative themes that aren't there (though he is complimentary to one that talks about circular story-telling, he just thinks Lucas isn't a good enough writer to have thought that far ahead and brushes off most of the observations as coincidence).
THEN he takes Hollywood to task for their tendencies towards franchises, remakes, reboots, sequels, and merchandising; especially since they all seem to be telling the same stories about doomsday weapons and villains seeking revenge.
When he finally talks about The Force Awakens itself, Plinkett actually isn't too harsh at first — he does point out some very mild continuity or logic errors, but purposefully exaggerates to show how silly that line of critique is. What he does take umbrage with is tons of missed story opportunities (like actually seeing Kylo Ren turn evil and the rise of the First Order) in favor of just retelling A New Hope again but with a new cast.
On the subject of plot opportunities, Plinkett's hypothetical storyline is genuinely sad and compelling, both involving the characters' relationships (Luke and Han having a tragic final encounter) and incorporating contemporary social issues in a nuanced way the prequels didn't (the Senate being the ones to build a superweapon, with Leia expressing doubt over their encroaching power).
And while he admits it's great that The Force Awakens is purposefully trying to be more diverse, he chides the filmmakers for making such a big thing about it because kids most likely aren't going to care, and it's all kind of pointless since the lead (Rey) is still a posh white woman. In addition, he noted the lack of any romance, let alone sexuality, which the original trilogy oozed. He went on to wonder why the white girl wasn't having a romantic arc with the black co-star.
In The Avatar review when Plinkett takes James Cameron out to the woodshed over his use of Beauty Equals Goodness. He derides how simple-minded and insulting Cameron is being, and then shows a clip from The Garbage Pail Kids Movie (considered one of the worst movies of all time) to show that the creators had a better sense of reality than James Cameron did.
In his Ghostbusters (2016) review, he doesn't disparage the cast like so many online. He's actually complimentary towards the female cast, saying they're all great comedians and have been funny in plenty of other projects. He saves the worst criticism for those who really deserve it; Paul Feig for his awkward direction, and Sony Pictures for their terrible management and egregious amount of Product Placement (particularly during the film's climactic battle in Times Square).
On that subject, he astutely points out that the characters are chowing down on Papa John's pizza (logos toward the camera, of course), but are drinking soda from generic cups, despite Sony's ties with Coca-Cola. Why? Because Papa John's has a distribution deal with Pepsi, so using either brand would create a conflict of corporate interests:
One of Plinkett's main complaints is that the Lull Destruction brought on by all the ad-libbing doesn't let any of the horror sink in, and how even just a few moments of quiet would have made the film creepier. To illustrate this, he recuts a scene of the Ghostbusters walking down a creepy tunnel, using only ambient music and a few well-chosen sound effects and not a single line of dialogue until the very end. It's only a few seconds, but already it's more atmospheric than what the actual filmmakers went with.
He then unfavorably compares Holdo's iron-fisted leadership style to that of Captain Jean-Luc Picard, showing how Picard would ask for opinions and advice from his senior officers and consider them before making a decision, intercut with Holdo demanding they just do what she says, pointing out that it is rather strange that the Resistance, who are supposed to be the good guys and ostensibly more egalitarian that the First Order, operates its chain of command in such a strict and authoritarian way.
Scientist Man Analyzes ''Ghostbusters'' does a breakdown of all YouTube comments on Ghostbusters (2016) and discovered that, of all the people who watched the trailer, only 0.08% of them left a negative comment pertaining to the Gender Flip of the cast. It vindicates most of the movie's detractors (who resented being smeared as misogynists for simply thinking the movie didn't look very good) and its supporters (by showing just how marginally tiny the number of woman-bashers actually was).