Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I enjoyed it. As Michael says, it's a bloody Star Wars movie made by Disney, it's never going to be particularly deep (just as the originals weren't).


It did have more than a passing similarity to the first film (episode 4), but I believe that was done to breed familiarity and draw us all back in to the universe. It's now set up to tell it's own new story over two more films.


Bit gutted about the big shock moment, because I can't see how that character can ever be brought back (even as a ghost being as he's not Jedi) and he's one of the best things about star wars.

Saw it at Peckhamplex: glad I haven't paid more than a fiver for it! It's banal storytelling with a high standard of production. Overall it had neither the novelty of the originals nor the sexiness of Hans Chrisrian Andersen (ive probably forgotten his name) in the prequels.


That bit where Yoda turned out to be the founder of the Sith Lords was unexpected though. (Spoiler Alert.) ;-)

The problem is that there are too many nostalgic middle-aged men, who are convinced that the original trilogy was somehow more profound or important than it really was. And they're holding the new film up to that benchmark.


None of the films are particularly smart. They're family-friendly action/adventure/fantasy. Silly, but good fun.

I give the movie 7 out of 10, and this is just because I'm a big fan of the series. It was a bit shallow in my opinion, I feel that nothing important happened throughout the whole movie. Even Han Solo's death wasn't that dramatic. And I really find it quite funny that Rey was able to out-force Kylo Ren so easily...

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> They didn't make it for 45yr old fanboy nerds.

> They made it for kids. A new generation of fans

> who will buy all the toys.

>

> Visually it's quite a spectacle, and I thought Rey

> was good. Basically its as good as can be

> expected.


I'm a big kid - so probably will like it then.


Sometimes you don't need deep.

I thought it was good although the two newcomers playing rey and finn, are not brilliant actors by any stretch of the imagination. Agree with the comments regarding similarities with episode IV, I expected something a bit more original especially from JJ. Abrams.

holloway Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I thought it was good although the two newcomers

> playing rey and finn, are not brilliant actors by

> any stretch of the imagination. Agree with the

> comments regarding similarities with episode IV, I

> expected something a bit more original especially

> from JJ. Abrams.


Hey - Finn is our very own John Boyega.


He's the new Olivier :)

I really enjoyed it. Yes, it was basically an updated remake of the original, but that's probably why it was so good. And the ending was brilliant - can't wait for the next one. Sure, it was all very nostalgic, but that is 90% of what adult viewers are there to indulge in anyway.


Rey is a great character as well.

holloway Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> JohnL, I know John Boyega is from Peckham, in an

> earlier thread re: Star Wars, I saluted his

> achievement in landing the role. I'm not having a

> big pop at him, just found both of them a bit

> jarring...



Only joking :) - most people support a local boy doing well.


Yet to watch the movie.

  • 4 months later...
John Boyega has shown that he can act, and I mean I am seriously saying this. He played the role of Finn and is a real inspiration for all the young actors. He couldn't look better in his Force Awakens Finn Jacket. This leather outfit is available at number of stores like Sky-Seller. http://goo.gl/fJvwPP

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • From memory foxes only became a regular sight in the 90s, the attached article says they first appeared in the 30s becoming far more common in the 80s.  Apparently, whilst we think that urban foxes live longer than rural due to their 'easy' life few will make it over the age of two.  In towns they are far more crowded than their natural habitat where they are more territorial. I've never seen foxes and cats fighting but once saw two cats squaring up to each other and a watching fox went up and butted its head against one of the cats.  There's a video on youtube of a cat and fox facing off when the cat is eating outside, but it wont let me embed on this post.  Get too close and I'll scratch you. https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/oct/15/urban-foxes-are-they-fantastic-or-a-growing-menace My main issue is leaving things out like gardening gloves and they go or are shredded.  One stole a bag of bird food in front of me, took it next door, shredded the bag and then left it.  
    • I was trying to remember when Franklins moved to Lordship Lane from Walworth Road where it was combined with an antique/bric a brac shop. Mid 1990s, first wave ED gentrification?
    • Hello, I lost a babies blanket between Tessa Jowell and the Picture House on Lordship Lane 😞It is teal colour with the name Cillian embroidered on it.  If anyone sees/finds it please let me know.  Thank you! 
    • Good to hear Sue - I  love Franklin’s  Although to be fair it would be a mad world where decades old local institution couldn’t do much better than (gawd help us all) a generic Youngs pub  (I had better meals in that place when it was the vale and ran by the Murphia. And that was fairly poor food even then ) 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...