It is superb!

Yesterday was a public holiday in South Africa, so we got the release early. I went to see the second showing in the cinema, (2 o'clock in the afternoon) thinking the earlier one would be full of extreme fans. It's a fantastic film, old style Star Wars, almost an episode IV tribute film.

I'll leave it there to avoid spoilers.

Grow up.

Definitely better than the prequels. But inferior to the originals.

Liked all the new characters. Thought the old ones looked half dead. Had they not been tied up with Disney perhaps they might have taken a risk and cut back on the nostalgia. As things stand I think the script is pretty weak (very little makes any kind of sense). This is now the THIRD film out of seven in which the final act involves a certain plot device. How many times before someone finally twigs this is getting a bit repetitive?

Clearly the emotional crux of the movie was meant to mirror A New Hope. But it didn't hit me anywhere near as hard. Probably because the earlier actor (whilst in no way a fan of the series) never lost his sense of professionalism and love for the movie business. Which is more than can be said of you-know-who.

Oh - and no prizes for the most predictable reveal ever coming in episode 2 or 3.

A mixed bag. 6/10.

I saw it yesterday and having loved the originals during my formative years, I was hopeful that it would shake off the stain of the prequels, which were mostly awful; and it did.

That said, it is basically a remake of the 1977 original - a well made remake - but a remake nonetheless. It was a bit sad to see Ford huffing and puffing around as an aged Han Solo, and it would appear that Leia has been over-indulging on the lip fillers; but at least Chewbacca managed to retain his dignity.

My son enjoyed it way more than I did - I guess because he didn't grow up with the original film, and because he's not a cynical old git like me.

Everybody is looking to create the next Marvel cash cow. Never mind the fact that Marvel is the cinematic equivalent of McDonalds - long on the promise of a delicious meal and short on achieving it.

The goal is to create a living, breathing fictional backdrop onto which endless narrative threads can be projected spread across multiple media platforms (cinema, television, gaming etc.) with Disney taking it's percentage out of each narrative thread.

With its rich and textured mythos initially created by Lucas and subsequently built upon by numerous authors and screenplay writers over the last three decades Star Wars was always the better bet for achieving this goal. Admittedly, Marvel has its own hefty canon - but there are certain limitations inherent to the comic-book genre which, IMO, make the task of creating an equally immersive stand-alone universe that much harder.

We live in surreal times whereupon history and fiction blur together and even exchange places. Leaving aside the thorny question of whether all history should be considered fiction - there exists today a great number of people who are better acquainted with the fictional details of Star Wars' history than actual human history.

Similarly, there are people who are more familiar with the flora, fauna and landscapes of Tolkien's Middle Earth than those surrounding them in "real life".

Where it all leads I'm not sure. With the arrival of emerging VR technologies such as Oculus Rift I think these fictional universes are going to become increasingly immersive and therefore increasingly tempting for folk to disappear into. Maybe the creators of the TV sci-fi comedy, Red Dwarf, had it right when it coined the phrase "Better Than Life". Although I wonder whether they figured Red Dwarf itself could spawn such a fictional reality?

Have a look at Elite - Dangerous; a fully formed, scientifically accurate model of the galaxy, with Oculus Rift support - making it 3d and fully immersive. Some people don't need much encouragement to become fully immersed in MMPORG's at is it - this appears to be taking it to a whole new level.

Well I enjoyed it. It wasn’t as good as the hype suggested but it was miles better than the prequels.

If you don't mind me saying, what's sad to me is your clear dissatisfaction with the use of older actors. Body-shaming is one of the most disagreeable aspects of social media but so many see fit to resort to it.

Harrison Ford is 73 ffs. Why can't Han Solo age? What is sad about him ageing? Are you ageist? Do you think older actors should be banned for not being sprightly?

Social media trolls had a right go at Carrie Fisher mostly claiming she had "not aged well". In her words“Please stop debating about whether or not I aged well,” she wrote. “Unfortunately, it hurts all three of my feelings. My body hasn’t aged as well as I have. Blow us.”

Fisher later added

I have no clue if she uses lip fillers or not but neither do I care. It's her body and she can do what she wants. You are objectifying her body when it is nothing at all to do with you. Carrie Fisher is an amazing woman, she is an author, playwright, screenwriter and superb actress. Yet your only comment about her is your disparaging view of the appearance of her lips.

No one objects to old actors solely because of their age. If they did they'd be equally dissatisfied with Alec Guinness and IIan McDiarmid from the original and prequel trilogies respectively. Since I've never heard any criticism of either I'm guessing people are actually unhappy with poor actors who are ALSO old. Harrison Ford has been stealing a living for the best part of two decades. He was terrible in the last Indiana Jones film not because he is old but rather he no longer seems to care.

It's a valid point though. The action-adventure blockbuster is popular precisely because viewers enjoy living vicariously in the shoes of the hero.

Kids love Indiana Jones and Han Solo because they're adults they can relate to (they've retained at least some visible aspects of childhood) who effortlessly master feats of derring-do with a swagger in their step and a quip on their lips.

Once seen for the first time these characters become fixed in our minds like a fly trapped in amber. So even though Harrison Ford ages - "Indiana Jones" remains circa late twenties, early thirties within memory - forever.

Unfortunately, there are only so many miracles you can perform with makeup. So whilst Ford aged a visible fifteen-or-so years from the beginning of Star Wars to the penultimate Indiana Jones - his appearance didn't clash seriously with the viewer's mental images of Jones/Solo. But forty years is just too great a gap to bridge.

Cognitive dissonance really does set in when the brain attempts to square the Ford of this latest Star Wars incarnation with memories of him at his physical and athletic peak.

And whilst kids today are just as likely to want to BE that early Indiana Jones - I very much doubt any will return home from the cinema wishing they could become 70+year Solo.

As for the millions of people to whom Carrie "Slave Girl" Fisher was ever-present in mind during puberty - I can only sympathize over how many blissful memories this movie has tarnished.

The relatively recent phenomenon of old blokes on a rampage however, slightly bucks the trend; or at least gives us some shoes to live in that are a bit different to the norm. With Liam Neeson at the top of the heap in the enjoyably awful 'Taken' series, many have followed - I particularly enjoyed Denzel's middle-aged murder spree using mostly power tools; I wish I'd thought of that when I was in the full bloom of my DIY phase.

Sadly, the same cannot be said for female actors - with very few exceptions, male movie stars, regardless of their advancing years, seem to have their on-screen love interests portrayed by much younger women. Was it ever thus? I don't remember.

In LOTR, when Aragorn "married" on the mound of Cerin Amroth, she was 2,730.

Fair comment - perhaps Elves do not suffer the same discrimination as mortal women.

Although in real life - Liv Tyler is 20 years younger than Viggo Mortensen.

There's old and there's OLD. Recall that during the overwhelming majority of years during which Hollywood has enjoyed dominance the male acting lead was usually over the age of fifty. Think of the likes of Charlton Heston, Jimmy Stewart, Burt Lancaster etc. It's only recently that ages have drastically dropped.

I think the studios have made a critical error of judgement in thinking lead actors need to be just out of their teens. Han Solo/Indiana Jones were cool partly because they straddled the gulf between athletic youth and the wisdom of full maturity. Sure, characters such as Luke Skywalker were also cool. But to a child's eyes such as mine in 1977 he appeared childish and, well, whiny.

Kids don't fantasise about being young men. They want the full package.