Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi

DVD, Star Wars: Episode VIII - The Last Jedi (2017) film

I don't really care.



That could have been my entire review, and essentially it is, so if you don't need to know why, or individual thoughts, feel free not to read on. I don't know whether it's an age thing, but these Disney 'Star Wars' films are for children, not for me. They are Disney Princess, full of cute woodland animals and Mogwai-Furbie-Minions. And I always liked the Ewoks, so that wasn't even a problem for me. It's just that there is no story, merely a collection of old characters to provide the dressing on a remake of 'The Empire Strikes Back.' It's not nearly as acute as Episode VII, there are only bits and pieces taken from 'Empire,' enough to see the glaring parallels, except that that film and its stablemates either side were strong in the way of story and character, and Disney's version isn't.

I can honestly say I'm glad I didn't patronise my local cinema to watch this one as I did with 'The Force Awakens' when there was still some hope, a small one, that they could pull off a new trilogy of films, when in fact they have become only the central tent-pole in a new Empire set to run and run. I wouldn't have been disappointed because I had no expectations after VII, I could see that I had changed to no longer be able to accept a new version of an old thing that I cared about, even with the trappings of the old thing. There are too many characters and the structure is not sound. I think they want to be 'The Lord of The Rings' which was an anomaly in being able to mount a play with so many characters (though even there, they cut some that had been in the book), and that had the inspiration of JRR Tolkien as a bedrock. The villains are a confused bunch and I must have Jedi ability to see into the future as I saw what was coming with Ben Solo, or Kylo Ren. There's a third film to wrap things up so he's not going to turn good yet (if at all), and taking out his master, Supreme Leader Snoke, as inventive as it was (though I thought Snoke would be back considering how dead he already looked!), was just the inevitable Sith way, as much as he wishes to be rid of Sith, Jedi, Rebellion and all, and start again as he claimed. I suppose it chimes with the relativistic times we live in where good and evil aren't 'supposed' to be that simple. But any theme like that doesn't really get exploration, the franchise isn't made to examine the big questions.

General Hux is a laughable parody of the traditional sneering English villain, so much so that I wondered if he was deliberately that parodical on purpose. How can you take seriously such a man? Snoke lessens in stature in more than just the apparent magnitude of his person, no more a giant than Yoda, though I will give them credit that his eyes looked very real so I don't know whether they used a mix of CGI and prosthetics to achieve the look. Yoda, too, in his brief jaunt to chat with Luke, looked indistinguishable from puppetry, which though sounding crude is actually high praise when so many creatures are now so 'real' yet false because we know they can't exist, that whenever real stuff is used it stands out. But he should have been luminous as we saw at the end of 'Jedi.' Only now we can't refer to 'Return of The Jedi' as merely Jedi without confusing it with this, 'The Last Jedi.' A minor annoyance I'll admit, but the film was pitted with such minor irritants. Except I really wasn't irritated because I just didn't care. And I was so detached from the story I found myself wondering if that was Laura Dern. I'm sure it's Laura Dern. At least… I think it's Laura Dern. Is it Laura…? It is Laura Dern! I like Laura Dern, she's been in some good films: 'October Sky,' 'Jurassic Park,' 'A Perfect World'… See what I mean, the mind wanders onto other things because this thing doesn't compel or captivate.

