"SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" (2019) ReviewThe Marvel Cinematic Universe finally ended its third phase with the release of its second Spider-man movie called "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME". Released after the franchise's mega hit, "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME", this second Spider-man movie is regarded as a follow-up to the previous film.Set in June 2024, eight months after "ENDGAME", former S.H.I.E.L.D. director Nicholas Fury and his top aide, Maria Hill, investigate an unnatural sandstorm and discover it was created by a creature known as an Earth Elemental. A super-powered man from an alternate universe named Quentin Beck arrives to help them fight the creature. In New York City, those students who had been killed by Thanos' Snap and revived by the Hulk's "Blip" prepare to finish out the school year they had been forced to repeat. Among them are Peter Parker aka Spider-man and his fellow members of the school's academic decathlon team, who the school rewards with a two-week European vacation. Still grieving over the death of Tony Stark aka Iron Man, Peter anticipates enjoying the trip and using it as an opportunity to confess his growing feelings for fellow classmate, Michelle "MJ" Jones. However, while the Midtown students are in Venice, Italy; Peter is contacted by Fury, who delivers a pair of glasses equipped with an Artificial Intelligence (A.I.) called E.D.I.T.H. that had been given to him via Stark's will. E.D.I.T.H. was an augmented reality security, defense and artificial tactical intelligence system. Fury also asks Peter to help him, Hill and Beck to deal with a new threat to Earth, the Elementals. Longing to spend time with MJ, Peter rejects Fury's request. But when a Water Elemental threatens to overwhelm Venice, Peter dons a new Spider-man suit given to him by Fury and Hill and helps Beck deal with this new threat.I might as well be frank. I was not a fan of 2017's "SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING". I simply thought it was a badly written film with very little imagination. I also consider it to be one of the worst films within the MCU franchise. I never had a problem with Tom Holland as Peter Parker aka Spider-man. But with Jon Watts back as director, I had doubts that my feelings for "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" would be the same . . . or similar. I did not think that this sequel to "HOMECOMING" would be a vast improvement over the 2017 movie. And this is why a family member literally had to drag my ass . . . wait a minute. I should be more honest. I had every intention to see "FAR FROM HOME". It was the only major film that was being released around the Fourth of July holiday and I needed something to do. So, was the movie worth a trip to the theaters?One of the joys I had managed to derive from "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" were its European locations. I have not been that impressed by the photography featured in many of the MCU films. But I could not help but be impressed by cinematographer Matthew J. Lloyd's work in this film. I found it unusually sharp and colorful for this franchise. And it did help that he had utilized his talent for scenes shot in Venice, Prague and London. I also felt that Leigh Folsom Boyd and Dan Lebental's special effects had enhanced Lloyd's work. Another aspect of "FAR FROM HOME" that impressed me were the special effects created for the Elementals.Another aspect of the film that I enjoyed were the performances. Tom Holland gave his usual excellent performance as Peter Parker aka Spider-man. Samuel L. Jackson's portrayal of Nick Fury proved to be a bit more skillful than usual, deliberately conveying the idea that Fury seemed to be a bit off in this story. This was due to the fact that his old Skrull friend from "CAPTAIN MARVEL", Talos, was impersonating him. I thought Jake Gyllenhaal gave the best performance as the costumed vigilante Quentin Beck aka Mysterio, whose sincere and warm manner hid a possibly sinister agenda. I was pleasantly surprised by Zendaya, who gave a more nuanced performance as Peter's new love interest Michelle "M.J." Jones than she did in "HOMECOMING". However, I remained unimpressed by her screen chemistry with Holland. There was another screen pair that proved to be surprisingly impressive was Jacob Batalon and Angourie Rice, who portrayed Ned Leeds and Betty Brandt, Peter's roommates. Thanks to their performances, I really enjoyed Ned and Betty's summer romance that took everyone by surprise. The movie also featured funny performances from Tony Revolori, J.B. Smoove, Martin Starr, Marisa Tomei, Jon Favreau and a surprising cameo from J.K. Simmons as J. Jonah Jameson. The only real disappointing performance came from Cobie Smulders as Maria Hill. She seemed to be used as background, instead of a supporting character. I blame the writers.Thanks to the European locations, Matthew J. Lloyd's cinematography and the cast's performances, I can honestly say that I enjoyed "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" . . . more than I did 2017's "HOMECOMING". But despite the above, I was still disappointed with the film. There was simply too much about this movie that rubbed me the wrong way. And I find this sad, considering that Spider-man has always been my favorite Marvel Comics character for years.The main aspect about this movie that irritated me was the main villain's goal. The Disney/Marvel publicity machine had hinted for months that "FAR FROM HOME" would explore the aspects of an alternate universe. In fact, the Mysterio character was supposed to be from an alternate universe who had arrived in this one to defend Earth against the Elementals. Instead, this all proved to be cheap plot twist that originated from revenge. The main villain, Quentin Beck, was a former Stark Interprises employee, who had been fired by the late Tony Stark for his unstable personality. Stark had also stolen Beck's holographic technology for his own private use, embittering the latter even further. With Tony dead, Beck settled with deceiving Peter Parker into handing over E.D.I.T.H. to him. I could not believe what this story had been reduced to . . . another Spider-man movie in which the main villain had a grudge against Tony Stark.Then again, I should have known better. For some reason, the movie's narrative seemed unwilling to touch upon or explore any grief that Peter may have experience over Tony's death. I take that back. The movie featured one scene in which Peter and Tony's former security chief, Happy Hogan, did discuss the dead Avenger. But there were no other scenes in which Peter dealt with the emotional consequences of Tony's death. Instead, he spent most of the movie being torn between plotting to win M.J.'s love and "helping" Beck and Fury deal with the Elementals. Which would have been fine with me, considering my dislike of Tony Stark. But instead of allowing Peter to face the emotional consequences of Tony's death, the movie included scenes of Robert Downey Jr.'s mug being plastered on a wall or a billboard or in a dream. After I saw Downey Jr.'s face for the fourth time, I had to fight the urge to throw something at the movie screen. It was sooooo fucking annoying. What I found even more annoying is that for the second time, the main antagonist's villainy sprung from some past action of Tony Stark's. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has managed to make two of Spider-man's well-known villains more about Iron Man, instead of him.I still find it ridiculous that the MCU seems hellbent upon making Spider-man's villains more about Iron Man, instead of Spider-man. And then there was the matter of E.D.I.T.H. Why on earth would any responsible adult will a dangerous piece of technology like E.D.I.T.H. to an adolescent? Why? Why did the screenwriters treat this dangerous and irresponsible action on Tony's part as a source of comedy? Come to think of it . . . when did Tony make this decision to bequeath the glasses to Peter? During the last five years of his life, Peter had been dead, thanks to Thanos' snap in "THE AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR". He had been resurrected at less than two hours before Tony's death. So, when did Tony decide to bequeath E.D.I.T.H. to Peter? Had he included this legacy in his will before the events of "INFINITY WAR"? If so, why did he fail to change his will following Peter's death? Especially, since he and Pepper Potts managed to get marry and conceive a daughter? Or did he create a new will, while building a time machine (MASSIVE EYE ROLL) for the Avengers? I have never heard of anything so stupid in my life . . . even for a comic book movie. One more thing - how did Quentin Beck and his co-conspirators discover that Tony had bequeathed E.D.I.T.H. to Peter? Was Tony stupid enough to post his will electronically? And why in God's name would the MCU allow Tony to create something so dangerous and not treat it so seriously? What was the franchise thinking?I had assumed that "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" would explore the aftereffects of both Thanos' snap and the Blip that had resurrected Peter and others who had been killed by the former. It barely did. The movie revealed that Peter and his aunt, May Parker, were helping other resurrected victims of the Snap in Queens, New York; who had had returned to life to find themselves homeless by staging some kind of fundraiser with Spider-man. I had learned via the MCU Wiki page that May Parker had also been killed by the Snap. I find this odd, considering that the same website had made it clear that she had survived the Snap back in 2018. And if both Peter and May had been killed by the Snap, why did they NOT end up homeless after being resurrected? How did May resume her profession (whatever it is) after five years? How did she get her money back? Did her bank refund her money following her resurrection? The more I think about Peter and May's situation regarding the Snap and the Blip, the more I find myself disgusted with the MCU's handling of its overall narrative. Audiences