The new Star
Wars movie, Solo: A Star Wars Story, is not bad (though it’s nothing
compared to 2016’s Rogue
One), and I urge anyone who hasn’t taken the time to see it to do so.
The movie’s depiction of Han Solo’s life before joining the Rebellion isn’t
hard to envision, and the CGI plus the universe we get to fly through is
nothing short of amazing.
It’s the
second Star Wars anthology film, following 2016’s Rogue
One. The movie is a stand-alone installment in the Star Wars franchise
and is set before the events of A New Hope (1977). We get to
experience Han Solo’s (Alden Ehrenreich) early adventures, how he met
Chewbacca, and how he acquired the Millennium Falcon from a young Lando
Calrissian (Donald Glover).
The movie’s main plot is easy to share: Han was always a rebel at heart and wanted to escape the forces that kept him from being free. One escape attempt gone wrong left him separated from his childhood sweetheart, Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke). He joined the Imperial forces with one goal in mind—make enough money to get a ship and go back to save his love. But things didn’t go the way Han wanted quickly, and time didn’t stand still for Qi’ra as she waited for him. Eventually, their paths cross again, and a lot has changed between the two.
The movie has a
great musical score, impressive acting by the cast, and it will surprise you in
some places while other moments are very much expected. It helps fill in the
gaps for those who don’t follow the Star Wars franchise closely, as I
noticed from those with me. It explains how the Rebellion spanned many planets
and how they were able to fund such a massive force to begin with. For those
who follow the franchise, the movie doesn’t add anything new, and its
up-and-down pacing can be exhausting—it felt like Disney just wanted to make
sure the movie was over two hours long.
With that said,
the question has been raised: should Disney have even bothered? When it comes
to money, we shouldn’t mistake the urge to make more money with maintaining a
steady franchise. Back to the Future creator Robert Zemeckis, for
example, wants to maintain the authenticity of his franchise, which is why he
hasn’t agreed to let the movie be remade. Disney, on the other hand, is known
for making live-action adaptations of all their Renaissance-era animations and
is clearly looking to make more money.
The movie faced
challenges getting to the screen when the directing duo of Phil Lord and
Christopher Miller were fired due to creative differences. Ron Howard stepped
in to finish the remaining quarter of the movie. Due to reshoots and other
factors, the movie’s budget cost Disney at least $250 million in production
alone. If this movie breaks even at the box office, Disney will likely continue
producing more stand-alone Star Wars movies. If it doesn’t, Disney
may have to step back and look for a more appealing tale to spin off, giving
the stand-alone movies one more try.
I enjoyed this
movie for what it is and what it brought to the table. I can arguably say it’s
not the worst Star Wars movie in the franchise, and it’s one you’ll
enjoy seeing if you take the time to do so.
0 comments:
Post a Comment