In defence of the Star Wars sequels: The Rise of Skywalker

So. Sheev Palpatine? I would.

Let me explain. Not even the most ardent villain-lover would describe Emperor Palpatine as a dish. His disfigurement, a consequence of careless Force-lightning-throwing during his duel with Mace Windu, left him looking much like a figure you would encounter during a Ghost Train ride (and I hate Ghost Trains). There are, however, two perfectly reasonable explanations as to how he could have offspring which would then lead to his being Rey's grandpa:

1) Rey's dad could have been fathered when Palpatine was still merely Chancellor and had not yet acquired his Ghost Train look. During this time he looked like his actor Ian McDiarmid, i.e. cute. This should fit chronologically: Rey's father ought to be in the same generation as Luke and Leia. Just make him a year older than the pair who were born approximately at the same time as Palpatine fought Windu and became a scary-looking emperor. There, problem solved.

2) Even if Palpatine's son was conceived and born post-disfigurement: well, Palps was the Emperor of the freaking Galaxy! Sorry to burst anyone's bubble, but let's get real. Apart from the obvious gold-diggers, there are also plenty of women who find power itself a turn-on. I'll have to raise my hand here: though I'd like to claim that I mainly find worldly success attractive as an indication of a man's brain power, and quickly lose interest if a power broker turns out to be daft, I'd be more likely to fall for a brilliant emperor than a brilliant tramp. And if we're talking galaxy wielder, well, then, I'm sure a certain amount of creepy knobbliness in the face area could be overlooked. Mind you, Grand Moff Tarkin would still be preferable.

In the novelisation of The Rise of Skywalker (which I haven't read: there are limits to my nerdiness) they went with neither of the explanations above. Instead, Rey's father is supposed to be a non-identical clone of Palpatine. Honestly, of all the lame plot contrivances! Disney had obviously listened to fans who were grossed out by the idea that Palpatine's son could have been conceived the, er, natural way, but they hadn't picked up on the reluctant fascination that went with the grossed-out-ness. Before the novelisation came out (or became generally known), I enjoyed more than one YouTube video on the topic of who Rey's paternal grandmother might be. With the boring clone explanation, there is suddenly no such person.

This can serve as an example of one of the problems with The Rise of Skywalker. The film tried to please the fans, but didn't always get it right. I would argue, though, that it got more things right than fans would like to admit. On the site Rotten Tomatoes, it has a low critic score of 51% positive reviews, but an audience score of 86%. So why are most online comments you find elsewhere on the scathing side? If I'd hazard a guess, it would be this: The Rise of Skywalker contains a great deal of blatant fan service. Critics noticed and panned the film because of it. After that, a sort of Emperor's New Clothes effect in reverse happened: to like The Rise of Skywalker was considered a sign that you were dumb, an uncritical viewer who would approve of just about any junk as long as Lando Calrissian was in it. That's why it's become a bit embarrassing to "come out" as someone who enjoyed The Rise of Skywalker and Star Wars fans don't like to bring it up, much less praise it.

Well, I liked it. When I first saw it in the cinema, I was riveted throughout, and it's not exactly a short film. Yes, much of the storytelling is a bit of a mess. It's never explained how Palpatine can be back, albeit in a decaying body, when he was very dead indeed in The Return of the Jedi. There were plot threads that didn't lead anywere, like fellow Stormtrooper deserters who kind of bonded with Finn (including a potential love interest) and Poe's old flame from his criminal past. It looked as if Chewie had been killed, but then they chickened out and he was alive and well. It looked as if C3PO would lose his memory, but then he got most of it back. I can see why those who claim that "actions should have consequences" in fiction would bury their heads in their hands.

There's no denying that The Force Awakens was better, more streamlined and focused. But while there's no continuity to speak of between The Rise of Skywalker and The Last Jedi, especially when it comes to Rey's parentage - however you want to package it, the son of an Emperor can hardly be called "a nobody" even if he ran away and was in hiding - the idea of Rey as a Palpatine actually tracks in other ways throughout the trilogy. It explains why it was her Sith-like rage that made her a dangerous opponent to Kylo Ren in The Force Awakens. It explains why, while she was on the island with Luke in The Last Jedi and tried to tap into the Force, she immediately went to the Dark Side of the spectrum and got Luke sincerely worried. Critics have scoffed that having a powerful Force user in the family makes Rey another boring "Chosen One", born to be great rather than achieving greatness. I'd say the opposite: yes, Rey's Force sensitivity turns out to be inherited, but it comes from a very murky source, and it's up to her to make something good out of it.