never saw May deal with the discovery that her nephew was Spider-man. Audiences never saw Peter and May struggle after their resurrection. It seemed as if the screenwriters of this movie had become emotional cowards. Or perhaps I should simply label Kevin Feige as an emotional coward?I have noticed that in past movies, he has never allowed the franchise to deal with the aftermath of serious events. At least not in the movies. "AGENTS OF S.H.I.E.L.D." had to deal with the aftermath of the agency's fall back in 2014. The series had to deal with the rise of Inhumans - something that the movies never touched upon since the topic first came up back in 2014/2015. And now, it seemed apparent that the MCU seems unwilling to deal the aftermath of both the Snap and the Blip. Looking back, "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" was the wrong movie to follow "THE AVENGERS: ENDGAME". It was willing to be some ham-fisted ode to Tony Stark, but it was obviously unwilling to explore how people like Peter and May Parker dealt with their deaths and their resurrections.Speaking of the Snap . . . guess who else got killed? All of Peter's friends from his school's Academic Decathalon Team. ALL OF THEM - Michelle M.J. Jones, Ned Leeds, "Flash" Thompson and Betty Brandt. All of them. All of them had been killed by Thanos' Snap and resurrected by the Blip. All of them. You cannot imagine how much I found this incredibly contrived. According to the movie's narrative, those students who had been killed and resurrected were given a two-week trip to Europe during the summer. So . . . Peter, his four remaining companions from the last film, and a handful of other students were the only ones from Midtown School of Science and Technology who had undergone the Snap and the Blip? Just them? How convieeeennent. By the way, this was a shoddily planned trip. The movie never featured them visiting any place of academic interest. No one discussed or brought up the possible trauma of being killed and resurrected. No one.And when did Peter become interested in Michelle "M.J." Jones? Audiences last saw her casually conversing with Peter at the end of "HOMECOMING", while he was mourning the end of his relationship with Liz, Adrian Toomes aka the Vulture's daughter. Sometime between the 2017 movie and this one, he became attracted to M.J. My God, how frustrating! It almost reminds me of the rushed development of Princess Leia Organa and Han Solo's relationship in the STAR WARS Original Trilogy. At least in that franchise, "STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE" revealed hints of Han finding Leia attractive. I saw no such hints in Peter's feelings for M.J. by the end of "HOMECOMING". So . . . when did he fall for her?I was also surprised about how Nick Fury aka Talos managed to change the group's itinerary at short notice in order to get Peter to continue with the so-called "Elemental threat". How did he achieve this without alerting the school board or the travel agency? This made no sense to me. Speaking of the fake Nick Fury and Maria Hill . . . why? Why on earth would Fury allow two aliens (even if they were friendly) to impersonate him and Hill? Why? If he was on vacation, he should have immediately cancelled it when the so-called "Elemental threat" first appeared. But he did not. Why? This is not how someone as paranoid as Fury would behave. Was he really on vacation? This whole scenario regarding his identity was simply a joke to me. After the joke about his eye in "CAPTAIN MARVEL", it seems as if the MCU is hell bent upon making him the franchise's punch line. Has Kevin Feige recently developed a grudge against Samuel L. Jackson or something? It was worse for Hill/Soren since she/he barely said a fucking word. By the way, what has Fury been doing since the breakup of the Avengers? Which government agency was he working for when the Snap happened? Or was he operating his own security firm? How did the Snap and Blip affect his livelihood? I get the feeling that the MCU will never explain anything.I would discuss the movie's ending, which featured Peter's identity as Spider-man being exposed by Beck or one of his colleagues. But I was too disgusted with the film to overall care. I am certain - or I hope - that this issue will be addressed in what I HOPE will be the final MCU Spider-man movie. Granted, I enjoyed the film's photography and the European locations. I enjoyed the performances of the cast led by Tom Holland. I especially enjoyed Jake Gyllenhaal's performance. And I enjoyed the romance between the Ned Leeds and Betty Brant characters (they eventually got married in Marvel Comics).Unfortunately, the sloppiness and laziness of the film's writing, the narrative's unwillingness to address issues from the last two Avengers films, the heavy-handed ode to Tony Stark and Jon Watts' mediocre direction has led me to regard "SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME" as a complete bust. This is the second time that a MCU Spider-man movie has completely disappointed me. I really wish that Sony Pictures would resume producing Spider-man movies without any output from the MCU. I really do.
"ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY" (2016) ReviewWhen I had first learned of Disney and Lucasfilm's plans to create a series of stand-alone films within the STAR WARS franchise, I felt a little taken aback. I had felt certain that the new owners of the franchise would stick to a series of films that served as one chapter in a long story. But following the release of "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS" and my slight disappointment over it, I was willing to accept anything new. "ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY" was announced as the first of a series of those stand-alone film. However, I found this ironic, considering that the plot for "ROGUE ONE" more or less served as a prequel to the first film in the franchise, 1977's "STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - A NEW HOPE". The 2016 film's plot centered around the Rebel Alliance's discovery of the first Death Star and their efforts to steal the very plans that served as a plot incentive for "A NEW HOPE". Upon contemplating the movie's plot, it occurred to me that Disney/Lucasfilm could have re-titled the movie, "STAR WARS: EPISODE IV - ROGUE ONE" and change the title for all of the films that followed chronologically. Especially since "ROGUE ONE" seemed to have a major, major impact upon the narrative for "A NEW HOPE".Actually, "ROGUE ONE" begins with a prologue set thirteen years before the film's main narrative. Research scientist Galen Erso and his family are discovered to be hiding out on the planet Lah'mu by Imperial weapons developer, Orson Krennic. The latter wants him to help complete the Death Star, which had began construction several years earlier. Although Galen instructs his wife Lyra and daughter Jyn to hide where they can be found by Rebel extremist Saw Gerrera, Lyra instructs Jyn to hide and tries to rescue her husband from Krennic. Unfortunately, Lyra is killed, Galen is escorted away by Krennic and a squad of death troopers and Jyn spends the next few years being raised by Gerrera. Thirteen years pass when Imperial cargo pilot Bodhi Rook defects from the Empire in order to smuggle a holographic message from Galen to Gerrera, now residing on the desert moon Jedha (where the Empire is mining kyber crystals to power the Death Star). Rebel intelligence officer Captain Cassian Andor learns about Bodhi's defection. He frees Jyn, now a minor criminal in her early twenties, from an Imperial labor camp at Wobani. He brings her before the Rebel Alliance leaders, who convince her to find Gerrera and rescue Galen so the Alliance can learn more about the Death Star. While meeting Gerrera on Jedha; Jyn and Cassian become acquainted with Bodhi, who is Gerrera's prisoner; a blind former Guardian of the Whills named Chirrut Îmw; and Chirrut's best friend, a former Guardian of the Whills-turned-freelance assassin named Baze Malbus. While Jyn and the others escape the destruction of Jedha's holy city by the Death Star and head for Galen's location on Eadu, they are unaware that Cassian has been covertly ordered by Alliance General Draven to kill Galen after confirming the existence of the Death Star.I noticed that the media tend to describe the plot for "ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY" as a mission for a group of rebels to steal the Death Star plans. And yet . . . after watching the film, I noticed that "theft of the Death Star plans" story line did not really kick in until the last thirty-to-forty minutes. Most of the film seemed to be centered on the Rebel Alliance confirming the existence of the Death Star. By shifting the actual attempt to steal the Death Star plans to the movie's last act, Gareth Edwards and the film's producers may have undermined the actual narrative surrounding the mission. It seemed . . . well, it reminded me of Luke Skywalker's plans to rescue Han Solo from Jabba the Hutt in 1983's "STAR WARS: EPISODE VI - RETURN OF THE JEDI" - confusing, a bit lame and out of left field. It also struck me as a bit rushed. I also found the major battle over Scarif during the heist of the Death Star plans a bit too much. I thought it was unnecessary to include it in the movie. Since the opening crawler for "A NEW HOPE" had made it clear that the Rebel Alliance had won its first major battle against the Galactic Empire, while the plans were being stolen, I can blame George Lucas instead of Gareth Edwards. So now, the movie is a . . . what? I do not know. Perhaps I had been expecting a Star Wars version of a heist film. Or an espionage film that did not a major battle. Instead, I found myself watching a movie that seemed to have more than one kind of narrative. I had a few other problems with "ROGUE ONE". Once the movie had moved past the prologue regarding Jyn Erso's childhood, the narrative rushed. At breakneck speed. It rushed from Cassian Andor's meeting with an informative on a planet whose name I do not remember, to his rescue of Jyn Erso from an Imperial prison transport, to