Adam's Thoughts - Rogue One

Check out Ed's full review of Rogue One: A Star Wars Story by clicking here!

The hardest part about judging a movie like Rogue One comes with considering it's context and purpose as a film. Is it meant to be considering fully as its own piece of work, or simply just as an addition to the Star Wars cinematic universe? This experience of entering into a predetermined story is especially jarring for someone like me who is not the biggest fanatic of the Star Wars franchise, but in the end Rogue One can still be seen as a bit of fun in addition to fulfilling its quota of fan service.

Story-wise, this movie was somewhat backed into a corner, in terms of telling a story with a predetermined outcome. Some 40 years later, and a story introduced in the original Star Wars (Episode IV: A New Hope) makes it onto the big screen in its own feature length film. That alone is a remarkable feat, and shows how powerful the franchise really is. Despite this already established story arc, Rogue One still manages to feel like the plot could go in any direction - a sign of a truly exciting narrative. A point is eventually reached where the audience remembers that this story already has an ending, but this doesn't take away from the viewing experience at all.

In a story that has to be told only in this movie alone (no trilogy for this one), it is understandable that the character building of some supporting characters might be a bit lackluster. This is especially disappointing, however, when considering the amount of unnecessary and somewhat forced comedic additions early in the movie. It's fine for even the most serious of movies to have comedic value in them, but when they are forced and in place of detailed character development, it is hard not to question their relevance. In the end, the characters realistically just fit into the cliche of the rag-tag group of outsiders going against the 'big guy', with most of them being token racial characters from different parts of the world (when I'd assume these countries don't even exist in Star Wars).

Lastly, while the fan service was necessary and ultimately pretty well balanced, I can't help but envision some wasted potential in the 'big moments' of Rogue One. Without going into spoilers, the movie maybe could have been more reserved with their limited space in terms of big reveals. While ultimately this would have led to less fan service, it could have been better fan service. In the end, however, this is just nitpicking at what was ultimately an enjoyable flick and a comfortable addition to the Star Wars movies. I can only hope that their future 'story' movies continue to feel like this one, and less like unnecessary money grabs.

Rogue One: A Star Wars Story

The Disney-era of Star Wars is well and truly underway following the success of last year’s The Force Awakens, and it continues this year with Gareth Edward’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, the first in an anthology of spin-offs that focus on background events and origin stories in the rapidly expanding filmic universe.

Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones) is separated from her father Galen (Mads Mikkelsen) at an early age when he is taken by Imperial military officer Orson Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn). She finds help from Saw Gerrera (Forrest Whitaker) and manages to stay out of Imperial sights. Years later, the Empire is building a new superweapon, the Death Star, and Jyn is recruited by the Rebel Alliance to join a team who are out to find the design blueprints of the weapon.

As the first major theatrical spin-off of the series, Rogue One is arguably the most hyped about movie of the year. Billed by many as a war-film of sorts, it’s a direction we haven’t seen the series go in before, and strikes a very different tone to The Force Awakens or indeed any of the others. Where space opera sized characters, love-triangles, story twists and endless metaphors about family have dominated previously, Rogue One focuses-down to the nitty-gritty land skirmishes, insane aerial battles and internal politics of the Rebellion that work behind the scenes in the main saga.

Rogue One is in essence the opening crawl of A New Hope, at least that’s what it is intended to be. At the forefront we have the story of Jyn Erso and the team that steal the design schematics of the Death Star. There’s a lot of back-story and character development that falls flat here, primarily because the film moves so quickly that it gets caught up in the rush and the characters don’t have time to breathe. Where these crucial character moments are expedited through the hyperbolic nature of the core films, this instalment aims for more subtlety in style and direction, thus it really can’t hope to build well-rounded characters in the time given and material covered.

Whilst it’s over two hours in length, Rogue One still manages to pack more than its fair share of content into the running time. If we’re not constantly planet hopping, we’re filling in canonic plot holes with new context. If you boil it right down, you could argue the whole film exists to explain the Death Star’s crucial design flaw. Slotted-in at the tail end of the nineteen year timeline-gap between Revenge of the Sith and A New Hope, the film feels too grand in scale for a contained spin-off, and in many ways there’s not enough meat in the plot to sustain the construct of such a huge summer blockbuster.

Jones manages to do a lot with Jyn when the film slows down enough to give her the opportunity, though at times she gets lost amongst the frantic action and the various other ensemble members vying for the audience's attention. Luna’s Andor has charisma, but like Ahmed’s Bodhi is inclined to blend into the background too much for a core supporting character. Yen and Wen’s characters are the unlikely buddy-sidekicks of the film who work efficiently as a fighting unit, and Alan Tudyk’s K-2SO whilst sometimes a little too forced, is one hell of an upgrade from C-3PO. Forest Whitaker and Mads Mikkelsen are both not given nearly enough screen time, and finally we have Ben Mendelsohn who is really just the archetype evil villain.

Rogue One however does look beautiful and takes advantage of well designed sets and practical effects almost as effectively as The Force Awakens. There’s X-Wings, Y-Wings and TIE-Fighters galore, as well as various Imperial Walkers on the ground, and plenty of idiotic-as-ever Stormtroopers to be mown-down. There are a few moments of fan service just as in last year's instalment, although not as numerous, and the main sequences are tied together with a fantastic score by Michael Giacchino that weaves in just the right amount of Williams’ iconic soundtrack. One of the biggest issues with the film is *possible spoilers* the  use of CGI to bring a character back from the original films (and effectively the actor back from the dead) who I didn’t really think needed to be in the film at all.

