Disney, you're losing me fast.

Rating: 4/10 (18 December 2016)

I'll start on a positive note: "Rogue One" is far better than it should be. There is no need for it to exist other than box office revenue, and the cynical corporate machinery behind it is quite obvious. This one should flat out suck. It doesn't. There are a few moments in it, it's very competently made, there is real talent involved and entertainment to be had. If you're not too critical about these movies, you'll have fun with it.
...But after just seeing it, I suspect that Gareth Edwards didn't get to make the movie he wanted or then he was just a yes man all along. "Rogue One" could have been a really good standalone movie, but Disney had to interfere. They had to make everything feel "more connected", so they sacrificed plenty to the altar of Cinematic Universe For Dummies. Many references and familiar elements/characters are shoehorned in just for brand recognition and everything suffered from it. This feels exactly like the Marvel superhero franchise is starting to feel: A product that exists only to remind you of their other similar products.
The trailers had me worrying that the lead character/actress would be just a lifeless blank state. I was wrong, partially. The actress (Felicity Jones) is good. I know this, because at times she made me feel something, even when her character itself was paper thin. That would be alright if they didn't pretend she had a real arc or transformation as a person, but they did. That's the problem with forcing depth and moments where there are none: it feels undeserved, manipulative and cheap. I felt nothing for the character, but I felt something for Jones' screen presence - and that's a compliment, because when the mind-numbing laser show at the end begun, I just wanted to see more of her instead, along with Diego Luna.
The same can be said for many of the characters: there are good actors involved that sometimes rise above their empty, toothless and pandering material. Ben Mendelsohn is great, even when his character has nothing going for him. Forest Whitaker's Saw Gerrera is pointless too - just a name, funny voice and a costume. A gimmick doesn't make a character. The more they tried to make someone appealing, the less appealing they became. Less is more, studio people. K-2S0 would have been fine without the forced quips too, but at least I felt something about them.
This is not a spoiler, it's in the trailers: a certain famous character makes an appearance in the movie. And I must say that there was no point to it. The few last shots were alright, but there was a scene in the middle that served absolutely no purpose and felt extremely off. For the first time it felt like this iconic character was there just to deliver lines. It felt like product placement. Replacing Peter Cushing (deceased, RIP) with CGI was even worse. It was not only embarrassing, it was tasteless and disrespectful. There was no reason for it either, he too was in there for brand recognition only, and added nothing to the movie which makes it that much worse. It left a shitty taste in my mouth, just like the last shot of the movie in all its perverted CGI glory concerning a beloved character. Who the hell made these decisions?
I noticed much of the cynical studio machinery behind "The Force Awakens" as well, but I really liked that movie because it had genuine scenes. Real scenes with flow, deserved emotional stakes and purpose. "Rogue One" doesn't flow at all. At the beginning we jump from one place to another, explaining various things to the point of boredom and disconnect, probably because they don't trust the audience to pick up the clues or understand hints to the past. Remember when the Jedis, clone wars and such are quickly mentioned in "Star Wars" when Luke meets Obi-Wan? We picked up the clues then and let our imagination fly. None of that here, no room for imagination, no room for movie to shine. Shine it does, but in a wrong way: The last 30 minutes has plenty of space and land battles. Lights, lasers and explosions. No excitement, no natural flow, no reason to care. The ending also has three different scenarios happening at once, so we get plenty of transitions, plenty of unfocused fury and plenty of emotional disconnect. "Rogue One" can't find a tone. It tries to be dark, and it kind of is, but it also pretends to have real emotion and humor in it - and only some of it works. It doesn't have a real heart, and in the end most of it just slips through your fingers.
It tries to imitate the original trilogy. It succeeds only superficially. It captures the look, some (not needed) characters, references and such, but it doesn't dare to just be a movie. It's not comparable to the prequel trilogy either. While I think the prequels to be dumb, clumsy and emotionless, this one seems just cynical, manipulative and wrong in a whole other way.
After all this complaining, do I hate it? Almost, but no. It is well made, the actors are mostly good, and technically it's fine. It just doesn't feel like a movie. It has no identity. It feels almost like a product forced on you by some condescending, pandering marketing people. It holds your hand at every turn in an uncomfortable way, and it has no real creative reason to exist. If you're already cynical about this movie, don't see it - it's exactly what you think. If you're excited, you'll probably like it. As for myself, I will skip all these "cinematic filler universe" movies from now on.
Oh, and Disney: It's okay for the boy and girl to kiss in the end. Especially when you have a movie that already lacks human emotion.