Solo: The Best New Star Wars Film You Haven't Seen

So, Solo: A Star Wars story is finally out for rent, and I finally took the time to sit down and watch it.  I didn't have the chance to do so when it came out in movie theaters (more on why, and what it means, later) but I wanted to see it, and having seen it, I want to give my thoughts on it and, I hope, clear up some of the air around it, in case you haven't seen it, heard it was bad, and were avoiding it for some reason.

The TL; DR is that it's good, definitely worth your money to rent, but it isn't flawless, and I suspect you already know what the flaws are and, if you haven't seen it, it's because of those flaws.

The Good

I went into Solo expecting a train wreck, and got one, but not in the way I expected (there's a literal train wreck in the film).  Instead, I found a charming film with a wonderfully quick pace, delightful characters, fascinating call-backs and, at its edges, a mystery.

At some point, rumors swirled that Alden Ehrenreich needed an acting coach.  Either this was total BS or that acting coach really earned his money, because Alden Ahrenreich was one of the best things about the film.  While nobody can catch the lightning of Harrison Ford in a bottle. Alden did an excellent job, and I came out of the film loving his interpretation of Han Solo.  He's charming and flawed, a man hiding his desperation behind a smooth smile and promises to "fix it."

In fact, the whole movie feels like an excellent capture of the spirit of Star Wars, especially the spirit that Han Solo represented: the gritty underbelly full of grey morality and murky loyalties.  The Star Wars of Luke Skywalker has a Light Side and a Dark Side, but Han Solo knows better, he knows that the world is a constantly swirling mixture of both, which is one of the things that makes Han Solo such a great character: he is a walking challenge to the simplicity of Jedi ideology.  And while we do see a lightsaber ignite at one point in the film, it is the only time, and it is not meaningful, just an Easter Egg for the Clone Wars faithful.

I found the movie chock full of references, some astonishing, like a reference to Teras Kasi of all things.  Kasdan really knows his stuff!  I think you could really study the film and peel out some of its deeper references if you cared to.  I know I found several, sat up and said "Oh, that's an X!" enough that my wife fixed me with an annoyed look at one point. I would only ding it on one, in that its pretty front and center and bewildering if you've only watched the films.  Personally, I think easter eggs should be rewards for those who dive deep into the lore, rather than moments that require homework to understand.

The movie was fun.  I have a pretty short attention span, a problem I struggle with, but I indulge it when it comes to my entertainment, and it makes it very difficult for me to sit through movies (I prefer shorter formats, especially 20-minutes shows or cartoons) unless I'm in a theater.  A really engaging film can keep me in my seat, though.  The Force Awakens did that (for its flaws, it has excellent pacing), and so did Solo.  I couldn't finish the Last Jedi at home, by contrast.  It felt like a slog.

But... Politics!

One of the reasons this show got so badly reviewed, especially by fans, is a hangover from the Last Jedi and the perception of "politics," this idea that the Star Wars films have begun to drive home some toxic ideology.

Let us take that as granted for a moment, that Star Wars has been infiltrated by sinister feminists.  We can even offer proof: every single Star Wars film in the new series has been headlined by Strong, Interdependent Female characters.  The male characters are generally comic relief, villains, or proven to be wrong.  If someone will betray someone, it is a man betraying a woman.  There is usually someone in the film who will offer up some feminist aphorism, and she will be right, and the male character will need to learn from her.

Solo violates all of these things . It is headlined by a male character.  While he is certainly humorous, he is decidedly the hero, and he is right.  At least one female (or "female") character is used as comic relief and, more than that, she is presented as a caricature of feminism.  There is a woman who needs to be rescued (even if she won't accept it) and a woman betrays the male hero.

I think the problem of feminism in Star Wars is overstated. There is definitely a feminist streak there if you look for it, but as in all cases where people run around dropping anvils, the problem is rarely the message (previous examples include "Drugs are bad" and "Save the environment"), but how the message is handled.  

It has taken me some time to sort through my feelings on the Last Jedi, and I'm not sure I'll post them, because if I did, I think you'd end up with a really long post on me complaining about a wide variety of flaws about player empowerment, how not to depict characters, pacing, world building, and so much more, but I think between the Last Jedi and the gaslighting that a lot of media outlets and people involved in the making of the film have engaged in have really soured a lot of people on Star Wars in general, and they want blood.  They want Kathleen Kennedy and her crew to suffer, and they attack anything they make, regardless of its quality.  I've seen some of the people who rightly ding the Last Jedi also go on rants about how the revival of the Clone Wars "is a trap," and how Resistance must be terrible, and how Solo must be terrible.  I am here to tell you that it's not true.  One bad film should not condemn an entire franchise, and if the people who didn't give us what we want shift to giving us what we want, we should reward that, not punish it.

Solo walks back a lot of the strident politics of previous films; it always embraces much more of the expanded universe and gives fans what they want, and it's a fun, good film.  You should see it, and don't let its detractors dissuade you. I'm not saying you can't dislike it, because you totally can, just dislike it on its own merits, please.

