My 5 Favourite Films of 2016

I think most of us are glad 2016 is over, but thankfully there have been some decent films to entertain us, give us a place to escape to - or even reflect on the state of the world we're living in.  In no particular order, here are my 5 favourite films of the year.

Zootropolis

Financially, Disney have had the most successful year of any film studio, ever - thankfully, the quality of their output has not been impacted by the pure pursuit of financial gain.  They started this year with this surprisingly deep but still highly entertaining animation.  yes, it wears it's messages very blatantly on it's sleeve, but - aside from the usual 'believe in yourself and never give up' platitudes that the genre has in spades - the messages about division and fear are very timely.  It's a visually dazzling and imaginative, fun film, populated with entertaining characters, that effectively draws from the buddy-cop and crime genres to tell its story.  It's a film that young and older audiences will enjoy, on multiple levels.

Rogue One - A Star Wars Story

This was the Prequel we were waiting for; this was the true Star Wars experience that we wanted, that The Force Awakens almost delivered.  Though not a perfect film (a couple of the expositional scenes don't work entirely, occasionally the CGI is distracting), this delivered an exciting and thrilling Star Wars experience.  Perhaps Jyn Erso and Captain Andor's characterisation suffered slightly as a result of the much-debated re-shoots - but story wise this managed to be gripping and - despite the fact we know the outcome - it managed to throw some real surprises in there.  And yes, there was one moment in this film that made me weep with joy - a real throw-back to being a child, watching the final act of 'A New Hope' over and over.  This was a film made by people who truly love Star Wars, for people who truly love Star Wars.  It bodes well for the future spin-off Star Wars anthology movies.

Arrival

On the surface, this is a serious sci-fi drama, an examination of how the world would genuinely react in a 'first contact' situation with an Alien race; what I wasn't expecting was how it is ultimately an emotional and meditative reflection on choice, the future, and loss.  Anchored by a typically strong performance from Amy Adams, and imaginative designs, the premise is plausibly executed - so much so that it makes the finale even more effective, an unexpected gut-punch.  Given the pedigree of this film (the director, the cast) I was expecting a well made and intelligent film, but I wasn't prepared for its emotional intelligence.

The Big Short

In a way, this was the most important film anyone will have seen this year.  In the year of Brexit and Trump, when the real cause of the socio-political and economic problems of today have been forgotten by the majority, this film - about the run up to 2007's collapse of the banking sector - reminds us the real underlying (and unaddressed) cause.  It might be too knowing for some, and others may find the financial jargon too hard going, but this film effectively - with wry humour, and no small amount of righteous anger - tells the truth: that the investment banking sector knowingly and deliberately sold worthless shares on the mortgages that were going to fail.  If you don't watch this film, then you absolutely have to watch this one scene - it's the must watch scene of the entire film:

Finally, before the last of my favourite films this year, I just wanted to talk about the one that disappointed me the most.  Suicide Squad is not a terrible film, it's not even a bad film; it's just merely OK - and that's the problem.  The trailers sold a film that looked to be a truly edgy, mischievious and witty riposte to the usual dry, straight-laced super-hero/super team-up film.  At one point, it may have actually delivered this.  But then a nervous studio, disappointed by the critical, commercial and audience reaction to the film that was supposed to make their DC franchise rival Marvel Studios, took a hatchet to it, and delivered a product.  A by-the-numbers, formulaic super-hero movie, that had some of the most-anticipated performances edited to near-incomprehensibility.  Add in by-the-numbers mid-2000's alternative soundtrack (bit of White Stripes? Check!  Bit of Emimen? Check!), some typically over-CGI'd action sequences - and some cheesy performances that come embarrassingly close to the campiness of Batman and Robin; you've got a film that could have done something brave and original, but plays it disappointingly safe.  If I was Jared Leto, I'd be talking to my agent about who is editing the next film that Warner Bros employ him as the Joker - if it's the same person who butchered this, I'd pass.

That rant over, here's my final favourite:

Captain America: Civil War

Back when it was a rumour, I was doubtful it would work - but, my goodness, this was a compelling, thrilling, emotional and satisfying film.  A true pay-off to a number of threads running through several previous Marvel Studios movies, this film is as close to perfect as a blockbuster can be.  It delivers spectacle, solid characterisation, and a plot that presents no small amount of moral complexity to the audience.  As well as that, it's a comic-book fan's delight, with the introduction of two important characters (Black Panther and a new Spiderman) superbly handled, contributing to a truly incredible action sequence.  As well as being one of the best super-hero/comic-book movies of all time, it sets the bar high for other blockbusters with its intelligence, emotion and set-pieces.

Carrie Fisher: Actress, Author, Iconic Princess of Pop Culture

Today I had planned to write about my 5 favourite films of the year, but I've been knocked sideways by the confirmation this afternoon that Carrie Fisher has sadly passed away.  When news broke that she had suffered a heart-attack, like millions of others I was wishing and hoping she would recover.  Maybe it was for selfish reasons - I couldn't imagine the new Trilogy of Star Wars movies being concluded without the leadership of Princess Leia.

