Solo: A Star Wars Story (Ron Howard 2018)

[Kasey Kockroach 2,343]

I recall enjoying TFA for its characters more than anything. I liked Rey and Finn a lot more than I ever gave a darn about the original trilogy's cast. I was looking forward to the next film plugging the characters into a more interesting, more original story.

 

Maybe someday that'll happen!

 

 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

11 hours ago, Stefancos said:

I especially like how JJ gets the audience to bond with Rey before she's even said a word.

And how when she finally does speak we can't understand the first 4 words she says! 

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Solo: A Star Wars Story

2018

 

I enjoyed this one a lot more than I thought I would. In fact, I enjoyed it immensely. A fantastic theme by Williams with a great score by Powell. Some cool set pieces and great action sequences. The kid (can't remember his name) does a surprisingly good Han Solo and in a few scenes channels Ford nicely. Again, pleasantly surprised.  The supporting characters were all mostly good, even if some were underused. Glover was good in his overhyped portrayal of Lando (even if it doesn't quite match with what Billy dee did with the part). I did find the SJW robot to be a bit annoying, and thought the heist crew did feel a bit much like Guardians of the Galaxy. The guy with all the arms reminded me of that rocket rabbit from Guardians. Not that this is a bad thing.  

 

This movie had more interesting planets, by far, than TLJ.  

 

The film's far from perfect. They should have ditched the scenes with Han as an infantry grunt, which dragged, and instead showed him training as a pilot in the Imperial Navy (perhaps a Top Gun homage with Han buzzing the tower in a TIE fighter). And it does have a bit of a cobbled together feel, and the vague feeling that they didn't quite know what they wanted to do with it (which is unsurprising, given the production history). It did annoy me that we only saw Han the charmer...Solo (particularly the Star Wars 77 Solo) had a rough side, and we didn't see much of that. 

 

Still, a fun, if entirely inconsequential (though aren't they all inconsequential) Star Wars movie that I enjoyed far more than I should have. And one I was wrong about b/c I thought at the time making it was a mistake. I think had it been promoted better, and given a December release date, the film's fortunes might have been different. As it is, I'm disappointed we won't get a sequel.

 

Ron Howard, the king of hollywood mediocrities, was a perfect choice for this (something I'll concede @Stefancos said a while ago). I think Solo is probably his masterpiece.

 

3.5/5

[Nick Parker 3,040]

20 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Solo (particularly the Star Wars 77 Solo) had a rough side, and we didn't see much of that. 

 

We did get to see a bit of that evolution though...even though he was pretty scrappy at the beginning, he still had a certain naivete with those he allowed to get close to him. After several betrayals, his heart grew colder, and by the end of the film shot down his mentor in more or less cold blood (although their exchange afterwards still showed his youthful heart). 

 

Not extremely drastic, his growth, but it certainly is there. A solid effort from Lawrence Kasdan and his son.

27 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

I think Solo is probably his masterpiece.

 

I would agree. The screenplay really helped push this movie up beyond what any reasonable expectation for this film would be.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

The parts of the film that worked least for me were most of the jammed in fan service bits, the 'going to Tatooine to work for Jabba' being the worst offender. That reminded me of the cringey scene at the end of The Hobbit when Thrandruil tells Leggy to go look for Aragorn.

[Nick Parker 3,040]

3 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

The parts of the film that worked least for me were most of the jammed in fan service bits, the 'going to Tatooine to work for Jabba' being the worst offender. That reminded me of the cringey scene at the end of The Hobbit when Thrandruil tells Leggy to go look for Aragorn.

 

Those were very few, though, thankfully. Honestly L3 was the only substantial part of the movie that I couldn't get behind. 

[Holko 9,499]

57 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

They should have ditched the scenes with Han as an infantry grunt, which dragged, and instead showed him training as a pilot in the Imperial Navy.

 

I don1t think it dragged much or anything could really be trimmed out of it. I like how we cut from the hopeful Han waiting to finally fly to a disenchanted one in the middle of complete WWI chaos with no real chances of getting out. 

 

 

As much as I like Glover's Lando for the most part, he does give the weakest line delivery in the whole flick when he sees the Falcon is chained. Was that take left in from rehearsals?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

3 hours ago, Holko said:

As much as I like Glover's Lando for the most part, he does give the weakest line delivery in the whole flick when he sees the Falcon is chained. Was that take left in from rehearsals?

 

Why the heck did the Internet flip out over him? Every two-bit website a la Buzzfeed or whatever stupid site with articles that use obnoxious slang and punctuates every two lines with a GIF seemed to think that he would single-handedly raise the film into the Pantheon of Greatness by his own inhumanely "cool" demeanor. He looked slick in some costumes, so what?

