War for the Planet of the Apes.

Review #2209: War for the Planet of the Apes.

Cast: 

Andy Serkis (Caesar), Woody Harrelson (The Colonel), Steve Zahn (Bad Ape), Karin Konoval (Maurice), Amiah Miller (Nova), Terry Notary (Rocket), Ty Olsson (Red Donkey), Michael Adamthwaite (Luca), Toby Kebbell (Koba), Gabriel Chavarria (Preacher), Judy Greer (Cornelia), Sara Canning (Lake), Devyn Dalton (Cornelius), and Aleks Paunovic (Winter) Directed by Matt Reeves (#1038 - Cloverfield, #1814 - The Batman, and #1888 - Dawn of the Planet of the Apes)

Review: 

"I wanted to push us into the realm of the mythic. I felt like this was the thing that was going to create the legend of what Caesar would be to future generations of apes. That if he was going to be a seminal figure in their history, this had to be a Biblical epic – the final test that he must pass to have this mythic ascension into the pantheon of apes."

Sometimes you really have to respect the tenacity of a film series, particularly one as distinct as Planet of the Apes, which has managed to go forward and back again with a trilogy of films that served as reboots to those offbeat sequels that had arisen after the original 1968 film (imagine making any more sequels after the first sequel had the hero of the first one blow up the whole world). The script was written by Reeves (the director of the previous reboot film in Dawn of the Planet of the Apes) and Mark Bomback, who decided to make a story that in their eyes would have the character of Caesar "cement his status as a seminal figure in ape history" that saw them watch plenty of films from the old Apes film (with War, the ninth overall film in the series taking a cue or so from Battle for the Planet of the Apes [1973]). As before, the effects for the film were done by Weta Digital when it came to the apes that saw motion-capture and CGI key-frame animation that has a friendly mix of performers in suits (Serkis, Konoval, and Notary are the only ones to appear as apes in each of the three films). It felt particularly timely to watch this film with the impending release of the standalone sequel Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes in 2024 (Reeves isn't the director, but who knows what Wes Ball will bring to the series) set many years after War. 

Basically, one is watching the culmination of a person as a sort of a mythic figure on the lines that would make a biblical filmmaker proud (at one point, a character even mentions the belief of fighting a "holy war") to go along with a scope that is highly enjoyable to close out what has basically been a string of distinct ensemble films with one dominant presence in Serkis being in each one of them. It is a tremendous evolutionary process to see play out in this series that never shows a loose failing when it comes to trying to perpetuate familiar names into wanting to see play out for another go-around. The ideas of redemption (or vengeance) or a new step in the process of mankind can be found pretty clearly with this film in such an entertaining manner that plays out the nature of where "co-existence" can culminate in the face of reality. Serkis is tremendous once again as Caesar because he has managed to seal the destiny of a character with all of the traits in a mythic force of nature with displays of empathy and guilt to go with worthwhile physicality that provides further proof in the case of worthwhile performances that can be found in the art of capture. He is giving this the effort one would see from a Moses-type of character that is fascinating in ways that went past the expectations one might have had from going past people in suits onto having dots on their face. Seeing the rest around him is a pilgrimage worth watching the journey, particularly with Konoval in that all-encompassing devotion (as the cool orangutan) to show just where things could lead when apes do in fact roam the Earth at large with varying differences potentially arising, as is the case with Zahn and his worthy shaky affliction as the newcomer (note the coat). Harrelson apparently believes that he was "a little daunted" when it came to talking about films that he felt "rigid" performance-wise. It is interesting to disagree with him here, because there is something quite entertaining in his stiff intimidation that goes greatly in playing a mirror to Serkis when it comes to reacting to potential trouble to the structure around their leadership (consider that one had to face killing one of their own species right as the war starts and the other killed their sick son as a means of protection and then see who is haunted most). It is tremendously haunting in a manner that doesn't require a big climax for both him and Serkis to show the futility that arises from such determined stubbornness that is both necessary to lead and also a path to self-destruction (simply put, one has to be a little nuts to lead something such as say, the presidency but not too nuts). It is a useful film in the eyes of looking at what it takes to get to the idea of freedom that has plenty of time for imagery (such as with Miller and her eyes to convey "Nova") within the snow and eventual result, particularly with how it ends up when it comes to sacrifice and securing one's name. In general, the movie has a bleak but all-around worthy execution to it that accomplishes the sell of making a myth worth watching play out on screen with effective visuals and performances to back it up for entertainment that makes it easily among the best of the Apes films.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

The Hunger Games.