As for the flaws I mentioned:

The Bad

The Tonal Dissonance of L337

This was a film that stopped halfway through and reshot half the film.  This generated a lot of drama and, apparently, created a lot of backstage spite.  And if you watch the film, you can sort of see some of these scars, where a reshoot was slipped in to cover over a "mistake" by Lord and Miller, to bring it back to more of the vision of Kasdan or Kathleen Kennedy.  I don't think I could pick out all the points, and I wouldn't mind watching a documentary on it, because it's fascinating, but I personally suspect most of it centered on L337.

Some of what follows will be mild spoilers, as she ("she") is ultimately a fairly minor character, but if you don't want to be spoiled, just skip to the next section.

So, we sort of have a tale of Two L337s.  On the one hand, you have this crazy, broken droid who hasn't hard her memory wiped in years.  She delusionally believes that Lando is in love with her while a character smiles on indulgently, like a child was babbling on about how she has a crush on her teacher.  At one point, she removes a restraining bolt from a robot, and when it asks what it should do, she says "I don't know, start a rebellion or something." She's a casual and silly robot who is rude and spouts stuff about equality and demands that people get out of her seat.  On the other hand, we see her at the beginning of the film trying to free robots and start a revolution.  We see her destruction and it is treated as the grave death of a wise and beloved character, with Lando revealing his deep and abiding affection for her in his willingness to face death to save her.  

It makes no sense.  Either she is tragic and serious or she is a joke.  She is either delusional or she isn't.  She's either trying to start rebellions or she's starting them by accident. Maybe they were trying to give us a second perspective, creating bissociation between the perception of a crazy bot and the reality of a true relationship between herself and Lando, but if so, they didn't sell it well.  It feels like two visions of the same character clashing.  I suspect that this is so, and we're seeing the ground zero of a creative clash, and it does weaken the movie.  Not terribly much, but it does.

You don't need to see it

I think the critics of the current direction of Star Wars would like to believe that they are the cause of Solo's demise, and I think they and general dissatisfaction with the Last Jedi do contribute (I think you can draw lots of parallels with the DCEU: Batman v Superman is to the Justice League what the Last Jedi is to Solo), but I think this is the much bigger reason.  I think Solo promised to tell you a story you already knew.  Did you know that Solo did the Kessel Run in 12 parsecs? I bet you did!  Did you know that Solo grew up on Corellia?  I bet you did!  Did you know that Solo won the Millenium Falcon from Lando in a card game? I bet you did!

This is the real reason I didn't see it in theaters.  I had limited time and a choice between this and Deadpool 2.  I chose Deadpool 2.  Even looking back, I do not regret that choice.  Solo told me a bunch of stuff I already knew, which is a broader sin committed by the new direction of the franchise over and over again.  Better franchises, like Marvel, create must see moments.  Are you going to see Avengers: Infinity Wars 2?  Of course you are, because you want to see how it ends!  Are you going to see Captain Marvel?  Of course you are, because you want to know how it ties into the rest, and it promises to feel and look different.  You don't know what the story is, and you're kind of curious.

What about Star Wars: Episode IX? I'm gonna guess it's going to be a repeat of a lot of Return of the Jedi, though probably one without a slinky slave outfit. Is there really anything there that you haven't seen before?  If you had to choose right now between Avengers: Infinity Wars 2 and Episode IX, which would you choose?

Solo really suffers from this.  It's a fine film, but it's not an essential film.  I think if Disney should learn anything from their debacle, it's this: you need to take risks, you need to show us something new, you need to make your film essential.  I get a sense that a lot of the would-be directors of Star Wars chafe under the limitations of Star Wars, so I say unleash them!  One of the great things about the Old Republic (what fragments of it remain under EA's mismanagement) is precisely that it unleashed creators to do what they want!  Why are we not seeing films set in the Unknown Region?  Why are we not seeing films set in a different future?  For all their flaws, the Prequels gave us new stories in a very new spin on the setting.  It took the Clone Wars to really resuscitate the prequels, but it has given us a fascinating new era to explore.  The latest material all feels like retreads. And I think that's what's keeping people away.

Is it Psi-Wars?

I don't really like to end on a sour note, so let me stop and talk about the fact that it's a heist and that it's an action film.  This, like Rogue One, has very strong Psi-Wars DNA in it, perhaps because the Jedi played such a small role in both.  The inclusion of hyperspace fuel made me flinch, because it diminishes the originality of my hyperium fuel, but I suppose I'll live.  The more creators stop and dwell on the workings of the Star Wars universe, the more it will come to resemble elements of Psi-Wars, because both are solutions to similar problems.  You can see another similarity in the use of "Hyperspace Lanes" in the expanded universe.

I imagine most Psi-Wars games will play a lot like Solo, precisely because both are so Action-like.  Both Solo and Rogue One have an eclectic band of characters working together, in the same spot, to get at some thing, only to be betrayed or outed, and to have a last desperate struggle to survive.  They're very gameable, more so than than the "trilogy" side of the franchise.  If you want something to mine for Star-Wars-like stories, Solo is definitely there for you.