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

Of the entire cast, Glover is more of the sensational type.

[crumbs 14,299]

I really enjoyed this too! But holy hell was the cinematography atrocious. Almost every single character is shot in silhouette, regardless of the planet/conditions. Very frustrating movie visually; had to keep increasing the brightness on my television but the whole thing just looks washed out when you do that.

 

Not sure what they were thinking. I guess Howard was just obliged to retain what the original two directors started with the visual palette.

[Pellaeon 593]

I’ll be interested to see what the faneditors can do with the picture.

[Holko 9,499]

In a 1-minute Facebook BTS video, the cinematographer said almost all light was practical on sets, so if you see a lamp, that's not a prop, that's the actual lightsource, not floodlights from behind the camera. So that's why.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

You need artificial lighting to make it look more natural.

[Chen G. 3,943]

20 minutes ago, Pellaeon said:

I’ll be interested to see what the faneditors can do with the picture.

 

Is the film's problem in the editing bay, though? I mean, I know its quite a running time (a friend said he watched it last night, and fell asleep somewhere in the first hour) but isn't the problem just the fact that this film exists?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

33 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

but isn't the problem just the fact that this film exists?

 

No, it's not.

[Chen G. 3,943]

Still, for the most part what I hear of this film is issues with photography and a general lack of heft, not so much editing issues. At least, not ones that can be overcome by recutting the film after-the-fact.

[crumbs 14,299]

52 minutes ago, Horner's Dynamic Range said:

You need artificial lighting to make it look more natural.

 

Exactly. I'm all for having a different visual palette in these spin-offs but you still need to retain a basic requirement of cinematography: being able to see the actors' performances clearly. 

 

I could not believe how crushed the shadows were when analysing the photography on a calibrated monitor. Not to mention the total lack of backlighting so there's no layering whatsoever in the image. The result is flat, muddy and visually fatiguing over 2+ hours. Actors' faces should not consistently be in shadow and the darkest part of the mise en scene unless for specific dramatic effect.

 

Almost makes AVP Requiem's cinematography look Academy Award worthy by comparison. A heavy shame because the lighting ruins what is otherwise very impressive production design. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

16 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Still, for the most part what I hear of this film

 

C'mon, man, seriously. You don't wanna watch the movie, fine. You're in bountiful company.  But why in the world do you feel so compelled to talk about this movie for months on end when all you have is the Internet and a few buddies' opinions to go on? I haven't watched a single MCU or Hobbit movie , I don't go in the MCU or Hobbit thread continuously bringing up complaints about the movies that my sister had and ask questions like this: 

57 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

isn't the problem just the fact that this film exists?

 

What are you trying to do? You ever watch The Big Lebowski, Chen?

 

 

[Chen G. 3,943]

20 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

You don't wanna watch the movie, fine. You're in bountiful company.  But why in the world do you feel so compelled to talk about this movie for months on end when all you have is the Internet and a few buddies' opinions to go on?

 

Its not like I'm being particularly opinionated on the subject. Do YOU think the issue of the film is in the editing bay? If so, what is the issue?

 

As for why I'm interested in the discussion in the first place, that's because my main interest in films is in film series and in the way an overarching story emerges or is crafted as such a series progresses, and how each entry services (or in this case, doesn't) it.

 

That's all the conceptual level, which is inherent in the premise. It has nothing to do with how the film's own narrative is executed, so watching it is immaterial to the subject.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

To be fair he's got a point though Chen. You should watch the film. Or not. But I'm sure you don't want to spend a lot of time opining on something you don't have any first hand knowledge of.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Agreed! What's the point, from our perspective, to discuss a film you havent seen and arent going to see with you?

[Arpy 4,145]

7 hours ago, crumbs said:

I really enjoyed this too! But holy hell was the cinematography atrocious. Almost every single character is shot in silhouette, regardless of the planet/conditions. Very frustrating movie visually; had to keep increasing the brightness on my television but the whole thing just looks washed out when you do that.

 

Not sure what they were thinking. I guess Howard was just obliged to retain what the original two directors started with the visual palette.

Yes, it's obvious it was put through several color-grading and corrections to get that murky.

 

3 hours ago, Holko said:

In a 1-minute Facebook BTS video, the cinematographer said almost all light was practical on sets, so if you see a lamp, that's not a prop, that's the actual lightsource, not floodlights from behind the camera. So that's why.

That doesn't explain anything - the film looks like they dropped the camera in the dirt and then smudged it around the lens. It was intentionally color-graded that way - probably to try and convey a sense of grittiness. All the life is kinda sucked out of it!