I must be passed it, it's the only thing I can come up with, except… I do still like films and have seen films I like recently so I know I still like them. I can't say there was nothing I liked in this film, it wasn't like I hated it, it offended me, or I was disgusted with it. It didn't provoke any real feeling at all, just came, passed across my eyes and went. I wouldn't even level the accusation at it that it was a mere action ride since there were plenty of scenes between characters, I just wasn't interested, in large part. I liked the graceful use of the Force by Leia to pull herself back inside after being sucked out in a blast that kills the command crew. I genuinely thought at first that she'd been killed off, perhaps her scenes in Episode IX would be flashbacks? It is hard to believe that a person could survive being pulled into the vacuum of space, but then the Force is strong with her and this is about the only time we've ever seen her use it (women weren't allowed to use lightsabers in the Eighties and now that Leia's old it wouldn't be seemly for her to be leaping about the place cutting swathes through the enemy - I suppose?). It was an unexpected moment of beauty in a bland film. I also liked her and Luke's meeting, despite the awkward contemporary dialogue about she's changed her hair which doesn't sound like the kind of thing they'd have said, there was real affection there. I liked seeing Mark Hamill as Luke and getting to be a Jedi in battle once again - he moved just the same, the same tossing of the head, whatever it was you could see the old Luke still in Hamill's movements!

I wanted Rey to fight Snoke's Imperial Guard, especially when she and Ren team up to take them out. There appears to be an unwritten rule (or maybe it is written), that all who use lightsabers in these new films shall remain grounded. Literally, you don't see Jedi jumping about, maybe the acrobatics were one of the things about the prequels they chose to dispense with, along with all-CGI characters in all-CGI environments, both choices I can get behind, though it wouldn't do any harm to occasionally allow one of your main heroes to pull off a leap or backflip (see Episode I for how to do it). I liked Luke doing his impression of Neo in the battle against Kylo Ren, even though it turned out to be a Force projection of himself that apparently so drains him that he has to die as a consequence. If he was going to go out I'd have preferred he was really there so he could have pulled an Obi-Wan, put up his 'saber, and vanished with dignity rather than falling off his rock back home on the island. And does this mean Kylo will be offing Leia in the third film, since he's taken out one of the original characters in each film so far? If they end up making more films (they won't), I should think Chewie, C-3PO and R2-D2 must watch their backs!

Talking of the ancillary characters, they really are background now. Gone are the days when the films were orchestrated around 3PO and R2, and sadly, this film follows on from Episode VII in making them redundant, so much that it wouldn't make a blind bit of difference if they hadn't been there at all. Comedy droid BB8 is what the cool kids want nowadays, but he, or it, can never replace R2, who was always the real hero of the saga. I noticed in the credits that he wasn't 'played' by Kenny Baker, so I guess he must have died before this film was made, sadly. I can see why they might have cut R2 out of the picture more in deference to the memory of Baker, but in a way it would have been a greater tribute to put R2 front and centre again, especially as the actor wasn't seen and it wasn't the same kind of performance as Anthony Daniels', whose unmistakeable voice is heard again. Even Chewbacca was played by someone else, maybe Peter Mayhew just wasn't up to it any more? At least Frank Oz is back once again to give us a good Yoda (my favourite character of the entire saga). He surprises a bit in his irreverence towards the Force, or at least the ancient tomes that Luke threatens to torch and he really does, but there's a lot of symmetry with his original appearance in 'Empire' in his joviality. Admiral Ackbar is also back and I believe the original actor recorded lines before he died at the grand age of ninety-something, although Ackbar is another that gets pulled into space, and not having Jedi powers, is gone for good.

John Williams' music can rarely be bettered, and nothing makes 'Star Wars' feel more like it should than this. But even in that case, the purity of the story isn't there so the purity of the themes becomes like wallpaper to a crazy, messy mashup. I cannot recall one theme that wasn't from the original trilogy. That may be because I've heard those original themes so many times they're embedded, but I can assure you that I will never reach a point where I've seen these films anywhere near as many times as those. They simply aren't appealing to me on any level, and even the key links to the originals have little effect because the overarching story and characters they're squashed in with means nothing to me. I really, honestly don't care if I never find out who Rey's parents are. It's not that I'm not curious, and clearly they're not going to be junk traders left in a pauper's grave as Kylo Ren tells her, it's just that it's no great mystery. She's clearly a Jedi and it's the story of the Skywalker's so she's probably a Skywalker, and if not, what does it matter? Just technical details: we know she's the Luke of this trilogy, we don't need to know more, but they're dangling it out there like a huge carrot to keep us guessing. They play with the idea that she and Ren could be siblings because of the fact that they can communicate, presumably through the Force, and we also see Luke and Leia do the same, so the parallels are there. Except that's a blind alley because Snoke reveals it was he pulling them together in that way. There's no romantic attachment between them as you might expect with teen characters, but it's not clear why they're drawn together unless it be Rey's destiny to pull Ren away from the Dark Side.

