REVIEWED: The Force Awakens (SPOILER FREE)

[Whateverist]

Yay! Then I can still hope that I will also like it.

I was halfway thinking of starting a thread where we could rate it in terms of where it stands in the Star Wars pantheon so far, so from "1" for best of the lot to "7" for worst of all.

So far we have Aractus voting 7th best (i.e., worst) and TRJF voting it 3rd best.

The movie comes out tomorrow around here. Wasn't going to go right away but I look forward to seeing it soon.

[CapnAwesome]

Wow! Greedy studio employed director with absolutely no creativity and it resulted in a bad movie?! HOWWWWWWW?

It seems to me Lucas just had a lot of luck in his life with first two SW movies being interesting mostly because of Darth Vader. 3rd one would be pretty much disgrace if there weren't Darth Vader in it.

I mean sure you could say it's only a movie, but considering the ticked prices they're charging now it's far from what cinema used to be - cheap fun for masses as opposed to theater or opera.

C'mon, the scene with Jabba the hut is one of the best in any of the movies, despite no Darth Vader. Third movie is great.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Ok, so, now that I'm home and a few hours removed from the film, here's a contrasting take.

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.

That said, I thought this was a very worthy effort. Clearly superior to I, II and III, and on the same level as VI (and I preferred this one a bit more probably), just behind IV and V.

Essentially, I thought the movie-making was fine. Lots and lots of shots swinging around people who are running and viewing d00ds from behind and such. I never got nauseous or whatnot from it but there were times that I wish there was less going on. Visually, it was really fantastic, I thought. 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 also agree that the score was rather forgettable. Heavy-handed shout-outs to prior themes were the only time I noticed the music.

See, though, I thought the characters were very good. Some of them (Rey, Poe, and Carrie's Leia) were very very good, while the rest of them (Finn, Kylo, Han) were just very good. Rey is going to be fantastic going forward, and I totally - by the end - bought Kylo Ren's persona. Quite frankly, the movie wasn't long enough to get all the characterization you'd want for, say, Finn or returned-Han.

The most important part, though, was that I was absolutely, thoroughly entertained. I thought the story was great: essentially, a series of "coincidences" (read: THE FORCE) leading to bigger and bigger things. I mean, yeah, it was pretty similar to the plot of IV. But, even more so than any of them, it set things up for the movies to come. IV was essentially a self-contained story, and I'm not sure they knew they were going to get to keep going. This one felt like watching the first 2 hours of a 6-hour movie. That definitely turns some people off, but I thought it was set up very well. The ending, the suggestions of what's to come, the awakening of the force..........

Joe says: 4/5

[Aractus]

C'mon, the scene with Jabba the hut is one of the best in any of the movies, despite no Darth Vader. Third movie is great.

What you mean this one?

[Minimalist]

Plot

Unoriginal.

They have made the same movie 7 times. 




I don't expect originality from Disney at the best of times.

[Alex K]

Min, the same movie seven times, really? Now you're bein silly. By that standard, there are only 10 movies that have ever been made.

1. Guy meets girl or vice versa, are mean at first but then they make sweet love after a couple of misunderstandings
2. Fish out of water
3. Guy meets mentor/has transformative experience, then kicks ass
4. Creature feature
5. ...

Or you need better glasses :)

[Jenny A]

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

[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.

[Alex K]

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

So you have a new hope is what you're saying?

[TheRealJoeFish]

---

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.

---

That makes a lot of sense. I mean, it's definitely the kind of thing where more knowledge of it is going to make you more aware of it, and I'm very amateurish regarding cinematographic methods and such.

I do disagree about the reviews though. They're wayyyyyyy better for this one than for I through III.

Metacritic averages the reviews of films across 30-40 top reviewers. Metacritic scores for the new films:

SW I: 51/100
SW II: 54/100
SW III: 68/100
SW VII: 81/100