 

The whole film reminds me of going to a restaurant where they dim the lights so much so that it's difficult to see what you're eating, let alone what the person across from you looks like...

[Holko 9,499]

9 hours ago, Nick Parker said:

Why the heck did the Internet flip out over him? Every two-bit website a la Buzzfeed or whatever stupid site with articles that use obnoxious slang and punctuates every two lines with a GIF seemed to think that he would single-handedly raise the film into the Pantheon of Greatness by his own inhumanely "cool" demeanor.

 

Becuz he made da Dis be Americaz, he black Jesus now!

[crumbs 14,299]

2 hours ago, Arpy said:

All the life is kinda sucked out of it! 

 

Just like a David Yates movie!

 

2 hours ago, Arpy said:

The whole film reminds me of going to a restaurant where they dim the lights so much so that it's difficult to see what you're eating, let alone what the person across from you looks like...

 

Just like a David Yates movie!

[Arpy 4,145]

The actors need those shoulder mounted flashlights from Aliens to see what's going on. 

 

Or the audience will have to mail in an order for night-vision specs...

 

 

 

 

[crumbs 14,299]

 Just read the Bluray review which was appropriately scathing:

Quote

Texturally, the movie is hopelessly flat as a rule. Whether tight shots or long vistas, there's almost no sense of apparent depth, no separation between object... The movie is very stark as a rule and there are precious few scenes that aren't absorbingly dark or, like those scenes on the yacht, harshly backlit. It basically boils down to Solo being a natively flat, bland movie that just doesn't lend itself to classic eye candy on either format.

 

Barely comprehensible:

 

No back-lighting, no separation between objects, crushed shadows/blacks:

 

Crushed blacks, actors' faces barely visible and muddy:

 

What should be the the focal point of shots is often the darkest object in frame/shrouded in shadow:

 

 

 

Just a mess.

 

And say what you want about The Last Jedi as a narrative, but visually it is probably the best photographed movie in the franchise. Even its 'darker' scenes are lit concisely, often symbolically. There's layers and depth to the frame, performances are clearly visible:

 

 

I understand they want to branch out with the spinoffs and try something different. But there's different, and there's bad.

[Holko 9,499]

No, I don't think it's ever THAT ba-

 

Oh.

 

All these are line deliveries, by the way, not moody establishing shots.

 

EDIT: Goddamnit crumbs, beat me to it by seconds!

[crumbs 14,299]

14 minutes ago, Holko said:

Oh.

 

All these are line deliveries, by the way, not moody establishing shots.

 

Yep, your examples are even more egregious than mine. After a bit of quick Googling it seems Disney were blaming miscalibrated cinema projectors after complaints began, but the Bluray reiterates this was the cinematographer's intended print master.

 

It's as bad as the infamous DI fuck-up Fox made with Aliens vs Predator Requiem. Although their motives were far more sinister; intentionally darkening the movie to hide how cheap that production was. Seeing the un-graded trailers is a real eye-opener (Daniel Pearl's photography looked great before they fucked with it!)

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

You just have to wonder, all that money and one of the biggest franchises in the world, with an experienced director and the film looks like it does.

 

It's a pity because otherwise there are some interesting set designs and stellar action sequences.

[Arpy 4,145]

[crumbs 14,299]

6 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

You just have to wonder, all that money and one of the biggest franchises in the world, with an experienced director and the film looks like it does.

 

It's a pity because otherwise there are some interesting set designs and stellar action sequences.

 

They could've halved the budget with how dark the film is and nobody would've noticed the corners they cut. There must be thousands of hours of work that went into things that aren't even visible in the final film (or sets that probably cost millions of dollars to construct, only to be covered up by a smoke machine on steroids).

 

The entire sequence with Han recruiting Lando, for example. It might as well have been filmed in a carpark with the lights off, it's that incomprehensible. The entire war/battle sequence could've been filmed at my local park at nighttime.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

On a positive note, while I was watching the film it occurred to me that it was probably the first "new" Star Wars movie George Lucas would actually like.

[crumbs 14,299]

I dunno, I bet he would've taken issue with

Spoiler

Han shooting first at the end.

 

[mstrox 6,643]

I had no problem with the lighting in this movie.  I also agree with John that it is my least favorite Disney era SW, but still a lot of fun.  Relistened to the score on saturday, and looking forward to my package from the Disney Movie Club this week.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

The film doesn't look as bad while you're watching it as it does in the screen shots (which I've found is often the case). But that doesn't mean it's not an issue. Lots of it is too dark, muddy and lacks contrast.