But sadly, it was not to be.  And like the rest of my generation, I am in mourning for an actress who, as Princess Leia Organa, was an iconic part of our our childhoods, and the films we still love today.  When you think about why Star Wars was so successful, why it became so huge a part of culture, of people's lives, is down to a great number of things, and people.  Not just George Lucas' vision, not just the wizards at ILM that realised the worlds, not anyone actor in their roles.  It was all of those things - and Carrie Fisher was part of that.  Han Solo was iconic because of Harrison Ford's swaggering performance; Mark Hamill was the embodiment of Luke's youthful idealism and energy.  And then there was Carrie Fisher's Leia: a Princess who needed to be rescued, but was not a damsel in distress - she was a fighter, a warrior, a leader, a diplomat.  It is easy to imagine that, without the attitude, spark, determination and grace she brought to the role, then a vital ingredient would have been missing to the whole.  I don't have a daughter, but if I did I would be more than happy if she aspired after Princess Leia: the way she didn't stop fighting for what is right, even when her back is to the wall; to be there for friends, and to trust they'll do right for you; and to tell scruffy-looking nerf herders where they can get off.  In fact, those aren't values just for girls to look up to - they're values for everyone.

Of course, Carrie was not just Princess Leia.  As an actress, she was in another of my favourite films - possibly the greatest Romantic-Comedy of all-time, 'When Harry Met Sally'; although a supporting role, the wit and attitude she was becoming well known for as a writer were well in evidence.  Though she never had a role as high-profile as Leia, Carrie was respected, admired and adored for her work as an author and screen-writer, and seemed to handle her status as a Pop-Culture with a grace and knowing-wit that befitted her best-known and most beloved role.

She'll be seen on-screen one final time as Leia in Star Wars Episode VIII next year - which will now, very sadly, be Leia's final Star Wars film appearance; sadder still that we'll no longer have Carrie's disarmingly honest wit and humour, from her writing, interviews, or appearances at Star Wars Conventions.  Shortly after hearing the news I listened to the closing music from Empire Strikes Back, my favourite of John William's Star Wars scores - it contains the beautiful and melancholic refrain of 'Leia's Theme'; it sounded even more bittersweet tonight than it normally does.

Rest in Peace, Carrie Fisher; Farewell, to our Princes Leia.  You'll forever be an icon of cinema, for my generation, and Star Wars fans.

Movie Review - Captain America Civil War: Marvel's Latest Benchmark-setting Masterstroke

The most surprising thing about this latest installment of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (MCU) is not how successfully it juggles a huge ensemble cast of heroes. Neither is it in how it feels relevant and timely to real-world politics. The biggest surprise is how Captain America Civil War, with its epic scope and superhero battles, is the most intimate and affecting of their movies so far.

Yes, the set up is on a grand, international political scale: Captain America (Chris Evans) continues to lead the Avengers against powerful threats, but when a mission ends in tragic loss of life there are calls for the team to submit to UN oversight. The film takes in America, Europe, Africa. There are some weighty political ideas underpinning all this: is power without impunity right? But should the ability to react to a threat be without limitations?

But for each character in this film, the decision whether or not they fall in line and submit to these 'Accords' us not a simple political one; in fact several of them make their choices from purely emotional perspectives. Take Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr) - with the consequences of his actions in the films leading up to this weighing heavily on his conscience (and impacting on his personal relationships), it is easy to understand why he would be calling for the Avengers to submit to the Accords.

Team Cap are ready to fight...

On the other hand, Steve Rogers, whose moral ideals were shaped growing up in the simpler times before WW2, has struggled to find a place in a world of political espionage and intrigue; just look what happened to SHIELD. When he argues that, if the UN doesn't agree with the Avengers taking action when they deem it necessary, their hands are tied - especially if it's the other way round.

Straightaway there are so many nuances and shades of grey to the set up - both points of view are absolutely correct. When the issue is clouded further by the reemergence of Rogers' long lost friend Bucky, now brain-washed super-assassin The Winter Soldier (Sebastian Stan) in the midst of a terrorist atrocity, the emotions behind Stark's and Cap's choices are key to igniting - and sustaining - the civil conflict that follows.

With the main character's motivations so well defined, you'd be forgiven or thinking that the cast of supporting 'Supers' are just there to make up numbers, that they're relegated to the background, with no plot or character development of their own.  Well, you'd be wrong - in this film every member of the Avengers, every character that pops up to aid either Cap or Stark, go on their own journey.  Some are greater, and have more weight than others - but at no point does any of the characters feel wasted or under-developed.  And considering this film introduces two significant new characters to the MCU - Black Panther (Chadwick Boseman) and Spiderman (Tom Holland), that is a genuine achievement -compounded by the fact that both of these characters are handled outstandingly well.  Black Panther is given the greater arc of character development, and Boseman is assured in the role, giving T'Challa an understated yet palpable sense of regalness, humility, grief, and righteous rage.  By the end of the film such is the journey his character takes, and such is the effectiveness with which he is portrayed, that if this was to be his only film appearance, only the most die-hard Black Panther fan would feel unsatisfied with the portrayal.  (Thankfully, it won't be and his forthcoming solo film is an even more enticing prospect after watching him in this one.)

