Rogue One Rogue One Reviews/Reactions thread

I have had the benefit of watching this a couple more times now it is on general home release, and I have to say, it is right up there with TESB for me. What is amazing is how it feels even more "Star Wars-ey" than Star Wars (A New Hope) the film it immediately precedes story wise. My favourite character is Cassian Andor without a shadow of a doubt. He is ruthless, desperate and driven and one of the most rounded characters the franchise has produced in my opinion. He has a real grit about him. I don't think it is a coincidence either that Edwards and Disney cast a South American to be this "revolutionary" type character. He's badass. Awesome.

K-2SO is like the anti-C-3PO, with all the politeness but none of the tact, and really is superb. Andor's relationship with him is reminiscent of the way Han Solo shows contempt for C-3PO, only K2 seems to give as good back.

I can't help feel that Disney gambled a hell of a lot on such a bleak (yet courageous, hopeful and exciting) story for the first of their "...Star Wars Stories" but I for one am grateful that they did, because I think they and Edwards have created one of the best installments. It does the movie an injustice to think of it as a "spin off" because it is Episode 3.5 as far as I'm concerned.

A self-contained Star Wars story with real heart and emotion.

More of the same please.

 

Oh, and after the terrible "midichlorians" thing prevalent in the prequels, getting back to "the Force" as a quasi-spiritual / religious concept again and only showing its true, terrible power at the end with Vader was something of a masterstroke.

 

Yeah I gave it another watch at home today and even without the big screen I think it does hold up very well indeed, the odd moment I'm less of a fan of(Jyns speech to the Rebel council) but repeat viewings definitely add to the depth of the film rather than your typical modern blockbuster that's generally aimed for one viewing.

I would definitely agree with Cassian as the most effective character and IMHO the best SW character since the OT having both depth and personality. Indeed the film generally to me feels VERY close to ESB in its general tone, far closer to the OT than TFA does for me, that film feels more like a modern more over the top action blockbuster wearing SW clothes. There is charm and humour there, just not the winking meta humour and over the top personalties we see more often these days.

It feels so good to see a film that actually takes itself seriously, watching Abrams for me feels like sitting next to someone who constantly has to crack jokes to disfuse any dramatic tension in what your watching. People would do well to remember that franchises like SW and Trek built themselves on serious films.

Disney being awake to this does send a very positive signal for the future of the franchise for me and I think Edwards has opened up a potentially almost limitless window for similar kinds of stories showing they can work.

 

The thing that gets me is that he acts like Rogue One can't be understood without massive amounts of external literature, while that was one of the prime problems of TFA, which he gives a pass.

As for the characters, he's obviously unfamiliar with War movies. You're never given detailed backstories for each member of an army squad. In fact, RO probably gave more info on most of their characters, than most actual war pictures do.

 

Most critiques (and not just of Rogue One) that talk about "backstories" and "arcs" are pseudo-intellectual nonsense. I honestly wonder if modern audiences are just lazy (or maybe they don't pay attention during films).... I see so many complaints about things not being clear/explained/fleshed out in movies in various reviews where it simply wasn't the case if you were paying attention.

 

I've been a fan of stuckmanns critiques for quite some time, but the past four months has shown him lose his grip on characters and what makes them work. His tear down of King: Skull Island for not having a good emotional resonance for all its characters was bafflingly stupid. With Rogue One his deconstruction becomes even dumber. He complains about expository dialogue being the basis for the Rogue teams development, but literally what else is there? How else are we supposed to know how long Cassian has been in the fight? Should we instead have 45 minutes of Cassian from age 6- age 26? Do we have a ten minute scene of them capturing and reprogramming K2? Do we need a side film of Saw Gerrara and Jyn chilling, and then not being cool with each other? Do we need a documentary on bodhi Rooks mother to learn where he got a conscience?

There's positive critique, then there's blind nit picking for the sake of it. He says we learn and know so little about these characters, but to be honest, after having watched the film again today, and comparing it with other Star Wars films... they get the same amount of development as anyone else. How well do we REALLY know Han and Luke in the OT? Not actually that well. We see them over come problems, but do we know why Han became a smuggler? Do we know why Chewie hangs with him in ANH? No. Does that matter anyways in context of the film? No. The same can be applied to the other characters.

We hear Baze lost a lot of his faith in the force. Do we need to know why? No.

Jyn wakes up in a prison. After the time jump. We learn that Saw abandoned her at 16, and ever since she's been fighting the imperials herself. Do we need to know what she did to end up in that prison? No.

Cassian has done stuff he regrets for the rebellion. Do we need to know in detail how he's assassinated people? No.

Bodhi had a change of heart about the Empire. Do we need to see what made him change his mind? No.

Chirrut is blind. Do we need to know how he cooks dinner? Yes. Someone write a book about it please.

