New "Solo" movie thoughts
So, my wife and I watched Solo, the new Star Wars movie over the weekend... and I gotta say, I'm confused why it is tanking at the box office.
In my opinion, it was the best Star Wars movie to date. My wife disagreed, defending the original trilogy, but conceded that outside of those, this was the best.
In brief, I felt it was amazingly acted. Definitely higher quality acting than even the current ongoing main story arc trilogy. Normally, 20 minutes in, I'm already trying to actively decide whose acting sucks the least. 20 minutes before the end of this one I realized I hadn't done that yet, and couldn't even think someone to take the crown as the worst.
The story line was shallow, but perhaps that was why, compared to so many movies recently I felt it was so well executed. It didn't try to be more than it had a runway for. Secondly, shallow works here. For a side story about Han's past, I was expecting more action than anything. And it delivered great action. And action movies don't always require the most in depth of story lines.
Also, let's be honest, Han was never the deepest character in the Star Wars universe. In fact, his character had the emotional range of an angry frying pan. And the original Star Wars trilogy really only paints him as attaining any depth in the pursuit of Leia. The newest trilogy doesn't really him to have even grown much beyond that in the intervening decades. But, I digress.
Now, there be spoilers ahead.
So, I decided to read some reviews and try and find out why this movie seems to be projected to do so poorly. And the worst reviews... were pretty weak in my opinion and suggested changes which would have lessened the movie.
One argument was a hope to get more coverage of Han's time in Imperial Army to better build out why he was so jaded. And the second was that it should have been a two part movie to enable this, with the first movie perhaps ending when he meets Lando.
Frankly, I don't think the ends justifies the means. I think the movie provides more than ample background into why he is the way he is, both in the movie and in the "future". In fact, in the final minutes of the movie we see that he has learned well, that even his friends can betray him. He is forced to kill the man who took him under his wing and watch as the woman he loves abandons him. These two moments alone set the stage for explaining his character.
As for his disdain for the Empire, I don't think much was required there. The angle they played was that he didn't get to play the role he wanted in the Imperial Army, so there wouldn't have been much to show unless they changed that entirely. And then, the Imperial Army threw him in a pit to be eaten by a wookie. For a young cadet who only joined to save his own ass, this seems like more than ample reason to become disillusioned without dragging this out.
I also see another massive problem with doing that story arc and splitting it into two; people seemed to want to hate this movie before any details were even released. Shooting a first movie where Han spends most of his time as a subservient Imperial Soldier? I think that would have been panned even harder. People have expectations about who Han Solo is already. This movie presented a story line which allowed him to have many elements from the beginning, grow into others throughout and provide a solid basis the rest.
Chewy and Lando both have more depth than Han. I'd say if you wanted a more story rich prequel you'd need to focus on a character like that. But, Lando is too secondary for his own film (most likely) and a Chewy one would probably end up a little too Ewok like. Leia is perhaps the next obvious choice. But, I think that one would be more challenging to write, especially since the only interesting part of her background we know of seems to be the bit where she gets captured by Vader.
Ultimately, it is a solid action movie. And I still maintain, one of the best under the Star Wars brand. I can agree it isn't an immensely rich story, but, it is the back story of a fairly one dimensional character.
In my opinion, it was the best Star Wars movie to date. My wife disagreed, defending the original trilogy, but conceded that outside of those, this was the best.
In brief, I felt it was amazingly acted. Definitely higher quality acting than even the current ongoing main story arc trilogy. Normally, 20 minutes in, I'm already trying to actively decide whose acting sucks the least. 20 minutes before the end of this one I realized I hadn't done that yet, and couldn't even think someone to take the crown as the worst.
The story line was shallow, but perhaps that was why, compared to so many movies recently I felt it was so well executed. It didn't try to be more than it had a runway for. Secondly, shallow works here. For a side story about Han's past, I was expecting more action than anything. And it delivered great action. And action movies don't always require the most in depth of story lines.
Also, let's be honest, Han was never the deepest character in the Star Wars universe. In fact, his character had the emotional range of an angry frying pan. And the original Star Wars trilogy really only paints him as attaining any depth in the pursuit of Leia. The newest trilogy doesn't really him to have even grown much beyond that in the intervening decades. But, I digress.
Now, there be spoilers ahead.
So, I decided to read some reviews and try and find out why this movie seems to be projected to do so poorly. And the worst reviews... were pretty weak in my opinion and suggested changes which would have lessened the movie.
One argument was a hope to get more coverage of Han's time in Imperial Army to better build out why he was so jaded. And the second was that it should have been a two part movie to enable this, with the first movie perhaps ending when he meets Lando.
Frankly, I don't think the ends justifies the means. I think the movie provides more than ample background into why he is the way he is, both in the movie and in the "future". In fact, in the final minutes of the movie we see that he has learned well, that even his friends can betray him. He is forced to kill the man who took him under his wing and watch as the woman he loves abandons him. These two moments alone set the stage for explaining his character.
As for his disdain for the Empire, I don't think much was required there. The angle they played was that he didn't get to play the role he wanted in the Imperial Army, so there wouldn't have been much to show unless they changed that entirely. And then, the Imperial Army threw him in a pit to be eaten by a wookie. For a young cadet who only joined to save his own ass, this seems like more than ample reason to become disillusioned without dragging this out.
I also see another massive problem with doing that story arc and splitting it into two; people seemed to want to hate this movie before any details were even released. Shooting a first movie where Han spends most of his time as a subservient Imperial Soldier? I think that would have been panned even harder. People have expectations about who Han Solo is already. This movie presented a story line which allowed him to have many elements from the beginning, grow into others throughout and provide a solid basis the rest.
Chewy and Lando both have more depth than Han. I'd say if you wanted a more story rich prequel you'd need to focus on a character like that. But, Lando is too secondary for his own film (most likely) and a Chewy one would probably end up a little too Ewok like. Leia is perhaps the next obvious choice. But, I think that one would be more challenging to write, especially since the only interesting part of her background we know of seems to be the bit where she gets captured by Vader.
Ultimately, it is a solid action movie. And I still maintain, one of the best under the Star Wars brand. I can agree it isn't an immensely rich story, but, it is the back story of a fairly one dimensional character.
Comments
Post a Comment