The introduction of Black Panther (Boseman) to the MCU is handled exceptionally well in this film.

And then there's Spiderman; I welled up and shed a tear at four points during this film, and one of those moments was his introductory scene, where we meet a teenage Peter Parker and his Aunt May (Marisa Tomei).  This scene is so perfectly, beautifully handled, that it is easy to forget that this is the third incarnation of the character; without regurgitating the same lines - the famous ones - everything that he says communicates everything you'd hope to see, expect from the character. You know exactly what he has been through to become Spiderman without him mentioning Uncle Ben, or the responsibility that comes with etc etc.  Then when we see him in action, he brings such joy and humour to the movie - not that it is something the film needs - but it feels completely on point for the character.  If they continue to portray Spiderman as effectively as this film has, then Holland's portrayal may end up being considered the definitive one.

...as is the introduction of a certain wall-crawling, web-slinging hero...

I mentioned this film brought me to tears - as I said, despite the political context that brings about the narrative, despite the action (that, once again, sets new benchmarks for the depiction of superheroes on film - especially during the spectacular Airport confrontation), I wasn't prepared for how emotional this film is.  Grief, guilt, anger, revenge - all play a part in the motivations that lead to the events of the narrative.  Because of this, there are no clear right or wrong decisions - some actions are more defensible than others, but all are understandable from different points of views.  Even the villain, Zemo (Daniel Brühl), eschews the stereotypical mustache-twirling or psychopathic megalomania that these type of films usually portray.  His quiet, unthreatening portrayal admittedly is at risk of getting lost in the bombast of the film's action - but is central to the movie's most devastating scene as it draws to a close.

Apart from a couple of plot points that feel a little convenient, rushed maybe; and the occasional wobbly bit of digital compositing; this film is blockbuster movie making at its most effective and exciting.  Directors the Russo Brothers bring the same feel of veracity they brought to 'The Winder Soldier's' action scenes, and handle the massive cast with such assurance that it's easy to forget just how miraculous it felt when Whedon pulled off putting 6 superheroes in 'Avengers Assemble'.  With its story that feels pertinent to real-world global politics; nuanced handling of complex issues, morality and emotions; and confident top-tier film-making, Marvel once again raises the bar of what is possible with not just Comic Book movies, but action-blockbusters too.  It is hard to see how they, or any other studio, will match their achievement with this 'Civil War'.

From the Blog Archive: Why 'Aliens' is Possibly the Greatest Film of the 1980's

Just before I started this blog, almost 3 years ago, I wrote a couple of film-related posts on my other, infrequently-updated blog.  This next article was the first of my semi-frequent 'Most Relentlessly Awesome Movies' series, and as it's officially 'Alien Day' - marking the 30th Anniversary of the release of 'Aliens', I thought it a good excuse to re-post it...

THE MOST RELENTLESSLY AWESOME FILMS, EVER - PART ONE

'ALIENS' (1986)

'This Time, It's War...'

I'm going to come right out and make a very bold statement:  I seriously believe there is a case to be made that this film is THE Greatest Movie of the 1980's.  I'll state why below, but I think I should acknowledge that as I write the 1980's are a period very much on everyone's minds at the moment following the death of one of the key figures of that era, Margaret Thatcher.  Her politics define that era (for good and bad), and in many ways there are echoes of this in 'Aliens': privatisation, corporate greed over-looking communities, military interventions...  This movie is very much of its time - a bold reflection of it - but at the same time it peels back the skin and isn't afraid to comment on the ills beneath.  While it has the same gung-ho attitude of many action films of the era - and of leading politicians - it also subverts and often challenges them.

But this film is not just great because of the sub-text: it is a master-work of character writing, production design, atmosphere, tension and edge-of-your-seat action.  I first saw this movie when I was 10, and it had a profound effect on me.  For a start, it was seriously cool - you had these awesome Colonial Marines running around with their kick-ass tech; these designs were enormously iconic, and it is hard to imagine that so many beloved Sci-fi settings, across so many platforms (movies, video games, collectable miniatures & games) would have existed without the Colonial Marines as their template.

Ripley and some 'Absolute Bad-asses'...

Next, this film really creeped me out.  The scenes when the Marines touched down on the seemingly abandoned colony (remember, this was in the days before the Special Edition, so there was no glimpse in to life on the colony prior to the infestation), with the evidence of the desperate and horrific battle that had taken place there, really fuelled my imagination.  Although you didn't see what happened to the colonists, the few suggestions of their battle for survival made it seem all the more terrifying.  This was a case of how movies can use the power of suggestion to make something all the more frightening (and as 2011's 'The Thing' Prequel proved, sometimes imagining how an horrific event occurred is actually more frightening than seeing it).  And this is before you even get to the Aliens themselves, and their nests!

