Skip to main content

Solo: A Star Wars Story Review


There's no reason Solo should exist. Few fans were clamouring for it - certainly not as much as an Obi-Wan spin-off - and recasting the character when he's been defined by Harrison Ford for so long seemed too big a risk. Regardless, it exists now. I'm not here to judge a film on its necessity but its qualities as a film. So, whether we wanted it or not, is Solo any good?

Solo is a lot of fun, even if it isn't much else. If you're expecting more of the dramatic heft of The Last Jedi, you'll be disappointed. If anything, Solo is the Star Wars sequel that's closest in essence to A New Hope; a scrappy group of likeable (rather than complex) characters zipping around space and having adventures. Without the extra save-the-galaxy layer A New Hope has, everything in Solo does feel relatively inconsequential. However, a more small-scale Star Wars film is quite refreshing. Plus, ignoring the bigger picture allows the film to explore the weirder, seedier corners of the galaxy. In particular, the brilliantly gross Lady Proxima and the disarmingly menacing Dryden Vos provide a fascinating insight into the Star Wars criminal underworld. 

Solo's production was also infamously turbulent, with Ron Howard replacing original directors Phil Lord and Christopher Miller for extensive reshoots. Fortunately - as is to be expected from a reliable professional such as Howard - the film comes together almost seamlessly. The first act occasionally feels a little rushed, but Solo soon finds a strong rhythm that deftly balances exhilarating action with focused character moments. As has been the case for all the Disney Star Wars films, Solo also looks impeccable. Top-notch special effects bring wonderfully creative creature designs to life and Arrival cinematographer Bradford Young's use of colour and lighting is rather striking (even if the poor projection that cripples most cinemas these days doesn't do it justice).

Of course, the most controversial part of Solo is the casting of Alden Ehrenreich as the titular character. It doesn't help that replacing Harrison Ford is inherently controversial, but Ehrenreich received extra backlash as many had their hearts set on Ford impersonator Anthony Ingruber. The thing is, Ehrenreich is seriously fantastic. He isn't playing Harrison Ford, he's playing Han Solo and he absolutely nails the cocky exterior/sincere interior combination that makes Han such an iconic character. In fact, there are great performances all round, from Woody Harrelson's sympathetically world-weary Tobias Beckett to Donald Glover's effortlessly cool Lando Calrissian. However, it's Paul Bettany's scene-stealing turn as the volatile villain Dryden Vos that stands out the most, despite his limited screen time. 

Solo's biggest weakness is its script. Despite being co-written by veteran Star Wars scribe Lawrence Kasdan, the dialogue is very reflective of the film's overall lack of depth. The abundance of one-liners usually serves the film's light tone just fine and provides a solid handful of laughs. However, the more serious moments often topple into cheesiness as the script attempts to condense complex ideas into the snappy quips that populate the rest of the film. However, Solo doesn't always get it wrong. In particular, the third act is filled with smart subversions and compelling twists, ending the film at its most gripping. 

We didn't need Solo, but I think we're better off with it than without it. I've seen it twice now and I've thoroughly enjoyed it both times. Despite its lack of depth and flawed script, Solo delivers an action-packed ride bolstered by confident performances and the typical visual wonder that makes Star Wars such an enduring franchise.

7.7/10

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom Review

Jurassic Park never needed to be a franchise. As a thriller, Jurassic Park inherently works better the more compact it is, so stretching it into multiple sequels seems rather counterproductive. Of course, I wouldn't mind if these sequels were good. Unfortunately, they are not. The Lost World , the first follow-up, does nothing new for virtually the entire film - only hinting at a distinctive identity in the final act. Jurassic Park 3 was even worse. The characters are so unengaging and the action so toothless you end it feeling like you've stared at an empty void for ninety minutes. Colin Trevorrow's 2015 sequel/reboot Jurassic World slightly reinvigorated the franchise with flashy new visuals, but it also suffered from bland characters and a muddled script. However, against all the odds, I still foolishly had my hopes up for that film’s follow-up Fallen Kingdom . I did have my reasons, to be fair. J.A. Bayona was taking over directorial duties and he's an exce...

Hail, Caesar! Review - Genius Behind the Madness

On an entirely surface level, Hail, Caesar! is a really silly film. The sets are bright and colourful, the characters are bombastic and larger than life and the plot is completely insane and all over the place. If you take a closer look, however, it's much more intelligent than it initially comes off as. Yes, the sets are bright, but their attention to detail is so fantastically minute, you're totally convinced that this is the 50's. The fake film sets are also just as convincing and the films themselves could easily pass off as authentic, if it wasn't for the 21st Century actors populating them. They are obviously slightly exaggerated, for the sake of satire, which probably resonates more with those familiar with retro cinema than regular filmgoers. It's also shot brilliantly by cinematographer Roger Deakins (who was recently Oscar nominated for his work on Sicario ), who manages to make the film feel like something that's not only set in the 50's, bu...

Is Avengers: Age of Ultron Any Good?

Avengers Assemble! Again! Avengers: Age of Ultron - Film Review by Nathan Brooks And they say English Weather's bad. Back in the summer of 2012, a little film came out called Avengers Assemble. It wasn't much. It's only the biggest superhero film of all time and it only made $1.518 billion. Everybody loved it, I loved it and clearly moviegoers did as well.  Due to its massive success, obviously a sequel was going to be made. In this case, that sequel is Avengers: Age of Ultron, but with all the hype it's received, is it actually any good? Story The story in this film is definitely not for first time Marvel viewers, you really need to see most, if not all, of the previous Marvel Cinematic Universe films. It is packed full of references to earlier films and understanding a lot of elements of the story will require you to have seen the others. But is the story any good? I thinks so. The main story centres around the fact that Tony Stark, or Iron Man, has ...