Review #2170: The Hunger Games.

Cast: 

Jennifer Lawrence (Katniss Everdeen), Josh Hutcherson (Peeta Mellark), Liam Hemsworth (Gale Hawthorne), Woody Harrelson (Haymitch Abernathy), Elizabeth Banks (Effie Trinket), Lenny Kravitz (Cinna), Stanley Tucci (Caesar Flickerman), Donald Sutherland (President Coriolanus Snow), Wes Bentley (Seneca Crane), Toby Jones (Claudius Templesmith), Alexander Ludwig (Cato), Isabelle Fuhrman (Clove), Amandla Stenberg (Rue), and Jacqueline Emerson (Foxface) Directed by Gary Ross.

Review: 

"There were so many conversations with Suzanne that it’s hard to narrow down to a single thing. One thing I found fascinating was how steeped she was in Roman history and how much of this came from the Roman arena and how she was informed by that. She was exploring how a culture devolves into spectacle and Rome was her starting point. I found that really interesting."

Sure, franchises do leave a tight space for directors to make their presence known. But some are different from others, as with the case for the first film of what became a four-film franchise, with this first one being directed by Gary Ross. Ross had studied at Penn University with a major in English, where he became active in student theater. He was interested in writing as a career for a long time, but he became interested in being a director during this time, which included dropping out of Penn after three years in 1977. He soon became a consultant with speechwriting in two different presidential campaigns. In 1988, he and Anne Spielberg (his neighbor) wrote the screenplay for what became Big, which resulted in an Academy Award nomination. His first script as a primary writer was Dave in 1993 (which resulted in a second Oscar nomination). A couple of script collaborations later, his first film as a director was Pleasantville in 1998, which was followed by Seabiscuit (2003). Ross was attracted to the idea of doing a film of the Hunger Games book because his children liked it, which led him to read it quickly. Ross ended up not doing any of the subsequent Hunger Games films (released in 2013, 2014, 2015) due to the tough schedule that resulted in directing and writing, with him doing the latter with Suzanne Collins and Billy Ray; Francis Lawrence did the latter three films.

I do remember reading the trilogy of books (released in 2008, 2009, and 2010) when I was in 8th/9th grade, but for whatever reason, it never really dawned on me to actually see the films, even as a teenager. I do vaguely remember the first-person perspective of the books from its lead character of Katniss, even if the gore of that first book is toned down here to fit a PG-13 rating (remember that 24 teenagers walk in only to see all but the "lucky" get mowed down). Televised games of people kicking ass is as old as The Running Man, or Battle Royale, or wrestling, complete with narratives to go with the whole thing. The procession of 142 minutes makes for a decent if not somewhat lengthy experience in trying to stand out as a potential "franchise for the youths". The result is fine, but I find myself wondering if there is something lacking in a film that maneuvers a majority of the beats required in action and decadence. It shakes (literally) and moves on the strength of Lawrence. Only the best can make such a selfless action hero that was once described as a "futuristic Theseus" work the way she does in worthy timing. You can see the ideas of hope in this one person that is driven to survive not just for themselves but for others (such as the similar dynamics that come between Katniss / her sister and Katniss / Rue). That realization of hero-to-symbol is especially helped when seeing her with Hutcherson that eventually serves as more than just theatrics. One does see the cynical heart within Harrelson, even if it begs for more guilt than on the side, at least when compared to the plastic pomp of Banks or that soothing sinister nature of Sutherland that lurks in moments (apparently, he wrote a letter when expressing interest to be in the film) or the theatricality that comes with Tucci in doses. I'm not sure exactly how, but there is something lacking in the dreariness of the spectacle that hinders it from being more than just efficient. It isn't like the film bugs me on a "shaky cam" level or with its effects, that much is true. It yearns to be a striking film with the idea that people are watching youths killing each other for sport, but it only scratches the surface of that shock and awe. In short, it is efficient entertainment that sets a stage for looking further for what could lurk further within this rendition of bread and circuses when routine is thrown for a shock.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Next up, wait, don't laugh: Michael Moore's Canadian Bacon.

No Country for Old Men.

Review #1921: No Country for Old Men.

