Warning: There are some mild spoilers ahead.
There's a scene in "Solo: A Star Wars" story where Woody Harrelson's character Tobias Beckett tells an arrogant Han Solo, "The only way this is going to work [is to] stick to the plan. Do not improvise."
I imagine similar instructions were given to original "Solo" directors, Chris Miller and Phil Lord ("The Lego Movie,""21 Jump Street"), who were fired from the "Star Wars" spin-off due to "creative differences" with Lucasfilm.
They probably should have improvised a little.
Don't believe the hype from early social reactions. It's the first lackluster "Star Wars" effort from Disney since purchasing Lucasfilm for $4 billion in late 2012. "Solo" may have the look and feel of a "Star Wars" movie along with some iconic characters, but it's missing the heart of one.
Good performances from an A-list cast get lost in a heist movie that doesn't add much to the collective "Star Wars" universe.
What to know going into this movie: "Solo" had some production troubles. You don't need to watch previous "Star Wars" movies to get it.
"Solo" is the second standalone "Star Wars" movie from Disney and Lucasfilm after 2016's "Rogue One."
Taking place during the rise of Darth Vader's empire between Episodes III and IV, the movie follows a young Han Solo (Ehrenreich) champing at the bit to become a pilot, even if it means becoming a part of the Empire. The spin-off shows how Han met Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover), his buddy Chewbacca, and eventually acquired the Millennium Falcon. You won't be lost if you haven't watched other "Star Wars" movies, but some jokes may go over your head.
The film changed directors from Phil Lord and Chris Miller to the more seasoned Ron Howard during production. According to multiple reports from Vulture and the Wall Street Journal, Lord and Miller were in over their head with "more than 30 takes of a given scene" being asked for at times, Ehrenreich had an acting coach to nail his Harrison Ford impression, and Howard re-shot as much as 70% of the movie. The behind-the-scenes drama has definitely had fansconcerned.
What's good: The performances. VIPs are Donald Glover and new droid, L3.
The early social media reactions about "Solo" were right about one thing. The performances are solid.
Emilia Clarke ("Game of Thrones") brings the addition of another new character, Qi'ra, a street-smart fighter who young girls will want a doll of to go next to ones of Rey and Jyn Erso. If the new "Star Wars" movies are getting anything right, it's female characters.
Ehrenreich's Han Solo isn't bad either, acting coach or not. The 28-year-old definitely made the role his own — it's no easy feat trying to mimic Harrison Ford — but there are fleeting instances where Ehrenreich could pass as a younger Ford.
Thandie Newton and Woody Harrelson are good as two smugglers and Paul Bettany is a convincingly menacing villain, Dryden Vos, but you never feel too invested in their characters, or any of the others for that matter. By the end of "Rogue One," you felt pretty attached to most of the characters in the movie. That's missing from "Solo."
The real MVPs of this movie are Donald Glover as a young Lando and Phoebe Waller Bridges as his droid co-pilot, L3-37, so it's a bummer it takes them about 40 minutes or so to show up on screen. Glover is so calm and collected as Lando and delivers his lines with such finesse, that you would think he's been playing this role for years. (To be fair, Glover told Jimmy Kimmel Calrissian was his first toy so he probably had a lot of practice acting out the character.) L3 is a spunky droid who isn't afraid to speak her mind and offers up a few of the film's more lighthearted comedic moments.
Personally, I wasn't as blown away by L3 as other "Star Wars" fans may be. At this point, it feels like every "Star Wars" movie is trying to insert a lovable or quirky new droid for fans to fall in love with. While L3 has her moments, she feels a tad too much like a female version of "Rogue One's" K-2SO, just not as memorable.
Performances aside, there are a lot of great capes in this movie. As far as fashion goes, the main cast's outfits in a "Star Wars" movie have never been prettier to look at. There is also one big surprise in the film that should excite longtime fans of the franchise. But it may also make you wish we had an entire spin-off about him instead of Solo.
What's not great about this movie: A lot. And that's a letdown.
Look, "Solo" is not a terrible film. But it's not a great film either. It's just fine. And that's not good enough for a franchise which has put out three billion-dollar movies from Disney and Lucasfilm.
