The Odyssey (2026).

Review #2561: The Odyssey (2026).

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Odysseus), Tom Holland (Telemachus), Anne Hathaway (Penelope), Robert Pattinson (Antinous), Lupita Nyong'o (Helen of Troy / Clytemnestra), Samantha Morton (Circe), John Leguizamo (Eumaeus), Zendaya (Athena), Charlize Theron (Calypso), Jon Bernthal (Menelaus), Himesh Patel (Eurylochus), Bill Irwin (Polyphemus), Elliot Page (Sinon), Benny Safdie (Agamemnon), with Corey Hawkins (Polybus), Niko Nicotera (Peisander), Elyes Gabel (Elatus), Iddo Goldberg (Amphimedon), Jamie Harris (Agelus), Mia Goth and Logan Marshall-Green (Melantho and Melanthius), Ryan Hurst (Mentor), and James Remar (Tiresias) 

Directed by Christopher Nolan (#054 - The Dark Knight, #055 - Inception, #062 - Batman Begins, #980 - Dunkirk , #1562 - The Dark Knight Rises, #1618 - Tenet, #2050 - Oppenheimer, #2322 - Interstellar)

Review: 

"Tell me, O muse, of that ingenious hero who travelled far and wide after he had sacked the famous town of Troy. Many cities did he visit, and many were the nations with whose manners and customs he was acquainted; moreover he suffered much by sea while trying to save his own life and bring his men safely home; but do what he might he could not save his men, for they perished through their own sheer folly in eating the cattle of the Sun-god Hyperion; so the god prevented them from ever reaching home. Tell me, too, about all these things, O daughter of Jove, from whatsoever source you may know them."

Once upon a time, there were old tales that people decided to freewheel their own interpretation to communicate to the masses (such as say, Samuel Butler, who stated a theory, whether 100 percent seriously or not, that the Odyssey was written by a Sicilian woman). As the seasons changed and the technology grew larger, you could see and hear other freewheeling interpretations of tales on a screen perhaps unfathomable to a person dated in antiquity. Some folks probably read the Odyssey in their youth or maybe read it online (the link I noted above is a centuries old public domain translation, which used the Latinized name of Ulysses), or maybe heard about it from other certain oral traditions (hey, Arthur was an institution for some kids), or with James Joyce's Ulysses, or, well, you get the idea. Various productions had been done of the work, with most being in Italy, such as the film Ulysses [1954] (a Dino De Laurentiis production with Kirk Douglas and others), the 1968 miniseries (known in its native country as L'Odissea), looser adaptations such as O Brother, Where Art Thou? (2000), and recent ones such as The Return (2024), which started with no mythic beings or Gods with Odysseus back in Ithaca. Christopher Nolan wanted to be the guy to direct a movie that had never really been done for a large-scale production with the Odyssey, and it should be noted that he had been once tapped to direct Troy (2004), which had been loosely based on the Iliad. He wanted to tell it "in a fresh and modern way", which to him read differently from his perspective of middle age that he felt he has been telling in his films for years, simultaneously calling it a "family story, a love story, a revenge story, a war story, a coming-of-age story... a very strong foundational text". There were various inspirations that Nolan listed prior to the release, ranging from the various translations of the Odyssey (such as the Emily Wilson 2017 translation), the visual style and atmospheric tone of Kurosawa's Ran (1985) and the mythology-inspired films worked on by Ray Harryhausen such as Jason and the Argonauts (1963). It was shot entirely with IMAX film cameras, the first of its kind in a movie that already sounds like a crowd favorite*.

In a time of "apparent magic", yes, you basically get a tale of original sin. It basically is a grounded take of the sword and sandal epic with an earthy feel that feels more psychological than mythological. In some ways, it might seem bloated at 173 minutes, but actually it often feels more like a breeze to sift through as it dwells through the divide of a lead that wavers between an everyman and a superhero. The veterans of his campaigns walk the shore in life and death because only one man will end up by divine will back home and yet he still thinks defiance is the way to go. Men from the sea attack and all around a kingdom, the law of Zeus (okay, xenia) is not being abided by while others go on about a face, a fleet, and tricks to break away and burn Troy screaming to the ground. Amidst the prophets, giants, and nymphs is a story of a man realizing what his actual place is among the crumbling of foundation and realizing that what you want most may very well be what you already had (okay that came from a bit about the Sirens, but in fairness, what is a man if not one with the hubris to listen to them knowing they will survive anyway). It jumps around in the narrative with a type of curious enthusiasm that has a few moments that really do spark me to go "cool", namely with the Laestrygonian sequence (the giants clad in armor), complete with camera tricks (hey, the cyclops [Polyphemus] is cool to see too, and the witch realization is also darkly amusing, but still). Of course, the underworld sequence might be the real showstopper in seeing the true price of years spent getting on and trying to leave one particular blood-stained beach (and one horse*).

