Directed by: J.J. Abrams || Produced by: Kathleen Kennedy, J.J. Abrams, Bryan Burk
Screenplay by: Lawrence Kasdan, J.J. Abrams, Michael Arndt || Starring: Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, John Boyega, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Domhnall Gleeson, Lupita Nyong’o, Anthony Daniels, Peter Mayhew, Max von Sydow
Music by: John Williams || Cinematography: Dan Mindel || Edited by: Mary Jo Markey, Maryann Brandon || Country: United States || Language: English
Running Time: 135 minutes
Star Wars is the biggest movie franchise of all time. No other blockbuster has come close to replicating the massive, irreversible influence of the definitive space-opera of all time. Unlike westerns, high-concept science-fiction, or even comic book-movies, Star Wars is a multigenerational property. Not only is Star Wars invaluable to Hollywood, it is so beloved and universally appealing to the general populace that its pop culture fandom has achieved a level of religious fervor few other properties in the popular arts have ever achieved.
Characters new and old enjoy great chemistry in this latest Star Wars adventure.
Put another way, if you don’t understand or have not seen Star Wars, you don’t understand movies, and you certainly can’t comprehend American pop culture. It’s as simple as that. Thus, the day The Phantom Menace (1999) was released on May 19th, almost seventeen years ago, as the first part of George Lucas’ long awaited prequel trilogy to the original beloved saga… that was the day when hope died. Never again would any film release be so widely anticipated, nor a bigger disappointment, as the independent Milwaukee film company, Red Letter Media, explained in excruciating detail in their now famous Plinkett-review series.
What The Phantom Menace, Attack of the Clones (2002), and Revenge of the Sith (2005) revealed was just how flawed Lucas’ decision-making process had become (or perhaps had always been), and that the franchise was in dire need of fresh blood. Entire Walt Disney and their purchase of Lucasfilm in 2012 for $4 billion, and with it the rights to all future Star Wars properties. Right away, Disney made clear their intent to revive the series which Lucas swore had been put to rest nearly seven years prior, and thus Star Wars entered the modern age of megafranchises.
While it’s arguable whether The Force Awakens‘ hype rivaled that of the rabid anticipation of The Phantom Menace, the Force indeed awakened general audiences’ thirst for more Star Wars, specifically good Star Wars. Massive excitement was tempered by vague doubt and fearful reminders of the dashed hopes of Lucas’ Prequel trilogy, a trilogy which had turned the term “prequel” into a dirty word.
Before I stall further in this review, let me assure readers that The Force Awakens is the film we have been waiting for. It is the first good Star Wars movie in over thirty years, or as I would prefer to put it, the first true Star Wars film in decades. It’s far from the year’s best, but that’s beside the point. Fans have long deified this franchise as some innovative, groundbreaking story that is untouchable by most films ever made. While the first Star Wars (1977) is indeed a near perfect blockbuster, and The Empire Strikes Back (1980) is one of the better films ever produced, the series’ formula is in fact one of the most basic storytelling techniques known to man. What Star Wars is, are fun, well executed space adventures with likable characters and universal humanist themes. It’s basically a modern update of classical Flash Gordon serials (circa 1930s-1940s).
As such, the primary goals of this seventh fourth Star Wars film were to recapture that original feeling of adventure and relatability the OT possessed and the Prequels forsook, as well as pass on the thematic generational torch from older characters to the new. That’s it. JJ Abrams, Lawrence Kadan, and producer Kathleen Kennedy have achieved that goal with flying colors. There was no way this film could not be self-reflexive and self-aware even if it wanted to — but the difference is that this time around, the powers that be were able to acknowledge the franchise’s cultural baggage without forgetting to make a good movie. If you really want a “different type of Star Wars,” go watch the Prequels. The creator of Star Wars himself swears by them.
In any case, TFA is yet another entertaining, emotional space-adventure with likable, deep characters. It is therefore a screaming success for the franchise and for fans worldwide. It nails the basics of monomythic storytelling and achieves the raw, used aesthetic of Star Wars‘ science-fantasy tone. What is there to complain about?
In the interest of objectivity, perhaps the following: TFA is so breathlessly paced and covers so much narrative history that the story forgets to pause at opportune moments; Captain Phasma (Game of Thrones‘ [2011-2019] Gwendoline Christie) is little more than a joke of a glorified cameo; the Starkiller Base (a.k.a. Death Star 3.0) is a forgettable doomsday weapon. There, those are the weaknesses.
Kylo Ren (Adam Driver, left) addresses the towering hologram of Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis, right) upon discovering Rey’s (Daisy Ridley, not pictured) Force-sensitivity.
