Remember in “Star Wars: The Last Jedi” when Luke Skywalker said to Rey, “It’s time for the Jedi to end”...?
Maybe he was onto something...
In the period of time since Disney purchased Lucasfilm in 2012, they have made four “Star Wars” feature films.
Fans of my generation — in surprisingly large numbers — think “Rogue One: A Star Wars Story” is the best of the new batch.
“Solo: A Star Wars Story” is able to capture the relaxed flavor and feel of “Rogue One.” Both of them share similar characteristics. Both take place in a time frame before “A New Hope.” Both experienced production woes which required extensive rewrites and reshoots.
In the case of “Solo,” the retooling also involved an entirely new director being brought on board (so did “Rogue One,” if you believe the rumors out there).
The biggest thing the two movies have in common is the fact that the Joseph Campbell-inspired “philosophy and mythology” of the franchise is largely absent from the story.
That brings me back to my comment at the beginning of this post. Maybe “Star Wars” is better when the focus is on action.
As Han Solo once said, “There’s no mystical energy field that controls my destiny... it’s all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense.”
That quote embodies the spirit of “Solo: A Star Wars Story.”
“Solo” tells the story of a young Han Solo (Alden Eherenreich). The film starts out with Han and his girlfriend Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke) trying to escape the clutches of a criminal underworld figure on Corellia. The two are separated, but Han vows to return for her...
The film then shifts focus to the rise of Han as a pilot and smuggler. We see him fighting in the trenches for the Empire (he was booted from the Imperial Flight Academy). As fate would have it, he soon finds a way out of the trenches as he connives his way into a criminal gang led by Tobias Beckett (Woody Harrelson).
The story itself feels like a western. The “Star Wars” franchise is at its best when it is a sweeping horse opera in space. “Solo” was written by a man who knows that genre well (Lawrence Kasdan) and his son (Jonathan Kasdan).
(If you’ve never seen Kasdan’s brilliant 1985 western “Silverado,” you’re missing out.)
We learn a number of fun bits along the way. The origin of Han Solo’s name is revealed. We learn how he meets Chewbacca. We see how Solo gets his iconic blaster pistol. We even get an Easter egg in the form of Lando’s “skiff guard” costume.
Han eventually crosses paths with gambler and con artist Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover). Lando owns the spiffy Millennium Falcon, and has a sidekick droid named L3-37.
The main “heavy” in the film is a gangster named Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany in an understated and effective performance).
Going any further would tread into “spoiler territory,” and I don’t want to do that.
The movie itself isn’t particularly groundbreaking or remarkable. However, it is a lot of fun.
Director Ron Howard told “The ‘Star Wars’ Show” that, “Using the Han Solo character, it sort of pushed things in an adventurous direction. It’s almost kind of got a little 70s feel... that rebelliousness, that recklessness. And so, that’s informed a lot of the action, it’s informed the way the scenes are staged, the way the action is cut, the way it is shot...”
I don’t know how much of the movie we see is Howard’s versus the previous directors (Phil Lord and Christopher Miller). We’ve heard tales that 80 percent or more of the movie was reshot.
Regardless, Ron Howard deserves considerable credit here.
He is a fine director. He starred in George Lucas’s 1973 film “American Graffiti” (another brilliant movie you need to see) and directed the 1988 fantasy film “Willow” for Lucasfilm (the movie recently celebrated its 30th anniversary).
Howard keeps the action moving — which I consider a virtue. Far too many theatrical blockbusters feel bloated with unnecessary exposition and backstory.
“Solo: A Star Wars Story” kept charging ahead during its 2 hour and 15 minute run time.
You can also tell that Howard & Co. weren’t bashful about “eliminating” elements in the movie that were starting to feel unnecessarily cheesy or geeky (you’ll understand what I mean when you see it).
Like “Star Wars” back in 1977, the filmmakers weren’t afraid to edit the film down to its essence.
“Solo” wasn’t an act of “self indulgence” like Rian Johnson’s “The Last Jedi.” It also didn’t meander with pointless subplots and patronizing social messages.
Rather, “Solo” captures the soul of what George Lucas was trying to do with “Star Wars” back in the 1970s — channeling those classic, Saturday matinee serials.
I was surprised how much I liked Alden Ehrenreich as Han Solo. He did a good job turning on the roguish charm. While he might not be Harrison Ford in his prime, his performance left me wanting to see another “Solo” movie.
There have also been rumors swirling about a “Lando” movie in the works. When Donald Glover isn’t making controversial music videos, he is a fine actor. I enjoyed his portrayal of Lando Calrissian and wouldn’t mind seeing the character headline his own film.
“Solo: A Star Wars Story” reminded of the days growing up playing with my Kenner action figures. I remember when I “finally” found the Han Solo figure at the Southroads Mall Sears in 1978.
I also have fond memories of receiving Kenner’s Millennium Falcon set for Christmas in 1979 (I knew exactly what that big box was when I saw it under the tree).
Disney and Lucasfilm need to be careful about how they proceed with the “Star Wars” franchise moving forward. I know the current trend is to “Marvel-ize” every property at the box office, but the “powers that be” need to make sure they don’t mess up the “special sauce” of “Star Wars.”
“Solo: A Star Wars Story” reminds us that the franchise — at its core — is supposed to be a fun, mindless adventure.
While “Solo” is far from perfect, it embodies what “Star Wars” is all about.
Well done, Ron Howard...
Previous post: What is CBS Doing to "Magnum P.I."?
No comments:
Post a Comment