Star Wars: The Force Awakens rehashes A New Hope for the lowest common denominator, with a side helping of Leftist propaganda. What is good about it is not original, and what is original is not good.

Social Justice Wars
1.0Overall Score
Reader Rating: (56 Votes)

In his memoirs, Alec Guinness recounts a story in which he gave an autograph to a fan of his who claimed to have seen Star Wars over a hundred times, on the condition that the boy never watch the movie again. He was so shocked that he started crying, with his mother insulting Guinness before huffily ushering her son away. Guinness wrote in response that he hoped “the lad, now in his thirties, is not living in a fantasy world of secondhand, childish banalities.”

I can only assume that poor Sir Alec is spinning in his grave so fast right now that the south of England is quaking like San Francisco in 1906.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens debuted last Friday, summoning legions of unwashed manbabies to the theaters like battered housewives to their abusive husbands. After the six-year limp-out that was the prequels, I’m astounded that anyone could view the prospect of another Star Wars film with anything more than cautious optimism. But apparently, no one will ever go broke underestimating the taste of the average nerd; the theater I went to had a line of dweebs going out the door (in below-freezing Chicago weather).

I went to see The Force Awakens for the explicit purpose of tearing it apart for Right On, but I left the theater less enraged than depressed. J. J. Abrams’ take on Star Wars is a blatant ripoff of the original film, with whole scenes lifted from George Lucas’ movie (such as the trench run on the Death Star). His only contribution to the series is a heaping pile of anti-White agitprop, like a dog turd stapled to a Big Mac.

The sad thing is that Abrams’ cultural Marxism isn’t even egregious enough to hate. The Force Awakens is so formulaic that it almost induces narcolepsy. The film exists for one reason: to swindle more money out of the fanboys. It’ll make a ton of cash for Disney, revive interest in the franchise, and help sell more plastic toys to middle-aged men who never grew up. Everything about the movie feels prefab and insincere, right down to the unnaturally shiny uniforms the stormtroopers wear.

Counter-Currents’ Trevor Lynch already pointed out how The Force Awakens is basically a shinier remake of A New Hope, so I want to concentrate on the actual changes Abrams made to the plot. In particular, his Luke Skywalker stand-in Rey (Daisy Ridley) is quite possibly the most unlikable, unrealistic female lead in a film since Lieutenant Uhura in the Star Trek reboot (itself another Abrams production).

Ridley’s character is you-go-grrl feminism taken to its cartoonish logical conclusion; in fact, the Leftist media is already declaring her a “feminist hero.” Despite being a 14-year old homeless orphan who scavenges junk in the desert to survive, Rey can effortlessly pilot any ship, use the Force to stage a jailbreak, and master lightsaber combat in the span of about a day. In fact, the film’s final scene is a duel between Rey and antagonist Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), which she wins. Keep in mind that it took Luke until the end of Return of the Jedi before he could so much as hold his own in a fight with Darth Vader.

This blatant Mary Sue-ism would be less offensive if Abrams had any clue how to inject human warmth into his characters, but Rey constantly comes off as vindictive and insecure. For example, in one early scene where Rey and Finn (John Boyega, the “Mace Dindu” affirmative action hire) are being carpet-bombed by TIE fighters, Finn grabs her hand only for her to slap him down: “Don’t hold my hand.” If I was in Finn’s place, I would have just let her get napalmed, but what do I know?

Indeed, The Force Awakens rests on a visible undercurrent of anti-White, anti-male hatred. Han Solo is depicted as a terrible father and two-bit con artist who won’t grow up; Harrison Ford plays him like a cranky old whore disgusted at the increasingly degrading tricks she has to turn in order to put food on the table. Luke Skywalker is shown as a reclusive failure who abandoned his friends after his actions plunged the galaxy into chaos. Kylo Ren is a whiny emo played by the guy who portrayed Lena Dunham’s boyfriend in Girls (no, I’m not kidding). Even Mace Dindu isn’t spared, as the only character trait Abrams gives him is cowardice (apparently unaware that depicting Black men as fraidy cats is a racist trope from the bad old days).

These cultural Marxist clichés aren’t wholly Abrams’ fault: Hollywood films have been sliding in this direction for at least the past decade. Every major action film these days is dumbed down for an audience that has the attention span of an aphid. ADHD editing and rapid cuts make it impossible to follow the action; CGI is overused, making everything look glossy and fake; characters are constantly yelling at each other because modern moviegoers are too stupid to appreciate subtlety.