I also thought the film managed to give Princess Leia a nice send-off, using old footage and the like of the late Carrie Fisher in a respectful way and refusing to go too far into CGI Uncanny Valley territory. It must have been tempting to write Leia out before the film even began, but The Rise of Skywalker didn't do that. On the subject of Kylo's parents, the scene between him and a vision of his dead father (not a Force ghost - Han didn't go in for that kind of thing - but most likely just a figment of the guilt-ridden Kylo's imagination) was really touching, with a nice implied call-back to the famous "I love you - I know" exchange in The Empire Strikes Back. On a less moving note, I enjoyed the way General Hux's rivalry with Kylo Ren played out. As for the kiss between Kylo/Ben and Rey - well, as I've said before, I thought they had great chemistry throughout, and after my previous comments on the comparative attractiveness of Imperial villains, it should come as no surprise that I find the Reylo ship entirely uncontroversial, practically vanilla in fact.

Besides, The Rise of Skywalker is fun. The banter between the protagonists isn't on the same level as in The Force Awakens, but it's entertaining enough. And for my part, I enjoyed seeing Lando again and a fleet of every Star Wars ship known to man in the finale. If that makes me a dumb fan, then so be it.

Ranking the Daniel Craig Bond films

Luckily, I got the complete James Bond box set I'd wished for as a Christmas present - so now I can reacquaint myself with all the old classics as well as the newer flicks, and get a few blog posts out of it all into the bargain. As I've already done a personal ranking of the Pierce Brosnan films, it seems natural to follow up with a post on the films starring his successor Daniel Craig.

I was surprised at how much my first impressions held firm. I've mentioned both once and twice that I don't really think Daniel Craig is suited for the role of Bond, and rewatching his films to date hasn't changed my opinion. I'm not saying he's a bad actor, or that he's not attractive in his own way. Ironically, I think he would have worked very well as a Bond villain with a bit of extra depth - the hard man who's more intelligent than you give him credit for. I enjoy his dry delivery, saying things like "that sounds perfectly lovely" when you know it's something he hates the very idea of. But apart from lacking suavity, he just isn't convincing enough as a lady killer. Bond should be so obviously, almost cheaply handsome that you understand how women are tempted to fall into bed with him after just a short acquaintance. In Casino Royale, the disgruntled wife of a small-time crook connects with Bond after he throws her one cheesy line. She sizes him up and apparently thinks: "OK, go for it". This reaction is much more believable with someone like Brosnan. Bond shouldn't be the dark chocolate that only true connoisseurs appreciate, he should be the tempting milk chocolate bar most of us are ready to grab and eat when we're hungry. And speaking of dark, Bond shouldn't be blond, surely?

My views on the films also stayed very much the same as when I first saw them. I expected to have underrated Casino Royale - seeing as it's so widely praised - and overrated Skyfall. But no. Consequently, my personal ranking remains more or less what it was, i.e.:

1 Skyfall This one ranks far, far above the rest. In fact, I'd say it's up there with Goldeneye. Craig is dry and likeable, the set pieces are stunning, the supporting cast amazing. We have a great villain with an understandable grudge against M, perfectly played by Javier Bardem. Judi Dench's M has a magnificent send-off, and the mother complex that Silva and Bond share in relation to her works well as a theme. Poor boys - M is a tough old bird and not noticeably motherly, so it's no wonder they're emotionally scarred. A solid foundation for future Bond films is laid by bringing in Ralph Fiennes as a traditionally enigmatic male M, Ben Whishaw as an endearingly nerdy Q and Naomie Harris as an attractive and capable Eve Moneypenny (I still say she should have been the original Moneypenny's niece or something, though). Other from introducing a new Miss Moneypenny as if we've never seen one before, this film almost entirely dispenses with the "reboot" idea. Bond is clearly not a rookie - there are even hints that he's starting to be past it - and he doesn't mooch around mourning Vesper Lynd. Speaking of Bond girls, there aren't that many in this one. There's the usual disposable one that gets killed by the villain, but not one he's still with when the credits roll. But it works, and there's a passably tense scene where Eve shaves him (I have seen even more erotically charged shaving scenes, though - well, one, at least).

