Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

Disney brought the Star Wars property for an ungodly sum from series creator George Lucas in 2012 with the promise of a new trilogy of films closer in tone to the beloved original trilogy and not the much-despised Prequel series. Rumours also swelled of spin-off films, perhaps in an attempt to replicate the success of Disney's Marvel Cinematic Universe, to fill the gap between the main episodes of the series. Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens was, without a doubt, one of the biggest pop culture events of the last 10 years. The film has issues but the overall effort and affection for the series shines through, which made an accessible film for new-comers, whilst giving fans what lacked in the prequel trilogy. One year down the line, Rogue One, the first of the spin-off films, has arrived. Can it match the heart and emotion of The Force Awakens and the original films or does it strike out on its own to make a new kind of Star Wars film? The answer, as always, is complicated.  

Rogue One is set days before Episode IV. Luke is trapped on Tatooine, unaware of his impending future destiny. Han Solo is causing trouble somewhere. Princess Leia is bravely leading the Rebellion against the evil Empire. Jar-Jar is in a ditch somewhere. And the Rebels have learnt of the Empire's plans to create a new battle-station, with the power to destroy planets, named the Death Star. The Rebels have received contact from the disillusioned creator of the Death Star, who reveals that the Empire are holding plans that reveal its only weakness. Having been whisked from her father at a young age, criminal Jyn Erso is brought in by the Rebels to make track down the Death Star's creator - their connection? They are father and daughter. Jyn and a band of not-so merry rebels must team up to track down her father and reveal the location of the plans, giving our heroes the only hope of destroying the super-weapon. 

Rogue One has been famously dogged by rewrites and reshoots. According to the rumours, Disney wanted a film closer in tone to The Force Awakens (which stands as the third highest grossing films of all time) - i.e. lighter, fun, charming - which seemed to clash with the original intention of these side films; to offer a different light on the Star Wars universe. The issue here is that clearly these two different tones and visions clash with each other in the finished product. While Rogue One has plenty to offer long-term fans of the series, as a film it suffers from a confused tone and under-written characters, which won't make many new converts to the franchise.

The best elements of Rogue One are the re-creations of the retro 70s vision of the space life. The art design of the film is spot on, from the re-creations of the costumes, the lighting, the sets and even the hairstyles (I've not seen this many must aches in a sci-fi film for a long time) which gives it a familiar yet different tone. The film is at its best when it combines these familiar elements to create something new (akin to The Force Awakens) - the final 40 minutes offer a documentary-style ground combat linked with an exciting heist of the Death Star plans, which is unlike anything Star Wars has ever produced. It might be one of the series' best staged action scenes (the only thing it lacks is emotional weight but I'll get to that). Seeing AT-ATs again, returning from The Empire Strikes Back, ripping through the jungle planet and causing mayhem is a sight to behold on a pure fan level. The exciting final ten minutes which link it directly back to the opening of Episode IV is fun and unexpected (and features one of cinema's greatest Big Bads making an unforgettable entrance). In general, the action scenes are well handled, as we are introduced to a plethora of new planets and locations. 

Technically, everything is shot perfectly and has an excellent art design but what holds Rogue One back is the script. Jyn is not given sufficient personality outside of the life-defining events that occurs in her childhood. There are hints of a troubled past, with Jyn going off the rails but they aren't given time to be fully explored. On paper, the side-characters sound like fascinating new additions to the Star Wars universe. A disillusioned gorilla fighter who rejects the ideals of the Rebels but still wants to combat the Empire. An Empire general struggling with the bureaucracy of building a super-weapon. A normal Rebel solider who blindly follows the orders of his superiors. An Empire defector (who is too similar to Finn from Episode VII, just lacking John Boyega's natural charm). These add a new dimension to the universe, in particular revealing new elements to the previously good-as-gold Rebellion. But add to this an appearance from Darth Vader, a surprisingly prominent role the creepy CGI recreation of Peter Cushing, more Rebel internal conflicts, a sassy, pissed-off robot (K-2SO, played by Alan Tudyk, is probably the character highlight of the film), a large scale space battle and you can probably see that the film is overloaded with elements. 

