Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018 Film) Review
The second anthology film and tenth entry in the "Star Wars" universe sees Alden Ehrenreich star as a young Han Solo, Donald Glover as a young Lando Calrissian, Woody Harrelson as Tobias Beckett, Emilia Clarke as Qi'ra, and Paul Bettany as Dryden Vos. Joonas Suotamo, the recent replacement for Peter Mayhew, reprises the role of Han's wookiee co-pilot and best friend, Chewbacca.
The directing duo of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, makers of hits like "The Lego Movie" and "22 Jump Street," were the original directors of "Solo." Due to, what else, creative differences, the duo parted ways with Lucasfilm. As a result, "Apollo 13" and "A Beautiful Mind" director, Ron Howard, replaced Lord and Miller and is the sole director of "Solo: A Star Wars Story."
Overall Thoughts
To be frank, I've been a little let down by the recent run of "Star Wars" movies. All of them are quite fun to watch, but they haven't been as good, nor as rewatchable, as when the franchise first began back in 1977. After "Star Wars: The Last Jedi," a very divisive film for many, I began to realize that a franchise the once was popular whether it was loved or hated, was starting to become like any other Hollywood franchise: not bad, but not great either.With "Solo: A Star Wars Story," while I was excited about it, I had reservations that it would be another entry that would continue to lead the "Star Wars" franchise down that path. It didn't help that the infamous split between Phil Lord and Christopher Miller and Lucasfilm was something highly questioned and the replacement of them with Ron Howard was not given favorable views by a majority of people. Even I didn't believe that he was the right replacement. Prior to the release of "Solo," Howard hasn't made many good films recently.
After seeing "Solo," I can firmly attest that it is the best "Star Wars" film made under Disney's supervision. Does it add anything particularly interesting or groundbreaking to the franchise? No. Will it be forgotten in a few years? Probably. However, the fact that it has smaller stakes compared to "The Force Awakens," "Rogue One," and "The Last Jedi" will likely help it in the long run. "Solo" is basically like the first "Ant-Man." That film had smaller stakes and it stood out because it followed the high-stakes film that was "Avengers: Age of Ultron." "The Last Jedi" had somewhat major implications for the larger "Star Wars" universe. Having "Solo" follow that film, renders it more unique in that area. You know that it'll have little-to-no consequences for the rest of the franchise, so you find yourself simply enjoying the fun that it delivers, which is a lot.
The plot is nothing too deep, but it is adequate for the actors to play around with. Ron Howard did a good job directing this film. "Solo" has the same feel as "Rogue One" did. That is, it's a bit more down-to-earth and doesn't feel like a big and shinny Hollywood production. The cinematography is impressive. Despite the relatively small stakes, this adventure feels grand with the way that it is shot. You actually feel like you're there with Han and Chewie.
As Emilia Clarke's Qi'ra says to Han at one point in the film, "[he's] a little rough around the edges, but good." At its center, "Solo" is a fun sci-fi romp, but the edges are very rough. The film has a pacing issue. You feel like checking the time to see how long it takes before things become more interesting. I resisted, but the urge was strong. Another issue that I have, concerns the way "Solo" will reference other "Star Wars" material. Whether it's from other movies, books, or TV shows, the film will hit you over the head with references that some might like, but others might find it overwhelming. To me, it was a mix of both. I liked a few of the references and cameos, but most of it felt like the film was saying, "See, remember this little detail from that other "Star Wars" story?" The supporting cast is a mixed bag between entertaining and useless. I'll get more into it, but for starters, let's begin talking characters with the titular star of the film: Han Solo.
Han Solo and Chewbacca
There are two ways to talk about Alden Ehrenreich as Han Solo. The first, is that you can scapegoat his entire performance based one the unfair fact that he isn't as good as Harrison Ford. The other is that you can forget that Ehrenreich isn't Ford and judge his performance solely on what he does in this film. The latter route is the one I'm choosing to follow.
