Disney's purchase of the STAR WARS brand was something I never dreamed I would live to see. Considering the uneven and lackluster nature of the prequels (particularly ATTACK OF THE CLONES and THE PHANTOM MENACE -- REVENGE OF THE SITH being the only saving grace, albeit flawed, too), I wasn't sure if their inevitable sequel trilogy would be any better. Happily, for the most part, it was. THE FORCE AWAKENS may have been a callback to A NEW HOPE, and THE LAST JEDI, for better or worse, was a daring, controversial turning point, but I found both films to be far more compelling than Episodes I & II of the franchise. In between, Disney has also provided us with an "anthology film", ROGUE ONE, which was quite good all around. Now along comes yet another "anthology film" for STAR WARS, this time focusing on the series' most famous scoundrel, Han Solo. This one had a much more rocky road to completion -- apparently the original directors assigned to the project were fired, and a new one, none other than Ron Howard (director of the much underrated fantasy WILLOW -- still one of my favorite movies), was brought in to reshoot scenes. Based on this production nightmare, one would assume that SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY could very well be a disaster. Thankfully, it isn't. Simultaneously, though, of the new STAR WARS movies, SOLO is probably my least favorite of the four so far.
Don't get me wrong, SOLO is not a bad movie at all. It is competently made, well cast, and moves along well for the most part. But compared to what I may argue would be its more ambitious and even daring predecessors, SOLO seems a little too "safe". The stakes in this tale aren't as high -- it's basically about a younger Solo, and so there aren't going to be any major casualties like there were in the previous entries. Consequently, it also lacks the "must-see" factor that was there even for the prequels. Perhaps the worst I can say about it is that it's a bit more forgettable. Other than a few standout action sequences and great performances, I'm hard pressed to remember a lot about SOLO.
That said, does SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY still have its points of interest? Absolutely. Alden Ehrenreich had a very daunting task stepping into the shoes of an iconic character made famous by Harrison Ford. He was never going to be able to top the actor no matter what. But having said that, he still does a very respectable job at making Solo a charismatic, swaggering badass. Part of it might be because he is in the hands of a director who understands the importance of gaining cast chemistry. Either way, his turn as Solo is far more engaging than Hayden Christensen's Anakin in the prequels any day. That said, the real star of the show is Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian. Arguably an even better match for what Billy Dee Williams created in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI than Alden would have been for Han, Glover fits seamlessly into the role like a glove, and is charming from the start. Every second of his performance is a delight. Oddly, my favorite performance in the film might be that of Chewbacca. Don't get me wrong, the performances are well done in general, but there was something about Chewie in this movie that I found really appealing, and for some reason he stands out here.
The two sequences that also stand out in the film include a thrilling train chase which must have been inspired by Hayao Miyazaki's CASTLE IN THE SKY. Well staged and timed, this ranks among the most exciting in any STAR WARS action sequence. Just as good is later on in the film when Han steers the Falcon into a nebulous space cloud, dodging TIE fighters at breakneck speed, and outrunning a massive space octopus-sort of creature that threatens to consume the ship. Both of these are worth the price of admission.
So why three and a half stars out of five? The main reason is because I didn't really find a lot of the new characters all that remarkable or interesting. It's not the fault of Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Thandie Newton, or Paul Bettany -- they all breathe life to their roles, but none of them really stand out in any way. Perhaps a second viewing will change my thoughts, but I honestly didn't remember much about these new guys worth talking about. That and the storyline, although interesting, does drag at times, particularly the last act. Still, the script by Lawrence Kasdan does contain enough barb and wit from the characters to provide a humorous tone for what are mostly one-note roles. Musically, too, the score is lacking compared to what we've heard from John Williams -- it's not John Powell's fault, he does the best he can, but I'm hard-pressed to remember a cue.
Don't take any of these complaints to suggest that I dislike SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY. Despite its faults, it's still a competently executed entry and is worth viewing at least once. Simultaneously, though, it's not one that I'm so eager to see again on the big screen, partially because it doesn't really do anything that we didn't already see. All in all, SOLO is good, but not great -- all things considered, it's better than it has any right to be, but it's not really a "must-see". At least it beats Episodes I & II.
Don't get me wrong, SOLO is not a bad movie at all. It is competently made, well cast, and moves along well for the most part. But compared to what I may argue would be its more ambitious and even daring predecessors, SOLO seems a little too "safe". The stakes in this tale aren't as high -- it's basically about a younger Solo, and so there aren't going to be any major casualties like there were in the previous entries. Consequently, it also lacks the "must-see" factor that was there even for the prequels. Perhaps the worst I can say about it is that it's a bit more forgettable. Other than a few standout action sequences and great performances, I'm hard pressed to remember a lot about SOLO.
That said, does SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY still have its points of interest? Absolutely. Alden Ehrenreich had a very daunting task stepping into the shoes of an iconic character made famous by Harrison Ford. He was never going to be able to top the actor no matter what. But having said that, he still does a very respectable job at making Solo a charismatic, swaggering badass. Part of it might be because he is in the hands of a director who understands the importance of gaining cast chemistry. Either way, his turn as Solo is far more engaging than Hayden Christensen's Anakin in the prequels any day. That said, the real star of the show is Donald Glover as Lando Calrissian. Arguably an even better match for what Billy Dee Williams created in THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK and RETURN OF THE JEDI than Alden would have been for Han, Glover fits seamlessly into the role like a glove, and is charming from the start. Every second of his performance is a delight. Oddly, my favorite performance in the film might be that of Chewbacca. Don't get me wrong, the performances are well done in general, but there was something about Chewie in this movie that I found really appealing, and for some reason he stands out here.
The two sequences that also stand out in the film include a thrilling train chase which must have been inspired by Hayao Miyazaki's CASTLE IN THE SKY. Well staged and timed, this ranks among the most exciting in any STAR WARS action sequence. Just as good is later on in the film when Han steers the Falcon into a nebulous space cloud, dodging TIE fighters at breakneck speed, and outrunning a massive space octopus-sort of creature that threatens to consume the ship. Both of these are worth the price of admission.
So why three and a half stars out of five? The main reason is because I didn't really find a lot of the new characters all that remarkable or interesting. It's not the fault of Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke, Thandie Newton, or Paul Bettany -- they all breathe life to their roles, but none of them really stand out in any way. Perhaps a second viewing will change my thoughts, but I honestly didn't remember much about these new guys worth talking about. That and the storyline, although interesting, does drag at times, particularly the last act. Still, the script by Lawrence Kasdan does contain enough barb and wit from the characters to provide a humorous tone for what are mostly one-note roles. Musically, too, the score is lacking compared to what we've heard from John Williams -- it's not John Powell's fault, he does the best he can, but I'm hard-pressed to remember a cue.
Don't take any of these complaints to suggest that I dislike SOLO: A STAR WARS STORY. Despite its faults, it's still a competently executed entry and is worth viewing at least once. Simultaneously, though, it's not one that I'm so eager to see again on the big screen, partially because it doesn't really do anything that we didn't already see. All in all, SOLO is good, but not great -- all things considered, it's better than it has any right to be, but it's not really a "must-see". At least it beats Episodes I & II.