Finally, despite Sigourney Weaver's misgivings about the amount of gunplay in the movie, Ripley in this movie is one of my all-time favourite action heroes.  At a time when Schwarzenegger, Stallone et al were taking on entire armies armed with usually nothing more than their muscles and a knife, Ripley seemed the greatest of all of them - more determined, more driven, and tougher somehow.  The fact that she went in to the Alien's nest on her own, with none of the Military Training of the Marines, despite her fear of the Xenomorphs, just made her seem all the more heroic.  The fact she was a woman was kind of secondary; some people look at other kick-ass action women in some films as a bit of a gimmick, or debate whether there are enough empowering roles for women in those kinds of films.  Because of Ripley in this film, I've never seen female action heroes in neither way - I've always been able to accept them without a second thought, and that is because Ripley was such a great character in 'Aliens' that the fact she's a woman is not an obstacle to accepting her as an action hero.  In fact, it's arguable her gender brings another level to it, which I'll discuss later.

So aside from the fact that this is a highly regarded movie, widely lauded as one of the best sequels of all time - and a damn classic film in it's own right - what is it that would justify my claim of it being The Greatest Movie of its decade?  I think it's down to it being very much in the vein of prevalent action movie ideals of the era, but at the same time rising above (most) stereotypes and even managing to cast a critical (perhaps even satirical) eye over these and the politics of the period.

To start with, let's look at the Colonial Marines themselves.  These men and women would not have been out of place in pretty much any other '80's action-fest - they'd stand shoulder to shoulder with the likes of Rambo or John Matrix, and more than hold their own.  'Grunts' though they were, the script and acting allowed each to have their own distinct character and personality, regardless of screen time.  And, man, they had quality scripting - these soldiers remain amongst the most endlessly quotable characters until this very day.  I've often thought that as well as 'Talk Like a Pirate' Day there should be 'Talk Like a Colonial Marine' Day!  It's this level of writing and characterisation which elevates these 'Grunts' from the usual cannon-fodder of these types of films.  Of course, some are more significant characters than others, but each one is an example of how a good script and acting can elevate even the smallest of characters/roles.

At the same time, there is a slight subversion of the gung-ho action hero - after their losses from the first confrontation with the Xenomorphs, the survivors are not the same as before, most notably Hudson who has a (in retrospect, slightly humorous) breakdown.  I think this is a reflection of what was happening in US Cinema at the time and the decade leading up to it, as films began to tentatively explore the Vietnam war, and its effects on those that fought in it.  Although some films in the '80's seemed to be hankering for a re-fight of this war, after a couple of more reflective films such as 'The Deer Hunter' in the '70's, after 'Aliens' the likes of 'Platoon', 'Full Metal Jacket' and 'Born on the Fourth of July' came along. Now, I'm not saying that 'Aliens' influenced or paved the way for these films - and it certainly didn't stop the continuation of macho blockbusters - but it is interesting that cinema audiences were open to more introspective takes on the war after 'Aliens'.

The interesting thing about James Cameron's movies is that he seems to have a dual fascination for the military (check out the toys he gave these Colonial Marines and the Military forces of Avatar), whilst at the same time being fearful and critical of what military leadership means. Despite their cool toys and hi-tech equipment, the Colonial Marines are easily taken down by the Xenomorphs - all whilst their commanding officer Gorman can only issue orders they can't hear or simply ignore.  A military resolution may have seemed like the best solution to this situation (and perhaps total extermination by nuke still is!), but it proved to be fatal.  This idea that military leadership and reliance on military can only lead to needless and ultimately costly confrontation is a recurrent theme of Cameron's, from 'The Terminator', through this, 'The Abyss', and most recently 'Avatar'.

The next subversion of the gung-ho action movies of the time is in Ripley herself; obviously, first of all, because in the era of steroidal he-men, the principal hero is actually a woman.  It's not so much this which makes her remarkable, it is her drive, determination and resilience - despite her obvious fears and vulnerability - in the final act which makes her an action hero who is more believable and relatable than almost every Stallone, Schwarzenegger or Lundgren character of that era.  Whilst some might critique Ripley in this film in terms of the feminine or maternal psyche, at the end of the day she is a grieving parent who has found an opportunity of redemption in the girl Newt.  If you're a parent I think you can relate to this, regardless of your gender.

'Get away from her, you BITCH!!!'

The other way that this movie both reflects, and subverts, one of the prevalent ideas of the time is the portrayal of growing Corporate influence and power of everyone's lives.  Right from the start of the film the privatisation of Space is abundantly apparent; the first lines mention 'The Company', there are corporate logos recurrent on the space station where Ripley convalesces, and all over the Colony on LV 426.  This background presence completely echoes what was happening in reality during that decade; there was an explosion of Privatisation, especially in the UK but in many other countries around the world also, as many industries were sold to be run by Corporations.  This did create opportunities for quite a few people become wealthy - however the downside was job losses in some areas, and a questioning of the ethics of many companies.