Going in, I was skeptical about who Lucasfilm chose to be the young Han Solo. When Alden Ehrenreich was cast, I thought that anyone else Lucasfilm considered for the role was a better choice than Ehrenreich. I mean, actors like Ansel Elgort and Taron Egerton were in the running and they seemed like a way better choice to play a young Han. With that in mind, I believed that Ehrenreich would be the least interesting character in the movie.
As it turns out, Alden Ehrenreich was the best character in "Solo: A Star Wars Story." Who knew? "Solo" chronicles Han's origins. Where he started, how he met Chewbacca, and how he became the owner of the Millennium Falcon. For a majority of this movie, this Han is very different from the Han we meet in the original "Star Wars." Only in the final few minutes, do we see Ehrenreich put on a Harrison Ford-like attitude. Seeing the young actor portray a Solo that was brash, youthful, and naive was fresh and I got interesting seeing his progression to being the hardened and distrustful smuggler that we all know him to be.
Part of the joy of this film is how we see Han meet Chewbacca. Right of the bat, the two have quite the rapport. In "The Force Awakens" and "The Last Jedi," the filmmakers didn't do anything interesting with Chewie, so I liked that more was done with the character in this movie. Though a new actor is playing the character, I couldn't tell a difference between how Chewbacca was played. Kudos to Joonas Suotamo for capturing the spirit of Chewbacca in this film.
Supporting Cast
The supporting cast of characters is a mixed bag for me. I believe that while all of the performances were good, some actors were not given anything to do in their roles. The most apt application to this was Emilia Clarke as Qi'ra.
Emilia Clarke is a talented actress. At least, I think she is. People seem to like her in "Game of Thrones." The only other film that I've seen the actress in, is as Sarah Conner in "Terminator: Genisys." She was terrible in that film and she isn't much better here. She's not awful, but Clarke is just stuck playing an underdeveloped character. Qi'ra is one of those token female leads with nothing to do besides furthering the development of the male hero. To be fair, I wasn't expecting anything from Emilia Clarke. This was because she looked like any of the other female leads that have been in the other "Star Wars" films. She was another in a long line of brunette, Caucasian actresses playing the female lead in a "Star Wars" movie. This character is so stereotypical and forgettable, that I couldn't even remember Clarke's character's name after leaving the theater. I'm sure that Emilia Clarke is talented, but she didn't show any of that talent as Qi'ra.
Since Disney and Lucasfilm started making these new "Star Wars" films, the one character I have wanted them to bring back has been Lando Calrissian. He's my second-favorite character in this franchise. While I was okay that he wasn't in "The Force Awakens," I was disappointed that the character was left out of "The Last Jedi." Especially since there was a perfect opportunity to bring him back into this franchise. The thing I was looking forward to the most about "Solo: A Star Wars Story" was seeing Lando, granted a younger Lando, back in these films. If you ask me, Donald Glover was perfect for a young Lando Calrissian. He looks like a younger Billy Dee Williams and has had some of the same wit and charm that well all know that Lando has. Glover develops quite the bond with Alden Ehrenreich's Han and it was nice to see their relationship develop. Despite the fact that he doesn't have much of an identity beyond what we already know about the character, Donald Glover did not disappoint in the role.
Woody Harrelson's Tobias Beckett was another missed character. He's almost in the same boat as Emilia Clarke's Qi'ra. Like Qi'ra, his character has no development and his existence is to help further Han's journey as a character. The worst thing about this character, is that Harrelson isn't playing a single character. Tobias seems like a hodgepodge of other characters that Woody Harrelson has played. Sometimes, Tobias is like the Colonel from "War for the Planet of the Apes." Other times, his attitude is like that of Merritt McKinney from "Now You See Me." Apart from having no personality, Tobias doesn't have an identity at all. It's like Lucasfilm saw a bunch of movies that Woody Harrelson has been in, and combined them all into one character. The only thing the character did right, was that he introduced some interesting commentary about living the life of a criminal. It's commentary similar to that of Benicio del Toro's character in "The Last Jedi." Other than that, Tobias Beckett was a completely disappointing character and a waste of Woody Harrelson's time.