For all of the stuff I say about the movie, it really is one to look upon familiar faces and find a few fun moments in Damon leading the way in the unraveling of civilization, at least if you go with someone having enough hubris to believe that they really are the, shall we say, Oppenheimer of their times. Basically, you have a complicated hero that you know is going to reach some type of home (his kingdom, wife with the stature of Hathaway, however you want to interpret it) but not necessarily will be a better man for it, and in that sense, Damon makes for a curious cipher that either grows with you or just withers away in elusiveness, and I found it was a case of the former most of the time, which I suppose is helpful when talking about the wavering road of hero or fool. Some could contend that Holland might be easy to gloss over amidst the seasoned presences around him. Well, that's a bit silly to me, mainly because that's the whole point: this is a foolish young prince that is between a rock and a hard place: old enough to maybe take on actual responsibilities but not in the position to actually rise from "son of Odysseus" (to a certain point, anyway). In that sense, Holland does pretty well with showing the vulnerability of being out of one's depth, of literally being a face in a long crowd, especially when contending with the likes of Leguizamo, who really does sink into his role with weary curiosity.  Pattinson and Morton each sell the moments that they take part in more so than the mostly okay times encountering Theron or Nyong', with Pattinson in particular seemingly having plenty of fun in towering overconfidence (as one does when citing a James Woods character* as inspiration). I just wish the film stuck the ending better, because amidst a flourish of inevitable "hey, the man of the house is among us" realization is a finish of trying to sell the closing of the loop of a man who can't really go "home" (as one does when fiddling with the ending of the original tale in, what, divine intervention?) that just...sits there as an ending more than anything. As a whole, making The Odyssey was a task that required a director willing to stamp their own interpretation on what is so special about a long trek back home in a time of myths and monsters, and I think Nolan made a pretty good rendition worth viewing on the best screen possible. It's not a great movie, but being a pretty good time is just as useful for me anyway.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Song of the day!

*Any thoughts about the casting of say, Nyong'o or Page? Yeah, conservative grifters whining about it can either watch the movie for themselves or piss off. The movie is full of Greek characters, do we care if most of them are played by Americans or Brits? No? 

*Or the dog reunion, because, hey.

*Not to be confused with the current James Woods

*It's a hard 8/10 in that I would rather go 8/10 for a movie that teeters at 8.5 rather than having subsequent regret in giving a 9/10.

The Wild Robot.

Review #2258: The Wild Robot.

Cast: 

Lupita Nyong'o (ROZZUM unit 7134), Pedro Pascal (Fink), Kit Connor (Brightbill), Catherine O'Hara (Pinktail), Bill Nighy (Longneck), Stephanie Hsu (Vontra), Mark Hamill (Thorn), Matt Berry (Paddler), and Ving Rhames (Thunderbolt) Written and Directed by Chris Sanders (#294 - How to Train Your Dragon and #387 - Lilo & Stitch)

Review: 

"I only engage with projects that take risks, and go to audacious places. But with The Wild Robot, there was also an unusual purity to the world which I never expected to encounter in my career. The animal characters have no cars, jobs, neckties or cell phones. The animals move like … animals!  I knew immediately we had to elevate our visuals so they would allow the emotional wavelengths to fully resonate. Put simply, the style of this film needed to be worthy of the story we were telling."