So in 'Aliens', the corporate sponsored colonisation and exploration of space provides opportunities for people to make money - it is, after all, a family of explorers, looking to stake a claim on a new discovery that inadvertently set off the events of the film.  However, just as Corporations are criticised for being monolithic, impersonal entities that put profits before people and environment, it is revealed that the 'discovery' was in fact orchestrated BY the Company.  In the decade where 'Greed was Good', this film demonstrates there is likely to be a human cost.  Corporate greed is given a face by Carter Burke, Weyland Yutani's representative, who would happily sacrifice Ripley, Newt and the military crew, to ensure he gets his financial bonus.  At this point the film perhaps becomes heavy handed with this subversion - but it reinforces at an individual level that this sort of financial greed can make people lose sight of the value of other human beings.  Greed is not always good...

There is one other reason why I think you can argue that this film is the greatest of its decade: I've entitled this series of articles 'The Most Relentlessly Awesome Films', and I think the first part of that statement completely fits this film.  It is relentlessly gripping, tense, and above all entertaining, right from the start.  If someone asked me what my favourite scene is in the film I honestly couldn't pick one, as continuously throughout the film there is something in pretty much every scene which is great: whether it is the script, the cast, the cinematography and lighting, the outstanding and iconic production design, the fantastic special effects work (which has by and large stood the test of time), the spot-on score which hits every beat from terror to heroism, there is always something to remark upon.

Briefly, which version do I prefer?  The extended Special Edition is more complete, giving more background to Ripley (making her attachment to Newt more understandable), and we get the iconic Sentry Guns sequence.  However the Theatrical, original version does not suffer for the cutting of these moments - it definitely gives the film more depth though, so as a fan I'd say I prefer the Special Edition.

* * * * * 

Thanks for reading - I've been really busy lately with work, my studies, and a house move; but there'll be more from this blog soon, including the next 'Son of a Geek!' video review.  So please bookmark/follow my blog for more!

New to this Blog: 'Son of a Geek!' - my son reviews the movies...

Hello, well it has been a few weeks since my last update - I am really busy with my IT course at the moment so haven't had time to write any reviews or film related articles.  But I have been chipping away at something over a few weeks - the first video in a new feature for this blog, which I call 'Son of a Geek..!'

In this (occasional) series my son (aged 8) will review a film he's seen, just to get a different perspective (so to speak) on them.  For the first of these videos, my son has reviewed the latest Bond film 'SPECTRE', in time for its UK DVD/BluRay release (22nd February 2016) - enjoy!

As soon as I can I'll post some more reviews/articles, in the meantime thanks for watching - please leave your feedback in the comments section below.

My Top 5 Favourite Films of 2015

It's been quite a year at the cinema - Box Office records were smashed not once, but twice (by Dinosaurs, and then by an awakening of The Force); no less than 5 spy movies infiltrated the big screen; and there were the usual high-profile flops, disappointments and some surprise hits.  I've enjoyed a lot of films this year, so picking the five that make my list hasn't been easy - there are many I could have included so here are some honourable mentions of films that were still great, but didn't make my final list:

Birdman - Big Hero 6 - Avengers Age of Ultron - Jurassic World - Ant-Man - Mission Impossible Rogue Nation - Macbeth - Sicario - The Martian - Star Wars The Force Awakens

So without further ado, and in no particular order, here are my five favourite films of 2015...

Mad Max Fury Road

The blockbuster of the year without doubt, top of many 'Films of the Year' lists, this was a visceral, thrilling and quite frankly astonishing movie that was a tremendous viewing experience.  You can read my thoughts on this truly phenomenal film here.

Whiplash

Featuring one of the year's best performances (if not THE best) from JK Simmons, this superb drama was gripping and exhilarating.  You don't need to like Jazz to appreciate the performances, or the amazing drumming, that provided one of the year's most memorable set-pieces.  My full review is here.

Inside Out

Pixar returned to form with this, a film as inventive, funny, charming, heart-warming, and even occasionally heart-breaking as their best work. CGI toons continued to be big business this year, and this film cemented why no one else can come close to Pixar; their films talk to kids (but never talk down to them), but also to their parents, in often quite emotional ways.  Here's my review from this summer.

Me and Earl and the Dying Girl

I didn't manage to write a review of this as I caught it just at the end of its run in cinemas, but this film manage to pull off the tricky combination of being both genuinely hilarious at times, and quite moving at others - without being a tonal mess or nauseatingly mawkish.  It also has one of the best cameos of the year (I'll say no more, as it is a genuinely incredible surprise you won't see coming).