The standalone "Star Wars" spin-off movies were conceived as self-contained stories that existed somewhere in the franchise's history. They hoped to answer one question: Will fans care to watch a "Star Wars" movie if they know what the outcome of it should be? For 2016's "Rogue One," a movie about a rebel squadron which goes on a suicide mission to steal the Death Star plans that helped Luke Skywalker in "Episode IV," the answer was a resounding yes.
Even though you likely knew the prequel movie's somber outcome before release, "Rogue One" made you care about each and every character in a high-stakes movie. More than that, it added to the overall comprehension of "Star Wars: A New Hope" and addressed a longtime joke about a flaw in the Death Star. Because of that, it grossed over $1 billion. (It also had an awesome Vader scene.)
"Solo" tried to capitalize on a similar idea, but with a less interesting premise. We know Solo will wind up with the Falcon, Chewie, and a pair of dice he hangs from his ship, but none of the answers we receive are mind-blowing or add to what fans already know before seeing the film. That's "Solo's" biggest failure. Nothing in "Solo," save one cameo, makes you look at the rest of the franchise in a new light. You could argue "Rogue One" wasn't necessary, but it was darn good. "Solo" isn't necessary either. But unlike "Rogue One," it's forgettable.
Until Calrissian shows up, the first leg of the movie is a slog to get through as we follow Han escape his home planet, head off to war, and then up and leave to become a smuggler. Despite a lone chuckle here or there, the crowd stayed painfully silent at our Monday morning screening during any moment that was supposed to elicit laughter. It makes you wonder what a Lord and Miller "Solo" movie would have looked like.
Though the cast is good, some of the characters, including Bettany's mysterious gang leader are underdeveloped. How did Dryden Vos get those creepy scars? Why does he never leave his weird-shaped ship he seems to have on loan from the "Infinity War" villains? And how did this guy, seemingly without any powers or lightsaber, become the leader of a group called the Crimson Dawn? (Some of this may be because the character was originally supposed to be entirely different — and played by another actor— until reshoots.)
We're also introduced to some rival smugglers early on. The entire movie builds up to some big reveal, but when it eventually comes, it's immensely underwhelming. The one shining star in this entire movie is Glover and it feels like he gets lost in a mediocre movie that could have been refocused around his character.
Movies about characters like Han Solo, Yoda, and Jabba the Hut would make for fun short films on Disney's upcoming digital platform, but they're not projects that need a full-length movie. Part of what made Han great was that he was a mysterious hotshot smuggler. With a love interest in Qi'ra, Han looks like a lovesick youngster trying to win back his ladylove. This is not the Han I signed up for.
Give me a Lord Vader movie about his epic rise between "Revenge of the Sith" and "A New Hope." Where's the Kenobi film Ewan McGregor is obviously eager to return for? Let's not make "Star Wars" movies for the sake of making "Star Wars" movies.
Overall: "Star Wars"? More like "Meh" Wars.
If you're a die-hard "Star Wars" fan, you may enjoy receiving answers to questions you never thought to ask including, "Why is Han's last name Solo?""Where did Han get his blaster from?" and "Where did those dice shown in one scene of 'Star Wars' but in many scenes of 'The Last Jedi' come from?" But, like the overall film, the questions are unnecessary in the first place and the answers frankly aren't that satisfying.
By the time a surprise cameo comes near the film's end, you may be too checked out to be really excited for what the character's return could mean for a potential "Solo" sequel.
Sure, Glover's great as a young Lando, but good performances alone do not make a movie. It's a testament to Ron Howard's abilities as a skilled director to be able to come in at the 11th hour and make a coherent movie out of the pieces he was handed. But that's just it. "Solo" is just a fine movie. This isn't going to be anyone's favorite "Star Wars" movie. It may leave fans wondering whether or not the Mouse House should aim to release a "Star Wars" movie every year instead of take their time to craft something really special.
If you have a choice between seeing "Deadpool 2" and "Solo," see Ryan Reynolds' sequel first. After that, see "Avengers: Infinity War." Break out your MoviePass for "Solo."
Grade: C
"Solo: A Star Wars Story" is in theaters May 25. Watch a trailer for the movie below.
Join the conversation about this story »
NOW WATCH: I ate nothing but 'healthy' fast food for a week — here’s what happened