I just came back from seeing “Solo” and yes, I’ll be writing a Cowboy Pete on my Patreon account, so either bìŧçh about that or sign up as you see fit.
But there is a broader thing I’m still puzzling about:
What the hëll do people want from movies these days?
I mean, I heard about “Solo” was dark both in the initial plot and visually: how you couldn’t see anything. That the only actor worth seeing was Donald Glover as Lando. That Alden Ehrenreich either didn’t have the acting chops to play Han or (and this is my favorite) he didn’t look enough like Harrison Ford. For those people, the only thing that would have worked would have been to have Harrison Ford in the role and his looks digitally transformed to 1977.
I heard that the film was purely by the numbers, entirely rote, unoriginal. Indeed, the most positive thing I heard was that it was much better than “The Last Jedi”…which people slammed because they declared that it was far too original in its thinking because they hadn’t been able to get past the part where Luke chucked the lightsaber and walked away.
So those were my expectations.
And what I saw instead was a perfectly entertaining summer movie. Well directed, well lit, well acted, with some great relationships, twists and turns, and a couple of very unexpected cameos.
You want overly dark, relentlessly depressing films? Go check out “Blade Runner 2049.” Check out “Batman vs. Superman” and some lengthy parts of “Justice League.” But “Solo” was perfectly entertaining. A nice, old style turn-off-your-brain-and-enjoy summer film like, well, like “Star Wars” was before it became Chapter IV and launched a franchise. In fact, we’ve become so jaded that I think we should realize that if “Solo” came out in 1977 it would have been THE movie to see.
People seem to be obsessing over the fact that the budget was around $250 million. Guys, I still remember when the headline of the hour was that “Terminator II” was, oh my God, over $100 million. What an insane amount of money to spend on a movie!! Then people saw it and came away saying, “Totally worth it.” People have become so jaded that they ignore the fact that nearly every frame of this film has some sort of special effects in it. Yes, I know that backstage problems wound up in the budget becoming inflated. And if it means this film isn’t as profitable as others, you know what? Disney can cover the loss with pocket change from the two billion dollars that “Avengers: Infinity War” is going to bring in.
To anyone who is going to skip “Solo” because of negative reviews: Screw them. And for those that say that the pans are correct and the film is nowhere near as good as the original, allow me to share a few comments:
“Star Wars” is somewhat grounded by a malfunctioning script and hopelessly infantile dialogue…
–New York Daily News
The only way that ‘Star Wars’ could have been interesting was through its visual imagination and special effects. Both are unexceptional. …
–The New Republic
Strip ‘Star Wars’ of its often striking images and its highfalutin scientific jargon, and you get a story, characters, and dialogue of overwhelming banality, without even a “future” cast to them.
–New York Magazine
There’s no breather in the picture, no lyricism; the only attempt at beauty is in the double sunset. It’s enjoyable on its own terms, but it’s exhausting, too: like taking a pack of kids to the circus … It’s an epic without a dream.
–The New Yorker
That, friends, are some of the reviews that Episode IV received. Did it get positive ones as well? Yes, it did. But ultimately I think this is one of those instances where you should go see it for yourself.
PAD
• 
I’ve sensed a “groupthink” among movie reviewers. Whether it’s laziness or fear of inciting a social media outrage or the homogenizing effect of aggregators (the true bane of movie criticism) I don’t know. But if you notice, there is often a theme in movie reviews that gets passed around and many critics don’t bother to come up with their own opinions.
.
Rampage – A big dumb brainless movie that is non-stop action. (Except for the many scenes that try, painfully so, to explain what is going on)
.
Ready Player One – nothing more than Willy Wonka in the Internet (except for the very timely statements about net neutrality and corporate greed)
.
Solo – This new guy isn’t Harrison Ford (Thanks, Sherlock. Never would have figured THAT out…seriously, is this what these guys get paid for?)
.
The key, I think, with movies is not to rely on groupthink. Find a critic (or a couple) who you can trust – not necessarily one you agree with but one you can trust to give you an honest, THOUGHT OUT opinion. And for the love of Monty Python’s Brian, learn to think for yourselves.
I actually enjoyed Solo. I didn’t think it was a GREAT movie, but it was a pretty good film that I was entertained by.
And it was certainly better than either Rogue One and The Last Jedi which I just did not like. But went into with an open mind when I saw them that first time.