It Follows

My personal favourite of the year, as I love an intelligent horror movie that has something to say whilst it gets under my skin (so to speak).  Genuinely creepy, with almost unbearable tension at times, the film also has a great deal to say as a coming-of-age tale in the era of economic decline.  It successfully avoids the tropes that often ruin Horrors, with a strong ensemble of young leads who prove to be smart and capable.  It also has my favourite score of the year by electronic musician Disasterpeace (aka Rich Vreeland), one that simultaneously feels cutting-edge, and yet gives the film a feel that harkens to genre classics from the '80's.  If you like a horror film that will haunt your thoughts for some time afterwards, this was great - just read my review.


Well, that's it for 2015.  The forthcoming year promises more great cinema experiences, I'll share my thoughts on this blog.  Until then, thank you for reading my posts over the past year, I wish you all the best for 2016 - Happy New Year!

What 'Star Wars The Force Awakens' Got Right (...and what it didn't)

I was born in the second half of the 1970's, so it goes without saying I grew up watching the first trilogy of Star Wars films, and that - like so many of my generation - those films hold a very special place in my life.  After the Prequels I approached the news of new Star Wars films with some trepidation - until the first Trailer landed just over a year ago, and this was replaced with a sense of cautious optimism.  Now the film is here, and it has been the subject of such intense hype and fervent anticipation.  So how is it?  Well, generally the consensus is positive, and it looks set to annihilate Box Office records.  Here's my perspective, as a fan of films, and someone who still remembers the joy of seeing those first films as a child.

Please note - this will be a really, really in depth analysis, and as such it will contain just about every SPOILER in the film.  So, seriously, if you have not seen it yet (and want to) I would advise you NOT to read this article until you have.  Really, genuinely, do not read unless you have already seen it, or want the whole film spoiled for you.

The poster is your last chance - SPOILERS follow..!

Still here?  Let's get to it then...

When that first Trailer hit, and we saw there were still Stormtroopers and Tie Fighters, my initial fear was that this film would cheapen the finale of 'Return of the Jedi', which saw the Emperor defeated, Darth Vader redeemed, and the Rebellion victorious.  Certainly, too, there was the fear that this would further tarnish the franchise after the Prequels.  I'm pleased to say that 'The Force Awakens' does neither of those things.  In fact, the first two acts of the film are Star Wars at its very best: fun and energetic, beautifully and evocatively filmed, with characters you want to root for and exhilarating set-pieces.  Gone is the clunky, exposition filled dialogue of the Prequels, replaced with the type of snappy and heart-felt repartee that led to many great moments in the original trilogy.

New leads Rey and Finn are extremely likable, and actors Daisy Ridley and John Boyega truly give their all - these are two star making turns, and their return for the next two films in the series will be most welcome.  Supporting characters, such as ace pilot Poe Dammeron (Oscar Isaac), villainous General Hux (Domhnall Gleeson) provide brief, slightly underused, if memorable turns.  There's a cornucopia of marvellous looking creatures, aliens and droids - as you'd expect in Star Wars, but they're not just CGI-eye candy; most are practically realised, giving them a sense of character and realism not seen since, well, the original trilogy.  Amongst these lead droid BB-8, and eccentric yet charming Maz Kanata (mo-capped by Lupita Nyong'o) are, again, characters you'll want to see more of.

The new lead characters Rey and Finn (and BB8) are great additions to the Star Wars universe - I look forward to seeing them in the next films in the series

Much has been made of the return of original lead actors Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, and Mark Hamill, as well as Chewbacca, C-3P0 and R2 D2; of these Ford's Han Solo has the most screen time, and his turn is one of the film's highlights.  If Ford ever had any resentment towards the character, or reluctance to return to him, it does not show here.  He plays Solo very much as the roguish (almost anti-)hero he always was - but older, more grizzled.  Age has given him some wisdom, but not enough to make him stop being the 'shoot first, ask questions later' kind of guy.  His interactions with Rey and Finn are some of the film's most enjoyable moments.  And as for Chewie - well, he's still the dependable side-kick he always was.  It is genuinely good to have them back, and their parts in this film do not cheapen or tarnish the original films in any way.

Fisher's Leia and Hamill's Luke Skywalker are essentially supporting roles (in Skywalker's case, it's just a brief cameo).  Fisher, who looks to have aged the most of the original cast, plays Leia with a sad dignity, befitting the place we find her at in this film.  She doesn't have too much to do, but does just about enough with it.  It seems a bit strange that she and Hamill are the big names over newcomers like Ridley, when their roles are essentially cameos - until they turn up, it still feels enough like Star Wars without them; having them is the icing on the cake, but it's arguable that they could have been used more.

The return of franchise icons Chewbacca and Han Solo complements the new characters perfectly; it wouldn't be Star Wars without them.