I mean honestly, in context of the story what do you really NEED to know that the film doesn't provide? There are other issues to criticize the film for. The characters? Not really necessary.

 

More specifically in terms of character motivations/depth I think he gave TFA a massive pass. Yeah it introduces some early motivation for Rey and Finn but the problem is he really doesn't follow up with this, we really don't know what Rey thinks about Luke, The Force, etc which is really what he plot is about. The film is really oppoertaing on a level were Rey isn't so much an independent character as an empty vessel for the audiences nostalgia.

That makes RLM's rating about nostalgia in Rogue One all the more hypocritical for me, spending several minutes chating "AT-ST! AT-ST!" when the machine appears for what 10 seconds or less in the background? To me theres a big difference between looking to recreate the setting of the OT and taking individual elements from it and throwing them in the audiences face for nostalgia which I think TFA did a hell of a lot more with the things like the Falcon and X-wings.

Again I think the problem is these people have basically built there careers on claiming a style of filmmaking along the lines of TFA is the way Starwars(or indeed any mainstream action blockbuster) should be done, ABrams film was the fulfilment of there viewpoint and Rogue One as an alternative to that is simply unacceptable to them. Even if you enjoyed the style of TFA this seems like a pretty narrow view to take.

 

I think it's cool that the Rogue One crew had to rebel from the Rebel Alliance to get them involved in the Scariff conflict in the first place.

 

The force wasn't one bit different in any of the movies. I have no idea why some people can't seem to understand that. At no point was the force anything but a mystical energy-field. The only thing that was mentioned in the prequels, was an explanation of how people connect to it, an explanation that already existed in the original movies, even if it wasn't spelled out directly. Luke and Leia being powerful because of being Anakin's kids is already proof that there is a biological component to it. If heritage didn't matter, neither Luke nor Leia would have ever been a threat to the Emperor. That obviously cannot be the case, because Obi Wan clearly states how the Emperor knew that Anakin having offspring would be dangerous to him.

The midichlorians are not the force, they have never been the force, they do not de-mystify the force. and there isn't anything terrible about them. They are what you get when you take what has been mentioned in the OT to its logical conclusion. A means as to why some people are powerful in the force while others aren't, even though everything is connected by the force. If there was nothing that differentiates people, Obi Wan and Yoda could happily have trained hundreds of new Jedi in the meantime, without any need of waiting for Luke.

It wasn't like the prequels made a huge deal about them either. On the contrary, its the ones who hate on them who make a big deal out of them. All they existed for in TPM (and only TPM) was to give a palpable explanation of why Anakin is so special. That's it. The force was still very much a spiritual concept in the prequels.

 

I disagree, hence my opinion. I realise that the nature of "The Force" as a concept did not change, but the explanation of who can use it was narrowed and made less accessible to audiences who had appreciated it for years, by giving a biological explanation. That was a mistake (in my opinion)

The reason why the idea of The Force and Use the Force caught on in popular culture is because, to an audience, the concept is something they can buy into, that "they too, the audience" only had to believe. That is nonsense of course, as the idea is fictional, but that is still a powerful and engaging story motif for fans, audiences, marketing, everything.

The idea that anybody could "learn the ways of the Force and become a Jedi..." was also a powerful storytelling tool, and as old a story angle as can be, that no matter who you are, or how lowly your status, if you put your mind to it and "believe" then you can learn skills and become a great hero and save the galaxy etc etc

It was the fact that Luke was Vader's son from the simple angle of familial love, I think, that made the Emperor see them as a threat to his apprentice, not the biological aspect, which is again a story element that audiences can relate to.

One of the most powerful lines in the OT was the now classic exchange on Dagobah, when Luke says "I don't believe it" to which Yoda replies "That, is why you fail"
Imagine if he had replied, "Low, your midichlorian count may be!" - as if he was some kind of diabetic, what a load of **** that would have been.

The familial elements of the Skywalkers and their use of the Force did not require further explanation, and it is often a better story mechanism that these things remain open and vague, and mystical, leaving the viewer to fill in the blanks with their imagination. Getting into biological explanations did demistify it, because it attributes a "scientific" explanation to an otherwise metaphysical, spiritual and religious concept within the realms of that universe.

The prequels themselves actually epitomise the notion that revelation is sometimes less than imagination, because I bet every single user of this forum, including me, and fans around the world had imagined their own version of Anakin Skywalker, the Clone Wars, and his relationship with Obi-Wan Kenobi prior to the prequels from the brief snippets of insight given from dialogue in the OT.

 

Below is my Spoiler review for Rogue One. I adored this movie, I admit it was not perfect hence why I did not give it the perfect score, but it was still a pretty damn good movie!