It probably shouldn't be a surprise that this is based on a children's book (with illustrations that were actually black and white) by Peter Brown. He had been struck with an image in his head of a robot next to a tree when working on a book that stood with him and eventually it came to him as basically an extreme example of a "fish out of water" story that gelled with his love of science fiction and nature. The Wild Robot was published in 2016 and became its own series, complete with a third book that was released last year. Chris Sanders had a daughter that had read the book but hadn't really thought about it until Dreamworks Animation had the rights to the book for possible filming since before the book had been published. He read the book and described it as "at once deceptively simple, and emotionally complex" while believing he was the guy that could bring the book to the screen. A handful of films have been cited by Sanders as inspiration such as Bambi and My Neighbor Totoro, as he had the imagery of each film in his head when reading The Wild Robot and it came to him that a film adaptation had to be visually sophisticated. This is apparently the last Dreamworks Animation film to be produced fully in-house at their studio, as they are cutting costs by using third-party studios for further features (which are distributed by Universal Studios). It happens to be the first animated film directed by Sanders since The Croods (2013).

I'm sure there is no surprise to be found here in saying this is a pretty good feature. It is the execution that matters most when it comes to making a story about kindness and a select group of talking animals stand on its own in crisp entertainment. It is the kind of movie that looks and feels like it would make a neat doubleheader with The Iron Giant (1999), if that makes sense. The hand-painted aesthetic is lovely in establishing the atmosphere that arises when trying to make a film look and feel organic that really should be seen on a screen as big as possible. The 102-minute runtime shows plenty of warmth without being a vessel for cheap songs or bits just for the sake of it. If the books aimed for a sense of being a fable, the film surely has achieved that same effect by making one remember what a connection means to the world around it to go with appreciating a landscape as breathtaking as nature can be. It rests on the shoulders of Nyong'o to make the lead work as well as it does in making the journey of a robot (and accompanying expressions from the salespitcher-turned-naturebot) worth seeing play out, which she does quite well. The pursuit of a task leading to adoptive motherhood is tenderly handled by her to go with Pascal and his trading of snide remarks and advice that is just as effective in showing the importance in following the circle of life. One takes flight when the moment requires one to feel flight and one has the same wonder when spending a few moments away from the island setting in the sheer difference that is apparent in a less-natural world. In other words, it isn't merely just a mother hen story with a cute duck, it really is a neat little coming-of-age story, for which Connor handles that part pretty well. The training sequences of trying to be one with a species (such as flying) is pretty fascinating. There are a few bits of levity provided by O'Hara and Berry while Hsu comes in late for an interesting (if not exactly covered too much) look in trying to do friendly forced compliance for robots. The ending for the film is interesting, mostly because it really does click this as a fable worth looking to and back again that doesn't play a cheap trick on the audience and leaves them satisfied, regardless of if there was a craving for a sequel or not. In general, it is a dazzling movie that has plenty to offer in crisp filmmaking from committed people and voices to match that should play well for just about anybody, which is a worthwhile thing to say when it comes to a film about kindness.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

Us (2019).

Review #1203: Us.

Cast: 
Lupita Nyong'o (Adelaide Wilson / Red), Winston Duke (Gabriel "Gabe" Wilson / Abraham), Shahadi Wright Joseph (Zora Wilson / Umbrae), Evan Alex (Jason Wilson / Pluto), Elisabeth Moss (Kitty Tyler / Dahlia), Tim Heidecker (Josh Tyler / Tex), Yahya Abdul-Mateen II (Russel Thomas / Weyland), Anna Diop (Rayne Thomas / Eartha), and Cali and Noelle Sheldon (Becca and Lindsey Tyler / Io and Nix) Directed by Jordan Peele (#909 - Get Out)