I have not seen Solo but may get around to it at some point. I hated The Force Awakens and skipped The Last Jedi but did quite enjoy Rogue One. Well I did once it got going which took a while but basically it was so much better than The Force Awakens which is not saying much.
I loved the originals but was too young to see them at the cinema when they first came out (I was born in 1977 and watched the films properly years later on video and DVD.) I vaguely remember seeing Return of the Jedi at the cinema but I hadn’t a clue what was going on or who anybody was. I just remember loving the Ewoks (and don’t understand people who hate them) loving the bit on the bridge where Luke reveals he is Leia’s brother and feeling really sad when Anakin asks Luke to remove his mask and then dies. Yes, Anakin, not Vader. I get really mad when people say Darth Vader is Luke and Leia’s father. Yes Darth Vader is part of Anakin but he defeated that part of him and came back to the light.
I also loved the prequels, although I admit they are not as good as the original films. I don’t get why people don’t like them and I love Jar Jar Binks (and again really don’t understand why people don’t like him or the Gunguns in general.)
The thing is I read the books that took place after Return of the Jedi which came out in the 90’s and are great (some better than others.) I loved reading them and enjoying them with my friends when it sometimes felt like the rest of the world had forgotten all about Star Wars.
So when the new sequels were announced I was a bit unsure because I loved the books but given how much real time had passed I knew they couldn’t follow the books (and probably wouldn’t have anyway) so I tried really hard to put them out of my mind and view the new films as a sort of alternate time line but what I got was a really boring film.
I’m sorry but Han was not Han, he looked like him only older but he didn’t act at all like my Han to the point that I had completely detached from this character and weren’t really that bothered when he died. Now if my Han died I would be devastated but I didn’t know or even really like this guy pretending to be Han and couldn’t connect with him at all. Leia was fine but we didn’t really see a lot of her and Luke was in it for all of 2 seconds but the fact that he had run away didn’t sound like the Luke I knew and loved.
I wish they had just gone with the new characters and maybe just mentioned Han, Leia and Luke or just had a short scene with them as in ‘there they are, doing their thing’ and now back to the new story and new characters which if they had worked on a bit more could have possibly made a half decent film.
Making it no different from any other instance.
Pretty much. But in this day and age when fans dismiss films out of hand based on trailers, posters, leaked back stage pictures (remember when the Joker pictures leaked from “Dark Knight” and fans declared Ledger was going to suck?) or even casting (many fans declared Robert Downey was miscast as Stark), I think it helps to remind people sometimes that seeing it for yourself is the only way to judge.
.
PAD
Anyone who thought Robert Downey Jr. was miscast as Tony Stark either knew nothing about Downey or nothing about Stark, or both.
By the way, I thoroughly enjoyed “Solo”. Big thumbs up from me.
Tom, the only real issue with Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark was his age as Downey was significantly older than the character he would be playing. However, it proved to be no big deal as he pulled it off with ease.
I remember all the people who were furious when Michael Keaton was cast as Batman. “He’s a comedian! The films gonna suck!”
What else is new?
I saw the movie yesterday afternoon in a theatre that was only half full (but it was a big theatre and a matinee at that). I thoroughly enjoyed the film. Was it great? No, but more importantly it was entertaining, and it didn’t put me to sleep, which some (not Star Wars) films have done. It moved at just the right pace and did everything that was expected of it (and some things that weren’t – but then I haven’t seen or read the Expanded Universe). I don’t know if I will see it again in a theatre, but I know I eagerly await the DVD with its extras and subtitling (so I can read the dialogue I missed in the theatre.)
I saw it last night. I won’t call it a great film, but I’m not sorry I went or spent my money on it. It was fun.
I admit, it is the lack of Harrison Ford that’s stopping me from seeing it. Some stars are just irreplaceable.
As for “What do people want?” I go to the movies to be entertained, usually in different ways based on the movie’s genre: scared by horror, thinking from drama, thrilled by action, etc.
I think it’s sad that people seem so focused on how a new, individual movie related to its franchise that the movie can’t possibly succeed. We should judge movies based on their own individual merits, not just how it makes up chapter X of an ongoing series of films.
Based on what I’m reading here, and on the trailer, I’m inclined to think I’ll be seeing it in the next few days.
.
However …
.
“I think it’s sad that people seem so focused on how a new, individual movie related to its franchise that the movie can’t possibly succeed. We should judge movies based on their own individual merits, not just how it makes up chapter X of an ongoing series of films.”
.
