The Force Awakens - Zzzzzz…

[al_yrpal]

Went to see this last night what a disappointment? A bit like a second hand version of the very first one, almost the same plot. Very little tension, very little menace. The 3D was pretty impressive as were the computer graphics. Spoilt a bit by the rebel base being a bit of Greenham Common I recognised. In a word - Disneyfied! No wonder George Lucas's comments were less than complimentry.

We go through phases with the cinema, last winter there were plenty of good films, then a famine for almost a year. Lately, a couple worth watching. Bridge of Spies was good. The Martian was very good, I was reading the book too, but I thought Spectre wasnt up to scratch.

I'm looking forward to something new and innovative but nothing seems to get there just lately.

Al

[[XAP]Bob]

Almost the same?

Not spotted a difference yet... But the first was a good film, and this didn't disappoint in the "two hours entertainment" stakes.

Particularly glad that they didn't try to dress Carrie or Harrison up inappropriately- they're now 60ish in the story, and they them look it...

[661-Pete]

almost the same plot.

So - in this one - does Greedo shoot first?

Seriously - The first SW was only good up to the point where they re-worked it, adding in all the gratuitous extra bits, and ruining it in the process. Along with the doctoring of the 'Greedo' episode of course....

[TonyR]

Well I enjoyed it - saw it at the IMAX in 3D which may have helped - and so it seems by their box office takings have millions of others. Part of the enjoyment though I have to admit, was not having to endure Jar Jar Binks

[Vorpal]

I liked it. I have to admit that i would have preferred a fresher plot. But Rey was what I pretended Leia was when I saw the first one, and I'm really glad the new one has a heroine

The action was good, the characterisation was pretty good. It being a Star Wars film, I'm willing to forgive the tired plot (and plot holes) and hope that it is just setting the scene for the next one.

[Vitara]

Went to see this last night what a disappointment? A bit like a second hand version of the very first one, almost the same plot. Very little tension, very little menace. The 3D was pretty impressive as were the computer graphics. Spoilt a bit by the rebel base being a bit of Greenham Common I recognised. In a word - Disneyfied! No wonder George Lucas's comments were less than complimentry.

We go through phases with the cinema, last winter there were plenty of good films, then a famine for almost a year. Lately, a couple worth watching. Bridge of Spies was good. The Martian was very good, I was reading the book too, but I thought Spectre wasnt up to scratch.

I'm looking forward to something new and innovative but nothing seems to get there just lately.

Al

I haven't seen the new Star Wars film and don't plan to. I did see The Martian and agree it was excellent, as was the book. For some interesting background do a google search on the origins of 'Houston, be advised: Rich Purnell is a steely-eyed missile man.”

[reohn2]

I find films such as this to be more flash,bang wallop.With poor acting,in general(can't say this particular one is,as I haven't seen it and won't be).One of my SinL's is a star Trek fan(yawn)the acting is dreadful in those films IMO.
I've seen two Star Wars films,OK for kids,that's all I can say.
I may be have a jaded approach,bu good acting has to involve me not recognising who the actor is behind the character,the plot has to be devoid of holes big enough to drive a bus through and engaging enough with a good story to keep me interested.
So often I've seen high rated films that I've thought were badly lacking,I need a film to either entertain me or be challenging and or thought provoking.
They tend to be far and few between,Lucy,Gravity,Interstellar,to name three.
A personal POV.

[661-Pete]

If we're confining our ratings to SF movies, I'd put Alien pretty much top of the list. It drags a bit in places, but it's got the right movement where it matters. In fact I think it has everything. OK, the on-board computer 'Mother' is rather creaky by 2016 standards, but remember this film dates from 1979 - not quite as dated as the first SW, but not far off. And it features some - at the time - virtually unknown actors (except Ian Holm and John Hurt who were already well-established).

But even though Holm and Hurt were easily recognisable, I saw them as the characters they portrayed, not as the actors they are in real life.

And especially the cat. The cat acted brilliantly throughout!

I never took to the sequels though. Except perhaps for the 'queen' busy laying eggs, that most memorable of scenes in Alien#2.

