We saw Solo and it did its job
May. 29th, 2018 12:02 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
drwexSolo: A Star Wars Story is pretty much exactly what it says on the label - a story in the Star Wars universe that involves a couple characters you already know, some more you don't, and covering events prior to what we've seen in the mainline movies. 3/5 stars for being competent and workmanlike fun, unless you're one of those "why do we need a goddamn backstory to everything anyway - this is Star Wars, not the MCU" people in which case you're going to hate this.
The movie is the most unsurprising "surprise" movie I've seen in a long time, mostly because the established characters get exactly the beats you'd expect them to get and the plot is full of "curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal" moments. It falls to the new characters to do things to move it along and they mostly do a good job in the few bits you get between extended action sequences.
Woody Harrelson is quite good as the grizzled old wise gangster Beckett. Emilia Clarke is OK as Qi'ra except for her... what IS that accent? And why does nobody else from her planet or even neighborhood have the same accent? That accent threw me more than the various plot and physics howlers.
Thandie Newton is good, if on-screen for too little of the movie as Val, the smarter half of the gang-leading duo with Beckett. Paul Bettany is appropriately menacing as Dryden Vos. He could totally do a "No, Mr Solo, I expect you to DIE" line and it would work.
The stand-out of the movie is probably L3-37, voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Following in the tradition of K-2SO, L3 provides the snarky robotic counterpoint for a chunk of action and in this movie tackles the question of "how, exactly, do these sentient androids deal with... y'know, being slaves?"
The three established characters are handled by Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), and Donald Glover (Lando Calrissian). All are competent to their roles as younger versions of famous persons, but none of them exactly knocked me over. Likewise, there's nothing really remarkably about the Kasdans' script nor Ron Howard's direction. It's just kind of there, and it's not bad. A few entertaining hours, not really that memorable.
Ask yourself the following question: how old is Obi Wan Kenobi during the events of this movie? I was basically OK with a theory that says that Han is late teens when he escapes Corellia. Official movie text says he's a "young man" so maybe he's 15-20? More official text says that this movie is "a few years" before he meets the main characters of A New Hope. There he's probably ~30 (Harrison Ford was 35 in 1977, if I've done my math right) which puts this movie 10-20 years earlier. So which is it?
Supposedly this movie takes place during the "early years" of the First Galactic Empire except then Qi'ra talks to Darth Maul, who is looking very much like he does before Kenobi (who at the time is a young man likely not much older than Han Solo in this movie) beats him. Maul then goes offstage for about 10 years before coming back for the Clone Wars. So _that_ timeline doesn't work. Maybe this is late-stage Maul, the version that will eventually go hunting Kenobi on Tattoine and die to him there? I don't have a good reference for the timespan between Clone Wars and the meeting of Obi Wan, Solo, and Luke Skywalker but my sense is that it was a long time. Guinness was in his 60s in 1977 and my instinct is that Kenobi is supposed to be about that age. Anyone have a clear reference?
Maybe all this is extreme nerdery and doesn't really care, or maybe they're retconning the timeline.
The movie is the most unsurprising "surprise" movie I've seen in a long time, mostly because the established characters get exactly the beats you'd expect them to get and the plot is full of "curse your sudden but inevitable betrayal" moments. It falls to the new characters to do things to move it along and they mostly do a good job in the few bits you get between extended action sequences.
Woody Harrelson is quite good as the grizzled old wise gangster Beckett. Emilia Clarke is OK as Qi'ra except for her... what IS that accent? And why does nobody else from her planet or even neighborhood have the same accent? That accent threw me more than the various plot and physics howlers.
Thandie Newton is good, if on-screen for too little of the movie as Val, the smarter half of the gang-leading duo with Beckett. Paul Bettany is appropriately menacing as Dryden Vos. He could totally do a "No, Mr Solo, I expect you to DIE" line and it would work.
The stand-out of the movie is probably L3-37, voiced by Phoebe Waller-Bridge. Following in the tradition of K-2SO, L3 provides the snarky robotic counterpoint for a chunk of action and in this movie tackles the question of "how, exactly, do these sentient androids deal with... y'know, being slaves?"
The three established characters are handled by Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), and Donald Glover (Lando Calrissian). All are competent to their roles as younger versions of famous persons, but none of them exactly knocked me over. Likewise, there's nothing really remarkably about the Kasdans' script nor Ron Howard's direction. It's just kind of there, and it's not bad. A few entertaining hours, not really that memorable.
Ask yourself the following question: how old is Obi Wan Kenobi during the events of this movie? I was basically OK with a theory that says that Han is late teens when he escapes Corellia. Official movie text says he's a "young man" so maybe he's 15-20? More official text says that this movie is "a few years" before he meets the main characters of A New Hope. There he's probably ~30 (Harrison Ford was 35 in 1977, if I've done my math right) which puts this movie 10-20 years earlier. So which is it?
Supposedly this movie takes place during the "early years" of the First Galactic Empire except then Qi'ra talks to Darth Maul, who is looking very much like he does before Kenobi (who at the time is a young man likely not much older than Han Solo in this movie) beats him. Maul then goes offstage for about 10 years before coming back for the Clone Wars. So _that_ timeline doesn't work. Maybe this is late-stage Maul, the version that will eventually go hunting Kenobi on Tattoine and die to him there? I don't have a good reference for the timespan between Clone Wars and the meeting of Obi Wan, Solo, and Luke Skywalker but my sense is that it was a long time. Guinness was in his 60s in 1977 and my instinct is that Kenobi is supposed to be about that age. Anyone have a clear reference?
Maybe all this is extreme nerdery and doesn't really care, or maybe they're retconning the timeline.
no subject
Date: 2018-05-30 10:01 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2018-05-30 12:21 pm (UTC)PS. According to Wookieepedia, Obi-Wan Kenobi was born 57 years before the Battle of Yavin, which means he aged rather a lot while on Tatooine! Solo takes place from 13 BBY-10 BBY.
http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Obi-Wan_Kenobi
no subject
Date: 2018-05-30 02:12 pm (UTC)