Jump to content

Solo: A Star Wars Story (Ron Howard 2018)


Jay

Recommended Posts

Let's talk about the film itself here (or in the spoiler thread), and do all the score talk in the score thread.  Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pretty dull overall I'd say. A plot that I did not care about at all. Nothing distinctive about it.

 

Rogue one had a more interesting plot and definitely a striking ending.

 

The lead was dull as well. Can't imagine seeing this ever again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The movie was serviceable, enjoyable in parts, but forgettable. Ron Howard and the writers played it all safe, and while it has some fun moments... it's a movie that clearly didn't need to be made. And from a few plot threads left hanging at the end, Kathleen Kennedy is planning for a sequel.

Spoiler

But the Darth Maul cameo at the end... it doesn't make sense.

 

The actors were top-notch. Ehrenreich did okay -- he's no Harrison, but I didn't want him doing an impression either. Donald Glover went above and beyond as Lando Calrissian, he was fantastic in each scene he was in. Khaleesi (aka Emilia Clarke) was there to look pretty as the love interest. Paul Bettany, Thandie Newton, and Woody Harrelson were rather wasted though.

 

And what was with the filters? I understand Han comes from a rough and tumble background, but I was hoping for a Rogue One palette. The various shades of brown made it more drab and ugly.

 

This is definitely showing franchise fatigue. Lucasfilm needs to cut back on a yearly strategy and make one every 2 years, or do a thorough quality check before cranking out yearly films.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not a very enthusiastic review from the perpetual Star Wars fan, Chris Hartwell:

 

 

And this is the guy that gave Attack of the Clones a 4/5!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched it with a friend who tends to enjoy almost everything. And he was really bored this time, to my utter surprise. I thought it was just me who found it really bland. It's not even terrible in any way, just really flat and lacking any emotion. I really didn't care.

 

Karol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

Not a very enthusiastic review from the perpetual Star Wars fan, Chris Hartwell:

 

 

And this is the guy that gave Attack of the Clones a 4/5!

 

Many of these YouTube pseudo critics have been on the warpath against Disney and Lucasfilm since TLJ.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not Chris. He's a legit film-school professor, and he's a huge fan of the recent Star Wars films. The Last Jedi was his 5th favorite film last year.

 

That's not to say that he is to be taken as a gospel. His tastes are not entirely mainstream (like I said, he gave Attack of the Clones 4/5), but his opinion is a nice reference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Margo Channing said:

Hang on, why should Marvel crank out three films a year, but SW must only release one every two years?

 

I think Marvel is overdoing it too. The maximum they should crank out a year is two -- they avoid overkill and lets the competition have more space. But another thing about Marvel is that Kevin Feige is letting filmmakers take risks while Kathy Kennedy rigidly plays it safe. This is the second Lucasfilm SW spinoff that needed extensive reshoots and tinkering in post-production.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Matt C said:

 

I think Marvel is overdoing it too. The maximum they should crank out a year is two -- they avoid overkill and lets the competition have more space. But another thing about Marvel is that Kevin Feige is letting filmmakers take risks while Kathy Kennedy rigidly plays it safe. This is the second Lucasfilm SW spinoff that needed extensive reshoots and tinkering in post-production.

 

I think Kathy is delivering more ambitious films - bigger in scope size and complexity. Atleast the first 3 star Wars films she delivered. Though I think solo is a dud.

 

Feige's films apart from avengers are not on the same scale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Margo Channing said:

Well you know what women are like, indecisive and never happy with anything.

 

This is a problem I have exclusively with Kennedy. 

 

1 hour ago, TheUlyssesian said:

 

I think Kathy is delivering more ambitious films - bigger in scope size and complexity. Atleast the first 3 star Wars films she delivered. Though I think solo is a dud.

 

Feige's films apart from avengers are not on the same scale.

4

 

Feige is on the same page with directors in terms of tone and what they want to do. For some reason, Kennedy isn't, at least with vetting the spinoff directors or damage control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

His tastes are not entirely mainstream (like I said, he gave Attack of the Clones 4/5), but his opinion is a nice reference.

 

The opinion of anyone who rates Attack of the Clones 4 out of 5 is immediately null in my book.

 

I say this having not watched the most recent video posted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Matt C said:

 

I think Marvel is overdoing it too. The maximum they should crank out a year is two -- they avoid overkill and lets the competition have more space. But another thing about Marvel is that Kevin Feige is letting filmmakers take risks while Kathy Kennedy rigidly plays it safe. This is the second Lucasfilm SW spinoff that needed extensive reshoots and tinkering in post-production.

Taking more risks than usual to course-correct the overall stale quality of the films. Before Doctor Strange nearly all of the MCU films lacked any stylistic qualities and appeared to be the product of a committee of suits. Are they terrible films, devoid of fun or heart? No, but they never tried to make that a prerogative from the beginning, they are cinematic adaptations of comic books in every sense of the word 'cinematic' and in that translation they lost the style and what made each superhero unique and individual. 

 

Oh, and the reshoots were a problem that was multifaceted from the beginning. Star Wars is a huge franchise and has a huge legacy behind it - one of the reasons TFA worked so well is that I think it took what it needed, revamped what should be and paid respect to the original mythos of Lucas's Star Wars. Kathleen Kennedy et al. are the guardians of that legacy and are bloody well sure not to drop the ball when it comes to where the heart of these films are coming from. Rogue One had a near impossible task to fill, it was the first standalone film and from the beginning there was conflict in what the tone of the film was to be without sacrificing the core themes and imagery of the universe. In the case of Solo, it was clear that Miller and Lord were butting heads with Kasdan's script and vision and that they didn't seem to be taking their work seriously. Reshoots are a necessity these days, but should be taken as a sign that the filmmakers, Edwards, Johnson and Howard were keen to keep to Lucasfilms ideals and not let it go to the dogs if it did fail.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, crumbs said:

Gareth Edwards quite clearly delivered a film filled with thoroughly generic and uninteresting characters (just as he did with Godzilla) and they decided to add some levity to the precedings so audiences might actually give a flying fuck about their sacrifice at the end

 

I think you really have no clue how movies are made. The script - which Edwards has nothing to do with - either sucked or worked and judging the end result, it sucked royally. Whatever they fixed by firing Edwards either didn't need fixing or probably made it worse. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, crocodile said:

And he was really bored this time, to my utter surprise. I thought it was just me who found it really bland. It's not even terrible in any way, just really flat and lacking any emotion. I really didn't care.

 

 

You've pretty much described almost every film that ends with the words "Directed by Ron Howard".

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

'Splash', really. I'd prefer trashy stuff like 'The Grinch' (or even recent ones like 'Rush# or 'Frost/Nixon') before i watch another award-safe borefest like 'Apollo 13' or 'Beautiful Mind' but at least he has a good idea what music can and should contribute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

Apollo 13, Willow, Parenthood, Ransom etc etc are fine films

 

If by "fine", you mean decent and competent, then yes. All Howard's films are that. Competently directed and technically proficient. None of them are in the gutter, but none of them soar either. I don't have hate any of those movies. I don't love any of them either. They're "fine."  He generally doesn't make bad films, he just doesn't make great ones. If he has a "style", I'm unaware of it. 

 

He's the king of mediocrities...the Salieri of the film word. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.