I honestly wish another attempt could have been made at the script or the edit to prop up Jyn and the members of Rogue One, flesh them out and produce a tighter story with an emphasis on the more gorilla-documentary style that the final 40 minutes revels in. Whether this was in the original edit or not, we'll likely never know but the victims of the unfocused narrative are Forrest Whitaker's Saw Gerrera (who I'm told will be expanded upon in Rebels - but cross-media narratives are for another day...) and the side-characters of the Rogue One team. Donnie Yen in particular has the makings of a fascinating character, a blind warrior who believes in the Force but the script focus doesn't give him chance to shine. While no where near as hollow as Suicide Squad, I was reminded of the scene in which the pyro-villian claimed the team were his "family" with no narrative thrust or character development to suggest this. Spoilers but as the characters are picked off one-by-one in in the final 40 minutes of Rogue One it is hard to feel emotional (with the exception of K-2SO). A potentially powerfully moment, which I do commend Disney for committing to; it is well executed and beautifully shot but is under-cut by the under-written characters.

The problem is, that certainly for the cinematic stories, Star Wars is fairly limiting in what you can do. Audiences like the Skywalkers, Darth Vader, the family drama etc, the space battles, Jedi, the Force etc. and I don't think a big studio like Disney would try to work outside of this stable of familiar staples. In television, games and novels you can expand as much as you want - these are designed for the hardcore fan base who legitimately want to see new sides of the universe. Video games such as Knights of the Old Republic or TV's The Clone Wars and Star Wars: Rebels offer exciting new characters and fresh stories to tell for the fanbase, that don't try to appeal to a mainstream audience. One of the biggest losses to Star Wars being brought by Disney was the retconning of 20 years worth of Expanded Universe stories. In the cinema, I just don't think we are going to see this kind of diversity (for example, the rumoured spin-off films are: a young Han Solo film, a Boba Fett film, an Obi-Wan film). Rogue One falls into this uncomfortable zone of fan-service, audience pandering and over-saturation. 

Rogue One can comfortably sit as the fifth best Star Wars film but it feels like a missed opportunity. The only way this film plays successfully is to fans of the series. Think of the film as a stand-alone sci-fi film. The elements that prop it up only succeed due to the elements that links it to the previous films. Unlike in The Force Awakens, where the new elements were given time to develop, Rogue One suffers from overload. I would prop it up due to its art-design and well-executed final 40 minutes but its just a bit of a messy slog to get there. A great, tight war film is in there but the aspects don't come together to form a satisfying whole - it's a weird day when a Star Wars film is just ok (and it pains me to give it the score I did). 

Rating: 6/10 

Side-Note: RIP Carrie Fisher and Debbie Reynolds. Carrie Fisher was such a prominent figure in my childhood as Princess Leia - a female character who was as active as the males. A real individual who overcame drug addiction and mental health issues to become a strong and witty voice. And Debbie Reynolds, one of the last of the Hollywood royalty, a golden star from a different era of the movies. Two really tragic losses. 

Moana

Moana has a tough act to follow. Disney has embarked on a Second Renaissance (in reference to a period of time in the late 1980s/early 90s in which studio found its footing again, producing hit after hit) to become culturally relevant again. By combining what made its classics great in the first place with a 21^st century sensibility (borderline feminist), Disney has produced a plethora of modern (and varied) classics; Tangled, Wreck-It Ralph, Big Hero 6, Zootopia and the pop culture behemoth, Frozen. I mention Frozen as Moana is Disney’s follow up in the ‘Princess’ sub-series. Bringing back Ron Clements and John Musker seems like a wise move. This pair directed a number of classic Disney films including the film credited with starting the original Disney Renaissance, The Little Mermaid, though ignoring the box office receipts, I would argue it can be traced back further. Is bringing back the tried-and-tested duo a smart idea?

Moana follows the titular character on a coming of age story. Drawn between the duty of being chief of her Polynesian tribe and the lure of adventure on the ocean, Moana is stuck between two worlds. A creeping darkness begins to infect her beloved island as she learns that an ancient demi-god named Maui stole a precious artefact from an ocean goddess that was seeming lost to the sea. The artefact washes up on Moana’s island which compels her to track down the disgraced Demi-god and return both him (with expected difficulty) and the artefact, a stone heart, to the goddess as per her tribe’s ancient prophecy to save her island and the wider ocean.

