"Assume everyone will betray you, and you will never be disappointed" - Beckett.
It really doesn't feel like any time has passed since Star Wars: The Last Jedi arrived to split audience opinion into extreme love or extreme hate for the latest instalment in the space epic franchise. Now, before Episode IX is released to no doubt divide opinion, we have the next entry in the "anthology" series: Solo: A Star Wars Story. 2016's Rogue One was an excellent addition to the series, as it brought a fresh angle to an already known story and some big risks, most notably the use of CGI to "resurrect" the late Peter Cushing. Solo, however, is a completely different take, opting to a tell a relatively more optimistic tale than Rogue One. Despite flying the Star Wars banner, Solo has performed far below expectations financially than any other before it. But is the film itself actually any good?
After the Galactic Empire has taken control of the galaxy, a young Han Solo (Alden Ehrenreich), alongside love interest Qi'ra (Emilia Clarke), makes a daring attempt to escape the murky streets of Corellia. Unfortunately, things don't go to plan, and Han soon finds himself teaming with a criminal gang led by the charismatic Beckett (Woody Harrelson). Eventually hired by crime lord Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany) for a new job, Beckett's crew, including wookie Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo) and gambler Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), set out to make the legendary "Kessel run" and settle their debt to Vos, all whilst being pursued by the mysterious Enfys Nest (Erin Kellyman).
Of all the recent Star Wars projects, Solo's premise is certainly the one that makes you think: "is this really a story we need to know?". The answer is, unfortunately, "no". We already know Han's personality and goals from the other films, and seeing him in his youth doesn't add any sort of depth to his character. Alden Ehrenreich does fine with the material he's given, but the script is severely lacking Han's trademark sarcasm and wit. There are moments when Ehrenreich breaks past the script and gives us a hint of a young Harrison Ford, but these are sparingly displayed and Han instead takes a back seat to the other characters (in a film that is named after him!). Whilst not all the characters in Solo are particularly memorable, Donald Glover's portrayal of young Lando Calrissian is a standout. Glover flawlessly embodies the charming but untrustworthy characteristics that Billy Dee Williams first introduced us to in 1980's The Empire Strikes Back. The mannerisms and inflections were spot on for Lando, which confuses me how the film can do a supporting character justice, but not its lead. Woody Harrleson brings his usual charisma to Beckett and makes a good pairing with Westworld's Thandie Newton in a brief role. Emilia Clarke, best known as Daenerys Targaryen in Game of Thrones, brings a softer edge to the film as Qi'ra, but she also gets her chance to be tough and proves to be an essential member of Beckett's team.
If there's one quality that makes the Star Wars films an essential piece of science-fiction, its the villains. From the dark lord himself, the Emperor, to iconic baddies such as Darth Vader, Boba Fett, Darth Maul, Count Dooku and Kylo Ren, these characters are instantly recognisable and have resonated with audiences for years. In Solo, Paul Bettany is our primary antagonist, Dryden Vos. Though we are given a hint of his history with Beckett, we learn very little about Vos, and he never comes across as much of a threat. Whereas Boba Fett and Darth Maul weren't the most developed characters, their design and actions cemented them as instant fan favourites. Vos on the other hand isn't very distinguishable and, like Ehrenreich, Bettany tries his best to elevate the character above the script he's been handed. The mysterious Enfys Nest is a complete waste, appearing out of the blue and making no impact on the story whatsoever. It just goes to show that a cool design simply isn't enough to be a great Star Wars character, especially given the series rich history of iconic heroes and villains.
From a story perspective, I think there should have been an entirely different focus from what Solo gives us. I don't think we needed to see the Kessel run, as it's only a small anecdote in A New Hope and actually shows us nothing that we didn't already know. I would have preferred to see a story that challenges our opinion on the characters. Why not a story that shows Han working for Jabba the Hutt where he has difficult moral decisions to make due to the nature of his work? The plot of Solo does nothing to make us think differently or feel any deeper connection to Han. Its also worth mentioning that the humour throughout the film felt forced (no pun intended), something which many people found to be a problem with 2017's The Last Jedi. There are too many moments of pausing for laughs, that and the jokes themselves aren't actually that funny. The only one I really liked was hearing the famous Imperial March music being played in a major key for a piece of Empire propaganda.
