The Best Star Wars since the Original Trio

Rating: 6/10 (24 December 2016)

"Star Wars" (1977) had three winsome characters. A farm boy who wanted to go do something exciting, but whose sense of duty held him back. A smuggler who struggled to hide his heart of gold even from himself (but who shot first, MISTER LUCAS!). And a Princess leading a rebellion against an evil empire of faceless bureaucrats that has, probably by high taxes and "reinvestment" schemes, created a weapon as large as a moon with the ability to destroying an entire planet. Both the guys are intensely likable with 1970s "CHiPs" looks.Both are reluctant travelers who ultimately make the choice of their own free will but who originally are forced out of their lifestyles, one on the run from the Empire, the other from an enormous slug. "Star Wars" also had the sense to feature one of film's greatest actors (Alec Guinness) and one who is iconic (Peter Cushing).
But Lucas' original world is simply good vs. evil. While the Empire contains evil (the dark side of "the force") it certainly had functionaries just doing their job to keep their family in food and shoe leather.
"Star Wars" led to two increasingly complex flicks ("Empire" and "Jedi") that were fun even in their darker moments.
Then came three boring sequel/prequels, and "the force" turned out to be a genetic thing making the Jedi a bunch of elitist, self-righteous prigs. And we learned George Lucas forgot how to tell a story and was really more interesting with tinkering with F/X. But at long last, the "SW" franchise was farmed out to people who can spin a tale.
Unfortunately, "Rogue One" lacks the charm of the original, though it inhabits the same time-frame. Though in the galaxy time is meaningless (do "Star Wars" and "Rogue One" occur over weeks, or all in one day?)
The Good: We're all weary of Lucas' "theme planets" and "Rogue's" more complex worlds are conveniently labeled as the characters arrive. The F/X are, naturally, superb. The areal shots are wonderful; I have no fear of heights but I had my stomach knocked out of me a few times. And through F/X, we are able to resurrect the dead Peter Cushing. I'm a jaded moving watcher but when Grand Moff Tarken turned around I said, WOW!
The main robot isn't as cutesy as C3P0 and R2D2 but he has some of the best lines. Not that we attend a Star Wars movie for intelligent dialogue. And a good thing. Alec Guinness hated the nonsense he spouted and for good reason. No one in the galaxy talks any sense. They say just enough to explain what the action scenes are all about.
The Questionable: If the original "Star Wars" heroes looked a little too clean and blow-dried, these new ones are forever grimy. Say, don't expensive spaceships have wash rooms? And they are also darker people. The only winsome thing is Felicity Jones' front teeth. We've gone from Lucas' ridiculous "good v. bad" to such a silly sense of moral relativism one wonders whether the Empire is really any worse than the dingy crew of malcontents who look like they joined a rebellion not out of sense of duty (as with Luke) or in a philosophical difference with the Empire, but just so they could blow up things.
The Best: "Star Wars" was undeniably the most influential movie ever made, but it had lots of plot holes. "Rogue One" cleverly caulks those holes (how come a bunch of Empire smarties built a Death Star that could be blown up so easily by a bunch of barnstorming yahoos?).
The Worst: "Rogue One" is the best "SW" movie after "Jedi" but one has the feeling it exists solely as a hole-patching device. Unlike Luke, Han, Leia, Obi-Wan, etc. one never gets the sense that these characters ever existed before "Rogue One" nor do they have dreams and desires outside it. They never feel like a cohesive unit. It's like the writers, rather than thinking up who could best carry the story, said, "Hey, let's throw in a--!" rather than fretting about whether a "--" really had any business clumping in on this mission (if it is a mission).
The Worst: I really liked "Rogue One." But while the galactic worlds are more complex, its inhabitants were not. In "Star Wars" Lucas threw in a cantina full of bizarre creatures. Lots of them looked like humans in cheap masks, but he made an effort. In "RO" nearly all the rebels are white guys with English accents. I'm not one for diversity just for the sake of it, but COME ON! You can do so much with digital effects these days but you give us a few alien faces? At least, the "Rogue One" crew has a variety of accents. They're like a rebellion in the Rebellion.
BTW, how come everybody in that galaxy long ago and far away has such a good grip?
There's no swearing, no nudity, no implied sex. There's not even an incestuous kiss as between Luke and Leia. The main female and male get close but it feels Platonic. Yet I would not take a child to this movie because of the VIOLENCE. And while "Star Wars" still maintains a feeling of freshness and excitement, "Rogue One" has an autumnal feel, as if it's the end of something rather than, as it turns out, only a beginning. Perhaps this reflects the modern cynicism of a society with too much time on their hands and not enough real problems, so they have to invent them. Yet "Rogue One" does present noble but almost lost ideals of duty; of identifying, fighting and sacrificing for something bigger than one's self. In that way, it does reflect the values of the original "Star Wars" though from a different angle. A good movie, but not for kids.