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...