Bodhi Rook's disastrous meeting with Saw Gerrera and finally to Jyn's meeting with the Rebel Alliance leaders on Yavin. Once Jyn, Cassian and the latter's companion - a reprogrammed Imperial droid called K-2SO arrive on Jedha; the movie slows down to a tolerable pace. I also had a problem with the movie's prologue - especially the circumstances surrounding Lyra Erso's death. I am still wondering why she had believed she could save her husband from Orson Krennic and a squad of death troopers with a blaster. Was she really that stupid? Or did the screenwriters simply found a lazy and contrived way to kill her off? "ROGUE ONE" also featured the appearances of a few characters for fan service. C-3P0 and R2-D2 were briefly shown at the Rebel Alliance base on Yavin before they were supposed to be aboard the Tantive IV. Their appearance struck me as unnecessary and forced. Speaking of the Tantive IV, what kind of transport did Bail Organa used to return to Alderaan? Especially since the corvette was his personal transport and his adoptive daughter, Leia Organa would end up using the ship for her mission, later on. I was very surprised to see Cornelius Evazan and Ponda Baba, the thuggish pair who had harassed Luke Skywalker in "A NEW HOPE". This pair had bumped into Jyn and Cassian on the streets of Jedha City. Considering that an hour or two later, the Holy City was destroyed by the Death Star, I found myself wondering how they had avoided death in order to reach Tattoine in time to encounter Luke and Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi in "A NEW HOPE". I eventually learned that the pair had left Jedha just before the city's destruction. Okay . . . but why include them in this movie in the first place? It was unnecessary. And their presence in the movie nearly created a blooper within the saga."ROGUE ONE" also featured the return of the Death Star commander, Grand Moff Tarkin and a young Leia Organa. Since Peter Cushing, who had portrayed Tarkin in the 1977 film had been dead for over two decades; and Carrie Fisher was at least 58 to 59 years old when the movie was shot; Lucasfilm had decided to use CGI for their faces. Frankly, it did not work for me. I feel that Lucasfilm could have simply used actor Guy Henry to portray Tarkin without pasting Cushing's CGI generated image on his face. They could have done the same for actress Ingvild Deila, who briefly portrayed Leia with Fisher's image. Honestly, the CGI images of the two characters reminded me of a video game. A relative of mine had pointed out that both had a "dead in the eyes" look about them.And yet . . . despite these quibbles, I still managed to enjoy "ROGUE ONE: A STAR WARS STORY" very much. I enjoyed it a hell of a lot more than I did Disney's other entry for the franchise, "STAR WARS: EPISODE VII - THE FORCE AWAKENS". The movie's narrative seemed very original in compare to the 2015 movie. Of all the STAR WARS movies I have seen, it seemed more like an espionage flick than any other in the franchise. And like the Prequel Trilogy, "STAR WARS: EPISODE V - THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK" and the last act of "STAR WARS: EPISODE VI - RETURN OF THE JEDI"; "ROGUE ONE" seemed willing to explore the ambiguity of its characters and its plotlines. This especially seemed to be the case for characters like the ruthless Rebel Alliance General Davits Draven, Alliance leader Mon Mothma, the extremist Rebel freedom fighter Saw Guerra and one of the main characters - mercenary Baze Malbus. Forest Whitaker had been cast to portray former Clone Wars veteran and Rebel freedom fighter, Saw Guerra; who had served as Jyn Erso's guardian following her mother's death and father's capture. I noticed that Whitaker, who seemed to have a talent for accents, had utilized a slight West African one to portray Guerra. However, I was more impressed by Whitaker's portrayal of the imposing Guerra as a slightly withered soul, whose years of political extremism and violence had left him physically disabled and paranoid. I really enjoyed one scene in which Whitaker conveyed Guerra's fear that his former protegee, Jyn, had sought him out to kill him. Alistair Petrie did an excellent job in combining both the commanding presence of General Draven and his ruthless ambiguity. After all, this was the man whose sole reason behind the search for Galen Erso was to have the latter killed. Genevieve O'Reilly had portrayed the younger Mon Mothma in 2005's "STAR WARS: EPISODE III - REVENGE OF THE SITH", but her scenes had been cut. Eleven years later, she returned to portray the same character. Only in this film, O'Reilly's former Senator Mothma who is nearly rendered speechless by Jyn's revelation about the Death Star. O'Reilly did a first-rate job in portraying a Mon Mothma never seen before. Yes, she behaved like a leader. However, O'Reilly got the chance to convey some of Mon Mothma's uncertainty about the Alliance dealing with the Death Star. I realize that some of you might find it odd that I would list Baze Malbus as one of the movie's more ambiguous