I walked into SOLO cautiously optimistic, knowing that it would at least be better than THE LAST JEDI; afterward, I realized that I should have been even more optimistic. SOLO is about as good a STAR WARS movie as you could ask for these days - in fact, what I think is the best SW film since RETURN OF THE JEDI! I had a good time, and my faith was renewed in the franchise.
Which is remarkable, seeing that I was raised on the STAR WARS Expanded Universe of the 1990s and was a big fan of the Han Solo series of novels by Brian Daley and AC Crispin by Bantam Books, which this film contradicts on a number of important points. I've learned to mentally screen out the details invented by Disney that I don't like and immerse myself in the experience of entertainment as a whole. And SOLO is a terrific entertainment!
The best thing I can say about SOLO is that it has a "classic" feel to it that the prequels and even the sequels are lacking. Very little cheesy CGI and even less pomposity, hewing to the spirit of the 1977-1983 installments. But there are plenty more things to praise. Plenty of new characters to get to know, great sets to look at (Han's hometown of Coronet on the planet Corellia reminds me a bit of the Gotham City in Tim Burton's BATMAN), thrilling and suspenseful action sequences...and then there is a serious contender for the most awe-inspiring shot in all of STAR WARS history: Han and the crew of the Millennium Falcon, blasting off from the prison planet Kessel, forced to confront what looks like the most gargantuan Imperial Star Destroyer ever, breaking through the gloomy clouds of the night sky! It would have terrified ME, that's for sure!
Even in places where the movie could have made serious missteps, it came through smelling like a rose. I especially appreciate the filmmaker's successful resistance of the temptation to slip in "clever" innuendoes to famous but irrelevant characters like Darth Vader (although one scene taking place on Corellia subtly evokes him). There are also deft nods to semi-obscure elements of the Expanded Universe for longtime aficionados like me, such as "teras kasi" (look it up, friends). Even the supporting characters are not annoying for once: one of my favorites was a four-armed alien named Rio, resembling a friendly, anthropomorphic organ grinder's monkey and reminding me a lot of Rocket Raccoon from Marvel's GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY.
So why am I giving this film a 6 instead of a 7 or 8? Well, there ARE a few touches I was not happy with, such as the casting of Woody Harrelson, who I thought was out of place. But in general, SOLO disappointed me not with what it included, but with what it did NOT include. Thankfully there was none of the Jedi-versus-Sith mumbo jumbo that seems to have totally taken over the baseline films; but also lacking were the serial-style touches I remember from the original trilogy, which would have fit right in here. No "monster attacks," too few weird aliens, and the conspicuous absence of beloved characters who really should have been present. Jabba the Hutt, whom we haven't seen on the big screen since 1999's THE PHANTOM MENACE, is nowhere to be found (though he IS mentioned elliptically at the very end); and, given the storied history he has had with Solo and his allies over the years, the bounty hunter Boba Fett's absence is also a shame. By way of compensation, they did slip in some gangster characters (not Hutts, unfortunately) and even some innuendoes about the Black Sun crime organization from the novel/comic book/video game SHADOWS OF THE EMPIRE (although here it's called "Crimson Dawn"). There's even a surprise cameo by one of the most memorable villains in the history of the franchise (not Vader, but you won't be disappointed).
SOLO was stellar, and I really wish I could recommend it more. As things stand, it's a hopeful sign. I've been counting on Disney to save the STAR WARS franchise, and they've taken a small step in the right direction.
Which is remarkable, seeing that I was raised on the STAR WARS Expanded Universe of the 1990s and was a big fan of the Han Solo series of novels by Brian Daley and AC Crispin by Bantam Books, which this film contradicts on a number of important points. I've learned to mentally screen out the details invented by Disney that I don't like and immerse myself in the experience of entertainment as a whole. And SOLO is a terrific entertainment!
The best thing I can say about SOLO is that it has a "classic" feel to it that the prequels and even the sequels are lacking. Very little cheesy CGI and even less pomposity, hewing to the spirit of the 1977-1983 installments. But there are plenty more things to praise. Plenty of new characters to get to know, great sets to look at (Han's hometown of Coronet on the planet Corellia reminds me a bit of the Gotham City in Tim Burton's BATMAN), thrilling and suspenseful action sequences...and then there is a serious contender for the most awe-inspiring shot in all of STAR WARS history: Han and the crew of the Millennium Falcon, blasting off from the prison planet Kessel, forced to confront what looks like the most gargantuan Imperial Star Destroyer ever, breaking through the gloomy clouds of the night sky! It would have terrified ME, that's for sure!
Even in places where the movie could have made serious missteps, it came through smelling like a rose. I especially appreciate the filmmaker's successful resistance of the temptation to slip in "clever" innuendoes to famous but irrelevant characters like Darth Vader (although one scene taking place on Corellia subtly evokes him). There are also deft nods to semi-obscure elements of the Expanded Universe for longtime aficionados like me, such as "teras kasi" (look it up, friends). Even the supporting characters are not annoying for once: one of my favorites was a four-armed alien named Rio, resembling a friendly, anthropomorphic organ grinder's monkey and reminding me a lot of Rocket Raccoon from Marvel's GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY.
So why am I giving this film a 6 instead of a 7 or 8? Well, there ARE a few touches I was not happy with, such as the casting of Woody Harrelson, who I thought was out of place. But in general, SOLO disappointed me not with what it included, but with what it did NOT include. Thankfully there was none of the Jedi-versus-Sith mumbo jumbo that seems to have totally taken over the baseline films; but also lacking were the serial-style touches I remember from the original trilogy, which would have fit right in here. No "monster attacks," too few weird aliens, and the conspicuous absence of beloved characters who really should have been present. Jabba the Hutt, whom we haven't seen on the big screen since 1999's THE PHANTOM MENACE, is nowhere to be found (though he IS mentioned elliptically at the very end); and, given the storied history he has had with Solo and his allies over the years, the bounty hunter Boba Fett's absence is also a shame. By way of compensation, they did slip in some gangster characters (not Hutts, unfortunately) and even some innuendoes about the Black Sun crime organization from the novel/comic book/video game SHADOWS OF THE EMPIRE (although here it's called "Crimson Dawn"). There's even a surprise cameo by one of the most memorable villains in the history of the franchise (not Vader, but you won't be disappointed).
SOLO was stellar, and I really wish I could recommend it more. As things stand, it's a hopeful sign. I've been counting on Disney to save the STAR WARS franchise, and they've taken a small step in the right direction.