Search
Search results
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) in Movies
Feb 18, 2019
The Star Wars Story that nobody asked for, but was is a story worth telling?
In short, NO.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Where to start? Indeed, where to start with a background prequel focusing on one of the most iconic Star Wars characters ever, taking the ageing Harrison Ford’s characters to, well not so far beyond the age that we first met him back in 1977.
Recast with actor who brings very little Ford with him, apart from a few well practice smiles and other expressions here and there, this is a reinterpretation of the character, in this case as a naive and wimpy version, maybe even soft, is not the part for Alden Ehrenreich.
The Character arch of Han Solo in the original trilogy was his redemption from a selfish, self-assured space pirate to a man who could recognise and fight for a cause bigger than himself. But according this haphazard prequel, he was already a big softy before her learns the harsh realities of life, only he doesn’t, not really.
He just learns to be a little more cynical and to smirk his way through every situation with his lucky die and everything turns out okay for him. Ehrenrieich done not bring an ounce of the gravitas or charisma of Harrison Ford, as this film, which had to be almost entirely re-shot with Ron Howard taking the helm after The Lego Movie directing due Chris Miller and Phil Lord where unceremoniously fired after “not getting it”, apparently, shoe horns as much of the token events of Solo’s pre-rebellion life into its two and bit hour run time.
Ron Howard; A few hits and plenty of misses. Willow (1988) springs to mind. Not only was Willow Lucas’ attempt to begin and new fantasy trilogy after the Star Wars Saga was completed, it was micro directed by George Lucas as Ron Howard took the credit. And this has a lot of the hallmarks of Willow.
In short; A poor mans Star Wars. Hammy scripting and at times acting, the story is all over the place, with shallow characterisations, poor exposition, haphazard pacing and the action is actually quite hard to follow. Just please, give us ONE decent shot of the Millennium Falcon that we can keep up with and actually see, especially as it has been altered so much from the icon version that we all love. Maybe we’re getting bored of the same ship after 40 years? Maybe we all need to go out and by a new version?
Toyetic… anyone?
Instead everything of interest is speeding across the screen and the boring stuff is left to linger. And there was a level of boredom here. Incredibly predictable plotting, simply going through the motions of a no stakes story. But it does feel as if they shoehorned a larger narrative in there, with introduction in the final act of the rebellion and an old villain returns with a new legs, but by the time what should have been an earth shattering twist appeared, it wasn’t really interested, especially if you know the The Clone Wars or Rebels.
One major plus note though, Donald Glover aced Lando Calrissian, to such an extant that I wish this movie was actually called Lando: A Star War Story rather than Solo, because there’s no doubt that Glover brought so much more Billy Dee Williams and built on it, than Ehrenreich did for Ford’s.
As well as the subtle and well conceived plotting around Lando’s female droid, L3-37 (Phoebe Waller-Bridge) who may well be the ‘Old girl’ referred to by both Han and Lando during in the original trilogy when they speak to the Falcon, whilst shining a light on the deliberately ambiguous nature of droids in the Star Wars universe. In short; are they sentient or not? But this is not Star Trek so we do not really need an answer to that… do we?
Overall, I want to say that this was missed opportunity but in truth, it was not. It was waste of time. A story that did not need to be told with script that did not know what say. Clearly, they were aiming for a Guardians Of The Galaxy (2015), unaware that the secret of that surprise success was that it tapped in to the retro Star Wars vibe by NOT being Star Wars. And with little expectations.
Here they were playing with one of the biggest guns in modern film history and in my opinion, it blew up in there faces.
Gareth von Kallenbach (980 KP) rated In the Heart of the Sea (2015) in Movies
Aug 6, 2019
Based on a novel by Nathaniel Philbrick, “In the Heart of the Sea,” is the tale that inspired “Moby Dick.” Set in 1820, the whaling ship Essex is taken out by a gigantic bull sperm whale and the crew finds themselves at the mercy of the sea.
Director Ron Howard strikes a fine balance between drama and action. The film doesn’t linger too long on building up the background story before plunging into an enthralling adventure. The character development is rapid, yet still manages to create depth and give the audience a chance to connect to the personalities.
Early in the film an entertaining power struggle takes place between Captain George Pollard, Jr. (Benjamin Walker) and First Officer Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth). Captain Pollard was born into a prestigious whaling family and though not the most experienced, is placed in the position of Captain. Chase on the other hand was an orphan who grew up putting in hard work on whaling ships. The conflict between the two men dooms the crew and the ship from the outset.
The first scenes of whaling are hard to watch, bringing to light the aspect of humans as beasts themselves hunting peaceful creatures for oil.
After the ship has had a bit of success, they move on to take more. Greed and anger backfire and nature fights back. When the ship is taken out by the enraged bull sperm whale, a sheer battle for survival, requiring brute strength and quick thinking ensues.
The ominous seas show no mercy to the men, bringing them to the brink of death. When the men begin to starve they resort to cannibalism. The emotional battle of moral struggle is heart wrenching.
The film has a spiritual quality, incorporating themes of the human experience of survival, ignorance, transcendence. It also has some political undertones dealing with the subject of big oil that, despite being a very old story, are still relevant today.
The graphics are absolutely stunning and the acting is good. But the story and execution is what makes it a truly great film. It is the sum that’s greater than the individual parts in this case, which makes the film an awe inspiring experience.
I give “In the Heart of the Sea” 5 out of 5 stars.
Director Ron Howard strikes a fine balance between drama and action. The film doesn’t linger too long on building up the background story before plunging into an enthralling adventure. The character development is rapid, yet still manages to create depth and give the audience a chance to connect to the personalities.
Early in the film an entertaining power struggle takes place between Captain George Pollard, Jr. (Benjamin Walker) and First Officer Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth). Captain Pollard was born into a prestigious whaling family and though not the most experienced, is placed in the position of Captain. Chase on the other hand was an orphan who grew up putting in hard work on whaling ships. The conflict between the two men dooms the crew and the ship from the outset.
The first scenes of whaling are hard to watch, bringing to light the aspect of humans as beasts themselves hunting peaceful creatures for oil.
After the ship has had a bit of success, they move on to take more. Greed and anger backfire and nature fights back. When the ship is taken out by the enraged bull sperm whale, a sheer battle for survival, requiring brute strength and quick thinking ensues.
The ominous seas show no mercy to the men, bringing them to the brink of death. When the men begin to starve they resort to cannibalism. The emotional battle of moral struggle is heart wrenching.
The film has a spiritual quality, incorporating themes of the human experience of survival, ignorance, transcendence. It also has some political undertones dealing with the subject of big oil that, despite being a very old story, are still relevant today.
The graphics are absolutely stunning and the acting is good. But the story and execution is what makes it a truly great film. It is the sum that’s greater than the individual parts in this case, which makes the film an awe inspiring experience.
I give “In the Heart of the Sea” 5 out of 5 stars.