I was wondering whether or not he made a critique of Han Solo: A Star Wars Story,
it seems the public is not at all interested in him.
But as a Star Wars fan I need to do, even as respect to the Grumpy Nerd audience.
But before...
Years before the events in that cantina of Mos Eisley, in A New Hope, Han
Solo is a young criminal on the streets of Corellia, who dreamed of a better life together with his
girlfriend Qi'ra.
In the midst of a confusion he separates himself from her and leaves the planet to join the Imperial Army.
During his imperial mission he meets Chewbacca and the two join a group of criminals
led by Beckett, and after an unsuccessful job they have a debt
with the Scarlet Aurora, a dangerous mob organization led by Dryden Vos.
Along with Qi'ra they meet the unreliable Lando Calrissian and his robot L3-37, and the ship
Millennium Falcon, and set off on a new and dangerous mission.
I got the impression that everything happened during production and filming
of Han Solo: A Star Wars Story appeared larger than the film itself tells the story
story of young Han Solo.
Directors Phil Lord and Chris Miller, who became famous for the nonsense Lego: The Movie
were hired by Kathleen Kennedy, the woman who actually commands the Star universe
Wars these days, and the idea seemed to be good:
Bring new blood to the franchise and offer a different language to the Star Wars fan.
Five months after they started filming the two were fired.
Their work was irreverent, and they improvised a lot, and Katleen Kennedy
thought they were going too far from the Star Wars concept.
Not to mention that there were rumors that the performance of Alden Ehrenreich, the actor who plays
the young Han Solo left much to be desired.
To erase this fire was named Ron Howard, director with two Oscars in the Curriculum,
who worked on American Grafitti, the first George Lucas film.
And then began the re-shoots, to leave Han Solo's film the way Katleen Kennedy
I wanted.
This all left me with the expectation down there, I expected the worst, I did not have
want to go to the movies to see the bomb formed.
It turns out that Han Solo is fun, much better than I expected.
An afternoon session that serves to pass the time without commitment, amusing but forgettable,
full of potential but with more fanservice than history.
The existence of Han Solo does not seem to make much sense, serves only as a tool
to feed the fanboys need of explanation for what does not need to be explained,
besides clear of exist to sell ships and little dolls, but that is another subject.
Instead of feeding the fanboys the movie could have a better, more developed story,
deeper.
Who really cares how Han Solo got the Millennium Falcon?
We already knew he had won in a Lando card game, that was counted
in 1979.
Do we really have to know how Han Solo became a smuggler, or what he was doing
in Tatooine at the beginning of A New Hope?
The plot seems to want to explain things that we do not know about, in the end
are just unnecessary details that make the fanboy feel comfortable but that consume
a screen time that could be used for more interesting things.
Han Solo is counted as a Western where a train robbery goes wrong and so everything
becomes a race against time.
Although the action scenes are good, they are generic and forgettable, and the plot is lost
for being disorganized and poorly developed.
The best scene of the film is that of the train robbery, at the beginning of the second act, which reminded me
a little the Nintendo 64 game Shadows of The Empire, but still some details
appear poorly explained, to be revealed only later without much force.
Then there's one or another visually interesting scene, like one at the Millennium Falcon
trying to escape from giant space beings. Looks like
in the last years all the space adventure films had this same scene.
And the final act instead of grandiose seemed obvious.
It seems that the final product could be better than it is, in all respects, what
makes us think about what the version of the first directors would look like.
You can feel their finger on a lot of things, especially in the jokes that were kept.
But Han Solo also looks like a Ron Howard film, especially in the scenes of Millennium
Falcon.
Howard's biggest change was to insert Dryden Vos, the villain of history, who only
appears even twice in the film, despite its importance being in the whole plot.
Despite this, Han Solo delivers a product good enough that if I did not know
of the confusions in production, perhaps he would not even notice these problems.
But then maybe I would have liked less of the movie as well, since my expectations
would be higher.
As I know of the problems I realize that the story was assembled in an episodic way
to fit the changes during production, and the result does not seem cohesive and firm.
enough.
I always say that your butt is the best film critic: if you realize that
your butt is bothered, misfed in the chair, it is a sign that the film has not complied
your role playing you in a different world, and it happened to me.
I felt a little uneasy and restless all the time, not so interested in what I saw
on the screen.
My biggest concern was with Alden Ehrenreich, who came as a promise on Ave, Caesar!
and was far from my favorite actor to play the young Han Solo.
Not to mention the news about having to hire an acting teacher
Last minute to improve the subject's scenes, so I really expected the worst.
But despite the fact that he is trying to emulate the presence of Harrison Ford, he is
better than I expected.
His Han Solo is decent, sarcastic, mean, and optimistic, but his charisma is very
smaller than that of the original actor.
The real star of the film is Donald Glover, this charismatic yes and with a tremendous presence
of screen.
And how the premise of the film was to deliver all the details about the young Han Solo to satisfy
the fanboys, he sins by showing very little Side.
Emilia Clark is far from being an actress who I enjoy, and seems bored in the role of the old
girlfriend of Solo.
Already Woody Harrelson, who plays a character who looks like he
already interpreted before, is well and has presence, even with a half arc without grace.
Paul Bettany appears very little to shine, his Vos threatens by the importance of the character,
not for its performance.
The depth of the character seems to be all in the laser knives he carries, nothing
Besides that.
And the android L3-37 is the most connected character with the present day: a female robot with
Social consciousness.
And maybe that's why it's most noticeable when it appears on the screen.
The dynamics between the robot and Lando Calrissian is by far the most profound, despite
of being very small in the whole.
There's no way I can not say that Han Solo: A Star Wars Story Could not Be Better
if it had not been interfered with by the studio, but this also seems to be a
Lame excuse.
No one asked for a movie about the young Han Solo, but I'm not against this line Uma
History Star Wars, I like it, I think it's cool because the Star Wars universe itself is full
of cool stories that we do not know.
The problem here maybe Han Solo is a character too big for a story
weak like that.
For the old Star Wars fan, Han Solo is a fun movie.
And for the new fan it's a beautiful new adventure, fun guaranteed.
But for the fan like me who is also critical or who demands more, the movie is fun, yes,
has its problems and is distinctly poorly developed sugar water medium.
There are alíenígenas, references and correria, but nothing very far from the obvious.
Although forgettable is far from a bad experience.
Thinking right up to the title of the movie is without grace.
Some action scenes are very good, and action scenes is what we expect in
a spatial west.
The little robot L3-37 makes us want to know more about it.
Alden Ehrenreich is not the lousy actor I was expecting, and that's very good.
Incidentally, the whole movie is not the disaster I've been waiting for.
So that's good.
Donald Glover deserves the highlight he has.
He is a very good actor and knows how to take advantage of the opportunities.
The best of the movie.
The story seems to waste more time doing fanservice, explaining nonsense that people
do not need to know about Han Solo that really telling something interesting.
It is all little explored, undeveloped, unnecessary in most cases.
Emilia Clarke is an actress completely without salt.
It seems that it only works in Game of Thrones because the Daenerys character is interesting.
Your Qi'ra character could be removed from the movie that you would not miss.
Dryden Vos does not add much either.
It is a good afternoon session, with no commitment, which offers nothing too deep and
You'll forget as soon as you leave the theater.
Not that this is bad, but I still expected more.
I think it's that kind of movie that you should go to the movies to watch,
but only if there is nothing better going on.
Which Star Wars character do you like the most and why is Darth Vader?
Leave your feedback in the comments and sign up for more Nerd videos
Grumpy.
And remember: The Grumpy Nerd does not give a bad tip.
No comments:
Post a Comment