Review of Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018) by Destiny P — 31 May 2018

PREFACE TO REVIEWING - Observations on RT review of 'Solo':Well, this is my 17th attempt at leaving a review in the last week - no joke. At first I thought it was a RT glitch, so I tested posting a review (for Lawrence of Arabia) and it posted immediately. My curiosity piqued I looked more deeply into the RT numbers, as follows: Initially there were 50 pages of pre-release interests posts coming in at only 35% who wanted to see the film. Two days after release 15 of these pre-interest pages were gone. Then, over the opening weekend, only 39 pages (780 reviews) were posted - a very low number given that (at least) 10 million people had seen the film. At that time the tomato-meter was under 50%. Suddenly on Monday night about 30 pages of reviews were added - but not at the end, they were dispersed among pages posted the days before. These 'released' reviews raised approval into the 50%s and now it is pushing upwards from there - Also of interest was that the majority of reviews were at the extremes of 4.5 to 5 stars or 0 to 1 star. Then a read of the 4.5-5 star reviews revealed that 90% of them followed about 3 patterns: 1. A very short review that simply said the film was great with only superficial adjectives like 'awesome, fun, great - movie/story, loved, amazing, fun- offering no insight into the approval nor any aspect of the movie. i.e. The statements were generic to the point that it could have been for another or movie not seen. 2. Within the first two sentences a reference to The Last Jedi (TLJ) such as 'much better than TLJ' , ' hate TLJ but not Solo', 'Best of the new movies,', or 'Best since the OT'. - A peculiar form of disclaimer that assumes people are unable to view 'Solo' by their own accord. - What stands out is that in most of these reviews the reviewer writes about him/herself in 3rd person. Referencing his/her feelings decriptivelyin almost the exact same pattern of 5-10 sentences following the TLJ disclaimer. The reviewer writes about 'refreshed and surprised' feelings' as if his/her feelings were the topic - again without any detail about the film or why such a rebound of positivity is warranted. 3. Hyperbole - an immediate attack on someone(s) - real or imagined - along the lines of 'don't listen to the haters', ' don't let extremist fans ruin it', ' the blowback is unfair and hilarious', etc. So again, instead of a review of the film, there is an off-topic remark, compliment, attack, perspective that is not well-supported in the context of the film or even logically.

What is not given is either a superficial understanding of the viewing experience, i.e. What was fun/great/amazing?' nor a meaningful insight into what made it so...

No five start reviews give an overview or reflect upon how gripping the story, characters, directing, nor even the cinematography is. Could it be...

REVIEW OF 'SOLO': Story- simply put there is no real story. No defined conflict nor engaging antagonist. No character development nor story arc. Just a few uncompelling goals around which cliche twists are seen coming dashed with numerous character write-offs and actions unnatural to the established character lines and tone of SW. - And that is the good part.

Even viewed in suspended neutrality, the casting is very weak. Both of the actors for Han Solo and Lando lack the strength of personality of the originals. Han Solo appears as would a guy at a frat who from a distance looks tough until upon approach you see his adventurousness is limited to addressing a hurt fingernail. Lando is presented as a 'dandy' neurotically attached to a robot. - Simply put they look like two softboys who spent their lives indoors being preened, not adventurers weathered by their exploits across the galaxy. - Solo's love interest makes a fair effort, as does 'Vision' and Woody Harrelson but both appear out of place if for no other reason than their acting craft is far above the rest of the cast. - And with Harrelson he is too recognizable as himself.

Chewbacca succumbed to character assassination as his big chance for a back story was lost in a scene of meaningless howling, a poorly done yarn suit, and the revelation that he dismembers and eats humans (or other 'aliens'). Now Chewy is nothing more than Han's loosely controlled rabid attack dog, er Sasquatch.

Instead of bonding the audience to the honest humanity of Han, Lando, or Chewy, spurolous attempts are made to bond the audience to the humanity of random robots (droids if we must) and rebel girls. Scenes with Lando's robot are both far to undeveloped to warrant the amount and type of personality presented. Worse these scenes come across as horribly misguided attempts to force foreign topics (such as those from our own politics/country) incongruously into the Star Wars storyline and tone. This breaks the entire film. - The reductive presentation of original rebels as basically young girls with Solomon like wisdom and Thor like weapons is also unfounded and debases reason and established lore about the rebellion- again taking us out of the film into non-suspended disbelief. - i.e. Given that non-Jedi are normal humans they would not possess the super-human abilities and perspectives a few cut in scenes try to establish.

More could be said- but what is the point.

Just the same as what was the point of 'Solo'?

- The toys won't sell.