SIGNIFICANT STAR WARS: Solo
A Star Wars Story with only one star
(And it ain't Alden)
I’ve got a bad feeling about this...
Well, it finally happened. It was inevitable that it would eventually happen, but never expected to happen so early on. Yes folks, we’ve actually received the first live action canon-based Star Wars film that is on par with if not worse than whatever is deemed to be the worst prequel.
For example: If we're talking Attack of The Clones, Solo never gets as cringy as the love scenes, but it's never once as exciting as Clones' last 40 minutes.
Make of that what you will.
For example: If we're talking Attack of The Clones, Solo never gets as cringy as the love scenes, but it's never once as exciting as Clones' last 40 minutes.
To be abundantly clear, although anyone can acknowledge the lack of quality in comparison to the original films, not many people can admit that the prequel trilogy gets am overall bum rap. While everyone can agree that Revenge of the Sith is a galaxy far and away the best of the three, the general consensus is that Episodes I and II are deemed decent at best. But even among Pod racing, Jar-Jar Binks, Hayden Christensen or whatever bitching and moaning the fanboys boast about; amidst even the lowest moments of the prequels, there was always an underlying mythology to the Star Wars universe; expanding character arcs and interwoven plots that would bleed into the canon of the original films we hold on such a pedestal. Even at their worst, the prequels still offered a thick history at best; something for fans to grasp; to take away with once the movie was over, even if they didn't like it (not a fan of midichlorians? TOO BAD).
Even Rogue One, a film which initially felt irrelevant, limped to a strong finish with a final act that pays off and impacts the franchise as a whole. But SOLO? Holy Hoth, there is literally no reason for this movie to exist, even amidst Donald Glover doing the best he can to save it.
Even Rogue One, a film which initially felt irrelevant, limped to a strong finish with a final act that pays off and impacts the franchise as a whole. But SOLO? Holy Hoth, there is literally no reason for this movie to exist, even amidst Donald Glover doing the best he can to save it.
This is America.
This is also Donald Glover doing the best he can.
For the record, we all knew there was never an actual reason for Solo: A Star Wars Story to be a thing. Aside from Disney pocketing a profit because in their eyes Han Solo = money, a Han Solo origin story was simply something no one ever asked for. We got Harrison Ford's Han-swan-song in The Force Awakens, and the Falcon is still the most heavily featured ship in the new generation of Episode films, so yes a Han Solo movie seemed tired from the moment it was announced. On the other hand, the general consensus seems to be, "Well at least it's a FUN movie, even if it's useless," but even based on its formulaic exercise of cliched heist plots, contrived character twists, and endlessly emotionless action sequence after action sequence with no depth, calling the movie fun is a stretch.
To be fair, as a film everything is structured in an immensely entertaining fashion. The audience is treated to a visual feast which includes, but is not limited to, a train heist, a Chewbacca mud-match, Bond-like poker tournaments, chase sequences, Mexican standoffs, betrayals, shootouts and tons of sequences of flying ships; all in vain of paying homage to Westerns and gangster films, while finally taking the focus away from the Skywalker bloodline or anything Jedi or Force related to focus on the dirty scum of the other side of the galaxy. To this degree, as a branded "Summer Blockbuster," yes, Solo works REALLY well. If you're a twelve year old who's mesmerized by grandiose CGI spectacles and smooth-talking gunslingers, and if you've never seen a movie in your life, SURE Solo works to an exceptional fashion. Even as an adult who can suspend disbelief for two plus hours to watch an escapist sci-fi adventure flick, yes there is plenty to like about Solo on the surface. But you don't need to dig deep to see that this movie does absolutely nothing new for its audience.
But let's be honest.
This audience isn't going anywhere.
If we're gonna dig into the nitty gritty, for starters, what in the actual hell is going on with Alden Ehrenreich's performance? The kid can act, and he looks the part (kinda), but even if I can suspend my disbelief in him being Han Solo and not looking like Harrison Ford, I never once BELIEVED that the character I was watching WAS Han Solo, and therein lies the film's biggest problem, bar none.