The trouble with this is, these films don’t exist in a vacuum. Even IV set out to give us the bare bones of the situation right up front: good Republic turning into bad Empire by The Emperor and seeing those who disagree turning to The Rebellion. We’re two movies into the sequels and … what? No clue as to where the First Odour … er, Order came from, who or what Stokes (however he was spelled) was, where he came from. What the heck happened between the Empire’s leadership being decapitated in RETURN and the confusing elements in AWAKENS where the rebellion seems even worse off than before. Bad writing for the sake of plot does not for a good/entertaining film make.
Original stories instead of ‘origin’ stories of every character from the original trilogy. So, I also give a thumbs down to the notion of a young Lando or any kind of Boba Fett films.
.
At least with Rogue One it was a new roster of characters (albeit with some gratuitous cameos).
Dude, have you seen the film? Glover as Calrissian is definitely the best thing in it; initially he even sounds like Billy Dee. Before I saw “Solo” I had zero interest in a Lando film; now I’m totally on board with it.
.
PAD
Haven’t and probably won’t. My interest in a “Young Han Solo Adventures” film has never been above zero (and it’s below zero for Boba Fett or Obi-Wan or whatever else they’re floating these days).
.
It sounds like they should’ve just made a Lando film instead. I might’ve had some interest in that, as we basically know nothing about him beyond his losing the Millenium Falcon to Han.
It’s certainly not a bad movie, but with so many great entertainment options out there these days, “not bad” isn’t much of a recommendation anymore. What do people want? They want something that knocks their socks off, something that gives them “the feels” as the kids say. And there are plent6 of opportunities to get that nowadays, even just at the movie theater.
Can’t say anything about what the professional critics have written, having read none of it. I had heard every hateful thing you could imagine, all from “fans” engaging in the pre-hate. It has been a long, long time since listening to the Geek Community proved to be of any assistance in deciding whether or not to see a movie (exceptions being personal friends), since the louder part of said community seems to be more interested in being a firing squad.
PAD……..this is my favorite Star Wars Movie since Empire…..I was 17 again!! LOVED IT
Saw it.
.
Liked it.
.
Was rather amused by the scar on Han’s chin… That piece of lumber gets around.
Must have missed it. When did they show him getting the scar?
They don’t.
.
But it’s on Han’s chin in the earlier films, it’s on Indiana Jones’s chin and it may be on the chin of wossname that Harrison Ford played in American Graffiti.
.
Ford got it while working as a carpenter when he got slashed by the corner of a one-by-two {i think – might have been a different size} when he was working as a carpenter.
Saw it; enjoyed it. My only complaint would be that it tried to cram too much of young Han’s life into a single movie. I won’t go into detail to avoid spoilers, but we get almost all of the key events that we could infer from previous movies showing up here. Why not spread things out a bit? Give us more previously unrevealed bits of his part (not that there weren’t any in “Solo” – there certainly were!), and save some of the key bits for a subsequent film…or novel..or comics series? Otherwise, a well cast, fun film.
I went in a bit daunted by what I heard about a “middling script” from one website.
.
I liked it.
.
A lot.
.
Fûçk word of mouth. Aside from the murkiness of the train sequence, during which I genuinely had trouble making things out, I had a good time watching it.
I’ve just come from seeing Solo. It was an entertaining movie that works great as a stand-alone. If you’ve never seen a single frame of any other Star Wars film, you can follow along without getting lost or confused as to what’s going on.
.
Obviously, people who’ve seen at least some of the other films will recognize a certain character who makes a cameo appearance. Those who haven’t will know from context that he/she/it is an important player among such-and-such group introduced in the film, which is really all they need to know.
.
Solo is essentially a “heist” film and we meet the various characters as we go, just like any other “heist” film.
.
There is one minor problem obvious to those of us familiar with at least some of the other Star Wars films. Avoiding specific spoilers, I’ll just say that Solo takes place some time before at least some of the events of The Phantom Menace. The problem is that either Han Solo is much younger than he looks in Solo (the actor is 28) or he was much older than the then-35-year-old Harrison Ford during the events of Star Wars
.
There is roughly a 30 year gap between the events of Phantom Menace, when Anakin was 9 or 10, and Star Wars, when Luke was 19 or 20. Unless “Patty” is really her “identical paternal cousin”, “Cathy”, a certain person’s cameo appearance makes it clear that the events of this movie can’t take place any later than when Anakin pulled a Wesley Crusher and saved everyone.
.
