Solo Complaints/Criticisms of Solo

Yeah, the pacing did make it feel more like the pilot episode for a Netflix series or something.

I did like the lead actor and I think he put his heart in it. The way he played it reminded me of a sort of Harrison Ford/Jack Nicholson combo. The story just didn't do it for me however. Pretty dull.

 

Yeah, it would have been the perfect pilot for a series that is canceled after 2 seasons.

 

FTFY

 

a crime boss that is able to kill a regional governor willy nilly like some sort of Mos Eisley cantina regular is something that is very hard to stomach for me.
vox.com/mischiefs-of-faction/2018/6/20/17484886/solo-reveals-galactic-empire-weakness

it is touched on in the article above

Also, the movie is too "muddy" in places, lots of browns and greys which can make watching it visually unappealing at times.

Otherwise, I like it

 

I don't have many complaitns, honestly though it was kinda a bit long IMO.

 

I don't really have many complaints either. The pacing was a little slow for me and the length are about it.

 

Having watched it umpteen times now, I've worked out the thing that bugs me: Han's not enough of a cynic. He's basically a kind, wide-eyed wannabe nearly all the way through. I know he's young but it's made clear from the outset that he's an orphaned semi-slave, living a grimey life. That experience should have left him cynical from the off. But instead he's more like a boy scout young Indiana Jones.

 

I think him being like that is the entire point. This is from before he turned into a cynic, to give him a character arc. Qi'ra's betrayal is most likely the point that turns him into a cynic who (at least on the surface) only cares about himself, and Chewie.

Granted, especially the situation with Enfys Nest at the end feels a bit over-the-top to me as well. He's a bit too good and nice, but I don't really mind the general approach to his character.

 

Further, he’s still not on idealist in Solo. He’s a good guy at heart (as he was in the OT), but he was primarily interested in adventure, fast ships and pulling a fast one. The Beckett and seeming Qi’ra betrayals are clearly the moments that are supposed to signal his future cynicism (and obviously, he doesn’t join the Rebellion when Enfys asks him), but he’s no Luke in Solo. He grew up in criminality and he’s still has that mentality. But he’s not good at being a criminal because he’s too good of a guy. That’s the Han we all know from the OT. Perfectly done by the Kasdans, who probably know Han best.

 

Sounds like Firefly,lol. Solo ended up being Star War's version of Serenity, which itself borrowed from Star Wars,lol.

The cinematography could have been a lot better, was way too dark in places where that simply does not work.

The Art of SOLO is really amazing, had they chose their vision and directors more carefully, this movie could've been a lot grander. I think Howard did an excellent job with what he had available to him so late in the game. A lot of the deleted and alternate scenes I know exist still bother me, like their is two different versions of the movie. I think the alien ape-cat humanoid version of Vos in his jungle fortress retreat would've made a good villain before we get to Paul's version, made them two different characters. Maul could be like a Blofeld.

Enfy's was a waste since this character barely even appeared, was like they wanted to spin another character off and threw it in. I think it teased something in the trailer but was a complee dud and flop in film for the audience. They should've just had Boba being contracted to get Solo or the coaxium by the Empire.

 

I don't care for Enfys Nest at all, but at least she was an original character. Star Wars is suffering from small world syndrome... We don't need Ponda Baba turning up everywhere all the time, we don't need Bobba Fett staring down the camera lens at every opportunity either. One person in a cool armoured suit is much like another, so why further cheapen Bobba Fett by inserting him into this car crash of a movie? Hasn't his character suffered enough indignity?

 

I dont agree. There was a strange Fett armored like character in the Vandor gambling outpost scene but the character was just a background extra.

I think it would've been better than Marvel having Boba fight Luke so early on,lol. Even from a marquee standpoint, Fett in the film would've been interesting. The Fett movie was supposedly canceled, him being allocated to SOLO would've made sense - especially since they have a history together going back to ANH(SE) even if you dont want to count the decades of the EU. Fett would've helped draw in fans and maybe upped the stakes.

I think he would've been a better actual antagonist than whatever Enfys(and they couldve kept this character) was supposed to be and the Empire played such a tiny pathetic background role(more so since most of the their stuff was eventually shortened and deleted in post production). Besides there was enough Mandalorian callbacks in the film they may of as well thrown in Boba Fett. Even Nest sported Fett type knee armor and seemed already to be some sorta Mando ethnicity from one of their worlds with her crazy outfit and her battle with the Crimson Dawn(a Mando connection with Maul) - Weazel too also sports a Mando(Kalevalan) type helmet. Dryden Vos flies around in a Mando created ship with a suit of red Mando armor calling back to Maul and his control of Death Watch and Mandalore. One more psuedo-Mando in he form of Boba would not of matter, or if not Boba they could've created another Mandalorian antagonist altogether or re-used Monstross.

