My Star Wars VII-IX Abstinence and Why

Today saw the release of the first trailer – the teaser, as they say – for Star Wars Episode VII The Force Awakens. The internet has nearly broken with all the excitement. Social networking is ablaze with word of mouth regarding the footage. The few comments I’ve read from trusted friends are positive ones.

But I’m not watching it.

And I’m sure I’m not the only one.

So, alas, here is my two penneth on the matter as a form of self-help therapy to help me get through what I’m guessing will be a very tough year for me. Yes, there’s still a whole year left till Episode VII is released, which is partially why I’m also trying not to get too excited about this trailer. They’ve just finished shooting the thing!

So what’s possibly on show in this trailer that I’m trying to avoid? I remember that the teaser for J J Abrams’ 2009 Star Trek film featured footage that didn’t end up being in the final film. It was shot just for the trailer, apparently. Oh. Erm. Thanks? So is this the same situation? That there’s nothing actually ready to show us yet but here’s something they made earlier?

I’m guessing not. People seem genuinely impressed and I put that down to there being actual footage from the film in there. No gimmicks.

But let’s get down to the real reason why I’m not watching it and why I’ll be keeping a low profile until the sequel trilogy is out on DVD (Blu-ray makes me nauseous for some reason).

Yes, it’s because I’m still embarrassed by how bad the prequels were. Personally embarrassed. I was so excited when they came out and went to each one at the cinema, each time talking myself into believing they were good and that any negative feelings I had was just because of all the hype. The teaser for The Phantom Menace kind of snuck up on me. There it was on the television one day. I think that’s when I got more into movie rumour websites, in particular an early incarnation of Corona’s Coming Attractions ran by Patrick Sauriol.

I remember thinking: “Wow, a new Star Wars film! Where did that come from?!” From then on I wasn’t to be left in the dark. I waited every week for each new “Snapshot” from the set of Attack Of The Clones and mulled over the leaked storyboards from the fight between Obi-Wan Kenobi and Jango Fett.

But by the time the “Hyperspace” section of the official Star Wars website opened up and started charging fans to view promotional content my weary, fading belief in the Star Wars universe was starting to show. I just wasn’t prepared to fork out cash for new information regarding the Star Wars prequels. Something wasn’t quite right with The Phantom Menace and Attack Of The Clones (and eventually Revenge Of The Sith) but it wouldn’t be until RedLetterMedia released their feature length, rational and heavily analytical reviews of the prequel trilogy that I would be able to sum up exactly what it was.

They were bad films.

They were lazy films.

And they had nothing to do with Star Wars.

Ok, they had Star Wars nouns and imagery everywhere but the feeling wasn't right. Even though parts IV-VI were dealt with by different directors and had their own unique looks, there was still a consistency and a very particular, realistic style. This was not carried over to the prequels. What made Star Wars, erm, "Star Wars" was more than just in the names and the lightsabers.

But what is Star Wars to me? When I ask myself that question whenever I post a comment about it in one internet location or another I realise: not much beyond flim appreciation. I’m actually more interested in the Alien universe or Middle-earth. These are the “happy places” I retreat to when I want to geek out.

To me Star Wars are simply three great films from the late 70s and early 80s that can never be repeated. The first one had a strong human story and striking visual effects that rose above its low budget. The second was a perfect balance of great story, great special effects and great filmmaking. The third had great special effects, set pieces, music and a genuinely satisfying conclusion, but began to exhibit Lucasfilm's laziness with a weak script, half-baked ideas (another Death Star, really?) and what appears to be the use of cheap film stock that creates flat, dull, cardboard-looking cinematography.

Apart from “bad” and “lazy” I really can’t think of how to correctly describe the prequels. They’re “things”. Not really films, not really cartoons, not really TV movies, not really straight-to-video lumps of coal. They’re just showreels for a group of young computer visual effects artists who have, I assume, gone on to do much better things.

To me the backstory to Star Wars, The Empire Strikes Back and Return Of The Jedi has yet to be told. George Lucas’ prequels were mistakes. Who was to blame? He was, mainly. But I’m tempted to accuse three men: Lucas,  producer Rick McCallum who clearly told him to just sit back and let everybody else do the hard work for him and editor Ben Burtt for accepting the job of cutting the films even though he had no skill in film editing whatsoever. Had there been a better editor on board the prequals would have been at the very least watchable. They’d still be terrible, but they’d be watchable.

Oh how we lower our sights.