The story, which springs from the search for the missing Skywalker, is a bit like the original films - more of a platform from which the action and adventures take place.  But unlike the prequels, which had so much scope and overwhelming background detail, the progression is mostly driven by the characters and how they interact - each rash, frantic or heroic decision.  This truly makes the first two acts of the film work, and enables the franchise to recapture some of what made those first films so special.  However, although the character focus is a benefit to the story, the film manages to fudge the wider setting, in a way that not even Lucas' films did.  Say what you liked about the Prequels, but across all six other films the backdrop was clearly laid out: be it the Empire, the Rebellion, the Republic, the Trade Federation, Separatists, Sith, Jedi - you knew who each faction was, what their motives were, where the battle-lines were clearly designated.

Whilst thankfully the concept of the remnants of the Empire becoming The First Order doesn't cheapen the end of 'Jedi', at the same time so much could have been explained: why does the Republic allow the First Order to exist?  How come it has the resources for a flipping great planet-sized weapon?  Why doesn't the Republic simply go to war against The First Order, why is it necessary for The Resistance to exist?  Why isn't The Resistance officially endorsed by The Republic?  A lot of this, I guess, can be inferred: I think it's likely that, after Jedi, the conflict continued and what was left of the Empire agreed to some kind of ceasefire, but not all former Imperials agreed to or wanted to lay down arms.  Hence the establishment of the First Order, whose presence is 'tolerated' by The Republic; under the terms of the ceasefire, the Republic can't be seen to be taking arms to keep The First Order in line - hence there is implicit backing for The Resistance.  I imagine part of the reason this isn't spelled out is so that people will want to go and buy the various tie-in novels and comics that have been published and are planned, that are set between 'Jedi' and the new film.  Which is a pretty cynical move, but hey, Disney have got to get a return on their pricey investment, so it makes sense in that respect, right?  It's unfortunate though that because of this a moment like when the First Order destroys a bunch of seemingly random planets, it's not immediately clear why - and, more significantly, it's hard to feel something for their loss.

New character Captain Phasma (Gwendolene Christie) is an imposing character who sadly is given far too little to do.

It's at this point in the movie that 'The Force Awakens' problems start.  Some of my concerns about how this film would turn out were down in part to the presence of  JJ Abrams himself.  Whilst he is a director with a great sense for character, action, and bringing memorable and visually striking action sequences to life on film, he has a tendency to wear his influences too visibly on his sleeve (so to speak).  As well as this, with the exception of 'Super 8' perhaps, his films are notable for having really strong acts one and two, then kind of failing to deliver in the final act.  'The Force Awakens'continues this to a degfree - one the one hand, Abrams has kept his fan-boy tendencies in check, and though there are many nods to moments in the original these do not detract from it, and do not derail the film at all.  Until the final act, that is - and to be honest, I can't tell how much of the responsibility lies with Abrams, or with the other members of the writing team, which includes Michael 'Toy Story 3' Arndt - because, quite frankly, the plot seems to run out of steam and focus, and they resort to merely replaying the 'greatest hits' from the other films.  Only, not as effectively.  The final act boils down to 'oh they've got another, bigger Death Star - let's find the weak spot and blow it up.'  In fact, the scene where The Resistance plans this almost parodies itself, as the characters talking through it are so nonchalant about the whole thing.  So whilst we get another epic dog-fight between X-Wings and Tie Fighters, a dramatic skin-of-their-teeth victory, it's like watching a covers band play your favourite songs by your favourite band: it's good, but you know the original is much better.

This isn't the worst thing about the final act, but before I come to that I just want to discuss the most spoiler-y parts of the story.  We don't see a lot of Luke or Leia, because the story has them in a very downbeat situation.  Luke's attempts to re-found the Jedi order have failed, after his students were massacred by a group of his pupils, corrupted to the Dark Side by Supreme Leader Snopes of the First Order.  Han and Leia separated, because chief among those responsible for this massacre was their own Son, who has now been dubbed Kylo Ren (played by Adam Driver).  If I'm very honest, I wasn't at all surprised that Ren turned out to be Han & Leia's son.  It was a logical story choice, and keeps the whole sagas focus retained upon the Skywalker dynasty.  I also think that having the original characters in this situation, 30 years after 'Jedi', was a bold story telling choice that I truly applaud.  For those of us who have grown up since watching these characters and looking up to them as children, seeing how things have not worked out as they (or we) had hoped will resonate with just about every 30-40 something viewer.  And how this has played out for each character makes total sense - they have each tried to run away from their pain and disappointment; Han and Leia, back to what they used to do and where they felt most at home - smuggling and military leadership respectively.  Luke has simply run away, and though it is never fully explained why, it is likely the sense of failure would be almost crushing.

Kylo Ren is menacing, but he's not as the unstoppable embodiment of evil that Darth Vader was in the original Star Wars film...

Given this set up, which works perfectly and makes sense entirely, it highlights why the most significant character death is pretty much a failure, from a story-telling point of view.  You see, when Han Solo is killed at the hands of Ren, what should be an iconic and (for my generation) heart-breaking moment merely makes you think 'what the fuck?!?!!'.  Part of the problem with this is Ren himself.  Sure, he is an imposing villain, and the fact he is struggling with not only living up to what he believes is the legacy of his grandfather Darth Vader and the 'temptation' of the Light Side of the Force, initially makes him a nuanced one, too.  But then he is portrayed as having tantrums, destroying things with slashes of his Lightsaber, and it brings to mind the characterisation nadirs of the Prequels; how Hayden Christiansen said he played one take of one scene as quietly anguished and tormented, then again like a spoilt teenager - which was the take that Lucas put in 'Attack of the Clones'.