Most importantly, the only way Hollywood can create “strong” female characters is by depicting them as flawless Überfrauen with heavy flow. Gone is the subtlety and complexity of Kira Nerys, Audrey Horne, or even Rachael in Blade Runner. Hell, Princess Leia in the original films fits the bill. Carrie Fisher famously described Leia as a “distressing damsel” as opposed to a damsel in distress, but for all the barbs she traded with Luke and Han, she didn’t have ice water running in her veins.

I was never a big fan of Star Wars – the first film was released more than a decade before I was born – but they’re genuinely good movies, regardless of nerds’ creepy fascination with them. The original trilogy is a fun story with interesting, likeable characters set in a compelling world. Even the prequels, as poorly written and unwatchable as they are, featured original ideas. They weren’t executed well at all, but Lucas was at least trying.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens has no ideas. It’s a cynical cash-grab from the first frame to the last, leavened with Leftist mumbo jumbo to further subvert our culture. Were it not for the Star Wars name, it’d be one of those popcorn flicks that people see to pass the time, then forget about as soon as they leave the theater. Even from a hate-watching perspective, Abrams’ baby falls flat.

Skip this one.

The Jedi in the Lotus: Star Wars and the Hindu Tradition

The Jedi in the Lotus is the first-ever examination of the Star Wars universe from a Hindu perspective, illuminating many hitherto undiscovered aspects of the background and meaning of the widely acclaimed film series. We are shown how its creators were influenced by the famed mythologist, Joseph Campbell, whose reading of the ancient Indian Epics, […]

Additional images:

Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail Product Thumbnail

Price: $19.00

Buy Now

About The Author

Profile photo of Matt Forney

Matt Forney is a Chicago-based author and journalist. He blogs at and is the author of several books, including Confessions of an Online Hustler. Matt's work has also been featured at Return of Kings, Taki's Magazine, Alternative Right and many other sites, and he also served as the editor of Reaxxion, a gaming website for men.

  • Bellomy

    Any good points you make are kind of offset by the fact that you’re pretty much a dick. And generally I’d tend to agree with you.

    • evilwhitemalempire

      You CAN admire folks and still be against them just so you know.
      Example: I admire the way the western elites co-opted Marxism thus insuring any grass roots poor folks movement could be safely steered into the ground (e.g. occupy wall street).
      But their selfish actions are unforgivable.

      • Bellomy

        “You CAN admire folks and still be against them just so you know.”

        Yes. So?

        His review is well thought out, though I’ll officially reserve judgment after seeing it. My bigger point is that he takes special care to insult and belittle large swathes of people along with the review. Well, all right, but it’s not helping his point any. It just makes him sound like a dick.

        • Chris

          The entire thrust of the article is about belittling black men and women–the writer believes the only reason to cast a black man is “affirmative action,” and shows equal contempt for the very idea of a female lead. He also projects his own racism onto the film, ludicrously calling it “anti-white” because Han and Luke aren’t portrayed as perfect, even though they are both still quite obviously good guys in this movie. Rey was white, and the writer’s problem is that she’s “too perfect,” so how could the film be anti-white? The writer is exactly the caricature of an over-sensitive, politically correct whiner he thinks leftists are, except he believes himself to be just because he is whining in defense of the white race, which are only under threat in the fevered imaginations of the writers of this insane website.

  • Laguna Beach Fogey

    Good review, Matt. I hadn’t planned to see this one. I remember seeing the original when it came out in 1977,and, for me at least, it remains an awesome film. The second one was really good, too. The third movie was awful. Or, maybe by that time I had grown up.

    • evilwhitemalempire

      You can forget trying to tell gen x-ers that they only reason they hate Jar Jar Binks is because they see him EXACTLY as their parents saw Chewbacca or Yoda (millennials adored Jar Jar back in 1999).

      • AlFromBayShore

        No, Jar Jar was cartoonish and this is the reason why he (or it) is hated. Of course, the prequels were a disaster and this makes things worse. The original trilogy had depth. As a youngster, I was watching a well developed storyline that borrowed heavily from the westerns of John Ford and the epic films of Akira Kurosawa. Watching the original trilogy made me watch “The Searchers” and “Taxi Driver”. There is much more to the original trilogy than what you are saying.

  • evilwhitemalempire

    “Were it not for the Star Wars name, it’d be one of those popcorn flicks that people see to pass the time, then forget about as soon as they leave the theater.”


    That’s the acid test of a sequel.

    If the film was made as an original production and not a sequel would it still hold it’s own?