Some dude at Disney: Look, if we make him a slacker, people will believe he's Han.
Some dude at Disney: Look, if we make him a slacker, people will believe he's Han.
If this dude actually convinced me he was the scoundrel, son-of-a-bitch, scruffy nerfherder that Ford was able to pull off, the mindless action and formulaic plot would almost be entirely excusable. But Alden Elden--f**kit, Alden Ehren simply embodies NOTHING that resembles the character of Han Solo. He's charming, he's devious; he's likable, but it FEELS like an actor playing Han in a stage performance, and the lack of believably sucks the audience out of the entire production. Every time Alden opens his mouth, the whole movie suddenly feels reminiscent of watching a big-budget Disney play with actors dressing up to play the parts of characters we already know... Granted, that IS the point of the movie but it never clicks in a way that convinces me I'm watching a notable prequel rather than a mock-Star-Wars movie; a sub par imitator at best.
Now if Alden took notes from his co-star, the outcome might have been different but I digress, not many people can do what Donald Glover can do.
Mr. Steal yo girl
Mr. Steal yo movie
Now if Alden took notes from his co-star, the outcome might have been different but I digress, not many people can do what Donald Glover can do.
Mr. Steal yo girl
Mr. Steal yo movie
Forget Woody Harrelson who's just playing Woody Harrelson; ignore Emilia Clarke who's about as good an actress as a Barbie doll; Try and erase Paul Bettany from your mind, as his last-minute-addition to the film is painfully noticeable. If we're being honest, the guy they got to play Chewie puts on the most believable performance of the entire cast, but it's Glover who shines more than anyone.
Granted, most people who watched this movie, if not because they're in denial about being fans no matter how much they complain, probably watched it for Glover. From the get-go, him playing Lando was always suspected to be the reason to give Solo as a film any credibility, and now that the film is out, it can be confirmed that he's far and away the best thing about the movie. The way he embodies Billy Dee Williams while making the character his very own is not only the purpose of impersonating another performance, but it's what drives anyone to want to watch a two plus hour movie following an origin story we never once needed. And save for his spot-on impersonation, Glover's performance is one of the only emotionally resonant pieces this film carries at all, and SPOILER ALERT, it's between him and a ROBOT.
Forget the fact that L3-37, the female-voiced feminist droid, is probably the best brand-new character, Glover's relationship with this tin can is better than any human-on-human interaction. Now, that's probably saying something for the lack of character in the film as a whole, but it also says a hell of a lot for Glover, who from beginning to finish, nails the role of Lando Calrissian. If you're going to watch the movie, watch it for Glover.
Interspecies relations between man and droid
make Solo the most progressive Star Wars movie ever made.
Forget the fact that L3-37, the female-voiced feminist droid, is probably the best brand-new character, Glover's relationship with this tin can is better than any human-on-human interaction. Now, that's probably saying something for the lack of character in the film as a whole, but it also says a hell of a lot for Glover, who from beginning to finish, nails the role of Lando Calrissian. If you're going to watch the movie, watch it for Glover.
As for the lack of everything else, I will give credit where credit is due. The amount of nods and callbacks to the original films; from the props: Blasters, helmets, dice, ships; to the dialogue: The jokes, quips, quotes and everything that will create instant nostalgia for the hardcore fans; it's all superb (except for the way in which Han gets his last name... It's about on par with the "Robin" reveal at the end of The Dark Knight Rises), and the attention to detail will be that much more painful for the die-hards because all of the film's positives will just remind you of how much potential this irrelevant movie contained from the start.
And the existential regret and pondering wonder will always boil back to the same question:
THE WORLD MAY NEVER KNOW
And the existential regret and pondering wonder will always boil back to the same question:
What would the Lord-&-Miller cut have looked like?