What could have made the character more interesting arguably doesn't happen on screen - his fall to the Dark Side, leading the massacre of the Jedi trainees, and rejecting his own mother and father - plus the collapse this brings to their lives.  It's the fact this is all unseen (apart from a flashback vision that fills in a mere handful details) which robs Solo's death of the power it should have.  When he goes to appeal to his son to return to him and his mother, without having seen their previous relationship, or the extent of Ren's betrayal, it is very difficult to feel the emotion that the writers were clearly wanting the audience to feel.  Then Solo is murdered by Ren, stabbed though the heart with his Saber.  They were clearly going for a moment akin to Kenobi's death in the very first film (it plays out like it, with the younger protagonist shouting 'No!' then a flurry of blaster bolts as they make their escape).

Honestly, I don't have an issue with killing off Solo; I felt it was inevitable that at least one of the original cast would be killed off in this film, and even moreso given that Ford allegedly asked Lucas to kill the character off during the making of  'Jedi'.  But the manner in which they chose to dispatch him has left me with a very sour taste that has overshadowed my enjoyment of the rest of the film.  I truly think that it was borderline insulting to a character who is iconic in cinema, and a hero to so many children since 1977.  Solo's death is a moment that should have had every single grown man, in every single cinema, silently weeping.  This was the character every boy wanted to be in games of Star Wars in the school playground.  Solo made Ford a star, and in the original film and 'Empire Strikes Back', Solo has at possibly two of the most defining moments in cinema.

Basically, if such an iconic character was to be killed off, he should have had a truly epic send off.  He should have been mortally injured saving his friends, and the galaxy.  He should have died with Chewie, Leia and Luke at his side, with that trademark smirk on lips, having delivered one last charming, scoundrel-ish one-liner.  A death that should have been as defining as his greatest moments.  Instead, he dies without a word at the hands of a petulant brat, who would have been crushed without flinching by the grandfather he so idolizes.  It is a cheap death, one that does little for the story but give us a reason to hate Kylo Ren (because, y'know, we're all rooting for him after seeing him preside over the massacre of innocent villagers and cutting down an old man, of course...)

I'm still aghast that, whilst Abrams and the writers have treated everything about Star Wars with so much respect, they disrespected Solo enough to see him off in such an insulting manner - insulting to the character, and to everyone who ever aspired to be like him, or simply admired the portrayal of an iconic character.  This moment, coupled with the apparent lack of ideas that made the writers retread through familiar franchise story beats, unfortunately casts a shadow over what was so great about the rest of the film.

Finally, despite Abram's promises that the film would - like every other movie in the franchise that preceded it - have an ending tying up the main story, we get a frustratingly open one, that doesn't really answer any questions about what Skywalker was hoping to achieve by hiding, or that doesn't really answer why his presence was so vital to The Resistance.  Hamill doesn't get to utter a single line, and the closing shot - Rey holding out his father's Saber to him - is the most sequel-bait ending of any Star Wars film.  There are so many questions left, in fact, that Abrams has proven to be quite disingenuous with those claims.  We know that there will be two more films, so obviously there are story threads to carry on and complete - but whereas each other Star Wars film feels complete in and of itself, this one does not at all.  This is just another thing to overshadow what it does so well earlier on.  We don't even find out what significance the whole 'Force Awakening' has on the events of the film, as so much of what takes place seems to owe so little to the mystical power..!  I think, funnily enough, this film is comparable to Abram's 'Star Trek' reboot from 2009; the first two acts of that film are full of energy, fun and great turns from the new cast of actors, but that ultimately ran out of steam and ideas in the final act - going for a finale that made you wonder whether Abrams really understood Trek in the first place...

From the point of view of a film critic, 'The Force Awakens' is mostly successful, and is let down slightly by its lack of original story ideas in its final act.  From the point of view of someone who grew up with Star Wars, has been a massive fan throughout the years, the film is frustrating; when it gets to a point where it feels comfortable and safe to enjoy the film, there is a story-telling decision that is handled so poorly, the more I think about it, I increasingly feel it is more disrespectful to the franchise and to the fans than almost anything that was in the Prequels.

So it is a film that is only two-thirds great - and when it is great, it almost reaches the highs of the original trilogy, which is high praise indeed.  I can see how the next film can be even better - my hope is that story-writers will not look so much to the narrative beats of the original films, but forge new and original plots for it to follow.  The potential is there.  And they have a great set of leads, playing interesting new characters, to centre their story around.  Just please - if they decide to kill off Luke or Leia, or Chewie even, for the sake of the Force, please give them a respectful and fitting send off...