As shown in TFA, Rey spent her youth dreaming of fighting evil. And after the events of TFA (getting kidnapped, losing Han, etc.), it's even more personal now.
She's clearly very idealistic. It makes sense that despite becoming disillusioned with Luke, her idealism would compel her to remain loyal to the Jedi teachings, which aren't fallible like a person is. (Granted, this is the least clear motive out of these three, but it's also the one least emphasized by the film.)
Because when he reached out to her through the Force, she saw his vulnerable side, and began to think of him as a person rather than simply an enemy.
That's the clear implication, given that the cannon was about to fire. Also considering that Rose colliding with Finn didn't do enough damage to be fatal, it's unlikely that one of those rickety old ships would've done much damage to the cannon.
Yeah, probably, but it also seems plausible that in the heat of the moment, she figured possibly killing him by crashing into him was preferable to him definitely dying by hitting (or being hit by) the cannon. Chalk it down to movie logic--not everything has to make perfect logical sense if it makes at least some sense emotionally.
I refer you to jayzor's post, but it is, of course, your right not to like the themes or subplot. But the themes are definitely there, and thus the Finn and Rose plot does contribute to the film, regardless of one's subjective positive or negative feelings towards it.
Bold strategy, Cotton!
Lots of great movies have plot holes and even more have plot contrivances. Also, what specifically did you think was a plot hole?
Unless you can give me a tangible "filmmaking" reason why, I'm gonna say that comes down to personal preference. If nothing else, the throne room scene had me enraptured as much if not more than any other lightsaber battle in the series.
This also largely comes down to personal preference. If you don't like it, I respect your opinion, but as something of an aspiring writer myself, I found it to be brilliant. But all that aside, I'm not presently interested in having a debate over subjective enjoyment of various elements of the film--only that which can be measured somewhat objectively and which is necessary or at least beneficial for any film, like acting quality, character depth, etc.
Well, I'm not convinced, though admittedly I didn't explain myself as well as I could have initially.
I just wanna reiterate--I'm not trying to have a debate about whether TLJ is a particularly good movie or not, just pointing out that saying the prequels are better largely comes down to a subjective "enjoyment" preference. There's nothing wrong with that, but from the perspective of "these are the bare minimum requirements for a movie not to be laughingstock from a critical perspective," TLJ is much better-made.