Review: 
When Jordan Peele made his directorial debut with Get Out two years ago, I certainly did not know what I was expecting exactly, but I figured that it would prove just fine in delivering some kind of horror. It certainly proved to be a success - how many other horror films win (much less get nominated for) an Academy Award for Best Original Screenplay? Undeniably, his next venture into horror can prove enticing, with him once again serving as director, writer, and producer, with an increased budget and some inspiration from The Twilight Zone (more specifically, "Mirror Image") this time around. The idea of being stalked by someone that looks like you certainly can prove creepy, particularly if you and your whole family meet them up close. In the long run, the film presents an assortment of interesting concepts encompassed in a horror film that works itself out just fine. Perhaps it doesn't hold up as much as it really should with its plot, but it is at least handy to deliver some scares and a few laughs without being distracted too much with tonal disconnect. It will please people wanting something that don't want too much blood but are fine with some creepy imagery and atmosphere, that much is certain. The film takes its time to get the ball rolling in suspense, but you never feel too particularly bored with the main group during its 116 minute run-time. It is the chemistry that the main four have with each other - whether dealing with family stuff or suspenseful moments that make the film work as well as it does, with no weak point in the cast as a whole. Nyong'o proves up to the task of dual roles when needed, showing resolve in the face of danger while dealing with past demons and conversely showing anguish and terror - albeit with aid through a pained croak that takes some time to get used to. Duke shines finely enough, with Joseph and Alex proving effective for the course in playing off the main menace with resilience (and vice versa in a sense for the doubles). Moss and Heidecker provide a bit of levity for their moments on screen. Describing the film and its plot in much detail would spoil the fun (at least for me, anyway) in actually experiencing its frights and tricks without real warnings - although I can at least say it isn't the kind of film that trips over its own hype and story (for the most part). The climax is fairly clever in its own machinations (with some help from Michael Abels and his music), but I feel that its method of exposition dump (or whatever you describe it as) does tend to be a bit silly. It isn't so much that I don't care for things in a film to be explained or not (as is the case sometimes with horror films or their sequels, anyway) - it just seems a bit forced in view of its placement within the film and it messes with its illusions in some way; it certainly will provoke a bit of thinking with what it says about what it means to be oneself, which is fine by me. Regardless of how one may feel with how the film deals with its motivations, the movie itself is an interesting and well-made horror film, having a solid cast and capable guiding hands from Peele. He certainly knows how to make his film stand out on their own as interesting pieces to get thrills from through the tropes of horror without so far succumbing to being bogged down in overextending himself too much. I imagine whatever his next venture into horror (or whatever it might be) will certainly provide curiosity to follow into its web of interest.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Black Panther.

Review #1050: Black Panther.

Cast: 
Chadwick Boseman (T'Challa / Black Panther), Michael B. Jordan (Erik Killmonger), Lupita Nyong'o (Nakia), Danai Gurira (Okoye), Martin Freeman (Everett K. Ross), Daniel Kaluuya (W'Kabi), Letitia Wright (Shuri), Winston Duke (M'Baku), Sterling K. Brown (N'Jobu), Angela Bassett (Ramonda), Forest Whitaker (Zuri), Andy Serkis (Ulysses Klaue), Florence Kasumba (Ayo), and John Kani (T'Chaka) Directed by Ryan Coogler (#760 - Creed)

Review: 
The Marvel Cinematic Universe films have had a scope and quality to them that make for a consistently entertaining series of movies, and it is hard to believe that it has been ten years since the release of the film that started it all, Iron Man (#135). While it can be argued that these comic book films do tend fall along traditional formulas, it is the tweaking of certain aspects that make for the successes that have occurred, whether with a tinge of humor or with a tinge of humanity to it. After all, this is the 18th film in the franchise, and while you could equate them to products in a line, at least they are fairly solid products. In the case of Black Panther, this is a good movie that pushes most of the right buttons to make for a solid winner. The best quote that can be said about the movie comes from itself: "Just because something works doesn’t mean it can’t be improved".

As mentioned in my review for Blade (1998), the film had originally been slated for development with Wesley Snipes in mind in the 1990s, although it languished in development for two decades, with Chadwick Boseman eventually being cast in the role in 2014. Black Panther (based off the comic book series of the same name that was originally created by Stan Lee and Jack Kirby) had already been showed on the big screen prior to his own film, as he was introduced in Captain America: Civil War (#796) two years ago, and I remember he had made a fine impression on me. Obviously this film gives Boseman more time to show his character off, and he excels, managing to be an interesting hero with enough gravitas that manages to holds his own in a cast with a good deal of variety. Jordan does a great job, managing to show a good deal of charisma along with fury that makes for an interesting villain that stands out, particularly for a film universe that has not had the best of villain portrayals. Nyong'o and Gurira manage to provide capable performances that are fairly strong along with interesting to watch on screen, each having their own respective moments to shine. Freeman doesn't have much time on screen, but he does provide a satisfactory enough performance. Kaluuya doesn't have a lot to do with his character, but he does the best of what he can. Wright does a fine performance, having some clever charm along with characteristics reminding me of "Q" from the James Bond series while also having some amusing scenes with Boseman. Serkis manages to have a good scenery chewing time, for the time that he gets on screen anyway. The rest of the cast do a fine job in their respective roles and functions, such as Duke and his adversarial but crucial role or Whitaker and his mystical nature.