So far, so Disney. Does Moana do enough to separate itself from the standard Disney formula? Kind of. The character of Moana herself is great. Strong, quirky and determined with a chubbier body type, which makes her stand out from the standard Disney protagonist, she is brought to life through incredible animation and a great vocal performance by Auli’i Cravalho. Disney has been on a winning formula with its modern ‘princesses’ and Moana can safely join this varied pantheon. The Demi-god Maui is also fun, played by Dwayne Johnson, starting out as an arrogant and emotionally unstable shape-shifter (though only with the help of his magical fish hook) before learning important life lessons. He plays out almost like Disney’s Hercules (another Clements/Musker ‘creation’) only with a clearer personality and stronger motive. We spend a good chunk of time with these two characters, mostly isolated to their boat, where we learn of their wants and needs. Better yet, their relationship does not bloom into romance. There is clear affection between them but for a Disney film not to have their female and male leads get together at the end is a pretty bold move for a studio that pounded heteronormative lifestyles into the brains of children for generations. Their relationship really helps to make the film. I respect the move of Disney to set the vast majority on a boat isolated in the middle of the sea. This allows for funny, tender and exciting moments. Moana has plenty of great and colourful set-pieces to put our characters through the wringer, such as magical coconut pirates and a gigantic crab, who is armed with a musical number. 

Aesthetically, Moana is impeccable. Disney continues to push the bar on what is achievable in 3D animation and this is probably one of the best looking animated film I have seen in this art style. The graceful characters movements, the amazing water effects and the lush vibrant colours literally leap off the screen. There are lovely little touches, such as Maui’s magical moving tattoo’s, brought to life in 2D animation and the excellent gormless expression on Alan Tudyk’s mentally impaired rooster (Tudyk’s easiest Disney pay cheque yet). In an age where we complain about digital blur, it’s nice to see that Disney do genuinely care about using the technology to its advantage. Add to this a great sound design and soundtrack, you are presented with a quality product. I wish the same time and effort could have been extended to the songs. I feel this is an area Disney should be working to improve on in order to maintain their Second Renaissance. Often, they have one or two killer song (see also Tangled and The Princess and The Frog) and the rest are fairly forgettable. The exception is Frozen of course. Moana unfortunately does suffer from a lack of that really killer song. The centrepiece, How Far I’ll Go, is beautiful and powerful and is by far the film’s best but it lacks that extra umph to make a lasting impression. While it probably is unfair to compare, it lacks that narrative-changing turn that Let It Go had (screw the haters, it's a great song). It's great at expressing Moana’s emotions but it didn’t leave me humming after leaving the theatre. 

I think what Moana lacks is a really great third act. Often with Clements/Musker films, the set-up is better than the pay off (see The Little Mermaid, Hercules, The Princess and The Frog and Treasure Planet). The best of the modern classics turned their plots around on themselves. Frozen became a parable about sisterhood. Big Hero 6 becomes a document on dealing with grief. Zootopia becomes a fable about racism. Moana does do some interesting things with a feminist turn on prophecy, an often despised element of writing, particularly in film (that said, it is perfectly explored on TV’s Buffy The Vampire Slayer). Through some misunderstandings (spoilers), it is Moana who delivers the stone back to the ocean goddess and not Maui, breaking centuries old tradition of passing this story down. Moana is ultimately about females helping each other following the damage caused by a male. Make of that what you will and I don't think Disney put this at the forefront of the film. See with films I mentioned earlier, they quite bravely mix these quite mature themes and ideas into the forefront of the plot. Baymax is Hiro’s coping mechanism for losing his brother. Elsa and Anna learn the power of true love through breaking the kingdom’s frozen curse. Judy and Nick inadvertently learn about the destructive power of prejudice through solving a mystery. I would argue Moana doesn't directly tackle the issues but rather hints at, which leaves something of an emotional hole. Rather, it is much more to do with Moana’s arc of breaking tradition – which is great, don't get me wrong but it just leaves a pretty thinly spread story that could have done with a couple more rewrites to emphasise certain elements and produce a stronger third act twist. 

However, what Disney is doing with Moana is commendable. Despite my issues with the script, the characters, animation and art design are second to non. While it doesn't take its concept to the nth degree like some of the previous modern Disney films, it does give an excellent new protagonist for audiences of children to relate to. I would give one point less if these elements weren't as strong as they are.  I almost wish there was a better film for Moana and Maui to star in. Moana isn't quite gold standard Disney but it is still absolutely worth seeing, if only to continue to support the studio’s recent golden streak. Gone are the days of passive Cinderella and Aurora. Long live Moana. 

