>I saw the new Star Wars movie, “Star Wars: The Force Awakens,” on Tuesday afternoon at one of the most mysterious, secretive movie screenings I’ve attended in my 12 years or so as a movie critic. It was worth the intrigue and the wait. The movie, while far too chickified (just like America), delivers. I’ve been careful not to give away any spoilers on this page or below, but I posted a link below to another page with the spoilers. There are some big ones.
>This new, reinvigorated Star Wars movie isn’t better or nearly as good as the original 1977 Star Wars movie or “Return of the Jedi” (the third installment). But it was never going to be. That’s just not possible. And this one is good enough. I enjoyed it thoroughly, though I thought at least 15 minutes (and maybe a little more) could have been lopped off of the 135-minute movie. There were some slow parts, though they were few and far between.
>The movie has all the bells and whistles you would expect from a Star Wars movie: the “In a Galaxy Far, Far Away” opening crawl; lightsabers (and lightsaber fights); TIE fighters, the Millennium Falcon, and assorted spaceships (including an Evil Empire spacecraft far larger than the Death Star);and the usual alien bar scene, some humor, lots of great special effects, beautiful cinematography, a terrific soundtrack (including the familiar Star Wars theme, but, unfortunately, the Darth Vader theme a/k/a “The Imperial March” isn’t in this, since Vader died in “Return of the Jedi”), and a clear and easy-to-understand story and plot.
>Most important and something I expect from Star Wars fare–the main reason I like it: there are the usual, clear-cut villains and heroes (though there is some inner fighting between the forces of the Dark Side and the Light in the conscience of at least one character), and the good guys win; the bad guys lose. And, as in all Star Wars movies, it’s a David v. Goliath victory. Contrary to rumors and speculation, the good guys we’ve come to revere haven’t turned evil.
>Nearly all of the characters we saw in the original Star Wars trilogy are back. Han Solo, Princess Leia Organa (who is now General Leia Organa), Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, and the Droids C3PO and R2D2. Those who’ve seen the original Star Wars movies know that in addition to Darth Vader, Yoda and Obi-Wan Kenobi are also gone, and so they are not here. There is no Lando Calrissian, so Billy Dee Williams will have to hope for more Colt 45 ads or that, maybe, he’s in the sequel to The Force Awakens.
>Then, there are the new, much younger characters to whom the batons of both good and evil are passed. And thank G-d for that, because Carrie Fisher (Princess Leia) and Harrison Ford (Han Solo) look very old, tired, and haggard, which is bittersweet to watch, especially if you were alive and young, as I was, when the original Star Wars movie first debuted in theaters in 1977.
>The younger, newer characters are only slightly more multi-cultural than before. But they are definitely far more chickified. The new version of Yoda, is a chick who looks like E.T. (phone home!) and owns the bar where the usual alien bar scene takes place. The new Luke Skywalker is also a tiny, very slim chick, Rey (Daisy Ridley), who as in many other unrealistic movies these days, is a tough badass who can fight off and beat even three or more man, each one of whom is twice and big and thick as she is. I didn’t mind it as much because Rey is a likable, smart, and resourceful character. Still, there’s no way she would beat the mean . . . unless the Force was with her. Even then, she’d have to do it with Jedi mind tricks, and she does it through brute strength.
>There is also a new Lando Calrissian–the goofy and overly enthusiastic former Stormtrooper, Finn (John Boyega), who was taken from his family as a good and raised by the Empire. But he develops a conscience and a sense of morality early on. And there is a new Han Solo flying for the Rebel Forces, Poe Dameron, played by Cuban-American Oscar Isaac. It doesn’t have quite the same ring to it as Han Solo, but the Poe character–who isn’t in this movie much–has the same Han Solo sarcasm and sense of humor. It works. The new Darth Vader has a name that sounds more like a supermodel or soap opera actress than a male villain: Kylo Ren. And I’m not sure about the casting of that one, since I’m used to actor Adam Driver playing comedic roles as narcissistic hipsters. He seems a little chick-ish, too. Just saying.
>The story and plot are very similar to the ones you saw in the original Star Wars movies: the Rebels–led by General Leia–are fighting and trying to defeat the evil Empire and vice versa. In this one, Poe is captured by the Empire, and he is carrying a droid, BB-8, which is similar to R2D2. The droid has the location of Luke Skywalker contained somewhere in its hard drive. As they are fighting each other, the Empire is racing the Rebels in trying to locate the droid and the path to Skywalker. Junk collector Rey comes across the droid in her native planet of Jakku, and soon she is fighting on the Rebels team with Finn, Han Solo, Chewbacca, and the others.
>I could tell you more, but I think I’ve told you enough on this page. If you want to learn the spoilers–again, they are major ones–click here for “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” SPOILERS.
>In the meantime, know that “Star Wars” The Force Awakens” is worth seeing especially if you are a Star Wars or sci-fi fan. And, of course, it’s a given that there will be sequels. It’s set up for that.
>You don’t need to know the back story of the first three Star Wars films to enjoy this, but it’ll make you enjoy it more (and get a few lines, like the one from Solo about the trash compactor). I saw this in regular, old-fashioned 2D, but this is one of those rare movies in which I think it would be better in 3D, given the special effects and non-stop action.
>The movie is rated PG-13. Would I take kids to see it? Yes. Maybe not very young kids. There is some blood and killing, but as in all previous Star Wars movies, ultimately the bad guys get theirs.
>Come on over to the “Dark Side” of the movie theater on Friday, when this debuts in theaters (there are early screenings in most major cities on Thursday night).
