You know the difference between Lucas and Abrams? One had a super vision, and the other a supervision...

Rating: 5/10 (22 August 2017)

There might be some moments of awesomeness but it's of the calculated type, designed by Disney executives who know you can't win two billion dollars with art-house stuff.
Of course, the premise helped: the seventh episode of the "Star Wars" saga, what's more with all the beloved characters we left thirty years ago: Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca and Princess Leia, what's more at the time the Internet reigns supreme, so I guess the first billion was a sure-win, but talk about teasing the audience with that "Chewie, we're home". I really expected to feel 'at home' in that film. Sure, I expected they would deconstruct the myth a little but not pulverize it "Death Star" style.
A myth can either be enriched or extended, but as long as you remain reasonably faithful to its emotional core. And "Star Wars" has always been driven by two universal themes: good vs. evil, and the process of learning, it's not about being a Jedi or using the Force, but overcoming your flaws, learning patience, humility, courage and virtues leading, step by step, to the ultimate victory. And all that was wrapped up into a majestic space-opera setting served by special effects and a gallery of characters who became part of a canon that transcended the frontiers of Hollywood. "Star Wars" belongs to our modern heritage.
And "The Force Awakens" cheats with that legacy, sure it has the package, but the sold product left me with a bitter taste. I'm sorry but you don't cheat with "Star Wars". Luke Skywalker's evolution, Leia and Han's relationship, not to mention Darth Vader's redemption spanned three movies, six years and a real genocide of Stormtroopers. The prequels, while not in the same league, featured similar arcs and at least its conclusion brought us an extraordinary feeling of completeness. So if you're going to start another trilogy, you better respect the spirit of the predecessors.
But spirit or no spirit, I guess the real problem is that there was no call for a sequel after all. At the end of "Jedi", the Empire is annihilated and everyone can finally enjoy the peaceful time they've been waiting for two generations. Luke was a full Jedi finally reconciled with his past, Han and Leia were in love and while I didn't like the Ewoks much, the celebration felt conclusive. If you decide that history is a series of new beginnings, that Luke will disappear because one Jedi has betrayed him and killed junior Jedis. That Han (who had some military high ranks) will be a smuggler again and Leia the General of Resistance after a new Galactic Empire has somewhat managed to reemerge from chaos then... what's the point?
If it ends well at the ninth movie, what prevents them from adding a new twist? Basically, any Jedi can surrender to the Dark Side, it's a never-ending story and there's a fine line between being a saga and a space soap opera any lousy script can cross at lightspeed. All good things must come to an end, think of the ending of the "Back to the Future" trilogy, we knew we'd miss Doc and Marty, but that's what re-runs are for.
I didn't say much about the film because everything has been said to that point, yes, it is a retread of the 'New Hope' material with the same story structure, J.J. Abrams, a man who knows his job and Kathleen Kennedy the producer, didn't take any risks, they played it safe, by the book: a conflict as the set-up, a secret mission, a young scavenger named Rey who'll discover she has 'special skills', a bad guy turning good, a good guy turning bad, weird-looking helpers or enemies, bombings, space chases, catchy names, and a gallery of interesting newcomers like Daisy Ridley and John Boyega, but all the good intentions of the world don't amount to much when a director lacks a vision.
The first trilogy had practical effects and a fresh story, The prequel trilogy had CGI but a fresh story as well, this one has CGI and a recycled story. It's true it has the original actors but just because it hits the sentimental and nostalgic chord more than once, it can't escape from criticism. And my biggest problem with the film is that since it had nothing new to bring up, its most notable feat was to adapt the story to the mentalities of our era. It's literally "Frozen" meets "Star Wars", that's not a vision, that's a supervision of cringe-worthy politically correct implications.
Say what you want about the prequels, but I'd rather have genuine flaws than calculated awesomeness. In "Awakens", the plot of "New Hope", "Empire" and "Jedi" are compacted in a way that is insulting to Yoda's legacy and the long initiation of Luke Skywalker. I won't make a thesis about it, let's just say the heroine is perfect, independent and skilled, she's even capable to pilot the Falcon and when Solo holds her a gun, she dares to say "I can handle myself", which doesn't make sense at all even from "girl-power" standards.
The film left me shaking my head constantly, Abrams, Kennedy and Disney are damaging a legacy with so many "Star Wars" movies I've lost track, and I guess we'll have to accept that the franchise is ruled by a sort of corporate 'Dark Side' with a business-oriented and PC agenda, so blatant it's scary. And proof that it's PC bull crap, there's one controversial scene Abrams apologized about, the very fact that he apologized proved that the guy is really trying hard to widen the appeal of the film, that he missed that scene revealed his real mindset: he didn't want to hurt. Never apologize, Duke said, it's a sign of weakness.
Anyway, five for the ride, zero for the rest. The prequels weren't perfect, but at least, there was a vision.