Cast: 

Tommy Lee Jones (Ed Tom Bell), Javier Bardem (Anton Chigurh), Josh Brolin (Llewelyn Moss), Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells), Kelly Macdonald (Carla Jean Moss), Garret Dillahunt (Wendell), Tess Harper (Loretta Bell), Barry Corbin (Ellis), Stephen Root (Man who hires Wells), Rodger Boyce (El Paso Sheriff), and Beth Grant (Carla Jean's mother) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, #1517 - The Big Lebowski, #1552 - A Serious Man, and #1629 - Miller's Crossing) 

Review: 

The movie is adapted from 2005 novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy. While the Coen brothers were trying to adapt the novel To the White Sea, producer Scott Rudin approached them with the rights to make a film adaptation of the book. This is the 12th feature film by the Coen brothers, who as usual edited the film, with this coming off the heels of their previous work such as Intolerable Cruelty (2003) and The Ladykillers (2004). Take it for what it is worth when it comes to how they went with Bardem: he told them "I don't drive, I speak bad English and I hate violence", and yet he was their ideal choice to star in the film (after Heath Ledger had been in talks before bowing out)...provided that his schedule would work with them, because it would have been Mark Strong if that didn't work out. At any rate, this proved to be one of their most successful films, with the Coens receiving three Academy Awards for their work in this film. 

For me, part of the thing that comes with looking at movies that fall into multiple categories is to look at how it manages to execute what you might see coming from the genre without becoming consumed by what you expect over all things. The film has been called a "neo-Western", "crime thriller", or even "noir". For me, the movie was at its most curious and enjoyable in its setup when it comes to showing the stories of the three lead characters, one that knows when to say something meaningful. I think I can acknowledge the faithfulness of the novel and book with its meditation on the futility of trying to make a clean getaway while also thinking it is just a really nice shaggy dog thriller. Inevitable or not, I just found more to like overall in their previous works such as Miller's Crossing (1990) and Fargo (1996) when it came from top to bottom execution. But don't take my words as a big criticism, because the movie is still pretty good, an old-fashioned period piece that deals with the pitfalls of chance and fate for 122 minutes. They weave a tale that is generally compelling with a generally involving cast and locale.

In a sense, the movie is almost a slasher film, if only because Bardem's sociopath character kills nearly every person he meets (which basically translates to about a dozen people). He is deniably the best part of the film in how he shows unwavering terror with no reservations about just who he is: an agent of death, one who looms over everything. Of course, Brolin is no slouch in comparison when it comes to the other side of fate: trying to evade what and where one is going to end up regardless of the layers of inevitability. Jones has the least amount of time among the three, but folks who are familiar with Jones and his ability to make any type of cut-and-dry role seem interesting to spend time with. He is caught in the middle of fate: being ill-equipped to deal with the ever-changing frontier. Harrelson is the odd man among the supporting cast, a bargaining man who unintentionally is the weak link among the supporting players because of how he comes and goes, particularly when Macdonald and Corbin make such interesting presences without as much time to spare (the latter has one scene with Jones total while the former is the only one to share a scene with each of the main three). The landscape of the film is quite nice, in that one never thinks about the setting of the film being 1980 beyond just figuring it is 1980, complete with the barest of music and cinematography by the dependable Roger Deakins. As a whole, it is a movie that takes its time to build the layers of bleakly amusing fate that works most of its wonders through the usual Coen building blocks of genre blending and distinct characters that ends up making a solid (if not perfect) experience.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

EDtv.

Review #1848: EDtv.

Cast: 

Matthew McConaughey (Edward "Ed" Pekurny), Jenna Elfman (Shari), Woody Harrelson (Raymond "Ray" Pekurny), Ellen DeGeneres (Cynthia Reed), Martin Landau (Al), Sally Kirkland (Jeanette Pekurny), Elizabeth Hurley (Jill), Rob Reiner (Mr. Whitaker), Dennis Hopper (Henry 'Hank' Pekurny), Viveka Davis (Marcia Pekurny), Christian Kane (P.A.), Adam Goldberg (John), Wendle Josepher (Rita), Merrin Dungey (Ms. Seaver), Ian Gomez (McIlvaine), and Clint Howard (Ken) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, #1085 - Willow, #1095 - Solo: A Star Wars Story, #1509 - Apollo 13)

Review: 

