Solid Episode 3.9: an extra brick in the SW edifice

Rating: 7/10 (9 January 2017)

After all, it is not so complex to make a good action movie.
DON'TS. No Jar-Jar Binks. No ridiculous Ewoks. No Muppet Show, as in Jabba's lair at the beginning of Episode 6. Don't cast the worst actor of the galaxy in the main role, as in Episodes 2 and 3. Don't uselessly plagiarise previous Episodes, as Episode 7. No gratuitous and/or inflated action. No awkward situations. No idiotic dialogues. No blabbering about the Force. No pseudo-Freudian heaviness about being one's father, about killing one's father, about finding one's path.
DO'S. Keep it simple, at last. Build a solid plot without inconsistencies. Maintain pacing, alternating fast and slow scenes. Justify action scenes with coherent reasons. Edit effectively. Insert funny dialogues. Cast talented actors (Mads Mikkelsen, Forest Whitaker, Diego Luna, Ben Mendelsohn, etc.). Use efficient special effects for a valid point. Show gorgeous landscapes. Pay attention to details (examples: the broken glass falling into the vault highlights how imposing the place is; when Darth Vador emerges from darkness with his lightsaber at the end, the effect is striking). Renew the soundtrack and only hint at standard SW themes instead of recycling them throughout (although this can feel underwhelming for real fans). Resurrect late actors with CGI (Peter Cushing, Carrie Fisher), even though the result is not entirely satisfying. Have a mixed ending, where the mission is fulfilled but at the cost of many casualties.
Also, solve Episode 4 flaws. I have been wondering for almost 40 years: why the heck did the mighty Empire allow such a dangerous weakness in the powerful Death Star, which they built with great care? And how did the Rebels manage to get the secret plans? Now we know. "Rogue One" convincingly links with Episode 4: it purposefully stages situations and characters of the latter; it probably ends a few minutes or hours before Darth Vador jumps into an Imperial spaceship to chase Princess Leia who just flew away (regarding this, it would have been even better to see R2-D2 in her ship, in order to fully reconcile with the beginning of Episode 4, when she gives the plans to the droid). Nonetheless, the movie is more than just a spin-off: it is a full-blown Episode per se, with a developed story, credible new characters and real qualities. References to Episode 4 are not invasive: there is a fair balance between connection to the saga and autonomy.
WHAT IS MISSING? The movie is not very original, it feels rather formatted; but then is it possible to completely overhaul a franchise that already has 7 episodes? There is not much character depth; actually the most touching role is K-2SO and we almost feel sorry when he goes down. Apart from Chirrut's fighting skills, action scenes are standard. Some emotional scenes are a bit silly, although they are limited. This is why I can only rate the movie 7/10. Good, but not amazing.
STILL "Rogue One" is for me the best of the franchise to date. Here, I have to confess I am not a huge SW fan (sincere apologies to the real fans, the Force is not given to everybody). Second best would be Episode 4: pleasant, not too serious, sets a mythology, however the style and special effects are dated. Third best would be Episode 5: truly great scenes, yet there is too much talk about the Force and Darth Vader's revelation he is Luke's father falls flat (sorry, fans). Then Episodes 2 and 3: some good scenes but mostly over the top. Episodes 1, 6 and 7 have already fallen into oblivion.
-----
"Rogue One" reviews are very contrasting. Some fans find it great, others feel cheated, which I can understand: the movie is not overwhelming and does not renew the saga. Yet it is entertaining, no-nonsense and visually impressive.
Indeed, appreciating action movies is very subjective because the border is thin between good and terrible. There is a subtle balance to find in dialogues, pacing, action, emotions and music: too much or too little of an ingredient, and it flops. Also, impeccable acting is paramount: the same role can feel awesome or awful depending on who plays it. For instance in "Rogue One", Chirrut and Baze are credible, individually and as a pair; however with less good actors they would just have been laughable. Likewise, the same dialogue can feel right or inane depending on how it is said (for instance between Galen and Orson or when Jyn and Saw meet again). Hence appreciation can easily fluctuate from one side to the opposite.
The main reason for this volatility is that action movies essentially rely on form with limited content, and form alone is always on the edge since it cannot be compensated by interesting substance. To me "Rogue One" passes the test, to an extent.