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

    • Andy is an absolute star. Have used him for years and he’s become a hugely trusted and valued friend as well as handyman. Always willing to go the extra mile and doesn’t cut corners, but great on pricing. Can’t recommend enough.
    • Surely you are still covered under these circumstances even if you don't have the physical licence? I can't believe you would be prevented from driving? That would be a ridiculous system. I don't recall any delays   when mine was renewed. Why would their medical department be involved if you have no medical issues? Could someone have made some admin mistake somewhere along the line?
    • Does anyone have the same problem.  I am 79 and have sent my licence renewal form to the DVLA on the 21st October 20 which they have received. I have just received a letter from them them dated 22 December 2025 today saying my licence is with their Drivers Medal Department and will be processed as soon as possible. This follows my telephone call to them after three weeks  from the October date as I had not received my licence back as per their time frame. I also followed this up mid December after finally getting through but did not get any confirmation as to what the situation was. Is this normal practice? On the 7 January 2026 I will be unable to drive as my licence has not been sent back. I have no medical issues and meet all the requirements with no problem as per previous renewals in fact nothing has changed health wise.Their the letter states if they need any more details from me, they will contact me directly. Why has it taken 2 and a half months get get this far? Is this some sort of ploy to get older drivers to finally give up their driving by making life difficult as possible.  Has anyone else experienced this. Read Medical not Medal.
    • You're being a little disingenuous here. It is simply not true that "the area should remain suburban 2/3 storeys maximum" because: -> the area the development is in isn't 2/3 storeys maximum today - as evidenced by the school on the lot adjoining the development to the south, as well as the similarly-sized buildings to the north and east.  -> the SPG doesn't preclude this type of development anyway. This "genie in a bottle" stuff is desperate barrel-scraping. Now you're raising the spectre of a 9 storey building on the Gibbs & Dandy site (the chance would be a fine thing) but also arguing Southwark is too slow to approve things and opposed to development more than 2-3 storeys!
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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