If you remember, The Truman Show (1998) was a movie that happened to feature a man with his life unknowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. EDtv, released on year later, is a movie that happens to feature a man with his life knowingly being displayed on television to a captivated audience of the world. One can be called a "satirical comedy" and the other can fall into the "psychological comedy-drama satire". Well, that isn't particularly fair to this feature, which is actually a remake of the 1994 Quebecois film Louis 19, King of the Airwaves [Louis 19, le roi des ondes]. Lowell Ganz and Babaloo Mandel (who had written the scripts for a handful of Ron Howard movies likes Splash (1984)) wrote the screenplay for this film. Of course, one really shouldn't reference better material in its own film, with this film referencing An American Family (the hit reality TV show of 1973) in its early minutes when talking about its "innovations"...that show happened to inspire its own spoof with Real Life (1979), a comedy movie involving a documentary filmmaker trying to live with an American family for a year. The funny thing is that EDtv came out nine months after The Truman Show as a big-budget production that runs at 123 minutes (longer than you-know-who), and yet it was a considerable failure with audiences at the time. Maybe it was just more interesting to see Jim Carrey try to tap into comedy-drama rather than Matthew McConaughey (fresh from overrated material like Dazed and Confused (1993) to A Time to Kill (1996)), or maybe it was something else. But I think you know the answer isn't just that EDtv is inferior to The Truman Show, because dueling movies with similar concepts can work out for both sides. Besides, this was made in the era of shows like The Real World, what could possibly go wrong? 

Unfortunately, the movie only barely scratches the surface when it comes to any sort of "bite", because it point-blank does not know what the hell it wants to be, fledging between romcom and satire in ways that only an indecisive polar bear could love. I'm not saying that the movie needed to have the bite of Network (1976) when it comes to human nature, but one is basically watching a slightly amped version of The Jerry Springer Show. Of course, even Springer got to "take advantage" with his own movie that happened to have been released around that time with Ringmaster (1998), so perhaps calling EDtv the sitcom-infused love child of Springer and other offshoots is a bit on the mark. Maybe it isn't as much of a fantasy as the earlier 1998 movie, but it sure isn't any more in touch with reality, because its main motivation is never entirely convincing: if you were asked to be on television and have your life broadcast 24/7, you probably would have to be a crazy person to really go with this, and the movie just doesn't hold its own in terms of believability beyond what you would see in a paper-thin sitcom, which seems catered to being a movie made by committee of producers rather than a movie made from any semblance of believability. In other words: when you become a person on camera, you will lose far more of yourself than you prove to gain, and only the best translates well to television (best of course is subjective, since there are countless examples of people being famous on television for the sake of famous). 

The cast is here and there, which is not something you really want to say about a movie that likely has its myriad of cameo appearances happen because of some sort of insecurity (most apparent with its moments with Jay Leno, a presence odious enough to insult rather than allow him to make jokes for you). It especially doesn't help when the movie likes to show brief moments with "the average American viewer" from time to time, since it only adds on to the dry factor in all of its unnecessary nature (while homing in on the made-by-committee point). My real problem is that there are just too many characters present here, spiraling out of control for two hours when one could trim a few minutes and lose nothing. McConaughey is technically decent in the film in that he never borders on insufferable when it comes to being "man on television 24/7", because the script does want a presence of warmth within the initial spark of naivety that overrides any sense of wanting a looser script (i.e. either a performance of a loser or someone less likable). In short: he is fine despite the limitations presented. Elfman is wrapped in the least funny part of the film: the rom-com parts, which doesn't help matters when one is trapped like a fishbowl in ways that probably make Dharma & Greg seem completely tolerable, since the chemistry with McConaughey is marginal at best. Hell, even Hurley and her "hired gun" performance is slightly more interesting, even if it ends abruptly. Harrelson is slightly entertaining, but again, the movie needs desperation from its people rather than goofy middlemen (Landau and Kirkland play to form handily, but that isn't saying much). DeGeneres spends half of her time watching the screen of the lead character and the other half coming up with "zingers" that make for a forgettable performance, as if being the originator of 24/7 reality TV isn't exciting enough to make into biting humor besides the use of Reiner, which is as predictable as a meathead insult. Perhaps it is amusing fate that Hopper is in this movie, as he was actually originally cast in The Truman Show before being replaced by the filmmakers for Ed Harris. He just doesn't get much to do for his two scenes, which is surely disappointing for an actor of his stature - granted, the scene where he tries to reminisce about an old memory with his son only to misremember it on live TV.