The villains of these new "Star Wars" films have been underwhelming. Adam Driver has shown potential to become a full-fledged villain as Ben Solo/Kylo Ren in the impending "Episode IX," but the rest of the villains have ranged from overhyped to disposable. Paul Bettany's Dryden Vos is like Grand Moff Tarkin if he had a bit more showmanship while committing sinister actions. That's not a bad thing. I love Tarkin and I liked Paul Bettany as the antagonist. He does have an absence for a majority of the film, but every time he showed up, he made me smile. Bettany plays this character in an over-the-top way that I was simply entertained by the actor. Again, he has little depth, but for a one-time villain, he wasn't bad. Paul Bettany wanted to play this character desperately, and he did a good job in the role.
CGI/Action Sequences
The action sequences and visual effects in "Solo: A Star Wars Story" is the only part of the film that is fine. Not too inventive or noteworthy, just fine.
The CGI is the same as the previous "Star Wars" films released recently. Nothing was too outstanding. I didn't see anything that didn't work. The Millennium Falcon looked shiny and going into hyperspace hasn't looked cooler. I only wish that there was some extra oomph added to it. If the CGI had that added element, I would've been more enthusiastic about it, but you can't get too upset at a film that has visual effects on-par with that of its predecessors.
Score
Recently, I've started a new series where I select a composer and share what I believe to be their five best film scores. (You can check out the first of that series here.) I oughta do one for John Powell because he's composed some outstanding scores throughout his career. Is the score for "Solo: A Star Wars Story" as good as his best works? Sadly, no.
Once again, I find myself talking about a film score that doesn't have any individuality. One of the few flaws I had with "A Quiet Place," was with its score and while it did sound good throughout the film, it was just a mix of themes that the composer, Marco Beltrami, had done before in other works.
John Powell's score for "Solo" is the same. The only difference is that Powell isn't revisiting themes that he has already done. Instead, Powell, rather unsuccessfully, composes music that attempts to be in the style of John Williams. But only John Williams can do John Williams-style music and, for lack of a better word, a copycat will not be successful in trying to do what another composer does better. Powell should've stuck to doing his own thing, rather than mimicking the style of another composer. As a result, the only mildly-noteworthy music are the tracks that Williams created himself during the glory days that are reused and sprinkled throughout this film.
Grade: B
I'd say that this grade is high praise considering the flaws I have with it. With smaller stakes, an exemplary lead actor, and an interesting origin story, "Solo: A Star Wars Story" is the best "Star Wars" film since Disney purchased Lucasfilm. That said, there is still room for improvement, but with the director change-up that happened late into the project, I'm impressed that it turned out as good as it did. Go see this movie. This isn't one that you necessarily need to rush to cinemas to see. However, if you have seen everything else playing or aren't interested in anything else that's currently in theaters, see "Solo."Save yourself the money and don't pay the added 3D expense, though. I saw "Solo: A Star Wars Story" in 3D and the only thing that looked great, were the trailers that played before it, particularly "Incredibles 2" and "Ant-Man and the Wasp." With those two films, I'm now considering to see them in 3D, but as for "Solo," go in regular old 2D. That, or maybe in IMAX since the cinematography did do a lot to help the film feel like one worth seeing on the big screen.
Conclusion
And thus, my review for "Solo: A Star Wars Story" ends. If you have not seen "Solo," are you wanting to see this film or not? Again, I'd see it in theaters, but I understand if you want to wait for its release to all the home media platforms. If you have seen this film, let me know what you thought of it as well as my review in the comments section below. While you're at it, feel free to share what film you'd like me to review next. Thanks for reading, I'm Dallin, the Film Fanatic, bye-bye.
Comments
Post a Comment