characters. He really did nothing in the movie to hint his ambiguous nature, considering that he spent most of his time coming to the aid of his friend, Chirrut Îmwe or their companions. But I noticed how actor Jiang Wen skillfully conveyed Baze's cynical personality and reluctance to play hero and get dragged into the rebellion against the Empire.If there were two characters that truly reflected the movie's moral ambiguity - namely the two main protagonists, Jyn Erso and Captain Cassian Andor. Since the age of eight or nine (I think), Jyn has endured a lot by the age of twenty-two - the loss of her parents via death and capture, being raised as a Rebel fighter by an extremist like Saw Guerra and eventually abandoned at age sixteen, and life as a petty criminal (which included the occasional prison incarceration). It is not surprising that by the time the Rebel Alliance had recruited her, Jyn had become a cynical, wary and slightly ruthless young woman. And Felicity Jones did one hell of a job in bringing her to life. This is not surprising. Jyn Erso was such a complicated character and Jones was talented enough to convey this aspect of her. Cassian Andor, an intelligence officer for the Rebel Alliance, had experienced a hard life since the age of six. His homeworld of Fest had joined the Separatists during the Clone Wars. This means that Cassian has been fighting for twenty of his twenty-six years - first against the Galactic Republic and later against the Empire, after he had joined the Rebel Alliance. Cassian shared Jyn's ruthlessness. In some ways, he is a lot more ruthless and pragmatic than her. And unlike Jyn, Cassian is a dedicated warrior, rebel . . . and loner. But unlike her, he was also a very dedicated warrior and rebel. It seemed very apparent to me that those years as a freedom fighter had not only transformed him into a loner, but almost into another Saw Guerra. And Diego Luna gave a brilliant performance as the ruthless and pragmatic Captain Andor. I have only seen Luna in two other roles, but his performance as Cassian Andor was a revelation to me. Perhaps I should check out some of his other work."ROGUE ONE" featured other interesting performances. Donnie Yen gave a very charismatic performance as the blind former Guardian of the Whills priest, who believes in the Force. I must also add that I thought that as a screen team, both he and Jiang Wen seemed to be the heart of the movie. Another interesting performance came from Alan Tudyk, who provided the voice for K-2SO, the former Imperial enforcer droid reprogrammed to serve Cassian and the Rebel Alliance. Jimmy Smits gave a charmingly brief performance as Alderaan's senator and royal prince, Bail Organa - a role he had originated in the second and third Prequel movies. He and O'Reilly enjoyed a poignant moment on screen, as they discussed the possibility of requesting the help of none other than former Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi. Riz Ahmed gave a very memorable performance as the very man who helped Galen Erso kick start the events of this film, former Imperial shuttle pilot turned diehard Rebel, Bodhi Rook. Whether being scared out of his wits by Saw Guerra or enthusiastically supporting Jyn's scheme to steal the Death Star plans, Ahmed's Rook seemed to be a bundle of raw energy. Speaking of the Erso family . . . Mads Mikkelsen gave a very poignant and sad performance as Galen Erso, a brilliant scientist who willing helped the Empire complete its construction of the Death Star following the death of his wife and his daughter's disappearance. Before one can label Galen as another one of Mikkelsen's villainous roles, he turns out to be an unusual hero who surreptitiously gives the Rebel an opportunity to destroy the weapons station . . . before he is betrayed by them. The movie's main antagonist; Orson Krennic, the Director of Advanced Weapons Research for the Imperial Military; was actually portrayed by Ben Mendelsohn. Krennic proved to be something different as far as STAR WARS villains go. Mendelsohn did a first-rate job in conveying Krennic's murderous tendencies and raging ambition. At the same time, he did a great job in allowing Krennic's inferiority complex to crawl out of the woodwork . . . especially when in the presence of the domineering Grand Moff Wilhuff Tarkin or the very intimidating Anakin Skywalker aka Darth Vader.Many have claimed that "ROGUE ONE" is either the darkest or ambiguous film in the STAR WARS franchise. I do agree that the movie is ambiguous. Most of the main characters were not portrayed as dashing heroes or idealistic heroines who made little or no mistakes. With the exception of a few like Bodhi Rook, Chirrut Îmwe, Bail Organa and Orson Krennic; the movie featured some very ambiguous characters . . . three of them being Jyn Erso, Cassian Andor and Saw Guerra. I was especially impressed by how screenwriters Chris Weitz and Tony Gilroy portrayed Jyn Erso. Instead of feisty heroine or someone who is ridiculous ideal, they had portrayed her as a young woman who had aged before her time, due to the hard