 

The key issue for me is what Bob mentioned in his first post with the force being a "quasi-spiritual / religious concept". The OT did make it clear that certain people were strong with the force but was happy to leave the mechanics as unknown and mystical where as Midichlorians for many people brought the force too down to earth which I think went hand in hand with the Jedi as a whole coming down to earth. The Jedi as almost an arm of the republic government based in a big official building is not the image I had of them from the OT at all.

I would add as well that in the OT the Force seemed like it was a much more active player, it wasn't simply the key to a series of special abilities but actually driving events to some degree. The scenes at the end of ROTJ especially for me give the impression were seeing a direct conflict between the light and dark side of the force with the Emperor and Vader working for the latter as much as themselves. The idea that even Luke killing them both would not be a victory if he falls to the darkside whilst doing so.

 

I agree. There is a really cool bit in Rogue One when they get to Jedha city and witness Chirrut do his Kung-fu thing, and Cassian inquires tentatively "...Jedi?"

It's really subtle but it conveys the idea that the Jedi had a mystique about them but were grounded, that Andor had heard about Jedi but wasn't sure if he was seeing one in action, that they weren't thought to be these colourful, larger than life superheroes bounding around shooting lightning out of their hands but just monk-like warriors. I loved that, it really brought the Jedi mythos back to where I thought it was best portrayed.

 

The obvious comparison of course is Gandalf in Tolkiens Middle Earth stories, Obi Wan had a good deal of the Grey Pilrgrim in him(didn't Lucas tell him to play the character like Gandalf?) and I think its easy to take that as a view of the Jedi as a whole. Basically less politicals/police and more wandering sages "helping people to help themselves" with subtle manovering.

One(I'd guess unintentional?) irony for me was that the Jedi temple actually looks more than a little like Orthanc with its 4 pronged towers and went rather hand in hand with the PT Jedi seeming less like Gandalf and more like Saruman, not wandering sages gently guiding but much more actively wielding political power from a grand seat.

 

Yes, that's how they would have been best portrayed. Small, subtle suggestions and tricks to influence people. Qui-Gon's dice cheat in TPM was very typical of how I expect the Jedi to be. Less overt, and more nuanced behaviour.

It didn't sit right with me either that they were in this opulent temple in the heart of the capital. I envisaged a Jedi temple to be remote and ancient, maybe like the temple the rebels use on Yavin 4

 

Just saw it for the first time. I skipped it in theaters because I didn't love TFA and I just didn't feel excited about Rogue One. 6 minutes in and I liked it better than TFA! By the end I was kicking myself for not seeing it in theaters. It made me want to watch the OT again (and I know I will). I am hopeful again. I certainly won't make the same mistake with The Last Jedi. 8/10 for Rogue One.

 

I think it is a much better film than The Force Awakens. Better dialogue, better characters, better aesthetic, everything.

 

I re-watched Rogue One on Blu-ray last night. I do wonder if in addition to bridging Episode 3 and 4, if it was also made to introduce ideas that'll play out in The Last Jedi and beyond; Journal of the Whills, non-Jedi / Sith force users etc...

 

I think what I liked most about Rogue One was that it felt like an EU novel come to life. Its an in between story, its a little grittier and harsher than we typically get from the movies, and even right down to the anagram sounding names.

I never thought we'd get a Star Wars movie quite like it, so it was a pretty neat experience.

 

And Vader's castle.

 

Honestly I could potentially see it being more of a setup for TLJ than TFA was in terms of themes/depth. The latter obviously introduced new characters and the setting but really I don't think devolped much depth to them to carry forward into TLJ, Rey, Finn and Kylo at the moment aren't much more than simple archetypes with a tiny bit of history and how they relate to the story TLJ is going to be almost entirely down to how that film develops them, the same with the setting.

Meanwhile the idea of the force as a wider more mystical religion seem like it is very likely to feed into TLJ as well as the idea of the history of the Jedi and indeed potentially moving beyond the Jedi/Sith confines of the force.

 

I agree and I really like TFA... but RO was just better. Then again RO was IMO better than most of the SW films I've seen

 

After several viewings on Blu-ray, I reaffirm that the story arc climax while the soundtrack Your Father Would Be Proud is playing is a powerful and emotional ending, perhaps one of the best ever. It's perfect.

And then after that rollercoaster...we all know what happens and how close their sacrifice was to being for nothing...

 

If by "external literature" he means material from the books and other extended media, I don't understand that, as I understood what was going on just fine without having read anything specifically pertaining to the movie. I have no idea where this idea that characters need to have massive, detailed backstories where every single event that shaped them is spelled out in detail when more often than not, movies just don't have enough time to provide that.

I have a friend who didn't liked the film and b*****d about "fan service" it had, and even pointed out the AT-ST as being an example of it. In this case, it just comes off as petty because IMO, it comes off as a natural extension of the world, as do Vader, Tarkin, Bail Ogana, and Mon Mothma's appearances, heck, most of the stuff that people complain about that they deem as "fan service".