Granted the whole scandal between Phil Lord and Chris Miller getting fired from the film's production happened due to creative differences with Disney so sure, perhaps their vision didn't match the "Star Wars workflow" envisioned by Kathleen Kennedy and the mouse, but it will never excuse the lingering questions at just how far and wide that vision would go. There were early rumors that Lord and Miller were way off script and heinously goofy with their treatment of Han, relating their depiction of the character to that of the likes of Ace Ventura. Coming off the heels of The Lego Movie and 21/22 Jump Street, Lord and Miller being wacky with the material wouldn't only not be a stretch, but it's practically expected. Granted, one might not associate the slapstick, self aware, wacky world of these directors with the world of Star Wars, but when it comes to a bumbling slacker like Han Solo, these dudes might have just been crazy enough to pull it off. If the records show anything at all it's that at the very least Lord and Miller seemed to be ambitious.
And while Ron Howard has proved that he has potential to be a remarkable director, his vision for Han and the gang is just too bland; too familiar; too safe. It's not outright bad but in contrast to what Lord and Miller had to offer, we will forever wonder what could have been.
And while Ron Howard has proved that he has potential to be a remarkable director, his vision for Han and the gang is just too bland; too familiar; too safe. It's not outright bad but in contrast to what Lord and Miller had to offer, we will forever wonder what could have been.
Giving this scene entirely new irony
Is Solo a terrible movie? Absolutely not. Is it worth a damn to anyone? Not really. Is it fun and entertaining? Of course, but big-budget marketing has been pushing "fun and entertaining" long before Disney ever made plans to keep the Star Wars movies going for years after we all perish. Hell, even casual SW fans will enjoy Solo because if anything it will keep them nostalgic for the glory days of Han and the Falcon. Through the lens of this latest Star Wars Story, you can almost see the folks at LucasFilm counting their cash, smiling at the idea of producing an irrelevant nostalgia romp of a throwback-rebound after TLJ's backlash, but no one asked for their rebound to be a Han Solo movie of all things.
In fact, when it comes to new ideas and relevant storytelling not just for fans, but for intelligent film-going audiences who don't want to be spoon fed, Solo cements just how much GOOD Disney has done for LucasFilm since the revival, prior to the new flick.
By comparison, Last Jedi, Force Awakens and Rogue One ALL look like masterpieces next to Solo. But that's not to say Solo is a bad flick by any means. It simply has no real reason to exist and that's the film's biggest blow. Regardless of the divisive or polarizing opinions with TLJ or any post-revival SW film, there's simply a lack of quality and commitment to Solo that was very present in the three movies since the new franchise re-launch and at the end of the day, the hardest pill to swallow is that no one needed or even wanted this movie. Solo exists solely as a machine to make money and it shows. The final product, director problems aside, lacks depth of character and is almost entirely void of any emotional investment. Sure, Glover shines and the action is entertaining but the film does nothing for the franchise overall.
The harsh reality is that the fun but insignificant whimper of Solo is all too obvious, making this the most underwhelming and irrelevant Star Wars movie in over fifteen years.
In fact, when it comes to new ideas and relevant storytelling not just for fans, but for intelligent film-going audiences who don't want to be spoon fed, Solo cements just how much GOOD Disney has done for LucasFilm since the revival, prior to the new flick.
By comparison, Last Jedi, Force Awakens and Rogue One ALL look like masterpieces next to Solo. But that's not to say Solo is a bad flick by any means. It simply has no real reason to exist and that's the film's biggest blow. Regardless of the divisive or polarizing opinions with TLJ or any post-revival SW film, there's simply a lack of quality and commitment to Solo that was very present in the three movies since the new franchise re-launch and at the end of the day, the hardest pill to swallow is that no one needed or even wanted this movie. Solo exists solely as a machine to make money and it shows. The final product, director problems aside, lacks depth of character and is almost entirely void of any emotional investment. Sure, Glover shines and the action is entertaining but the film does nothing for the franchise overall.
The harsh reality is that the fun but insignificant whimper of Solo is all too obvious, making this the most underwhelming and irrelevant Star Wars movie in over fifteen years.
Let's just call a spade a spade, this might be where it all peaks.
