Solo: A Star Wars Story

Solo: A Star Wars Story

Starring Alden Ehrenreich, Joonas Suotamo, Woody Harrelson, Emilia Clarke

Directed by Ron Howard

The Story:
A young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich) and his paramour Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke) work for a criminal gang and yearn to escape, and when they find coaxium (one of the most important and expensive hypermatter that allows faster-than-light travel), they use it to escape, but only Han makes it out.  Vowing to return, he enlists in the Imperial Flight Academy where he meets rogues Beckett (Woody Harrelson) and Val (Thandie Newton), who plan on stealing a shipment of coaxium which will earn Solo enough money to buy his own ship and return to rescue Qi'ra.

Solo then meets Wookie Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo), and the two form a strong partnership as they join Beckett in his quest for obtaining the coaxium, but that's just the tip of the iceberg as Solo learns of an even bigger score at hand, leading him into the company of smuggler Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover) and his ship - the Millennium Falcon.

The Synopsis:
There's been a dreaded "S" word that's gone through Hollywood for awhile now, a word that has many people groaning and claiming it's unoriginal and uninspired, and that word is: sequel.  Many people are quick to judge sequels as something that's unnecessary, something that proves Hollywood has lost touch with originality, and something people deem as simply a "cash grab."  Yet, when a sequel comes out, these people are often the first in line demanding the theater to "take my money."  While the idea of originality is honorable, very few people would dare shell out their hard earned money for something they don't know. 

Now, there's another "S" word that's earned the same tarnished image in the hearts of many, yet it also causes them to turn in their bucks: "spinoff."  Lately, there's been talk of spinoff movies left and right - Domino from "Deadpool 2," The Nun from "The Conjuring 2," Venom from "Spider-Man," Bumblebee from "Transformers," that third rhino from the left who was chasing Kevin Hart in "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle," the cross from "The Passion of the Christ" (alright, maybe not those last two, but don't be surprised).  Since Disney bought out the "Star Wars" universe, they've set out to release anthology series on some of the most beloved characters we've come to know over the last decades.  "Rogue One" was a spinoff of "A New Hope," and "Solo" - while also serving as an origin story - is a spinoff on the devilishly rogue smuggler Han Solo (and there's already talks of a spinoff on Donald Glover's Lando Calrissian...a spinoff from a spinoff...a spinoffception).  While "Rogue One" dominated the box office, "Solo" quite lives up to its title - the turnout was so low it's already been whispered by some cinema elites as being the first "Star Wars" flop.

What is it about "Solo" that kept people away?  Some diehard "Star Wars" fans still packed the theaters, but others I know who absolutely adore the franchise just shrugged their shoulders when I asked if they were excited to see it.  Maybe "Star Wars" fatigue is setting in ("Solo" comes a mere six months after "The Last Jedi," which came out only a year after "Rogue One," which was released a year after "The Force Awakens"), as Disney does have the habit of beating their cash cows into the ground.  Maybe it's the problems behind the scenes that plagued the film that resulted in low turnout - the film was originally being directed by duo Phil Lord and Christopher Miller, but they left the project due to differences and Ron Howard picked it up - a decision that star Emilia Clarke said was the best thing for the film).  Maybe it's the fact that lead actor Alden Ehrenreich is a relative unknown who had to have an acting coach on set to learn to act more like Harrison Ford.  Maybe it's giving a character that's been beloved by audiences for over forty years to said newcomer after being owned (whether he liked it or not) by Harrison Ford.  Who knows?  In any event, after seeing the film, I could say that the film doesn't deserve all the hate it's been receiving, but it also isn't that kind of film that will have you pining to see it again, or even remember most of its events months down the line.

Serving up as a perfectly acceptable addition to the "Star Wars" universe, the film does pay homage to Han Solo in that we get to witness on screen the events he's been speaking of since the first "Star Wars" back in 1977.  We see how he meets Chewbacca, his first run-in with Lando, how he obtains the Millennium Falcon, how he made the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs - and that's all well and good, if not wholly unnecessary (I don't think even the biggest diehard "Star Wars" fan really cared to see Solo's stories come to life).  There were some perfectly acceptable fight sequences, some top-notch acting, and a decent script.  It kept my attention well, it was a marvelous endeavor, and if you take it away from the "Star Wars" mantra, it's a perfectly fine heist movie.

Actually, tonally the film does go all over the place.  The core of the film is a heist movie with rogues and rapscallions from across the universe who travel in search of precious coaxium, but the film tends to fly from one subgenre to another.  There's hints of "Ocean's Eleven," "All Quiet on the Western Front," and even "3:10 to Yuma" and other classic westerns sprinkled throughout, with more backstabs and betrayals than you'd see on "Survivor."  By the end, you'd need to construct a flow chart to see where everyone stands with everyone else, because it tended to get a bit convoluted near the end.

Cinematically, the movie also switches drastically after the first fourth of the film.  I was straining my eyes (as was my friend) to try and see what was happening on screen, as everything was so dark it was like looking through a filtered lens.  It seemed like the director finally asked the cameraman if he had the night lens on the camera, to which the cameraman probably replied, "oops" and took it off, but the director didn't want to waste time re-shooting everything.  Suddenly the film became bright and vibrant, and we could clearly see everything happening on screen, which was really an odd thing, as there was no reason for the film to go from dark to light like that. 

When it came to the actors, everyone delivered their A-games, in a perfectly suitable film.  Woody Harrelson was perfectly fine.  Emilia Clarke was perfectly fine.  Donald Glover was the obvious standout (since his character is now in contention for his own spin-spinoff).  Even Alden Ehrenreich gave a perfectly admirable job as a cocky, self-absorbed self-proclaimed best pilot in the galaxy - but as Han Solo, he often tripped on his own feet, much like a parent holding their two-year-old son over his pair of shoes and expecting him to walk in them.  While there were moments where I felt Ehrenreich absorbed himself into Solo, there were plenty other moments where I wasn't buying it.

That's not to say the film is bad, in fact it's entertaining and fun, filled with all the lovable stuff any "Star Wars" fan would adore, and it takes a much different direction than the much-maligned "Last Jedi."  It brought back the nostalgia and opened viewers eyes to events just mentioned in passing.  It had decent action and drama.  Just wasn't something that was entirely necessary.

The Summary:
While we learn about the early days of Han Solo, we're also given a hodgepodge of different genres in a film that combine to make a fun-filled action adventure with some of cinema's most beloved film icons.

The Score: A-