[TonyR]

If we're confining our ratings to SF movies, I'd put Alien pretty much top of the list. It drags a bit in places, but it's got the right movement where it matters. In fact I think it has everything. OK, the on-board computer 'Mother' is rather creaky by 2016 standards, but remember this film dates from 1979 - not quite as dated as the first SW, but not far off. And it features some - at the time - virtually unknown actors (except Ian Holm and John Hurt who were already well-established).

2001 A Space Odyssey. Even though it was released in 1968 the technology does not look wrong or dated.

Others I rate are Ex Machina, Inception, Moon and the first Matrix.

[Vorpal]

2001 A Space Odyssey.

I love that movie. Another favourite is Blade Runner. Close Encounters of the Third Kind was good, too.

[661-Pete]

Shows how much opinions differ then. I never could get the drift of 2001 - and I'm not talking just about the incomprehensible ending. The first time I watched it, I remember thinking to myself "those ape-men are just blokes in gorilla-suits". Yes, I believe the actors inside the suits spent a lot of time watching gorillas or chimps at the zoo, just so as they could learn to ape (pun intended) their body-movements. But it doesn't work for me. After that, the rest of the film looks equally phony, I'm afraid.

And there was the small matter of casting the late and much-lamented and admired Leonard Rossiter in a straight, albeit minor role. I couldn't help seeing the comedy actor beneath, which was off-putting.

[Si]

Was the original Start Wars film actually that good? Or was it just that it was so different to all of the other mainstream stuff at the time, and now we look back on it with nostalgia? Have to say that I did enjoy it very much, but all of the subsequent ones have been a bit average (when compared to their contemporaries).

Also preferred 2010 to 2001 on account of stuff actually happening in it

[kwackers]

Was the original Start Wars film actually that good? Or was it just that it was so different to all of the other mainstream stuff at the time, and now we look back on it with nostalgia? Have to say that I did enjoy it very much, but all of the subsequent ones have been a bit average (when compared to their contemporaries).

Also preferred 2010 to 2001 on account of stuff actually happening in it

There wasn't the hysteria back then you seem to get now. I remember watching Star Wars the first time around and conversations were along the line of "seen Star Wars?", "Good wasn't it?" - then back onto the important stuff, where the girls were hanging out etc.

Hysteria aside, I enjoyed TFA although I wasn't expecting much and therefore wasn't disappointed.
It reminded me of Star Trek 1. All nostalgia, a reused story line and no substance (although I also enjoyed Star Trek 1 )

A few things grated. (Warning: possible spoilers inferred rather than explicitly stated).

Coincidences - a lot of films rely on them but they really extracted the urine here.
Then the fight between whathisname and whatshername. Look at the Empire Strikes back to see how a novice with *some* training (Luke) fares when compared to the master (Darth) - that was a real fight. With no training and no anger she'd have been mincemeat.
The size of the Death Star - why do things have to be bigger every film? It took an entire Empire decades to build the last one - who paid for this? And where did all that sun go!?
Offspring. Far be it from me to suggest that offspring should have a least a vague resemblance to their parents...
The robot was a bit daft - although compared to the robot in Interstellar which verged on ludicrous it was relatively sensible.

On the plus side I felt Luke had done a fantastic job with all the drystone walling he'd spent all that time doing. If an old jedi master is going to live anywhere a good quality drystone wall is a must.

[Vorpal]

Was the original Start Wars film actually that good? Or was it just that it was so different to all of the other mainstream stuff at the time, and now we look back on it with nostalgia? Have to say that I did enjoy it very much, but all of the subsequent ones have been a bit average (when compared to their contemporaries).

Also preferred 2010 to 2001 on account of stuff actually happening in it

The original Star Wars probably wasn't that good, but I saw it when I was 9 or 10, and it was *amazing* then. And it still has a nostalgic hold over me. I think that is true for many people who saw the earlier films when they were young. Also, I think the story, although not remarkable, has a sort of mythic appeal to people.

[TonyR]

Coincidences - a lot of films rely on them but they really extracted the urine here.

Those aren't coincidences - that's the Force at work