As per what the film gets so damned right, TFA is so action-packed and looks so good that it achieves a new benchmark for balanced special FX. Abrams and company did indeed make good on their promise to emphasize the physicality of practical FX, and the end results are glorious. Creature models, alien costumes, and props look amazing and meld perfectly with great location-shooting. The CGI that is used is well executed and puts the blue-screen overuse from George’s Prequel implosions to shame. This is the best-looking film in the series.
More importantly, TFA introduces fun, likable, and relatable new characters and melds them with the returning castmembers. John Boyega, Daisy Ridley, and Adam Driver are standouts as Finn, a renegade Stormtrooper, Rey, a mysterious orphan and scavenger, and Kylo Ren, son of Han Solo and Princess General Leia and enforcer of The First Order (a remnant of the evil Empire). Each of these characters are not only well written and multilayered, but they are all different from one another, and speak to the universality of Star Wars’ monomythic appeal.
Boyega’s Finn is perhaps the most relatable of the bunch, a beaten down soldier who abandons his post out of desperation and fear. Ridley’s protagonist, Rey, is cheerful, spunky, and yet riddled with insecurity regarding her home and mysterious familial origins. She’s the inverse of Finn, keeping her emotions buried through a performance that is guarded and believable. Driver’s Kylo Ren is a vicious, unwieldy force of youthful angst, a wrathful, intimidating villain whose temper tantrums feel genuine without overacting. He is both intimidating and cowardly, an experienced commander yet also a petulant boy — everything we did NOT get in Hayden Christensen’s Anakin Skywalker!
Han Solo is a major player in this film, more so than he was in Return of the Jedi even, and represents a true return to form for Harrison Ford. Whether you have an emotional connection to previous Star Wars films or not, though, his relationship with Driver’s Ren is perhaps the strongest narrative element of the film, ending in a tragic, well staged death sequence that doubles as a wonderful sendoff for one of the most recognizable characters in cinema.
Other characters like Oscar Isaac’s Poe Dameron, Andy Serkis’ Supreme Leader Snoke, and fellow returning players Carrie Fisher, Anthony Daniels, and Kenny Baker (R2-D2) aren’t prevalent but serve their parts in the story; BB-8 is perhaps the cutest robot ever invented; Domhnall Gleeson does a great Space-Nazi as the cornball General Hux.
What else is there to say? The Force Awakens is not a perfect movie or a perfect blockbuster, but it is a very, very good blockbuster movie. The film more or less represents everything Lawrence Kasdan wanted to do in Return of the Jedi, but couldn’t because of Jorge Lucas’ inconsistent creative interference. Under the direction of fresh creative blood, The Force Awakens is a step or two above that final OT film. It’s everything I hoped it would be.
Positive emotion (Rey) trumps negative emotion (Ren) as the former lays waste to the latter.
This is not the Star Wars movie we deserved, but it is the Star Wars movie we needed. It looks and feels like a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away; it has that rawness to it, that aged futuristic feel. And most importantly, it gives us new heroes that are fun, likable, and feel like real people. It even brings back old characters to pass this thematic torch from the previous generation to the new. J.J. Abrams, Kathleen Kennedy, and Lawrence Kasdan have done it: They’ve brought us an action-packed space-opera with energy, emotion, and drama. The Force is strong with this one.
———————————————————-
SUMMARY & RECOMMENDATION: Abrams successfully recalls Star Wars‘ used-future aesthetic and executes awesome, powerful, raw action-scenes. Within these perilous battles are characters we care about and in which we see ourselves. Ridley, Boyega, and Driver are stars in the making, and Ford helps show them how to be. The story is bursting with thematic potency. Neat concepts like a riot control Stormtrooper, a non-Jedi wielding a lightsaber, and Force-freezing laser bolts are all just… well, really cool! And new!
— However… The Force Awakens is almost too brisk and action-packed; the Starkiller Base could have been jettisoned altogether, as could’ve Gwendoline Christie.
—> HIGHLY RECOMMENDED
? So would people agree they made a Star Wars movie about as good as JJ Abrams’ Star Trek (2009)?
Express Elevator to Hell 
Couldn’t help but give this one a perfect rating for my personal affection towards it, regardless of what flaws it does have. They just didn’t get in the way of my enjoyment for some reason. I’ve seen it 3 times, and still haven’t had enough. The IMAX 3D was epic.
Posted by The Film Editorial | January 6, 2016, 1:41 pmI myself have seen in twice and will probably watch it again simply because the film is so much fun, as numerous people have point out, and given how easily rewatchable it is. It’s a great blockbuster.
