@aequitas:
ROGUE ONE over EP VII, Hands down!!
That is SW as we know it!
a must see.
no intentional spoilers but you might piece some together with stuff I say
This is most certainly not “SW as we know it.” It is a tremendously tonally uneven movie. My impression from the previews that there might have been something there before they “focus-grouped the shit out of it” was largely born out. I know this because the line from the trailer “I rebel” didn’t make the final cut. I can see why around the time of the highly publicized re-shoots they were talking about the movie “not feeling like Star Wars.” What was “focus-grouped out of it” was the highly cynical underlying story. The movie was also just full of the crap cinematic sensibilities of modern product cinema. Scope and shaky cam do not go together. Why film a movie in 2:35:1 only to fill it full of claustrophobic close-ups where you bounce the frame around?
There is some neat stuff in there with regards the space battle but the use of actual footage from Star Wars was jarring as all get out. I find myself hard pressed to remember the names of any of the characters not the main girl. The script was not a mess but didn’t earn any of the emotional beats it aimed for and just sort of bumbled into something resembling a point and the whole thing is salvaged or more salved by the very end of the movie which keeps it from being an utter downer trip to the movies.
I don’t even remember the main girl’s name :lol:
Rey or something? :lol:
Aside from the Essos of the new characters in this I’d have to look at a cast list to do more than be guessing at their names. I’m really curious what the movie looked like before the re-shoots or whatever they showed the earliest test audiences. The more I think about the script/screenplay the more I hate it.
One snippet I’m curious about is the scene of Jyn being face-to-face with a TIE Fighter on the catwalk of the deflector array that was in the trailers but cut out of the film. Was it part of a possible getaway?
One snippet I’m curious about is the scene of Jyn being face-to-face with a TIE Fighter on the catwalk of the deflector array that was in the trailers but cut out of the film. Was it part of a possible getaway?
Still haven’t seen it, but…
My brother mentioned this yesterday when I got his opinion on the movie. FWIW.
He is a Donald Trump Huge Star Wars fan. Lives and breathes it you could say. His statement to me is that it was in his top 4 SW films thus far, but he needed to see it again to determine where he would put it.
While I am not actively seeking out spoilers, I am not avoiding them either. I figure that I know the beginning and the end, so the middle is not going to be much of a surprise.
I appreciate your detailed and critical take as always Frimmel.
What I’d compare it too is “Pearl Harbor” or “Titanic” only the first half isn’t quite as boring as either of those. You get to the big thing happening like the attack starting and the ship hitting the iceberg and the movie becomes much more interesting. I don’t care to see the whole thing again but I’d watch from just before they leave to steal the plans till the end again. The neat things are really neat and much of everything else is a pile of “meh.”
I’d have liked it much better without the shaky-cam which I tend to think is a trait of directors who don’t actual believe in their material and as I think more about the tonal unevenness I’m inclined to pin that on a cynic trying to make a sort of traditional patriotic war movie and badly copying “Saving Private Ryan.” But he didn’t believe any of it. Maybe I’m trying to say the film was trying to be both “The Green Berets” and “Born of the Fourth of July.”
And as I write that I find the idea coincides with my thoughts on Edwards’s “Godzilla” where I’d constantly get the idea that he’d made choices because they were cool without really understanding what made them cool.
Love it - especially 1st paragraph
What I’d compare it too is “Pearl Harbor” or “Titanic” only the first half isn’t quite as boring as either of those. You get to the big thing happening like the attack starting and the ship hitting the iceberg and the movie becomes much more interesting. I don’t care to see the whole thing again but I’d watch from just before they leave to steal the plans till the end again. The neat things are really neat and much of everything else is a pile of “meh.”
That’s kinda funny because while decorating Christmas cookies with my wife last night, I put on Mr. Plinkett’s review of Titanic. Partially because I wanted to listen to something funny and intelligent, but also because I thought my wife would at least be interested since she loves the movie. It worked and she actually laughed throughout. Point being, it was about Titanic and he even mentions Pearl Harbor a few times.
