|
Hmmm. Something felt off. I feel like I was being "told" a story instead of being "shown" a story. Same with character development and backstory. 3/5 e: I should have probably said 2/5 but it's Star Wars so I'm biased. barkbell fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Dec 23, 2016 |
#
?
Dec 23, 2016 07:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
Question: Can a firmly entrenched Hollywood series movie be highly entertaining even if it is filled with micro plot-holes and tiny flaws? I am happy to report that the answer is a resounding YES. Let me state first for the record: I am not really a die-hard Star Wars Fan. I am not in the habit of doing lip service for any entertainment outfits. However, I am a sci-fi movie fan, and I appreciate when a director takes the time to actually tell a thought-out story instead of setup a framework for CGI effects artists. This movie succeeds where George Lucas and JJ Abrams failed - that is, instead of monetizing this series to the point where it only served as a catalyst for Christmas toys and Lego sets, Gareth Edwards and Lucasfilm manage to tell us an adult fairy-tale and a space odyssey that teens might even enjoy. Let's be frank here: this ain't a movie targeted for little kids. Which is why it's not only refreshing, but also successful. Gone is the sugarcoating of the rebel forces and the cutesy aliens (which none of us actually liked) have been cut as well. This turns out to be a good thing, as the Star Wars universe is actually more believable when there are genuine human characters we can connect with, and they aren't usurped by their scripted lines. The premise of this movie works because the actors play what amounts to "normal" people put under some difficult circumstances. The Jedi would probably have approached the same scenario with a more "superhuman", mystical, and powerful approach, but that's not the story here. This is about a group of outsiders that get tied in tangentially to the fight against the dark side. This is also a story that feels more natural and organic because the main characters are not overly stylized in mannerisms, or exaggerated. They are what they appear to be. Let's talk for a moment about the matter of War as depicted in this film. One of the reasons why the first movie is so good is because we are given a reason to cheer for the heroes. Not just their likeability, but their sense of purpose as well. This movie capitalizes on this concept with (mostly) realistic action sequences, and a focus on the hazards of war, including death, of which there is quite a bit. The stakes get raised when you see the difficulty level increasing, and what you get is a dose of bravery interjected into the construct of the battle scenes. This is a smart move on the part of the script, and it makes the movie 100% more successful than The Force Awakens, which avoids this type of direct confrontation, choosing smchaltz over substance. Another successful element is the avoidance of the watering down of the evil characters. This is, ultimately, a story about good versus evil, right? So, then show us how evil the bad guys can be! And, thankfully they do this time. The return of Vader and his role in the finale demonstrates just how ruthless and powerful the dark side is. It is a thrilling thing to watch. In a nutshell, there are many things about this film which are enjoyable to watch. Despite the fact that the movie has a few flaws, the pacing and production level of the film are good enough that you wouldn't normally feel the need to overthink what is happening. Once again, the script helps immensely in that regard, as it allows you to suspend your disbelief. Other reviewers are lamenting this movie as too war-like or humorless. I would like to disagree completely and say for the record that this is probably one of the best Star Wars films made so far because it actually has a well developed story. It was obvious to me months before the release that this movie was different, more serious, and perhaps darker, which is exactly what was needed to drown out everything that was wrong with the previous four movies. Thank goodness someone had the balls to deviate from the recipe this time, it revived a franchise that had become a caricature of itself. 4.5/5
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2016 06:14
|
|
|
I'm not the world's biggest star wars fan, but this is the 3rd best star wars movie, after ANH and ESB. The big problem is the muddy first act. despite a 2h13m runtime I found myself wanting more time/depth with these characters. I think that could have been solved by cleaning up the beginning. 4/5. (3: good, 4: good enough to see more than once, 5: good enough to see every chance you get)
|
|
#
?
Jan 24, 2017 22:42
|
|
|
A good war movie, held back only by annoying required callbacks to the main star wars series. 3.7/5
|
|
#
?
Feb 20, 2017 18:18
|
|
|
The first half of the film was a bit of a pacing mess, and it could have done without a main character or two to better flesh out the remaining so the audience actually cares about them (Jyn felt really underdeveloped to me). Some really tight action scenes and good visuals were not enough for me to overlook some of the pacing issues and (IMO) shoddy storytelling. 3/5
|
|
#
?
Apr 6, 2017 03:35
|
|
|
I felt the pacing was off a bit, especially with Forest Whitaker's scenes. The final act really tied the movie together and I will say the ending (the final scene especially) was the best lead-off to the original movie a series wishes for. The CGI they used to recreate Grand Moff Tarkin and Leia was amazing to say the least. Though I wonder if was really needed. 4/5 for being the best Star Wars prequel. Also I will say that watching Episode IV immediately after really shows off the attention to detail Rogue One did.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 23:59
|
|
|
Rogue 1 resembles a Star Wars Battlefront machinima with a creative team that is technically gifted, but has absolutely no knack on writing at least somewhat interesting characters. They hide this by putting bombastic scenes in sequence and calling it a day. If you wonder how a gigabudget heist-war flick with no interesting characters might work, Rogue 1 is just the film for you. There are Star Wars computer games that have better characters than this misguided attempt at a war flick. 1/5. El Perkele fucked around with this message at 14:11 on Oct 11, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2017 14:08
|
|
|
Star Wars: Rogue One was good almost as gently caress. The scene where they are escaping the alien planet and have to swing the loading arm to knock that bitch off was just good. The CGI and visual aesthetic brought back the boxy 80s feel that the original movies ingrained into me. The two android guys looked to similar though and it got confusing after a while. It also reminded me to go listen to the Dead Kennedy's album Frankenchrist which is punk as gently caress so it gets some points from that too. I got shitfaced at the theater because it was one of the fancy ones with bars too, which was freaking awesome. 3.2/5 Dillon2 fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Apr 23, 2018 |
|
#
?
Apr 23, 2018 01:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 22:49 |
|
|
I think this is one of the movies I liked the least. Not just as a Star Wars movie (which to be frank, it doesn't feel much like one) but as a movie in general. It is funny because while trying to remember this movie, images of the Solo movie kept coming to my mind. The war scenes, etc. I think I had a bigger connection with the short scene of Solo enlisted as a trooper than I had with this entire movie, because none of the characters in it were interesting and I had no emotional connection with any of them. And in a sense those short Solo scenes, most of which are played for comedy, seemed to be closer to what war movies feel like - both modern ones and the ones the original trilogy took inspiration - than this movie. Structurally this movie plays like a regular hero arc that just so happens to end with everybody dead like an 80's horror movie. This is accentuated by the fact that Vader's scene at the end feels very much like a horror movie scene. And it is worsened because the characters have less development than the fodder in a Saw or Final Destination movie. On a vacuum, this movie seems very pointless. Outside of a vacuum and in its proper context, this movie feels like a big budgeted fan-fiction trying to be more than it is. So outside of the war movie facade, to me this plays more like a very generic thriller that uses the fact that all characters are doomed as an excuse not to develop any of them properly, and in that sense it was a Frankenstein's monster of 80's horror with the World's most hollow splatter film: One just as shallow, but without plot, splatter or characters in the first place. Much like a horror movie the only "evil" character in it is an unstoppable Jason monster slowly walking forward and killing people in a dark hallway, but even that scene is just a bland cameo that strikes like pure fan-service, a cameo placed in a movie that is just as equally bland and hollow. The only redeeming quality I see in this movie is that beneath the Uncanny Valley of Tarkin's 3D character I got to remember what a good actor the original Peter Cushing was. 1/5. Elentor fucked around with this message at 01:05 on Aug 7, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 7, 2019 00:38
|
|