[Holko 9,499]

To say something actually positive, the one technical aspect I think really works (seeing how lighting, cinematography, grading and sound mix are all a huge mess) is CG character design and animation. Both L3 and the Ardennian looked and moved very nice and believable.

[crumbs 14,299]

My other complaint with the movie has already been spoken about ad nauseum. Powell's score is treated with absolute disdain in the sound mix. It's even worse than the treatment of JW's TFA; Powell's score is buried in the mix even when there's no other discernible sound effects to take precedence (the opening title being an obvious example).

 

One moment that REALLY annoyed me was towards the end of the film. The touching cue The Good Guy is drowned out in the mix by fucking wind noises! WIND NOISES! Like, fuck whoever was senior sound mixer on this movie because they desperately need a Kenny Wannberg to slap some sense into them. When used correctly, music enhances the emotion of a scene and compliments your actors' performances. WIND NOISES DO NOT!

 

I would've been fuming if I was Powell. Even Williams must have been annoyed that all the heroic statements of his new theme were barely audible at the key dramatic moments.

 

It's really no wonder modern film music has descended to the level it has when scores are treated like insignificant wallpaper by sound mixers.

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

Even Williams OT score isn't treated with respect on the Blu-Rays.

[Holko 9,499]

The DVDs are even worse. Remember the Death Star Attack?

[crumbs 14,299]

8 minutes ago, Nick1066 said:

Even Williams OT score isn't treated with respect on the Blu-Rays.

 

You can thank that tit Ben Burtt for that, who went out of his way to bury Williams' scores when converting the OT mixes into 5.1. The scores sounded perfectly fine before the advent of surround sound (which should've ENHANCED film scores but have instead become a dumping ground for sound designers to shove even more unnecessary noise into the mix).

 

As @Holko mentioned, there was enough outcry over Burtt completely removing parts of Williams' score in the ANH DVD that they corrected it for the Bluray.

[Holko 9,499]

Did they apply the sound mix "corrections" all throughout or like how they "fixed" Luke's lightsaber colour on the Falcon? (You know, bragging with promo pictures how it's blue now... in that one wide shot, in the 8 other shots it's still green because fuck me, that'd take 5 more minutes of work and we still have Ewok eyelids to animate, and it's not like we're fixing up something important that people care about!)

[crumbs 14,299]

Yeah, had a good chuckle when I saw they just lazily painted over the incorrect green saber effects shots with the Blurays (and only some of them!) rather than do the correct thing and go back to the original source and re-grade the film properly. Frankly the entire Lowry remaster, and Lucasfilm's ensuing colour grade, is a total mess; I have no idea what's taking Disney so long to release their 4K scans but they surely can't be any worse than what we have now.

 

It's hard to believe a director like Lucas, who is apparently a perfectionist when it comes to visuals, seems to care so little for the visual presentation of his films. Contrast that with Spielberg or Cameron who are notoriously protective about the presentation of their films (with Spielberg demanding new 4K scans for the Indy trilogy on Bluray, for example).

[Holko 9,499]

2 minutes ago, crumbs said:

they surely can't be any worse.

Well, Disney commissioning new editions of a Star Wars property redone from original master sources overseen by someone who was there at the creation of the original has worked out great in the near past!

[Nick1Ø66 4,687]

There are plenty of alternatives to the officials Blu-Rays, which I haven't watched for years and likely never will again. They're an abomination.

[crumbs 14,299]

NOOOOOOOOOooooooOOOOOOOooooOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

[Holko 9,499]

IF Disney ever releases something like 4k77-80-83 on 4K or Bluray, I will get them and buy a player just for those. Until then, I have relative moral justification for dabbling in the grey zone because I got the 2008 DVD boxset for Christmas 10 years ago. I'm not taking the profits from them, they are taking it from themselves.

[crumbs 14,299]

You just know whatever Disney release will have its own inherent problems though. They might fix existing problems but they'll introduce a slew of new ones. It's endless.

 

Why can't this series of films have the Mike Matessino of home video releases, Charles de Lauzirika?

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

2 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

Just like a David Yates movie!

 

 

Just like a David Yates movie!

At least the framing/blocking isn't as cringeworthy as a David Yates movie. 

[Jay 37,281]

17 hours ago, Nick1066 said:

They should have ditched the scenes with Han as an infantry grunt, which dragged, and instead showed him training as a pilot in the Imperial Navy

 

Here you go!

 

 

[The Illustrious Jerry 3,356]

It really is too bad Solo won't get a sequel because it was a really fun movie, the actors had a great thing going, it was low stakes but still fun, etc. etc.