I’d have liked it much better without the shaky-cam which I tend to think is a trait of directors who don’t actual believe in their material and as I think more about the tonal unevenness I’m inclined to pin that on a cynic trying to make a sort of traditional patriotic war movie and badly copying “Saving Private Ryan.” But he didn’t believe any of it. Maybe I’m trying to say the film was trying to be both “The Green Berets” and “Born of the Fourth of July.”
Did you ever watch Jason Bourne? As in the new one.
I was interested to see if you would post about it back when it came out, knowing you are an anti-shaky cam guy as a general rule. You will absolutely flip your $h!t if you watch it. I walked right out of the theater less than 30 minutes in, it was so bad. Still haven’t seen the end.
The plot was poor and derivative, the acting was uninspired, the characters were all re-hashes of previous versions. It did not hold my attention at all. The camera work and editing was so broken that it is the only film that has actually made my head hurt trying to follow it.
I’d have liked it much better without the shaky-cam which I tend to think is a trait of directors who don’t actual believe in their material and as I think more about the tonal unevenness I’m inclined to pin that on a cynic trying to make a sort of traditional patriotic war movie and badly copying “Saving Private Ryan.” But he didn’t believe any of it. Maybe I’m trying to say the film was trying to be both “The Green Berets” and “Born of the Fourth of July.”
Did you ever watch Jason Bourne? As in the new one.
I was interested to see if you would post about it back when it came out, knowing you are an anti-shaky cam guy as a general rule. You will absolutely flip your $h!t if you watch it. I walked right out of the theater less than 30 minutes in, it was so bad. Still haven’t seen the end.
The plot was poor and derivative, the acting was uninspired, the characters were all re-hashes of previous versions. It did not hold my attention at all. The camera work and editing was so broken that it is the only film that has actually made my head hurt trying to follow it.
I skipped the last two Bourne movies. While I had originally been okay with the second even actually liking it on exit of the theater and I revisit the first with some regularity I was burnt out by the third and so have passed on them. I think Bourne Supremacy with a few exceptions gets shaky-cam and fast edits right.
The film is very kinetic and driven and that’s on the shaky and editing. Supremacy does though use the wave the camera around on someone sitting still bouncy framing at points which I despise more than the more cinema verite and way they shoot action scenes shaky cam. I also think Supremacy pushes the whole thing about as far as it can go and Ultimatum tried to one up it and was practically unwatchable and where I really came to grips with the issues with the technique and the first movie I noticed the editing.
So I didn’t see much need to take in the Renner one and this most recent one.
Ultimatum and Quantum of Solace are really where my “crusade” against shaky-cam began.
Khan you greedy bloodsucker, you’ve managed to hit just about everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target…
Star Wars Rogue One was an excellent movie… I loved it from start to finish. I must also admit I spent about half the film going “how the heck did they bring that dead guy back to be a major character”… I raced home and dug up everything I could find on that aspect… very interesting, and had me fooled.
After all, a big Puzzle is finally solved!
Who in the whole Galaxy of Star Wars was constructing such a powerful Space-station Super weapon that some moisture Farmer boy could blow up by just hitting a whomprat-size-little-whole?
Now we know. :-D
Khan you greedy bloodsucker, you’ve managed to hit just about everyone else, but like a poor marksman, you keep missing the target…
Star Wars Rogue One was an excellent movie… I loved it from start to finish. I must also admit I spent about half the film going “how the heck did they bring that dead guy back to be a major character”… I raced home and dug up everything I could find on that aspect… very interesting, and had me fooled.
I missed the target? Whether or not you enjoyed a movie and whether or not you love a movie are independent of whether or not that movie is any good. Sometimes they go together, loving it and it being good. Other times they do not. Rogue One is really a bit of a mess. And what everyone seems to love about Rogue One really bodes ill for the future of all these anthology films.
I missed the target? Whether or not you enjoyed a movie and whether or not you love a movie are independent of whether or not that movie is any good. Sometimes they go together, loving it and it being good. Other times they do not. Rogue One is really a bit of a mess. And what everyone seems to love about Rogue One really bodes ill for the future of all these anthology films.