knocks she had experienced. A few STAR WARS fans had complained that Jyn's reason for going after the Death Star plans had not been motivated by some kind of patriotism or ideal. Someone even went so far as to criticize her for not being some leader or a person with "special" abilities. Personally, I am glad. With the exception of Rey, who proved to be a little too perfect for my tastes, I had no problems with the saga's other lead women characters. I liked that Jyn could not give a rat's ass about the Rebellion. I liked that she felt a great deal of anger toward the Rebellion Alliance for what happened to her father. And more importantly, I am glad that her decision to go after the Death Star plans was based upon a personal reason - to finish what her father had started. But what I had found even more interesting were the screenwriters and Gareth Edwards' willingness to shine an unflattering light on the Rebel Alliance. Looking back at the Original Trilogy's portrayal of the Alliance, the latter came off as an organization governed by morally upstanding and brave people. Perhaps a little too shiny or a little too . . . "good". Not so in "ROGUE ONE". One example of their moral ambiguity was featured in a scene in which the Alliance political and military leaders expressed reluctance and fear to do something about the Death Star, let alone continuing with the rebellion. Despite my annoyance at the "town hall" style meeting, I must admit that I enjoyed watching the Rebel Alliance leaders express their flaws and fears. I was also fascinated by how the filmmakers - through the Cassian Andor, Saw Guerra and General Draven characters - reveal how low the Rebel Alliance would sink for its cause. This was especially apparent through Cassian's murder of a Rebel informant and Guerra's paranoia, which led to his torture of Rook Bodhi. However, General Draven's orders for Cassian to assassinate Galen Erso, along with his second plan regarding the scientist really conveyed the ugliness of the Rebel Alliance. And I loved it.But is "ROGUE ONE" the "darkest" or most ambiguous of the eight current films in the STAR WARS saga? Personally, I believe that honor still belongs to the 2005 film, "REVENGE OF THE SITH". Yes, "ROGUE ONE" was willing to convey the more unpleasant sides of its main characters. Then again, I could say the same about the Original and Prequel Trilogies. Especially the latter. And yes, "ROGUE ONE" was willing to reveal the uglier sides of the Rebel Alliance. Although I cannot say the same about the Original Trilogy, the Prequel Trilogy seemed very ambiguous in its portrayal of both the Galactic Republic and the Jedi Order. But I cannot regard "ROGUE ONE" as the saga's most ambiguous film. Despite the mistakes and crimes committed by many of the film's protagonists, the theft of the Death Star plans and the Battle of Scarif pretty much provided redemption not only to the movie's protagonists, but also the Rebel Alliance. One cannot say the same for the protagonists from the Prequel Trilogy. Nearly all of them, along with the Galactic Republic and the Jedi Order, suffered the consequences of their mistakes and crimes . . . for years to come. There was no last minute redemption for the by the end of "REVENGE OF THE SITH". Perhaps that is an ending that certain moviegoers could not swallow, especially in a STAR WARS movie.I have no memories of Michael Giacchino's score for "ROGUE ONE". None whatsoever. David Crossman and Glyn Dillon's costume designs earned them a Saturn Award nomination. Personally, I did not see what the big deal was about. I will give Crossman and Dillon credit for creating the right costumes for the movie's characters and setting. Otherwise, they almost strike me as a rehash of John Gallo and Aggie Guerard Rodgers' work in the Original Trilogy. I felt somewhat impressed by Doug Chiang's production designs - especially for the Jedha City and Scarif sequences. His work was enhanced by Greig Fraser's photography. Speaking of the latter, I noticed that Fraser's photography of the Jedha City streets brought back memories of Gilbert Taylor's photography of the Mos Eisley streets in "A NEW HOPE". Both settings seemed to possess a similar lighting and atmosphere as shown in the two images below:
The Maldives served as a stand-in for the planet of Scarif, location of the Death Star plans and the movie's major battle. Between Chiang's production designs and Fraser's photography, part of that sequence brought back memories of various World War II movies set in the Pacific Theater.
In the end, I rather enjoyed "ROGUE ONE". There are some aspects of it that struck me as very original - especially in its characterization and its portrayal of the Rebel Alliance. Yet, at the same time, its plot and setting made it clear to me that the Disney Studios and Lucasfilm are still chained to some kind of nostalgia for the Original Trilogy - a nostalgia from which I feel they need to break free. And although I feel that the movie possess some flaws in its narrative, I still believe that it proved to be first-rate in the end.