>Some other Star Wars stuff:
>* The secrecy regarding the screening of the movie: we were sent secret invitations requiring that we not tell anyone we were invited to see it or that we’d seen it after the screening was over. We were not given the location of the screening until the day before. And there were many other restrictions. Security was tighter than at the airport or government buildings. A lot of other mystery and security added to the intrigue and anticipation of the movie. Like I said, I’ve never seen that with any other movie in more than a decade as a movie critic. J.J. Abrams and Disney take their security more seriously than America takes our national security.
>* They don’t have a name for Star Wars fans the way they have “Trekkie” for Star Trek fans. “Warsie” just doesn’t have the same cachet. But I guess you could call me a “Warsie.”
>* I went to the library a couple nights ago to take out the original “Star Wars” movie and watch it again for this review. It took me a while to locate the movie because apparently, with so many sequels and prequels, it has a new name. What was once just “Star Wars,” is now called, “Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope.” HUH?
>* When I was a little kid back in 1977 when Star Wars came to theaters, I wasn’t allowed to see it right away. All my friends had seen it and said how good it was. But I had responsible parents who cared about my welfare and wanted to see it first to make sure it was okay. My late Dad said he heard there were monsters and scary aliens in the movie, and he wanted to see it for himself before he exposed me to something like what he’d heard. You rarely see parents like that anymore. Instead, I often see sperm and womb/egg donors taking their kids to see horribly graphic movies because these “parents” (In Name Only!) are unwilling to miss out on a movie in order to raise good kids.
What makes you think I want to read any opinion of a woman?
>This new, reinvigorated Star Wars movie isn’t better or nearly as good as the original 1977 Star Wars movie or “Return of the Jedi” (the third installment). But it was never going to be. That’s just not possible. And this one is good enough.
why is this the standard
>I remember when my Dad came home from seeing “Star Wars” in 1977. He said, “Kids, this is a great movie. I’m taking you to see it. You’ll love it.” And I and my next youngest sister went to see it with my Dad. Father knows best. We did love the movie. Dad also took us to see “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi.”
>The original “Star Wars” movie came at a good time. America was in the midst of bad times under the hegemony of Jimmy Carter. And this movie was one of those pop culture developments that helped usher in Ronald Reagan and the Reagan Revolution (the Trump “Revolution,” or whatever you’d call it, is more “Spaceballs” than “Star Wars”). The movie was a metaphor for people who fought the tyranny of the Empire of the Soviet Union. And I believe Americans saw that.
>If only this new Star Wars movie had the same effect and spurred Americans to get rid of bad choices like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. But, no such luck. They don’t get it, sadly. To them, it’s just a movie. But it is so much more than that. Or, at least, it was.
>THREE REAGANS
http://www.debbieschlussel.com/80703/star-wars-the-force-awakens-chickified-like-america-but-still-very-good/
>thank G-d
You can't make this shit up.
>>63751702
>What was once just “Star Wars,” is now called, “Star Wars, Episode IV: A New Hope.” HUH?
these cancerous fucking normies holy shit fuck this IP
>>63751704
>>63751791
Jesus Christ, could she be more of a kike?
>>63751791
>Think the Palestinians
HMMMM I DON'T THINK SO TIM
>>63751704
>doesn't know about Debbie
FIVE MARXES FIVE OBAMAS FIVE BIN LADENS
/tv/ BTFO, when even Deb can't hate a movie it's basically a guaranteed legend
>>63752125
gonna go ahead and drop some more examples of some chosen creative writing :^)
>>63752125
I'd like to make her choke on my uncut cock.
>>63751728
>THREE REAGANS
For comparison, the ONLY movie Debbie has even given Four Reagans is Inglorious Basterds.
Other Three Reagan movies include True Grit, MIB III, and The Good Dinosaur.
Bra-fucking-vo JJ
>>63752299
>masturbation machines
tip top kuk
>>63752299
>The book, written by Secret Harbour man Bernard Holstein -- whose real name is Bernard Brougham -- claims to be "the amazing true story of survival and mateship in Auschwitz".
Oh look, the goyim doing something horrible again. Must be Thursday.
:^)
>>63751625
>>Most important and something I expect from Star Wars fare–the main reason I like it: there are the usual, clear-cut villains and heroes (though there is some inner fighting between the forces of the Dark Side and the Light in the conscience of at least one character), and the good guys win; the bad guys lose.
What a fucking pleb
>>63752383
And she only give it four reagans because the point of the film went completley over her head. Stupid kike whore is just as bad as that douche Hitler laughing grotesquely in the theater.
>>63752455
How fascinating that there is not a single article about this individual anywhere on the internet.
You must be one hell of a True Detective™ to find the Super Secret Article that THE JEWS have conspired to hide from everyone else on the planet.
Your blurry unsourced and unverifiable PNG is without a doubt the smoking gun that debunks the worldwide zionist conspiracy
>>63752383
She gave Four Reagans to The Artist: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/45410/wknd-box-office-the-artist-war-horse-we-bought-a-zoo/
Interstellar: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/75599/midweek-box-office-interstellar/
All Is Lost: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/66766/wknd-box-office-all-is-lost-the-counselor-enough-said-12-years-a-slave/
The King's Speech: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/30909/movie-of-the-year-the-kings-speech/
Toy Story 3: http://www.debbieschlussel.com/23443/weekend-box-office-toy-story-3-please-give/
And more
>>63752522
Why bother, you jew?
What the hell is chickified?
>>63752522
lol someone got salty, the source is in the image you shini fuck
>>63751594
TORRENTS W H E R E
>>63751877
She speaks of Palestinians with the exact same rhetoric you guys do of blacks
Someone please post that article about the jew that claimed he saw a cage in which jews were thrown in and ripped apart by bears and eagles (at the same time).
I laugh every fucking time.
>>63752740
>you do
I'm that poster. I'm from Chile, you are out of your element buddy.
