REVIEWED: The Force Awakens (SPOILER FREE)

[Aractus]

Won't see it for a couple weeks.  But unlike the prequels, the reviews are mostly 4 to 5 stars.  I have hopes.

Actually, the prequel all scored 4-4.5 stars when released from most professional reviewers. For example, here's Episode I scoring 3.5/4 and Episode III scoring 3.5/4 as well.

Same detail in the environments, except they didn't feel CGI like they did in I - III.  In fact, I thought the CGI was wayyy better done in this one.  Just reflects the passage of time.

I don't agree. For one thing I - III didn't just use CGI environments, they used a combination of practical effects and CGI:





Environments though are easy to get away with when it comes to CGI. The more difficult part are the characters, which let's face it all look fake in every movie every time they're used. The only exception I can think of is Watto - Watto actually looks more real than any of the other CGI characters in I - III, or any of the ones in TFA. Well not counting droids that is anyway.

I would say some of the CGI was better done, but I wouldn't say that about the CGI characters: they all look as fake as the CGI Jabba from 1997 that I posted above. They don't belong in a live-action movie.

First, it was dumb of me to say that Aractus's review or such was "wrong." That was a dumb word to use. There's no accounting for taste, and nobody's views and enjoyments are "more correct" than another person's.

Some of what I complained about can be put down to taste, however the constant use of close-ups in a 2.35:1 feature is wrong. That's not an "opinion", it's a fact. It'd be like writing a 500 page novel and deciding you aren't going to use any paragraphs - it's just plain wrong. If you want to write in that style you need to use a format that allows it (like a comic book). The same thing with portraits in a 2.35:1 film - they can be used sparingly, but the format is just not designed for that kind of picture framing. And generally you have to frame your portraits further back than in Academy or 1.85:1. You have to frame your scenes for your exhibition ratio, any decent cinematographer in the world would tell you that.

You can look at any well made movie to see what I'm talking about, or for that matter any of the other 6 star wars films. Here you go, this is about as close as you should get in a 2.35:1 frame, this is from Attack of the Clones:



And this is how JJ would frame it:



Like I said before, in Academy ratio that's fine. For reference this is how it would look framed in Academy ratio at the same level of zoom:



If you want to use close-ups like that, and especially if you're going to use them a lot, you need to use 1.85:1 or smaller.

And it's not that I don't like close-ups. One movie done in in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio that makes really good use of close-ups like this is Silence of the Lambs. In fact the characters often stare straight into the camera in those scenes. When it's done right it can look really really good, when it's done wrong, as it is in TFA, it looks awful.