Entertaining - but could and should have been so much more.

Rating: 5/10 (7 January 2016)

Taken on its own this is a visually spectacular, entertaining blockbuster. The pace never lets up and the two hours I was in the theatre went by quickly. Kudos to JJ Abrams for recapturing the gritty look of the Star Wars universe, and sparing us Lucas's green-screen abominations.
However, as a keen Star Wars fan (and having enjoyed many aspects of the Expanded Universe) I can't help but feel an overwhelming sense of disappointment about The Force Awakens.
In short, this film represents something of a missed opportunity, and whilst one could write a long list of its flaws, its main issues were as follows:

The new villains are dreadful (and not in a good way!). Snoke looked like Gollum's long-lost uncle; once he took off his mask and went all emo on us, Kylo Ren was more pathetic than menacing; and General Hux looked like a wet-behind-the-ears lieutenant not fit to command a platoon of stormtroopers, let alone a planet-come-space station. Compare that sorry bunch to Vader, Grand Moff Tarkin, the Emperor/Palpatine - hell even Darth Maul!

The new heroes are bland. There is no way they will ever become as iconic as Han Solo, Chewbacca, Obi Wan etc.. This forced Abrams to over-rely on Han and Leia who, to be frank, looked old and tired. Han's exit at least gave the movie some emotional heft, but up until then, watching a clapped out Harrison Ford trying to convince us he could still cut it as a space pirate / action hero made me sad inside.

The above leads on to a more general point - the poor casting decisions. Daisy Ridley just didn't cut it as the new lead and focus of the series - her prep school English accent was rather jarring, breaking my suspension of disbelief, and she lacked charisma. Domhnall Gleeson was a baffling choice for General Hux - why they didn't cast an old pro in the Peter Cushing / Christopher Lee mould is beyond me. And what was with that Glaswegian space gangster? Bizarre to say the least.

Why was this movie about "the Resistance" vs. the "First Order", rather than the Republic vs. the Empire? And why make a sequel to ROTJ without setting the political scene and filling the audience in on what happened after the battle of Endor?? It wouldn't have required a great deal of exposition - Lucas handled it deftly in ANH, for example. Explanations can be found in some of the materials accompanying the movie's release, but there was no reason for them not be included in the film itself.

Finally, after a 13-year wait for a Star Wars movie (and a 32-year wait for a sequel to ROTJ) it is simply unacceptable that the best plot the film-makers could come up with was a near total re-hash of ANH. A third Death Star - really?? The second Death Star in ROTJ was bad enough, but at least that was just a side show to the real core of the film - Luke's face off with Vader and the Emperor.

A lot of this sounds like I simply didn't think the movie was as good as Episodes IV-VI, but in almost entirely aping the plot of ANH, the makers of this film brought such comparisons on themselves. ANH told a fairly simple story, but it is a great movie as it has brilliant, memorable characters, and introduced some fascinating concepts, like the Force, the Jedi, the Death Star etc.. TFA brings almost nothing new to the table, and the new heroes/villains pale in comparison to the original trilogy.
The overarching philosophy behind the film seems to have been to stay as far from the prequels as possible, since apparently everyone hates them (so no galactic senate, Jedi council, or political intrigue), and instead ape the originals, which everyone loves (so we get desert planet orphan hero rescues vital droid, meets elder mentor, discovers the force and helps plucky underdogs bring down a super-weapon). There simply wasn't enough creative vision or ambition in this film, just a cynical recycling of - and abundance of (rather forced) references to - a source material a lot of people love and hold dear to their hearts.
For me Episode VII rates above I and II, as it didn't feature any detestable/offensive characters, and the acting and dialogue (mostly) weren't cringe-worthy. However, for all its flaws, ROTS at least told a story worth telling and remains the best film outside of the original trilogy.