The themes of the film work to the film's advantage, presenting its arguments without being ham-handed in approach. There are other things deserving praise, such as Rachel Morrison and her cinematography and Ruth E. Carter's costume design, both working fairly well to complement the film, making for a worthy atmosphere to watch. The action sequences are fairly hit and miss; while I do appreciate some of the fight sequences, there are times when it feels a bit too standardized, with the climax serving as mild entertainment when not utilizing too much effects, and the resolution to the film is fairly satisfactory, with its 134 minute run-time being acceptable enough for me. I do appreciate that the movie doesn't try to tie itself to other films of the comic franchise too much (aside from a flashback or so), being a film that is interesting in just showing itself off without lingering too much on little details. Ultimately, this is a film that is a pretty good success, achieving its goals well without betraying its principles.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Review #1027: Star Wars: The Last Jedi.

Cast: 
Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Carrie Fisher (General Leia Organa), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Andy Serkis (Supreme Leader Snoke), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma), Kelly Marie Tran (Rose Tico), Laura Dern (Vice Admiral Amilyn Holdo), Frank Oz (Yoda), and Benicio del Toro (DJ) Directed by Rian Johnson.

Review: 
Yes, I know it's been a few days since The Last Jedi premiered in theaters. But in any case, this is the 49th film in the Theater Saga, in which I watched a movie while it was in theaters, so let me just say that it was nice to see this movie in theaters with a big crowd. I apologize if this review feels a bit long, but I hope that it is worth it for you viewers, even if it is over the usual 300-500 word count that I try to hold to myself to.

It's hard to believe that it has been two years since The Force Awakens (#769), which I described as one "not bogged down by weight or its own characters...a movie that utilizes elements from the original trilogy with elements of its own to make a new mesh that works pretty well for itself." Obviously I still stand by those statements, although I can certainly find why some wouldn't find it as good as I thought it was. I have no doubt that I will be recapping what I thought of this film when it comes times for Episode IX two years down the line, but I don't know how I'll feel about this film after a matter of time passes by. In any case, The Last Jedi is a decent movie for my tastes, although I will say that it is a movie that inspires praise along with detractors, for better or for worse. Whether it lives up to the hype of following up the previous film or not, I did enjoy myself enough, but I can't say that it was better than the last one, or even as good as any of the original trilogy. It definitely is a movie that doesn't try to play itself safe, but it is also a movie that can't always hold all of its plot threads together, despite a 152-minute run-time. I don't mean to be too shallow but let me talk about the visuals for one moment. The movie does have a tremendous look when it comes to the action sequences and the landscapes and sets that it shows throughout the film, such as Ahch-To, the planet that Luke and Rey are on for most of the film, or the planet where the final climax takes place, with accompanying red hues. On a most basic level, this is good entertainment that will satisfying someone looking for some well-done space action. But in a franchise that now has eight primary movies (and a spin-off film, with another coming next year), the bar for satisfaction is not entirely too high. That doesn't mean that Star Wars movies need to just be big spectacles or heavy with plotlines, it just means that the best ones are the movies that find a middle ground. I'm not so sure that this one finds that ground perfectly, but I do think that it makes itself work with what it has just enough.