I was excited at first to hear that Lucas had sold it all to Disney. How can anyone do a worse job than him? Well, they can’t. Nobody can. Even Paul W S Anderson would still produce a well crafted, professional looking film, it’d just be the script and everything else that would be diabolical. My only concern about Abrams directing Episode VII is how over-the-top his visual style is. Star Trek and Star Trek Into Darkness were, to use the parlance of our time, clusterfucks. Star Trek was fascinating to watch just for the novelty of what Abrams was brave enough to do. It was also packed with interesting visual ideas but, I’m afraid, very confusing action sequences. Into Darkness felt a little more toned down and moderately paced but the intelligence level had dropped to that of a moss covered rock in the back garden. It’s fun – it just ain’t no Star Trek.

Well, apparently Abrams is only directing Episode VII and has left VIII and IX to Looper’s Rian Johnson. I’ve not seen Looper yet but I’ve heard nothing but good things and the footage I’ve seen in previews looks pretty solid. I’m guessing he’s a good choice.

So with still a year left to go until The Force Awakens is released I’m not sure what I’ll get from watching this teaser trailer other than sleepless nights. I watched The Phantom Menace teaser back in, what, 98/99? and thought “WOW!!!”. It turned out I was a naïve fool and Lucas, McCallum and Burtt ended up not only producing something underwhelming but downright heartbreakingly poor.

Star Wars Episode VII The Force Awakens won’t be bad, I have at least that much faith in the new hands it’s in. I just want to experience this trilogy like I experienced Episodes IV-VI, which was after they came out on video with the eyes of someone who has little expectation or hope at all, because that hope was broken a decade ago.

We shall see…

In Bruges - film review

In Bruges feels like it belongs in the mid-to-late 1990s during the Tarantino hysteria that followed Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction, but thank goodness it doesn't and is instead a child of 2008. Not only would it have been lost in that 90s hurricane* of mediocrity, it also probably wouldn't have been quite as good.

 

I think I was fifteen years old when cool, smart-talking hitmen were all the rage and it annoyed me even back then. Surely I was the target audience for that kind of film but I just wasn't, probably because most of the other kids who were into that sort of film were so detestable and infantile that I found it so much easier just being into, well, literally anything else.

 

I'm sure the teenagers of today will be saying the same thing about zombie films in twenty years time.

 

But if there were a film from that era (or just after it) that kept coming to mind while watching In Bruges I'd say it was the similarly wonderful Grosse Point Blank which, too, was a low budget diamond in the rough that mixed comedy with the redemption of a likeable but haunted hitman.

 

The extremes that In Bruges made me feel took me very much by surprise. I wasn't expecting to laugh so much and I certainly wasn't expecting to cry so much, to the point where I found it incredibly hard to hold back my tears during a devastatingly emotional scene between Colin Farrell and Brendan Gleeson on a park bench.

 

It also made an interesting point (whether it meant to or not) about depression and suicide. Being someone who has suffered from depression since his early teens and has been taking antidepressants on and off since 1999, I identified strongly with a set of characters whose lives have become overly complicated and who have made choices in life that perhaps aren't right for them.

 

Sometimes you can't see the terrible mistakes you've made until you're climbing back out, but when you're down there, in the hole you've dug for yourself with apparently no ladder to climb back out, it's tempting and seemingly only logical just to lie there and wait for death.

 

But life is full of ladders, as Brendan Gleeson states at one point. Well, not in those words, per se, but basically the message is that if you happen to find yourself trapped in life just remember: you can do ANYTHING. There are hundreds of people out there that will try to tell you what you can't do (and they're often people sending you bills in the post), but what do they know? Do what you want to do to be happy and sort out the paperwork afterwards... sometimes you've just got to make a mess and say "sorry" instead of sitting around saying "please" as your life slowly ticks away.

 

I've probably overcomplicated the message intended there but, well, that's what I got from it anyway.

 

Getting back on track though, the film is largely an actors' paradise with a rightly lauded performance from Colin Farrell who puts his usual coiled energy to comedic good use; Brendan Gleeson is tender but stern and lends the film a warmth that surely would have been absent without him; and Ralph Fiennes drops his usual erudite facade in favour of vile cockney brashness that is delightful in it's ugliness.

 

But with any film that clearly has to end with either redemption, justice, death or all three, the final reel will ultimately be its toughest mountain to climb and I'd be a terrible liar if I said In Bruges gets all the way to the summit.

 

But it gets very close.

 

Actually, the main problem is that the film doesn't seem to know how to end and so just keeps going and going until, like its main characters, it's simply out of puff. This is a minor complaint though and in fairness it's a fine ending - it's just not the most unique one and perhaps even a little convoluted and implausible.

 

But there you go.

 

So, to sum up, In Bruges is smart, funny, heartfelt and debauched in all the right places. It's also a great advert for its titular Belgian city but not so much for pissing off Ralph Fiennes.

 

It's also basically Father Ted with hitmen instead of priests.

 

*shitstorm