There is potential for a movie worth watching in the desperation of someone who thinks that the best hustle in life is to go out on television and show their whole lives to the world, but the movie only thinks of it in the most basic of ways that has the effect of a whimper. It might be a cheap thing to say that the movie was steamrolled by a movie with a better director, writer and overall cast, but nobody, and I repeat, nobody, will ever find reason to give abject praise to EDtv, a mediocre movie in every sense of the word, without having to strain hard to not compare it to The Truman Show. 

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

Natural Born Killers.

Review #1265: Natural Born Killers.

Cast: 
Woody Harrelson (Mickey Knox), Juliette Lewis (Mallory Wilson Knox), Robert Downey, Jr. (Wayne Gale), Tom Sizemore (Detective Jack Scagnetti), Tommy Lee Jones (Warden Dwight McClusky), Rodney Dangerfield (Ed Wilson), Edie McClurg (Mrs. Wilson), Sean Stone (Kevin Wilson), Russell Means (Warren Red Cloud, Sr), Lanny Flaherty (Earl), and Evan Handler (David) Directed by Oliver Stone (#095 - Wall Street and #1090 - Platoon)

Review: 
It is interesting to look upon this film today, 25 years after its release. It is a notoriously famous kind of film, one that was modified from its original script by Quentin Tarantino (the second of two scripts he had sold, with the other being True Romance) to the point where he was given a story credit while screenplay credit went to Richard Rutowski, Oliver Stone, and David Veloz. Tarantino wasn't a big fan of the final product, and the film is certainly an easy one to rage/rave about. The resulting film is one that is bold in its violence and its attempts to make a statement about society and so on and so on while also serving as a twisted romance - two hours of chaotic energy that is frantic, satirical, and a bit of a mess. Honestly, it must be real hard to fall along the middle ground with this particular film: One can appreciate the technical aspects of the film and yet still take issue with its approach for the message it wants, or one can really, really feel that it is a tiresome and ridiculously shameless attempt at satire that goes over the top to where it hits the moon with jagged edge front and center. One film that came in mind when viewing this was Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which in itself was a controversial film for its violence with its lead characters while being a seminal film for a burgeoning generation. This is definitely a film that is trying to be the kind of thing for its type of audience, with its decade certainly being a polarizing one in terms of the landscape of media and the world as a whole. One can certainly see that effect today, for better or worse (the less said about quote-unquote fake news, the better). It is the kind of loud film that probably seems right at home with the loudness that can accompany our lives if one allows it (or even if they don't).

No one seems to be safe from Stone's grip on message-making, or his grip on spectacle violence (or whatever you really want to call it), and they make for a cumbersome cocktail that when sipped manages to hit the consumer on the head and make for a fuzzy feeling all at once. This is especially apparent with the editing (which took eleven months as opposed to the shoot taking just 56 days) and look of the film, which can go from color to monochrome or just be filmed with a dutch angle (or most notably superimposing images of the 20th century in the background). Am I watching an crime movie or an art film? Really, you could say it is a bit of both. Does it go over the line when it comes to actually making a point? Sure, and it does that with no real sort of regrets, much in the same way a shock jock can hammer the hot take home till the cows come home to call the complaint hotlines. For me, it is a well made film that comes off okay with its approach while scoring points for capable film-making (moreso in the first half than the second) and its cast. Each of the core five has some sort of oddity to them (the headlining couple need no explanation), where being over-the-top is more like being over the rails and into the weird aisle, which generally works out fine in showing some ooze. Harrelson and Lewis are a dementedly successful duo when it comes to performances. One always wants to know what they will prove to do, whether with each other or with someone else, a sort of hypnotic feeling really. Much like the others in the film, one can't help it. Downey Jr plays his role of prowler for the attention machine (or however one would describe a tabloid TV host who happens to have an Australian accent) with effectiveness, where one can see the thirst for something deep in us (or what have you) that manifest in a wildly weird climax. Sizemore surely proves to task with his unconventional conventional role, where you can see the powder keg show its cracks from time to time. Jones hams it up (this is apparent with the hairstyle), and it works itself out for a few laughs at a man meant to have control yet can't even control himself. Special scene-stealing consideration goes to Dangerfield, who actually wrote his lines for his dark part that is perfectly horrific for what is needed. In the long run, this is a movie that roars itself from the very beginning with an ax to grind about its topic of conversation that swings for the trees and manages to cut down the entire forest while also setting it ablaze. Its fury can prove a bit too much after a while when it comes to actually trying to contain itself to one frenzy at a time. It can prove to be a horrific, biting, infuriating, frustrating, or rewarding experience, depending on how one looks into it. It is a controversial film for a reason, but the curious film mind will certainly have quite the time with it, that much is for sure.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

The Messenger (2009).