Rating: 8/10

Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them

SPOILERS THROUGHOUT

In a year where Warner Bros. limped out of the gate with their mega-franchise (DC comics), the studio has turned to their other mega-franchise to win them a sure-fire hit. While the Harry Potter films have their fair share of flaws (which this writer won't get into here..) they hold a very special place in people's hearts, in particular for 20-something-year-olds - Generation 1 fans who literally grew up with the characters on page or on screen. J.K. Rowling has returned to this world in a new time period and location (1920s New York) with a new cast of characters. Rowling has expanded a slim volume released for Comic Relief into a full-on franchise starter. Does Fantastic Beasts come close to matching the heart of the Harry Potter stories?

Newt Scamander has reached the end of an excursion around the world, finding and documenting magical beasts. Endangered ones he keeps and looks after in his TARDIS-esque briefcase. Arriving in New York for a brief stopover, with the intention of freeing a hippogriff into the wilds, his briefcase accidentally falls into the hands of Jacob, a No-Maj (American slang for Muggle), who inadvertently releases some of the creatures into the city, which could spell trouble for the magical and non-magical worlds. Jacob gets pulled into the hidden magical world of New York as he and Newt begin the search for and return all the loose creatures. This is against the darker backdrop of an anti-witch movement known as the Second Salems, who are harbouring a dark secret..

The film's biggest issue is that the background and world building are more interesting than the main story - Newt and Jacob teaming up to find and collect the magical creatures is passable enough but it is fairly surface level. Ultimately, what is happening with the Second Salem movement and the rise of dark wizard Grindelwald is more compelling. Since the Pokemon-esque main plot is the prime-attention of the film, the more interesting elements aren't given enough time to breath and as such aren't explored fully. While I don't think a children's film needs to have children for the prime audience to relate to (kids seem to react to Star Wars and Marvel films well enough) the lack of a charismatic lead really does hurt the film. I'm just going to say it - I couldn't stand Eddie Redmayne in the lead. On paper, I love the idea of a socially-awkward nerd saving the day through his brain as opposed to brawn, but there's just this irritating quirkiness to the role (in the same way Matt Smith annoyed me as The Doctor) that Redmayne just seems to inflate. Quirk is fine - but there is nothing more annoying than forced quirk. It is a bizarre performance. Newt just isn't a compelling character and the writer is either withholding information on him for later films to doesn't quite know how to handle him. Newt doesn't really have an arc, so to speak and I think this hurts the film. To be honest, I wish the film was told from Jacob's perspective because he's a much more compelling, and funny, character. His motivations are clear, his reactions to the wizarding world are great and the actor just seems to be having a blast as the hapless dope falling into a story much larger than his own. And it would be a clever inversion of the Harry Potter role - a non-magical character as the lead. Redmayne then might have been more tolerable then as the strange 'sidekick' (a Jack Sparrow role if you will, circa Pirates 1). 

Newt and Jacob are joined by sisters Tina and Queenie Goldstein, the former a down-to-earth no nonsense member of the Magical Congress of the United States of America, or MACUSA, and the latter a free-spirited mind reader. Rowling's works are famously laced with feminist undertones. One only needs to look at Hermione, an icon for geek girls and boys the world over, to understand Rowling's views on how female characters should be represented. Simple. Just write a good character.  The fact that Rowling has put two female leads in a cast of four speaks volumes and I'm glad there is equal representation. However, my biggest gripe is that, like Newt, they are not terribly compelling characters. Which is a massive shame because Rowling gets it, especially after creating a character as wonderful as Hermione (and the other varied and fascinating women of the Harry Potter world). They end up feeling more of a statistic as opposed to living, breathing characters. Tina and Queenie are given sufficient motivation enough, and the actors are clearing trying to infuse them with something, but, like Newt, they never really come to life. Maybe given time, they will develop these characters more (Tina has some hints at a traumatic past but presumably this will be expanded in later films) but as it stands we've seen these arcs before. Ultimately, this new group never feels comfortable together and doesn't cohere the way you want them to. I really don't want to keep making Harry Potter comparisons but since this is part of Rowling's Wizarding World (and has probably been expanded into five films to make this into a full on prequel series) it seems fair - just look at the way the three of them bonded together into a team by the end of Philosopher's Stone. Funnily enough, on a side-note, the film doesn't make too many call backs its parent franchise (I guess the time period makes it impossible) - Dumbeldore is mentioned once and one line got a smile from me; Newt proudly saying "I think you'll find that Hogwarts is the best wizarding school in the world".