2 Spectre I wonder if this film would be further down the list if I've watched the films in a different order, because it's certainly no Skyfall. But what with the ground work Skyfall pulled off and the renewed feeling of Bond-ness it brought, I was more favourably disposed towards the next instalment of the saga than I would otherwise had been. I've already discussed this film's shoddiness, and the plot details that bothered me last time I watched it are still an issue for me now, not least the lamentably weak motives of Christoph Waltz's Blofeld. Nevertheless, there are villains that are even less well served in the Bond franchise (we'll get to that). Waltz is still eminently watchable. I'm glad he's returning for the new film, albeit in what appears to be a smaller role with someone else as the head villain. It beats me why Blofeld was always recast for every film in the old days. (Charles Gray and Donald Pleasance were both great - but hardly the same guy!)

I can't say I found sulky blonde Madeleine Swann (her alias is the wittiest thing about her) to be much cop as a Bond girl, nor a convincing choice as someone the agent Truly Comes To Care For. Still, she is the daughter of a bad guy, at least - in fact, a bad guy highly involved in the much-talked-of Vesper Lynd's betrayal of Bond and later in her death. I'm not sure if I find the idea of Bond shacking up with Mr White's daughter sweet or vaguely troubling.

3 Casino Royale How on earth can this film be so well-regarded? I don't understand it. It's so boring. The "reboot" idea, which tries to sell us Daniel Craig as a rookie Bond who's only just starting out as a 00, doesn't work at all, is disrespectful towards the Bond legacy and makes no sense seeing as M is the same person as when Brosnan was Bond, and we're in modern times, not in the Cold War. In a strong field, Mads Mikkelsen is the ace villain actor who has the most to complain about when it comes to the bad guy he's been handed by the Bond people. I wonder if ex-Bond villain actors ever meet up and compare the rubbishness of their parts. In that game, Mikkelsen would certainly have the trump card: he could counter "my guy had a bullet in his brain", "my guy wanted to start World War Three to boost ratings" and "my guy killed his dad because he was nice to Bond" with "my guy had no personality traits whatsoever". Honestly, we learn absolutely nothing about Le Chiffre. A little smirking at the Casino table is all the fun Mikkelsen gets. As for Vesper Lynd, I don't know - Eva Green has allure, but I didn't really buy her and Craig as having a special connection. But the parcours chase at the start of the film wasn't bad - I liked that the guy Bond was chasing was evidently much better at skipping over roofs than him, so the agent had to struggle to keep up.

4 Quantum of Solace Does Quantum of Solace really rank below Casino Royale? It's a tough call, but I'd say Mikkelsen, even when playing a cipher (Ah - I see what they did there), and the glamorous Casino setting put Casino Royale marginally higher. One thing that can be said for Quantum of Solace, though, is that it's considerably shorter - it must in fact be one of the shortest Bond films, if not the shortest. Another thing that can be said for it is that Mathieu Amalric is memorably slimy as corporate villain Dominic Greene. And... that's it, really. The film doesn't feel as if it's really trying. Bond doesn't even get it off with his sultry main female sidekick. Gemma Arterton is sweet as Fields aka the girl who sleeps with Bond then gets killed, but she's only in a few scenes, and she should have had the bottle to own that her first name (as shown by the credits) is Strawberry.

With the exception of an Opera visit, which was suitably elegant, the settings weren't much to write home about. There seemed to be a lot of desert and rock scenes. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the film was cut and released in something of a hurry. Also, I was grateful to have seen Casino Royale so recently, otherwise it would have been really hard to follow this film, as it picks up exactly where Casino Royale left off and presumes we remember everything about it. In view of the fact that it was released two years after Casino Royale, this is not ideal. I'm all for continuity, but Bond films aren't episodes of a TV series.

That's it for Craig - I'll be curious to see how his last film, No Time to Die, will rank compared with the others. Somehow I don't think it will be a new Skyfall - but the villain looks (comparatively) promising.