[Sigh]… whether or not you missed the target, you certainly missed the reference… :wink:
@aequitas:
After all, a big Puzzle is finally solved!
Who in the whole Galaxy of Star Wars was constructing such a powerful Space-station Super weapon that some moisture Farmer boy could blow up by just hitting a whomprat-size-little-whole?
Now we know. :-D
Well i’ve known how for a very long time… unfortunately, Rogue One is obviously fake, because we all know I was the one who stole the plans in the PC Game Dark Forces.
I missed the target? Whether or not you enjoyed a movie and whether or not you love a movie are independent of whether or not that movie is any good. Sometimes they go together, loving it and it being good. Other times they do not. Rogue One is really a bit of a mess. And what everyone seems to love about Rogue One really bodes ill for the future of all these anthology films.
[Sigh]… whether or not you missed the target, you certainly missed the reference… :wink:
:roll: Did I miss it or just ignore it? That was so “not subtle” it didn’t deserve a pat on the back.
dont you guys think that there is no such thing as “objectively good” as compared to “like it or not”? Boy do I think TFA is a pile of bantha p, but plenty people think otherwise.
For me R1 was much more enjoyable, despite all the holes in it. I dont even want to think about the Empires general reaction ability. But who doesnt like the cameos, for example.
As for the alternative ending, the trailers pretty much seem to hint at successfull escaping. Inevitably, there is critique for either ending. I am sure there is a huge part of the audience (myabe one that is used to it from mainstream US cinema) that is disappointed no hero manages it out alive.
Had they made two movies out of it, diving deeper into characters, then the critique would be that it is overblown for business reasons.
I think it can stand as a solid SW movie with memorable bits and some nice perks for the core fans.
I think there is such a thing as “objectively good.” If there weren’t there would be no such thing as film school. Cinema is like writing. It has forms and structures and grammar. You can’t just throw anything on the screen and tell a coherent story or a story that emotionally resonates with people. While whether or not you’ve enjoyed something is an important aspect of watching films, that lots of people enjoyed a movie is not alone the determining factor in whether it is “objectively good.”
Today the studios don’t care whether they produce something that is any good. They care whether or not “enough” people pay to see it. This is why everything seems to get such mixed reviews. Why we get trailers so far out. Why we then don’t see things in the final movie that they showed us in the trailers. They are producing a product that is functional for a large enough segment of the population. They want audiences to not hate it so they won’t tell their friends not to see it.
I was able to see it over the weekend and also felt it was uneven. A few highlights of what stuck out to me:
The entirety of the story was extremely serious with little to no room for the comic relief sidekick, yet they threw one in anyway. A lot of people seemed to like the droid, but I didn’t really. He certainly wasn’t anything new and his jokes and sarcasm fell completely flat on me. I may have chuckled once, but that was about it. His character’s tone clashed with the rest of the film rather than complemented it; I found him very distracting.
The rest of the characters didn’t have much to differentiate them from each other, even the leads. The Spaniard was okay, but he was less the swashbuckling rebel and more a muddled and jaded guy whose motivations were unclear and conduct contradictory. The secondary characters weren’t memorable. I felt I had been sold something on Donnie Yen’s character in the trailers, which didn’t really come to fruition in the film. He was a letdown for sure.
Darth Vader just felt off for some reason. The planet/lair for his introduction was ridiculous. I couldn’t place it, but his voice had something wrong with it and the costume looked completely digital rather than tangible. His presence in the scene with the Krennic was not very intimidating. All that said, later when Vader comes in at the end, I thought he was downright terrifying and showed him in his true power, menace and invulnerability.
I liked Ben Mendelsohn as Krennic - he is the archetypal Imperial, but didn’t feel he was able to express the range of his character. Grand Moff Tarkin was… highly distracting to say the least. I didn’t find his appearance convincing. I would rather they had used the actor from the end of Ep III (who is clearly supposed to be Tarkin). Princess Leia on the other hand I thought was good; at least her appearance. Her brief dialogue was corny and pun-ish, but it didn’t bother me much.