Kinda surprised no one responsible for making the film caught that. Unless, of course, the character we thought was “Patty” was really “Cathy.” Otherwise, it’s akin to Ewan McGregor showing up in The Last Jedi as a flesh-and-blood Obi Wan Kenobi. Unless there’s time travel in the Star Wars films, that wouldn’t make any sense.
.
Speaking of time travel, I caught a possible Back to the Future reference, believe it or not. It concerned a race involving Han’s buddy, “Needles.” Wonder who among the filmmakers is the Back to the Future fan?
.
Anyway, I liked the film. I think it’s worth seeing.
.
Rick.
Why would you think this takes place prior to ‘The Phantom Menace’? Clearly the Empire already exists from the very beginning of the film, making it either during or after ‘Revenge of the Sith’.
Since he’s basing that conclusion on The Cameo near the end, I’d wager he’s not familiar with that character’s post-TPM status from The Clone Wars and Rebels.
.
–Daryl
Rick, “Patty” is “Patty.” After she “got lost,” she “found a way home.” If you’ve not watched Clone Wars or Rebels, then I recommend reading up on “Patty” via Wikipedia or Wookipedia. You’ll see what she’s been up to since “coming home.”
.
–Daryl
That the viewer is expected to have watched an animated spinoff series with no advertised ties and/or read a specialized wiki in order to make sense of a major revelation in what was intended to be a summer blockbuster for a mass audience… could be considered a failure in storytelling.
What Matt said.
.
I haven’t seen either Clone Wars or Rebels, nor should I have been expected to. I also don’t have any particular reason to consult Wookipedia. I’m sure “Patty’s” family was relieved to learn she “found a way home”, but the last time I saw “her” was in 1999. “She” wasn’t doing all that well. It seemed reasonable to me that these events took place earlier.
.
Again, people who’ve never seen a Star Wars film likely won’t even know about “Patty’s” “other job”, but that other job is immaterial to being able to enjoy Solo and follow along with the story. On the other hand, there’s no reason to assume that people familiar with the films are also familiar with the details of the various ancillary material.
.
Tom,
.
Yes, you’re right that the Empire was mentioned, but it wasn’t the focus of the film. That’s probably why that detail slipped my mind when trying to figure out the whole “Patty” deal.
.
Plus, as I said, I only know of “Patty” from The Phantom Menace.
.
I’d heard about a cameo, but didn’t read any articles about Solo save PAD’s entry in this thread to avoid spoilers. I didn’t give much thought to who the character might be (but would have been disappointed if it had been Vader), but hadn’t for a moment imagined it would have been someone who last appeared in The Phantom Menace..
.
Again, Solo works just fine as a stand-alone film, something I think any filmmaker would want to achieve. The cameo should have been someone other than “Patty”, though. What? Was Ensign Ackbar to busy or something?
.
Rick
I can certainly agree with that perspective. In fact, as giddy as The Cameo made me, I did think to myself, “People who only see the movies are probably wondering, ‘WTF?'”
.
For better or for worse, it’s a symptom of Star Wars having shifted from a series of movies to a true multimedia franchise. The folks at Lucasfilm can (and clearly do) look at it all as one big toybox, with the assumption that of one doesn’t consume all of the media, one can (or, at the very least, look up answers to any puzzlers they run across).
.
It’s the opposite approach than the one taken by the MCU. When asked why Coulson (and the other Agents of SHIELD) weren’t in Age of Ultron, Joss Whedon answered that more people see the movies than watch the TV series. The last most of the audience saw Coulson, he was killed by Loki. So Whedon was faced with two options to include Coulson: grind the story to a halt to explain an entire season’s worth of a TV series, or have the audience think he/Marvel couldn’t be bothered to remember a fairly important event of the first Avengers movie.
.
It seemed to me as if The Cameo was clearly meant to set up future stories. Whether more Solo movies, a comic, a novel, an animated series, a live action series, puppet shows…I dunno. (Alden Erenreich is reportedly signed for 3 movies, so that might indicate more Solo movies, or Han featuring in other movies in roughly the same period, like the Lando movie Kathleen Kennedy teased.) So, maybe they’ll explain where “Patty” has been. Or maybe not.
.
But, I totally get where you’re coming from.
.
–Daryl
“Tom,
.
Yes, you’re right that the Empire was mentioned, but it wasn’t the focus of the film. That’s probably why that detail slipped my mind when trying to figure out the whole “Patty” deal.”