The performances are fairly entertaining, with the biggest stand out being Hamill, Ridley, and Driver. They are the main group that drives the movie forward, and they certainly have their own respective qualities that make them easily watchable. Even after over 30 years, Hamill manages to leap right into his role without any sort of staleness or taking the role into anything too radical, for what the writing requires anyway. Driver does a fine job in making his role seem more full-fledged, showing vulnerability and conflict that resonates well with the film, especially when with others. Ridley does a good job in showing this character with a bit more depth and tension, and it is easy to go along with her character in her actions, for the most part. Fisher (in her final film role) does a fine graceful job in the time that she has on screen, although I wished that there would've been a bit more with her, but I digress. The drama that engages the main trio is pretty good, and it certainly feels more gripping than the other plotlines, for better or for worse. The rest of the cast do a fine job, but I think the script doesn't help them all too much. One subplot involves Boyega, Issac, Tran, and del Toro, and they all do decent in their performances, but as a whole that plot-line does feel a bit strange. Serkis proves to be somewhat decent as Snoke (this time in physical form), but it leaves you wishing for a bit more. Nyong'o has one scene appearance, and I guess it is satisfactory, although I suppose there could've been more from her role. Gleeson does fine in his role, with a bit of ruthlessness along with a bit of ambition. Christie is fine in the sequence that she is in, although I can't say she was any better than she was in the last film. Tran does okay with what she is given, but I didn't really find myself really caring about her part in the plotline. It is nice to see Dern and del Toro, and they do decently in the roles they are given, even if they don't have too much screen-time. It's hard to explain the story quibbles without spoiling it, but I will just say that the motivations of certain characters do seem to rely a bit on of an idiot plot. Sure, the movie does have a decent payoff, but the way that certain characters seem to do things out of nowhere does detract (and distract) a bit from the enjoyment.

Ultimately, this is a movie that can be a bit of a mess. It has a story that tries to cover numerous bases, whether about the Force, the plot-line with the First Order and the Resistance, or something deeper, and while I can't say that it works all the time, there is enough enjoyment and entertainment to make a movie that is worth watching at least once. For a Star Wars fan like me, I found it to be satisfying enough for my tastes. Is it perfect? Obviously not, but it doesn't need to be. Am I anticipating the next one? Sure, but I'll try not to keep my excitement to a reasonable level.

Lastly, may the force be with you.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

Because I can't find a way to put a sentence about the Porgs in the review, I'll just say that they were okay. Obviously, they were created to make for merchandise, but they are at least somewhat amusing without being too distracting. 

Review edited in 2025 for formatting.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Review #769: Star Wars: The Force Awakens.

Cast
Harrison Ford (Han Solo), Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Carrie Fisher (General Organa), Adam Driver (Kylo Ren), Daisy Ridley (Rey), John Boyega (Finn), Oscar Isaac (Poe Dameron), Lupita Nyong'o (Maz Kanata), Andy Serkis (Supreme Leader Snoke), Domhnall Gleeson (General Hux), Anthony Daniels (C-3PO), Max von Sydow (Lor San Tekka), Peter Mayhew (Chewbacca), Gwendoline Christie (Captain Phasma), Kenny Baker (R2-D2), and Tim Rose (Admiral Ackbar) Directed by J. J. Abrams (#009 - Star Trek, #150 - Super 8, and #665 - Star Trek Into Darkness)

Review
As I went to my local theater for the 17th time (over the course of this show) to see my first Star Wars movie in a theater, I wondered how it would go. I wondered it because though I adored the original trilogy, the prequel trilogy was not quite up to the charm and fun of the originals. But I realized that I didn't need a perfect movie to be happy, I just needed what I need in any film: A good experience. The anticipation of waiting for a movie to start is a good sign, especially being there an hour early and having a house that looks 80-85% crowded. Naturally, there was a bit of hollering when the movie started up, and even I felt a bit giddy.

And the movie was good, too. Like I said, I wanted a good experience, and I sure got one. I enjoyed every minute of it because it was a movie not bogged down by weight or its own characters, rather it was a movie that utilizes elements from the original trilogy with elements of its own to make a new mesh that works pretty well for itself. Instead of waiting for the old cast to get into the picture, you're instead invested into the new characters because they actually are pretty compelling. Interestingly, my favorite from this movie was BB-8, the new droid who really is so adorable and really fun to watch. Ridley and Boyega are interesting to watch, because they aren't rehashes of the past (per se), they are something Star Wars needed: new blood, to carry the torch on. But of course, Ford is fun to watch again, especially with Leia. (I can share one quote: "When have you ever been helpful? And don't say the Death Star." It makes sense in context to the banter) There's no point in saying anything about the plot, because you really should see it for yourself. The effects look really well because they don't seem too artificial because you actually care about the effects this time around. The movie works because you actually care about where it will go next (after all, Episode VIII and IX will be around the corner soon enough) and care about these characters. It has a good share of humor and fun, laced with finely tuned action and around the same charm you'd expect from a Star Wars film. Will you like it as much I liked it? I don't know. But I'd recommend seeing it.

Believe the hype. And may the force be with you.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.