I thought the first half or more of the space battle was excellent. It, more than anything else, felt like ‘real’ Star Wars to me and just made me happy inside. There were things that I thought could have been done differently to achieve a more Ep IV and VI feel to the battle, but overall it was good. I didn’t find the inclusion of Gold and Red Leader from Ep IV too distracting, probably because I knew about it ahead of time. I was under the impression there was going to be more of them though. Red Leader calling out about Red 5 felt very much like an unnecessary cut-and-paste; like it clearly did not belong in this movie.
I felt the end rushed to tie everything up and provide an immediate transition into A New Hope, which I also found unnecessary. I can understand why it was done, because I am sure there would have been a greater outcry if it was not shown. It just seemed too clean and convenient. Not to mention that the battle on the planet just felt completely depressing. Spoiler: nobody survives.
The fan service elements were not as annoying as they were in Force Awakens, but they were still there and were eyesores for someone who doesn’t like being patronized.
It was a movie worth seeing, but isn’t everything it was hyped to be.
Darth Vader just felt off for some reason. The planet/lair for his introduction was ridiculous. I couldn’t place it, but his voice had something wrong with it and the costume looked completely digital rather than tangible. His presence in the scene with the Krennic was not very intimidating. All that said, later when Vader comes in at the end, I thought he was downright terrifying and showed him in his true power, menace and invulnerability.
The castle is on Mustafar, the world where his final transformation from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader took place as he battled Obi-Wan Kenobi and lost several limbs, and his soul, for his trouble. So why would Vader choose to live on the planet where so much of his suffering originated? Perhaps he returns to Mustafar, lives on Mustafar, because thats where he was truly born. Vader wasnt born on Coruscant when Palapatine named him Darth, and it wasnt when he betrayed the Jedi, invaded the Temple, and killed those younglings. His birth came, literally in fire, with the culmination of his hatred and anger after being defeated by Obi-Wan. On Mustafar he lost his friend, his comrades the Jedi, his pregnant wife, and, as a result, himself. So when Vader returns to his castle on Mustafar to soak in his bacta tank, hes going home. Its all he has left in the wake of Anakins destruction – fear, anger, hatred, and probably, inconceivable regret.
As for the voice, the voice was once again provided by James Earl Jones… how more authentic can you get than that? If there’s a voice discrepancy, it can simply be credited to the fact that sometimes people 40 years older don’t sound the same as they did 40 years ago.
Grand Moff Tarkin was… highly distracting to say the least. I didn’t find his appearance convincing. I would rather they had used the actor from the end of Ep III (who is clearly supposed to be Tarkin). Princess Leia on the other hand I thought was good; at least her appearance. Her brief dialogue was corny and pun-ish, but it didn’t bother me much.
Shakespeare Company veteran Guy Henry played Moff Tarkin in the movie… he is an established British stage and film actor with a long list of credits… he studied film of Peter Cushing to learn his movements and mannerisms performed motion-capture on set and provided the voice as well. The only difference between his performance as Moff Tarkin and “just grab another actor and use him” is that they CGI’d his face to match Peter Cushing… despite what some people think though, he was not an entire CGI character like Jar Jar binks… he was just “digitally enhanced” in the face, but the actor himself, and the voice of Moff Tarkin was indeed played by Guy Henry.
Very similarly, Ingvild Deila played Princess Leia… once again, another actor with a CGI face enhancement, but otherwise actually played by an actress. For better or for worse, her role in the film was considerably less than Moff Tarkin’s so the CGI work may have been less noticed since it was only a few seconds as opposed to entire major plot scenes.