Han signs up for the Empire military, is shown fighting with the Empire infantry, the Empire gives him his LAST NAME! But you forgot the Empire existed. Okay.
Anyway, a story with a canon as vast and varied as Star Wars can’t be blamed when you haven’t read/watched it all. You were confused by the cameo, go check out where it came from. It doesn’t hurt the film that you don’t know how the cameo exists. Maybe it’ll open up a fun new part of Star Wars for you (Clone Wars/Rebels).
“Anyway, a story with a canon as vast and varied as Star Wars can’t be blamed when you haven’t read/watched it all.” That assignation of responsibility seems backwards to me. The entire canon shouldn’t be viewed as one big story. Heck, the subtitle of this film is “*A* Star Wars Story”, ie; one among many. So the makers of the film can certainly be blamed for expecting audiences to be familiar with particular episodes of an unrelated series from an entirely different medium in order to understand a key revelation in the film. That is, if they were aiming at more than just die-hards, which they presumably were with a major summer theatrical release.
LucasFilm is taking grief for tying together movies and cartoons.
.
Meanwhile, Marvel continues to take grief for NOT tying together the movies and TV shows more.
.
Just goes to show that you can’t please everyone.
Tom,
.
I didn’t say I forgot the Empire existed; I said the Empire-related details slipped my mind. By that I meant I was trying to make sense of why the cameo would have involved someone who’d last been seen (and hadn’t been in the best of condition) when Han would have been about 10 and I wasn’t thinking about the political system in place. Even if I had gone over every detail of the story in my mind, it wouldn’t have answered my question about the cameo.
.
Maybe I will check out Clone Wars and/or Rebels one day, but it’s unrealistic for filmmakers to expect people who go see their movies to also be cognizant of ancillary material. A movie needs to be able to stand on its own. Even movies that are part of a series need to be accessible to people who haven’t seen other films in that series. That’s one reason the Star Wars films had the opening crawl. It says, “These are the characters; this is the situation, here we go.”
.
Nytwyng brought up Agents of SHIELD. I’d heard of the show, but have watched very little of it. I did watch the season with Ghost Rider because I’d happened to catch TV ads for it and because I really liked the 1970s-1980s Johnny Blaze Ghost Rider series, especially toward the end. I was curious enough about this new interpretation of the Ghost Rider character to tune in.
.
As to the show itself, I knew enough about it to know that Clark Gregg was in it as Coulson, but, to this day, I’ve never seen a single frame of Agents of SHIELD explaining how Coulson either survived or came back from the dead.
.
Joss Whedon is probably right that more people have seen the MCU movies than the related TV series; likewise more people have probably seen the Star Wars films than TV series related to that franchise. As it happens, a Coulson appearance in Age of Ultron wouldn’t have surprised me, even if I didn’t know how he could be up and about; “Patty’s” appearance in Solo did. It might well have been vice versa for other people.
.
The somewhat perplexing cameo choice aside, I’d recommend seeing Solo. It is, as I said, an enjoyable movie, accessible to both general audiences and Star Wars fans. In that regard, the cast and crew succeeded.
.
Rick.
My point was that the cameo doesn’t ruin the movie just because you don’t understand it, and you might check out some of the further canon because it piques your curiosity.
There is what Neil Gaiman once said, which was (paraphrasing here) “When people tell you they don’t like something, they’re always right. When they tell you why they don’t like something, they’re usually wrong.”
If someone has not been particularly inspired to see the film through trailers or word of mouth or their appreciation of the franchise, or whatever, that’s fair. They can just say “Eh, I didn’t feel like seeing it,” but can’t really comment on the film itself, because they haven’t seen it. If, however, they’ve seen it and say they don’t like it, there isn’t much more to be said. Even if their reasons aren’t logical, even if you can counter all of their arguments, even if they can’t articulate their reasons at all, the fact remains that they didn’t like the film. You can pick apart their arguments perfectly and make a beautiful, flawless, airtight case for a film’s quality, but it doesn’t matter. You can demonstrate that it’s a well made, well crafted film, but you can’t argue someone into liking something.
Saw it opening day with my son. We both really liked it. It is the first of the Disney era films that I think I will view many times. I enjoyed them all but I don’t re-watch the first three Disney films because the deaths in them are too depressing. In this film I don’t care enough about the characters that die to be emotionally affected which for me is a good thing. I didn’t care about Obi Wan the first time I saw Star Wars or about Qui-Gon on Episode 1 but Han Solo’s death in Force Awaken was just too depressing.