Rogue One feels like a slightly-unnecessary, heavily bloated chapter in the greater Star Wars universe that doesn’t do enough with its characters. However it does manage to differentiate itself from the main saga, and has been made with enough love and devotion to the canon to make it worthwhile viewing for Star Wars fans.

Inferno

I'm not one to be disappointed by movie adaptations of books. This isn't because I know that they'd get them right, rather I don't let my hopes get too high due to the inevitability that they will butcher the source material. I don't know why I let my guard down with the latest Dan Brown adaptation. Past experiences with The Da Vinci Code and Angels and Demons should have taught me otherwise, but I ended up getting hurt more than ever with this one.

Harvard professor Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) wakes up in a hospital in Florence with no memory of how he got there and a head wound. His attending doctor, Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones), explains that he arrived at the hospital with bloodied clothes and that his head wound has caused amnesia, but his memory should return. Before any of this can be processed, he is attacked by Vayentha (Ana Ularu), a mysterious assassin disguised as an Italian police officer. Soon Langdon and Brooks discover that he was there to prevent the release of a plague that could wipe out half of the world's population, a plan devised by Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster), a scientist concerned with overpopulation and who died at the start of the film.

Let me talk about the brief positives of the film before I get into how it devastated me. The film really captured the effects of amnesia and really eased the audience into the story. This is a pretty creative way to convey the confusion of the characters as well as not giving away everything at once. The scenery is spectacular, but that's what is expected when you set your film in Florence, Venice and Istanbul.

I know this isn't a book review, so I won't go into too much detail about it. While Dan Brown's writing is somewhat formulaic, the ending of the book was very different and original. While the movie has the super Hollywood ending (spoilers!) of Langdon stopping the plague from being released and saving the world, the book actually reveals that the plague has already been released and the day that they spent trying to stop was actually the day when the whole world would be infected. Instead of the plague killing people, it actually just made a third of the population infertile, a trait that may or may not be passed down through the gene pool. This ending is so much better and would make people stop and think. But because of Hollywood, we now just got a movie that everyone will forget because it lacks anything to make it stand out. That just defeats the purpose of making a movie, you want something that lasts the test of time to make as much money as possible.

Even if you haven't read the book on which it's based, Inferno is a pretty dreary movie. It sets an exhilarated pace that it can't keep up with. This is combined with a bland and conventional story, as well as confusing twist, to make an unforgettable movie that no one wanted.

The Theory of Everything

With the Oscars fast approaching, we've seen plenty of biopics attempt to grasp the attention of the Academy. The latest to be released, James Marsh's The Theory of Everything, is up for Best Picture and depicts the life of Professor Stephen Hawking from his time in college, his struggles with his debilitating disease, and his relationship with his supportive first wife Jane.

At a Cambridge party in 1963, astrophysics student Stephen Hawking (Eddie Redmayne) meets Jane Wilde (Felicity Jones), an Arts student studying the Romance languages, with the two hitting it off straight away. Hawking is shy yet highly intelligent and witty, Jane is also somewhat introverted but sensitive to Stephen's intricacies. Hawking is still unsure what to complete his thesis on, which is worrying his Professor, Dennis Sciama (David Thewlis). After showing an interest in black holes and the creation of the universe, Stephen decides on his topic: time. 

Hawking is making great strides with his academia and his relationship with Jane, but soon he realises that he is having difficulty walking. After visiting a doctor, it's discovered that Stephen is suffering from motor neurone disease, which will slowly paralyse him. He's given approximately two years to live. Stephen tries to hide from Jane but she won't give up on him, resulting in one of the most emotional games of croquet ever played on screen. Jane wants to have as much time as they can together, no matter how difficult that may be.

One worry I had about The Theory of Everything was that it would focus entirely on the relationship between Jane and Stephen, and turn the film into too much of a Hollywood romance. However, this is not at all the case. Marsh has managed to strike a perfect balance between their relationship, Hawking's work and how his disease would affect both. Based on Jane Wilde Hawking's book Travelling to Infinity – My Life with Stephen, the film provides what seems to be an honest depiction of the support that Jane gave him and how it broke her down in many ways. Time is used thematically throughout as reference to Hawking's field and research, however its woven through very subtly and is much more effective that way. My only criticism of the script is that it drags in a few places and at points it creates too many divisions between different eras to flow well. However those concerns seem minute amongst the many captivating moments that The Theory of Everything has to offer.

Eddie Redmayne's performance absolutely dominates the screen, and is testament to his incredible abilities as an actor. Early on, he forms the image of a shy yet passionate student whose intelligence towers over all his colleagues. Then as the motor neurone disease starts to take its toll, Redmayne transforms his body to match Hawking's. The devil is in the details here, with his loss of dexterity, slurring of voice, curling of lips and eventual paralysis all handled sensitively. Felicity Jones embodies a sensitive, yet at times frustrated Jane and a refreshingly strong female character. Whilst some of the supporting actors are underused, such as Emily Watson, others provide magnificent performances, with David Thewlis a standout as always.

After the recent rush of biopics, I thought that I wouldn't be able to stand another, but The Theory of Everything proved me wrong. Marsh has formed a well-constructed appreciation of both Hawking and the woman who supported him, with an astounding performance from Redmayne.