Whilst it has moments of being a fun adventure, Solo is an ultimately pointless venture. The flashes of good performances and the odd set-piece aren't enough to separate it from the many similar blockbusters seen in cinemas nowadays. Star Wars became a sensation for breaking new ground with old stories. Solo simply plays it safe and offers nothing more than "here's Han Solo in his youth". Even then, the character hardly resembles the rough scoundrel we know and love, making this arguably the weakest entry in the saga to date.
Of all the recent Star Wars projects, Solo's premise is certainly the one that makes you think: "is this really a story we need to know?". The answer is, unfortunately, "no". We already know Han's personality and goals from the other films, and seeing him in his youth doesn't add any sort of depth to his character. Alden Ehrenreich does fine with the material he's given, but the script is severely lacking Han's trademark sarcasm and wit. There are moments when Ehrenreich breaks past the script and gives us a hint of a young Harrison Ford, but these are sparingly displayed and Han instead takes a back seat to the other characters (in a film that is named after him!). Whilst not all the characters in Solo are particularly memorable, Donald Glover's portrayal of young Lando Calrissian is a standout. Glover flawlessly embodies the charming but untrustworthy characteristics that Billy Dee Williams first introduced us to in 1980's The Empire Strikes Back. The mannerisms and inflections were spot on for Lando, which confuses me how the film can do a supporting character justice, but not its lead. Woody Harrleson brings his usual charisma to Beckett and makes a good pairing with Westworld's Thandie Newton in a brief role. Emilia Clarke, best known as Daenerys Targaryen in Game of Thrones, brings a softer edge to the film as Qi'ra, but she also gets her chance to be tough and proves to be an essential member of Beckett's team.
If there's one quality that makes the Star Wars films an essential piece of science-fiction, its the villains. From the dark lord himself, the Emperor, to iconic baddies such as Darth Vader, Boba Fett, Darth Maul, Count Dooku and Kylo Ren, these characters are instantly recognisable and have resonated with audiences for years. In Solo, Paul Bettany is our primary antagonist, Dryden Vos. Though we are given a hint of his history with Beckett, we learn very little about Vos, and he never comes across as much of a threat. Whereas Boba Fett and Darth Maul weren't the most developed characters, their design and actions cemented them as instant fan favourites. Vos on the other hand isn't very distinguishable and, like Ehrenreich, Bettany tries his best to elevate the character above the script he's been handed. The mysterious Enfys Nest is a complete waste, appearing out of the blue and making no impact on the story whatsoever. It just goes to show that a cool design simply isn't enough to be a great Star Wars character, especially given the series rich history of iconic heroes and villains.
From a story perspective, I think there should have been an entirely different focus from what Solo gives us. I don't think we needed to see the Kessel run, as it's only a small anecdote in A New Hope and actually shows us nothing that we didn't already know. I would have preferred to see a story that challenges our opinion on the characters. Why not a story that shows Han working for Jabba the Hutt where he has difficult moral decisions to make due to the nature of his work? The plot of Solo does nothing to make us think differently or feel any deeper connection to Han. Its also worth mentioning that the humour throughout the film felt forced (no pun intended), something which many people found to be a problem with 2017's The Last Jedi. There are too many moments of pausing for laughs, that and the jokes themselves aren't actually that funny. The only one I really liked was hearing the famous Imperial March music being played in a major key for a piece of Empire propaganda.
Whilst it has moments of being a fun adventure, Solo is an ultimately pointless venture. The flashes of good performances and the odd set-piece aren't enough to separate it from the many similar blockbusters seen in cinemas nowadays. Star Wars became a sensation for breaking new ground with old stories. Solo simply plays it safe and offers nothing more than "here's Han Solo in his youth". Even then, the character hardly resembles the rough scoundrel we know and love, making this arguably the weakest entry in the saga to date.
No comments:
Post a Comment