It's not like they're doing anything new, really. Although they didn't follow the structure as closely to 'Empire' as VII was to the original film, the elements are there: 'join me, and together…' says Ren, while Rey resists. At least they didn't have her shout "NNNOOOOOOOO!" like 'Star Trek Into Darkness' redid the end of 'The Wrath of Khan' in cardboard style. But she does go into a dark place just as Luke did during his training, and he's teaching her, only it's against the ways of the Jedi because he's lost his faith. I guess this is what people were getting so upset about - I heard bits and pieces and almost assumed Luke went over to the Dark Side somehow and maybe Rey would have to redeem him. But no, he was just disillusioned and somewhat selfish in his old age. When he died I wasn't moved at all. Partly because we know he'll show up as a Force ghost to provide assistance when needed, just as Yoda did here, but he already did that without being dead so he didn't need to peg it unless it was for some grand emotional moment. Yoda's death in 'Jedi,' sorry, 'Return of The,' is as powerful now as it ever was because those films were far better in the writing and even acting. Not that I have anything against the actors, but it's surprising how many teenagers fill out the cast and I'm not impressed by any of them, they're mere players on this stage. The only character outside of the old faithfuls that interested me was Benicio del Toro's counterfeit hacker whom they need to get aboard an enemy ship for some reason, though the quest to find a guy like him was really just an excuse for a sequence where the rich are beaten down for being extravagant, an action sequence straight out of a Disney cartoon, and the message of 'free the animals.'

Del Toro stood out because he was a real actor amongst, dare I say it, amateurs? It's harsh, but 'Star Wars' has never been known for its great acting roles. They built suitable characters for the actors out of mythical archetypes in the original trilogy, and it worked well. The prequels not so much, and the new ones likewise. I like Laura Dern, but I didn't understand the messaging her General Holdo character was representing. Were they trying to redress a balance from the old films that it was all men and no women? In which case are we supposed to be on her side or Poe Dameron's when he points out the weakness of her 'planning' and takes matters into his own hands? Are they making a critique of the Han Solo type character for a modern audience? Am I thinking too deeply about a film that is all surface and ephemeral? I couldn't help but notice that almost all the enemy were male (and mostly English in the traditional stereotype of American filmmaking), while a very high proportion of the goodie Rebellion was female. Another statement? I couldn't but reflect that one reason this film doesn't work as a good story (and I get that it's the middle film in a trilogy which is often a difficult path to tread, though 'Empire' managed it expertly), is that it has the appearance of one designed via marketing. Films are there to make money so you could say that all films are designed this way. Except they aren't. Creative vision is the most important aspect of a film, not ticking boxes or making sure there's a strong Asian character to appeal to the burgeoning Chinese market.

Not that it's bad to have an Asian character, just that she was put in that position to make 'X' amount of dollars, not because the story demanded it. Too many films are made this way, that the needs of a global market are put at the top of the tree, regardless of story. Why not make the majority of the cast Asian, that would make a statement! Because they're still steeped in the American mythology and way of making films. Mark Hamill is the top name, understandably since he was the star of the originals, but at the same time he is the pivot on which the story rests. He's not quite the Obi-Wan because the saga is the Skywalker story. Most of everything else around him is designed for its own purpose, not to serve that story. Maybe that's part of my lack of connection to these films? Not the makeup of the cast, but the use of them in which to tell a compelling story. They're stuck in both a 'Flash Gordon' pulpy fantasy universe, which is one of the things we love, while also trying to be contemporary and relevant, and perhaps those two styles don't mix well enough. Of course any of this would be irrelevant if the narrative held the interest. I genuinely felt bored in places, and that's partly because it may be that we've seen all that 'Star Wars' can do and now they're just remaking the same kind of action scenes as we'd seen long ago in a film series not far away. You can just pop in those original films and see them as often as you wish, you don't need to settle for marshmallows when you've got good, solid chocolate sitting on the shelf. They're both sweet, but one is more satisfying than the other.