 

That's pretty on the money. I think though that Han is young enough in the movie that a better version of the concept could have been a movie that develops that cynicism. I was hoping it would end with Han "shooting first" at Beckett

 

Han does shoot first at Beckett. At the end of the film.

 

Main complaint from me is that the lighting is absolutely terrible, can barely see what's going on 90% of the movie. The dark lighting doesn't set the tone for a swashbuckling space adventure at all. My other complaints about Solo would be that the movie was just kinda bland, and wasn't anything that I haven't already seen before. Also, I really hated the droid L3. I found L3 to be insufferably annoying. At least L3 gets destroyed though, that's a relief. Enfys Nest was an interesting character too, but sadly very underused. Also the Darth Maul appearance was pretty forced fan service, though I still liked seeing him.

The movie also just felt nothing like a Star Wars movie. Mainly due to the lighting, which seriously does not set the right atmosphere at all. Maybe they need to "special edition" this movie, and fix that horrid lighting. I seriously think I would of enjoyed it more if it was nice and colourful. The movie felt really rushed to me also, I felt if it had more time put into it it could of been genuinely great. Probably doesn't help there were some messy re-shoots as well. There were some really good ideas in Solo, I liked the idea of exploring crime syndicates in the SW universe, rather than a massive war like every other film.

Despite all these criticisms though, I still enjoyed the movie. I can still see the good in it despite how much of a mess it is. Alden did a really good job as Han, which genuinely surprised me. When I saw preview screenshots of him before the movie came out, I thought: "He absolutely looks nothing like Harrison Ford, this won't work." But my expectations were proven wrong when I actually loved his performance as Han, and I honestly accept him as a young Han Solo. As for Donald Glover as Lando, yeah, he did a pretty great job too. Though I've never cared much for Lando, so I don't have much to say about him. This movie didn't help to make me care more for him, as he didn't do much the entire movie.

As for the original characters that appear in the movie, Beckett was a character I enjoyed a lot. I actually felt sad when Han shot him at the end of the movie. As for the other characters, Rio and Val, they die before they get any time to shine. Literally nothing to say about either of them.

Anyway... semi-critical rant over, lol.

 

You're right. I misremembered. The impact of the shooting is kind of lessened by him rushing over to console him as he's dying.

 

Ha, no worries! Though that made it all the more realistic. He's hardening a little, due to Beckett's betrayal and Qi'ra's perceived betrayal, but he's not that hardcore just yet. Would have been too big a leap in his character to just let him die in the sand.

 

What they were trying to do with the lighting was very ambitious. Therefore, like many ambitious things, there is the risk that the result is not the one that was hoped. While I have also been very critical of the lighting, I kind of appreciate the bold attempt.

 

Everyone knows darkness and "rain" is used to hide things on set that look bad when you can see them properly.

 

That's too harsh. They were trying to have most of the light coming from actual onscreen objects. I praise the Barry Lindon-ish idea, it just didn't work in the same way here.

 

Bradford Young’s style is to go with in-world lighting only. I like that style. Though I think it would work better if Young also didn’t apply such heavy filters to his scenes to further muddy the picture. Greig Fraser, DP of Rogue One, also prefers a very naturalistic lighting style, but his picture is sharper and less filtered, thus giving it a crisper and more organic look.

 

My only complaint is that we are not getting Solo 2!

 

Not quite as ambitious as AVP:R.

I notice that the excuses for the film's lighting are not being offered with quite as much zeal as before, as if common wisdom has settled on the fact that the film looks like crap because it's too dark.

There never was a problem with the cinemas. There never was a problem with the projectors. The film looks like crap because it was badly made.

 

The very fact that the question "was it too dark?" is even asked is by itself a sort of proof that something went wrong.
Lighting is usually not an issue that common viewers discuss about a movie. If they noticed the lighting for reason different than pure appreciation, it's already a pretty bad sign.

 

That’s entirely subjective. Mass audiences just seem to prefer brightly lit movies. That’s not about “common wisdom,” it’s simply about common taste (and there’s nothing inherently wise about common taste).

I love Bradford Young’s approach of lighting scenes by in-camera/ in-world sources. Lends a realism that is very Star Wars to me. My issue is that the color-grading and filters he layered on top of the scenes created a muddier look that I’m not that partial to. But there was a solid artistic reason for it. He was drawing on gritty street-level films from the 70s, and the look was very deliberate (as past films he worked on, like Selma, make clear). I respect that. And much prefer it to the cartoony brightness of Guardians of the Galaxy, for example, which a lot of fans said Solo should have emulated. In short, I have a minor personal criticism of how the final film was colored that’s based on a niche personal taste. It’s not an assertion that the film was objectively “too dark” or “looks like crap.” To me, after Rogue One, it’s the 2nd best-looking film of the Disney era.

But please continue clothing your opinion of the film in the language of objective truth, and/ or common wisdom and popular support. It’s puzzling that you keep harping on it, though. As if you can’t stand that many people don’t agree with you about it.