Moments of brilliance hidden within a weak narrative

Rating: 8/10 (18 December 2016)

At the time of writing this review, only 11% of IMDb voters have awarded "Rogue One" a 7/10, which places me in a minority of people who liked this film but didn't love it. As you'll see in my following comments, my thoughts on this title are divided between my disappointment in many of its narrative aspects, and my considerable praise for its technical performance.
Gareth Edwards' "Rogue One" is the first standalone live-action feature film in the "Star Wars" series. It sets a precedent, and does so with occasional bravery, but offers a sluggish first half-hour. I think it's the slowest start since "The Phantom Menace", although the early subject matter is far more engaging (unless you have a passion for trade disputes). The scenes involving two of the film's greatest talents - Mads Mikkelsen and Forest Whitaker - are a bit of a let-down, although the former actor's character, Galen Erso, is the focus of one of the film's best scenes (which occurs about 45 minutes in). Whilst the film does have moments of brilliance, the bulk of 'Rogue One' does little to excite the imagination or evoke any significant emotion.
I'd wager that most of the main characters in band-of-rogues films like "Suicide Squad" and "Guardians of the Galaxy" have their own fan-bases and have inspired a substantial body of art, "fan-fic" and merchandise. I struggle to imagine Baze Malbus enjoying such popular success, and I'll explain why. We aren't really given a reason to care for most of the members of Rogue One. Cassian Andor and Bodhi Rook (the two most unremarkable characters) are certainly on the right side, and I knew as I watched "Rogue One" that I should have been rooting for them. But I wasn't. I was never driven to invest in these characters, and so the film's pervading theme of sacrifice doesn't hit home. I'd even say that some of the characters are quite forgettable - including our protagonist, Jyn Erso. I don't blame the actors for this - their performances are rather good - but a standalone title demands sharper writing than a series of films, as we have only a fraction of the time to learn and love the heroes. The members of Rogue One had the potential to be interesting. Unfortunately, they all seem to climb aboard the Rebellion with nothing more to say than, "I hate the Empire, too." That might work for a twenty-minute episode of "Star Wars Rebels," but not for a film which exceeds all of the Original Trilogy titles in length.
Perhaps the most problematic character in "Rogue One" - at least, from a storytelling perspective - is Orson Krennic, the high-ranking Imperial officer who is tasked with the elimination of the rebels. Several times throughout the film, Krennic is either undermined or threatened by Grand Moff Tarkin and Darth Vader. Certain scenes, and Krennic's failure to really rise above them, prevent him from seeming like a primary antagonist. Despite enjoying far more screen-time than his fellow Imperials, he always seems secondary or even peripheral. A galaxy capable of producing figures like General Grievous, Darth Maul and even Kylo Ren will inevitably find difficulty in trying to make us fear an intelligence officer carrying a pistol.
(Most of) my criticisms aside, here's what I liked about the film.
"Star Wars" is more a visual experience than a narrative one for some people - after all, the AT-ATs from "The Empire Strikes Back" are almost as iconic as the "I am your father" line. You may be wondering why, in light of all my complaints, I have still rated this film 7/10. The answer largely lies in the visuals and the technical excellence of Gareth Edwards' crew. Photorealistic animation is used throughout the film to bring back Peter Cushing's Tarkin. (This effect is also used for another familiar character in a very brief appearance.) The effect is handled brilliantly, and the implications of this success are very interesting to think about.
Another technical aspect of the film which won my amazement is the vastly improved space visuals, which are particularly noticeable during hyperspace sequences. If a standalone film about starfighter pilots is ever developed, these are the people I want to see working on it.
The "Star Wars" films have given us some fantastic landscapes and locations, from the dunes and settlements of Tatooine to the swamps of Dagobah and the forests of Endor. I was disappointed by the failure of "Rogue One" to replicate earlier films' (including the prequels) success in this area, as I felt that Scarif and Eadu - two of the main settings of the film - were significantly less imaginative. Or perhaps the problem is that the camera doesn't leave our heroes' side long enough for the splendour of these new planets to leave an impression on the viewer. (On the other hand, directing attention away from the characters may have exacerbated the issues I pointed out regarding the narrative.)
It seems fitting that as I reach the end of my review, I am going to give comment on the ending of the film. Whilst I'll uphold my earlier promise of no spoilers, I'll share this: it is the greatest ending since "Return of the Jedi," and the most exhilarating conclusion of any "Star Wars" film. If the preceding two hours were executed with such boldness, this could have been the greatest entry in the series. As it stands, 'Rogue One' is a work of technical excellence, but suffers from an absence of character development and a lumbering first act.