It's all about creating a set-piece that we haven't seen in the series before, and they did a reasonable job with the salt flats battle, but it's not even slightly enthralling compared with the battle of Hoth. At first I though the rattling old ships they were using were discarded B-wings, but I think they were actually just mining rigs. The visual explosions of the red salt under the white surface was certainly different, but in the rest of it, it's the same old, same old, just inferior. Maybe new viewers who haven't yet seen the originals (though all children should see those first before they get any other 'Star Wars' indoctrination), will be impressed thanks to modern visual effects, and that's sad. Only because if you like something enough you want others to like it as much and see it in the place of esteem you hold it, another reminder of mortality perhaps that new things come along and supercede that which was so special and important at one time. It's also galling that things can be made that so closely match that thing from the past that it's merely an alteration or update in terms of developments of visual media, rather than the story, the method of storytelling essentially never having changed since story first came into being. When it's about technical advancement over anything else it's boring. The same could be said about the original 'Star Wars,' that its effects and sets, props and costumes were the big draw, just continuing a tradition going back decades in film, but that marriage of everything coming together at the right time is what has set its place in history. But each new generation will find its own things to be pleased with.

There are still films that impress and inspire me: 'Interstellar' is a prime example of the kind of film I hadn't really seen before, but the older you get, the harder it is to be satisfied with the tweaked sameness of a majority of films. I'm sure it's an age thing: if I'd seen this trilogy twenty years ago I'd have been all over it, lapping it up, but you grow jaded, it's life. So when things are celebrated so much and break money-making records it just adds to the disillusionment of modern cinema and my response to it. Of course they were going to make it for younger people, children and teens, because that's the market where they can make most money and 'Wars' has always appealed to youth, whether it be the actual young or those recapturing their childhood experience again. It just isn't for me, it's not universal, but it is connected to something that was for me and did appeal so it's a strange place to be in. Even the filmmaking way is different, I didn't notice the familiar cuts and dissolves, and they were a part of the technical structure of older films, to be sure - it's like in Episode II when they started throwing in zooms and jump cuts in the battle sequences because they could. It's not wrong, just uncomfortable. Or the swearing that's been introduced. It's only for the modern audience, not important or necessary (they could even have made up alien swearwords if they'd wanted to get the essence of such a moment without actually resorting to the words). I wonder why they did that?

I wonder at a lot of things, like the diverse ecology of such a small island as the one Luke lives on, but I'm not going to go through and nitpick all the niggles here and there, I don't have the energy or inclination, something that a film that enthused me would have been subject to simply because I wanted to think about it and reason out any oddities. I'm surprised I had as much to say about the film as I have, considering that at the time it didn't make me think, didn't engage with me, and didn't bring me along. But now that I think of it, why is the Millennium Falcon even in there? Without Han, Chewie isn't really a character, just a large bear creature reduced to being a pilot and shuttling Rey around. There's not a good balance in the cast, they don't seem like a little band of hopeful adventurers, only pawns in a marketing strategy to fill in time until the conclusion. The most excitement I felt was looking through the credits and seeing Togo Igawa, Paul Bazely and Ralph Ineson were in small roles, all of them guest stars in an old TV series I loved, called 'BUGS.' Old is the word when that's the only thing to create interest. Too old to learn the ways of the Force, I am. Anticipate Episode IX I do not. So why give two stars I do, after all said I have, and my minimum rating of one star appropriate would seem? Because still nice it is those old actors to see, and a time of enjoyment remember.

**