The castle is on Mustafar, the world where his final transformation from Anakin Skywalker to Darth Vader took place as he battled Obi-Wan Kenobi and lost several limbs, and his soul, for his trouble. So why would Vader choose to live on the planet where so much of his suffering originated? Perhaps he returns to Mustafar, lives on Mustafar, because thats where he was truly born. Vader wasnt born on Coruscant when Palapatine named him Darth, and it wasnt when he betrayed the Jedi, invaded the Temple, and killed those younglings. His birth came, literally in fire, with the culmination of his hatred and anger after being defeated by Obi-Wan. On Mustafar he lost his friend, his comrades the Jedi, his pregnant wife, and, as a result, himself. So when Vader returns to his castle on Mustafar to soak in his bacta tank, hes going home. Its all he has left in the wake of Anakins destruction – fear, anger, hatred, and probably, inconceivable regret.
That reasoning is somewhat logical, however, we were never told what planet it was. The implication may have been Mustafar, but it was not stated. Nor did they show any recognizable structures that would call back to Ep III (which makes me wonder why the heck they didn’t, considering how much of the past SW history is fashionable to allude to). We have desert planets that look exactly like Tatooine, in both Ep 7 and Rogue One, but neither actually is. Why should this be Mustafar even though it looks just like it? It wasn’t an assumption I was willing to make without confirmation.
Plus, I never thought of Darth Vader as having a home other than maybe the Imperial Palace, but more properly on some Star Destroyer. This partially stems from the Original trilogy when things like a ‘home’ for Darth Vader were not pertinent to the story. Neither, I would argue, is it pertinent here. Vader doesn’t need to be humanized by having a ‘home’ and the scene was rather pointless. Why have Krennic travel all the way to some planet where Vader is rather than have them meet on a ship or talk via hologram? It was purely a device to re-introduce Vader and give him more screen time. They could have done both better. The other part stems from: why does Vader even need a home? Or a castle or whatever? Does he go to the refrigerator to get snacks and play video games? No. He is bent on killing Jedi and crushing the Rebellion. Vader is better portrayed as being a constant threat in the galaxy; always on the move with an Imperial Fleet.
As for the voice, the voice was once again provided by James Earl Jones… how more authentic can you get than that? If there’s a voice discrepancy, it can simply be credited to the fact that sometimes people 40 years older don’t sound the same as they did 40 years ago.
That Jones has aged is understandable. But if you go through the effort to manipulate actors faces with CGI versions of their dead characters, why not then spend similar effort on the most recognizable bad guy voice in movie history? Answer me that. Less you Wolf and more the production crew. Certainly voice tone alterations would be far easier than CGI face masks that have to stand up to significant screen time.
Shakespeare Company veteran Guy Henry played Moff Tarkin in the movie… he is an established British stage and film actor with a long list of credits… he studied film of Peter Cushing to learn his movements and mannerisms performed motion-capture on set and provided the voice as well. The only difference between his performance as Moff Tarkin and “just grab another actor and use him” is that they CGI’d his face to match Peter Cushing… despite what some people think though, he was not an entire CGI character like Jar Jar binks… he was just “digitally enhanced” in the face, but the actor himself, and the voice of Moff Tarkin was indeed played by Guy Henry.
Very similarly, Ingvild Deila played Princess Leia… once again, another actor with a CGI face enhancement, but otherwise actually played by an actress. For better or for worse, her role in the film was considerably less than Moff Tarkin’s so the CGI work may have been less noticed since it was only a few seconds as opposed to entire major plot scenes.
Guy Henry’s credentials have no bearing on my statement. I did not find the mannerisms, posture or voice to be distracting, just the face. It looked like a well done cinematic cut from a video game. While Henry’s efforts were admirable, he is an actor portraying another actor with a mask on to make him look like the person he is not. I doubt he will really get much credit for the performance, especially from people who don’t have the time to care. If anything, Henry’s performance is relegated to a footnote compared to the chatter over the effects on his face and whether or not they were good or bad and the “hey it’s Grand Moff Tarkin!” geek out. I think they did Henry a disservice with the CGI. This was not equivalent to a Jar Jar Binks or even Gollum; both of which were entirely self-contained alien-esque characters. With Gollum they went so far as to make him look like Andy Serkis; this situation is rather the opposite.
Carrie Fisher’s double (and that is what they were relegated to, being body doubles less than actors) was good, almost certainly for the reason you mentioned: she was onscreen very briefly and had few words to say.