That being said — and perhaps this is indicative of how badly my review explanation page needs an overhaul/clarification —- my ratings of movies are different than my opinions of them. Ratings should be objective, where as opinions are subjective; the latter is based on personal experience and opinion, where as the former is ideally an objective analysis of filmic craft on a film’s *own terms.*
Posted by The Celtic Predator | January 7, 2016, 12:10 pmI see what you mean. I take a similar approach, but often times I find that my overall rating can reflect more of my subjective thoughts if the objective things don’t bother me. Just because I’ll notice things wrong, doesn’t always mean those things ruin anything. But sometimes they do. I see the faults in Attack of the Clones, and they ruin parts of the movie for me. Meanwhile, I notice faults in The Dark Knight Rises, but those things don’t bother me enough to not love the movie. Some might say that’s fanboying, but I don’t see it that way. Sometimes you just resonate positive or negatively, regardless of the objective things that make a movie good or bad. That’s what makes rating tough sometimes. I like your approach and should keep that in mind when I give my ratings I struggle with. Just last night I saw The Hateful Eight, and I have no idea what I’ll be rating it yet.
Posted by The Film Editorial | January 7, 2016, 1:21 pmAgain, I think as long as you review a film on its own terms, on how it works as a film by itself, you’ll write a good review. The only things that really irritate me in film criticism are people heckling (or praising) a film based on factors *outside* of that film, e.g. applauding or booing a movie based on how well it meshes with one’s political opinions, or whether you approve of the personal lives of the director or cast, or simply dismissing a film because you dislike the majority of its genre.
Anytime a reviewer writes about how “groundbreaking” a movie is because it has so many castmembers of color, or portrays a “strong female character,” or describes how “immoral” a movie is because it depicts explicit violence or criticizes the Iraq War or because Mel Gibson is a jerk off-screen — anytime I read something like that my eyes glaze over and I click out of the article.
Posted by The Celtic Predator | January 13, 2016, 3:49 pmI totally agree, and you hit it right on the nose with Mel Gibson there.
Despite what he says and how much of a clown he is, he’s one of my favorite actors and is a terrific director.
Tom Cruise is another one that bugs me when it comes to other people. They see how much of a nutcase he is and automatically say his movies suck because of him. I’ve can’t think of a Cruise movie (that I’ve seen) that didn’t at least entertain me. Him being a nutcase actually improves what we see in his M:I movies, if anything.
Posted by The Film Editorial | January 14, 2016, 9:48 amNot to mention that most actors are crazy and they love themselves anyway, so criticizing one actor’s ego or immature behavior over another is irrelevant. 😛
Posted by The Celtic Predator | January 14, 2016, 4:52 pmSo very true!
Posted by The Film Editorial | January 14, 2016, 5:13 pmFinally watched this over the wekend. (That’s two Star Wars films I’ve seen now!) Not being a Star Wars fan I didn’t / couldn’t appreciate the franchise references, so watched the film based on its own merits as a film. There was something bugging me when it had all finished and then I think it came to me.
Perhaps in six month’s time Disney will release the ‘director’s cut,’ which will be about an hour longer than this version and fill in a lot of gaps left out by the editing. There was so much going on and characters seemed to go from A to B without any indication of how they got there. A case in point: when Han Solo grabs Captain Phasma to lower the defence shields, the next minute they’re in a room, two stormtroopers lying on the floor, so they’ve obviously fought their way in… but no fight. And how did they get out? Did they chuck Captain Phasma down a waste disposal shoot like they suggested? And there were other scenes that felt incomplete. It all felt a bit choppy, which is why I think there’s a ton of this film on the editing suite floor.
Apart from that I’d probably watch it again, perhaps out of necessity to see if I missed the point. And the Derwentwater location where Maz Kanata lived is about an hour from where I live!
Posted by The Opening Sentence | May 16, 2016, 5:41 pmSerioiusly, Derwentwater? That’s awesome. Post some pics if you can.
I’d say that’s my main complaint about the film besides the Starkiller subplot — the film’s breathless editing. In the end, I think it was the right decision to trim the film to the length that it was (2hrs, 15min), because few stories ever justify the ludicrous 2.5-3.0 hour blockbuster running times you see now. On repeat viewings, I feel the film flows better and better, but yeah, you do get the sense that Abrams and Kasdan were stretching themselves a little thin to cover so much ground and franchise history.
Once again, I highly recommend you check out the remaining two original films — Empire Strikes Back (1980) and Return of the Jedi (1983). I know unaltered copies are hard to come by (Lucas has been re-editing the originals ad nauseum for over a decade now…), but I still say it’s worth the effort. They’re too influential to ignore.
Glad you finally saw the newest one, though! I’ve heard lots of heartwarming stories from my peers how they not only saw TFA in theatres, but also saw the original films for the first time in preparation for it. The Force has awakened indeed…
Posted by The Celtic Predator | May 26, 2016, 10:26 pm