    “-whole scenes lifted from George Lucas’ movie (such as the trench run on the Death Star).”


    Probably closer this time to the “The Dam Busters” from which much of “A New Hope’s” trench battle visuals were derived.

    While were on that it should noted that virtually all the space battles in “A New Hope” were choreographed from old WW2 movies.

    And that much of John Williams award winning scores are taken directly from classical pieces with almost no variation.

  • To be honest, I found Finn/Mace Dindu the most likable of all of our heroes. He’s a former Stormtrooper who refuses to execute civilians and goes AWOL, and is also a coward who slowly grows a pair through the film. It’s not a particularly complex character arc, but it’s at least A character arc.

    Contrast that to Rey, who is the epitome of a Mary Sue and doesn’t have any character outside of cuntiness.

  • cecil11

    I have no interest in seeing the new series. And it sounds derivative and SJW bait.

    Alas, that clearly will have NO effect, as the box office is $540 million plus as of MOnday.

    Even my relatives have reserved tickets to see it. But I think they will come awasy vagulely disappointed, but will not know why!!!

  • The Osprey

    Matt’s review was spot on. I was a huge fan of the original when it came out in 1977, but this thing was godawful. $10.00 and two hours of my life I’ll never get back. When I heard JJ Abrams was doing it I should have known it would suck and for the same reasons I hated his Trek “reboot”.

  • Fedeli d’amore

    I find the kind of hypersensitivity displayed in this review (and on a few other related websites such as Return of the Kings) to be actually very out of balance. A ‘review’ of a film by someone who characterises people who enjoy Star Wars as ‘nerds’ and dweebs’ is obviously going to fail at any measure of insight or objectivity into the film, the craftsmanship on display and its place in the franchise.
    The fact that, after several movies of primarily male hero protagonists, that Rey is female lead, brings out such defensive attitudes, strands many of the more reasonable of us again in a no-mans land between the feminists and the ‘manosphere’. Having to bear extremists on both ends of the ‘debate’ gets tiresome. I wish there could be a bit more measure of maturity and balance than getting crazy over the fact that ‘its a girls turn’.
    “Despite being a 14-year old homeless orphan who scavenges junk in the desert to survive, Rey can effortlessly pilot any ship, use the Force to stage a jailbreak, and master lightsaber combat in the span of about a day”
    Rey can do all these things because she has*obviously received prior Jedi training, probably with Luke. Rey also is inherently confused about how to deal with people, because she grew upon on a desert after most likely being mind-wiped. When she meets Finn, she doesn’t know who he is. She has lived on a hostile world so it makes sense she would not want to be grabbed by someone she doesn’t know. Its not some massive score for feminism.
    There are plenty of decent men on display, including Finn. He is an admirable character. People who have immediate problems with there being a black lead are again showing their lack of spine, projecting their massive insecurity. To be threatened by this makes no sense. You’ve got Han Solo, Poe, and Luke at the end for your white dudes, for Christs sake, get a grip, pick your battles carefully.

    • Chris

      The assumptions here are that the only reason a director would cast a white woman and a black man as the leads of his film is to make a political statement, while casting white men as the leads is just the Natural Order of Things. The statement that Boyega was an “affirmative action hire,” and nicknaming him “Mace Dindu” (a play on a racist slur) is particularly vile. Glad to see someone, even someone affiliated with the “manosphere,” take issue with this. This article is motivated purely by white supremacy and sexism.

      • Fedeli d’amore

        Its important to keep ones critical faculties on high alert. I have as much umbrage with aspects of the alt-right as I do the regressive left. The difference is the regressive left is now mainstream, most debate occurs within that framing. As the saying goes, there are (at least) two sides to every story. Hegelian dialectics – thesis and antithesis looking for synthesis. This is the meaning of a ‘moderate’.

  • Jenny Bright

    Thanks for the article, I’m a big fan of the series! You are absolutely spot on about the new one which i think is dreadful. You are however, wrong wrong wrong about the Prequels. They are spectacular movies which are criminally underrated. Even better than the originals. You should watch them again. Otherwise, superb!

  • Pingback: Hail, Caesar! and the Artifice of Hollywood – Right On()

  • Kevin_OKeeffe

    My teenage son wanted to see the new “Star Wars” film, so I reluctantly took him about a month ago…while I slipped out down the hall, in order to watch a screening of 1948’s “Treasure of the Sierra Madre.”

  • Pingback: Ghostbusters and the Suicide of Cultural Marxism – Right On()