SPOILERS AHEAD!!
I went to see "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" for the second time today at Aksarben Cinema. I enjoyed the movie the first time out, and had planned to take in multiple viewings.
(You can read my recent review of "Rogue One" here).
A number of my friends consider it to be stronger than 2016's "The Force Awakens," and some have argued it is the best "Star Wars" film since "The Empire Strikes Back."
High praise, indeed.
I loved "The Force Awakens," and thought J.J. Abrams did a fantastic job creating a jumping-off point for a new trilogy -- and casting a group of compelling new characters.
But many folks I know believe "Rogue One" is the superior movie.
They feel the writing is stronger, characters more appealing, visuals truer-to-canon, and the grittier tone more compelling.
My friend Scott felt that Felicity Jones's Jyn Erso was a far more compelling British-brunette "Mary Sue" than Daisy Ridley's Rey in "The Force Awakens."
It's incredible when you think about it. Especially considering that this movie featured last-minute rewrites, well-documented reshoots (at the request of Disney), and a change of composer (Michael Giacchino only had "weeks" to compose the score).
(I outline various production aspects and foibles in my "Rogue One" preview post here).
A number of my friends even thought my initial skepticism about resurrecting actor Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin via CG was too nitpicky, and suggested it was fairly effective (if not perfect). Recreating 1977 Carrie Fisher, on the other hand...
So...did a second viewing of the movie convince me that "Rogue One" is superior to "The Force Awakens," and the best of the films behind "Star Wars" and "The Empire Strikes Back"...?
First things first -- I enjoyed "Rogue One" even more the second time around, and noticed a number of subtle things I didn't the first time -- like the fact that the X-Wing pilot with the call sign "Red Five" died in the movie's final battle sequence, which explains Luke Skywalker getting the designation in Episode IV.
You'll also notice more subtle things, such as actors sporting mustaches (a nod to the look and feel of 1970s and 80s movies), and the fact that Cassian Andor's blue parka in the early part of the movie looks similar to Han Solo's on Hoth in "The Empire Strikes Back."
People have remarked how much Mon Mothma in "Rogue One" looks like the actress who portrayed the character in "Return of the Jedi." Genevieve O'Reilly isn't the same actress, but she did portray Mon Mothma in 2005's "Revenge of the Sith."
Thanks to "Rogue One," the Force now has its own "Hail Mary, Full of Grace..." mantra with "I am one with the Force, the Force is with me"...
Because "Rogue One" is a secondary story in the saga, Lucasfilm chose not to give it a crawl, but it did include the blue text that read "a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..."
I understand the rationale for not including an opening crawl with John Williams's iconic theme, but I still missed it...
The movie really follows a "less is more" style. I don't know if that was by design, or if the Disney brass wanted it to fit within a particular runtime.
(If you watch the various pre-release trailers, there are numerous scenes/clips that didn't make the final cut of "Rogue One").
There is part of me that has wondered if the filmmakers ever planned to have Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor escape the battle on Scarif.
According to this article on "The Verge," director Gareth Edwards suggests that the main characters were set to survive in the original script (he had assumed that Disney wouldn't be sympatico with them dying), but that they never filmed such an ending.
Honestly, the film was probably more effective with the core group becoming martyrs to the cause.
Edwards has managed to make a movie that many fans find to be incredibly compelling -- and at the zenith of what this franchise has to offer.
As to whether or not this film is the best since "The Empire Strikes Back"...
I don't know if I can quite pull the trigger on that sentiment. I think "Rogue One" benefits from less pre-release hype, and I think production news over the summer might have tempered expectations to a more realistic level.
I will say that "Rogue One" is incredibly good, and shows how compelling the prequel trilogy could have been in the hands of a better writer/director (sorry, George).
Is it better than "The Force Awakens"...?
Both are very different movies, with different goals. I liked each film a lot, but for different reasons.
What I can say is that this "new generation" of "Star Wars" movies appears to be in good hands...
..and the fact that I'm having this debate with myself is a good sign (and need to see it again).
Read my previous post: "Rogue One": The Prequel "Star Wars" Deserved
No comments:
Post a Comment