So far, I have come down pretty hard on the film but I should say I actually ultimately ended up enjoying it quite a bit. While I think the scenes with the beasts go on too long, the designs are all unique, different and creative. I especially like the jewellery-thief mole. The period details are great and the imagination involved in not only recreating this era of New York but designing a secret magical world underneath is inspired. However, I was desperate to get back to the B-Plots. Just, the background details are more fascinating to me. The idea of magical CIA is fairly inspired. The performances from the side-characters are great. I like that Colin Farrell is finally in a 'Harry Potter' film (meaning the whole main cast of one of my favourite films of all time,  In Bruges, have been in one of these films) and he's great as the mysterious Percival Graves. Ezra Miller's quiet and tortured performance, who ends up revealing something far more sinister, is also very compelling. Dan Fogler is wonderful as Jacob and his reactions to the wizarding world (and people's reactions to him) are hilarious. The Second Salems add a fascinating new dimension to the Harry Potter universe - No-Majs trying to reveal the wizarding to the larger population, whilst being secretly influenced by Grindelwald. The militant way in which this ideology is spread feels very real and relevant to today. Grindelwald's motivation (which is kept  very hidden in the background - it might even have been a throw away line) is also great - he disagrees with the idea that the wizarding world should be kept hidden and wants them to return to an era where wizards and witches lived together with the No-Majs. This has the potential for good but has ultimately become corrupted into a vision where magic rules all. Heck you could even make this into a conflict of interests a la Professer X vs. Magneto's clashing ideologies, just between Dumbeldore and Grindelwald (who were former lovers after all!). This desire to a return to an idealised past that never existed could even draw upon Brexit comparisons (Rowling has been very vocal on this subject matter). What I'm trying to say is that there are plenty of compelling elements to the film that could have expanded upon and made into a much more compelling story. The catch-'em all plot line just doesn't hold the same interest for me as all the other elements that make up the film. 

I will give Fantastic Beasts this though - it goes places I didn't expect it to, both bizarre and dark - to the point where the tone is all over the place. In fact, the film contains one of the strangest scenes I've seen in a blockbuster in a long time, in which Jacob applies a pheromone to attract one of the magical beasts (a giant rhino) to entice it to return to Newt's suitcase. This is proceeded by Redmayne embarrassing himself by trying to court the rhino back into his suitcase by doing a mating dance - audible uncomfortable silence in the theatre (with some chuckling from me). The more one thinks about it, the stranger it gets. Joking aside, I actually do appreciate that the film ends on a dark note - our heroes don't really save the day. There's some fairly cruel corporal punishment handed out that makes the wizarding world of Britain look fairly liberal! But when you go from mating dances to seriously mentally-scarring punishments, your tone is going to suffer. I don't want to keep comparing this to Harry Potter but the humour in those films always felt appropriate - it was well judged and never felt like it clashed with the more dramatic stuff (except for Half-Blood Prince maybe). That said, at least Rowling is trying to make it unique and is trying to do stuff that other blockbusters wouldn't touch, especially with what I call the gentrification of Hollywood (a piece I will write someday!). 

As a stand-alone flick, Fantastic Beasts would be a fun, if very flawed, expansion of the wizarding world that would shed new light on Rowling's wizarding world. However, with four more films in the pipeline (seemingly to star the same cast) I can't shake this feeling of overstreaching and cashing-in on people's nostalgia for Harry Potter. Ultimately, Harry Potter is about three friends growing up and all the ups and downs that come with that. There's a real heart to the stories that make them compelling. Fantastic Beasts offers a nice expansion of the universe but no real emotional core. I never found the magical creatures of Harry Potter that compelling and the expansion where doesn't form a compelling story. Ultimately, it's a breezy, well-made film with some interesting world-expansion elements but just can't shake off its parent franchise and become its own thing. Ironically enough the film that doesn't star children actually feels more childish than the franchise that had a predominantly young cast...

Rating: 6/10