Review #1133: The Messenger.

Cast: 
Ben Foster (Sgt. Will Montgomery), Woody Harrelson (Capt. Tony Stone), Samantha Morton (Olivia Pitterson), Jena Malone (Kelly), Steve Buscemi (Dale Martin), Yaya DaCosta (Monica Washington), and Eamonn Walker (LtCol. Stuart Dorsett) Directed by Oren Moverman.

Review: 
It feels hard to face the truth at times. The realities of life and how people deal with their actions and consequences can make for an interesting subject for a film to confront. With this film, the main focus in on casualty notification officers, with the main two being a trainee and his mentor, as they try to do their job - no matter how hard it may be, whether for the notifier or the person being notified. There is a dark but driving feel to the reality that it shows for these two and the people that they encounter in their mission that justifies its existence through a 113 minute run-time. It may fall a bit with pacing at times, but there is a sense of duty to tell a story worth wanting to see, being factual and punctual with showing emotion that never feels cynically manufactured in its episodic nature. Foster and Harrelson make for an interesting pair to follow with, where they are faced with trying to do the job they are assigned to do within the standards of the role while dealing with their own story-lines. Foster does a fine job with what he is given, balancing the trauma the character has to deal with while dealing the newfangled reality of his assignment - particularly the people he encounters. Harrelson stands out the most among the cast, having a hardened edge of sincerity and intensity that invites us to look at him with a inquisitive lens that keeps the movie moving along. Morton does fine with what's she is given for a role that occasionally invites focus of interest, and her chemistry with Foster is somewhat present, making for a few fair moments. Buscemi, with a presence of probably less than ten minutes on screen, does fine with showing a good range of emotion as one of the receivers of news from the main group. The movie is at its finest when trying to show honestly with the rough nature of the main duo's job, which makes the first half work a bit better than the second half, which isn't as too held together. The film has a few cliches to it, but it isn't anything that makes the material come off as anything other than fairly watchable. It isn't the kind of movie that had much success upon original release, having a limited run in few theaters before making just over a million dollars on a $6.5 million budget, although it did receive nominations for numerous awards, such as Best Original Screenplay at the Academy Awards for writers Alessandro Camon and Oren Moverman and Best Supporting Actor for Harrelson; in any case, this is a fairly decent film that manages to pull enough emotional honesty and focus from its main two actors to pull a victory out, and I'm sure it will work just fine for people in the mindset for something a bit different for a war drama.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Review #1095: Solo: A Star Wars Story.

Cast: 
Alden Ehrenreich (Han Solo), Woody Harrelson (Tobias Beckett), Emilia Clarke (Qi'ra), Donald Glover (Lando Calrissian), Thandie Newton (Val), Paul Bettany (Dryden Vos), Phoebe Waller-Bridge (L3-37), Joonas Suotamo (Chewbacca), Erin Kellyman (Enfys Nest), Jon Favreau (Rio Durant), and Linda Hunt (Lady Proxima) Directed by Ron Howard (#301 - How the Grinch Stole Christmas, #546 - Cinderella Man, and #1085 - Willow)

Review: 
Note: Gee, seems like I am a bit late to the party - if there ever was one for Solo. Honestly, timing issues was the reason for the delay in doing this film (which was also the case with Upgrade). Hopefully you will enjoy this review in any case.

Admittedly, the world of Star Wars is vast with the amount of worlds and characters it can show over the course of the numerous movies that have been released since the original in 1977, and I suppose it only makes sense to make a prequel, since this franchise loves to do that trend every so often, particularly in recent times. The fact that this is the fourth Star Wars film in the past three years does tend to inspire the idea that perhaps the franchise is suffering a bit of fatigue with storytelling. The debacle involving the replacing of Phil Lord and Christopher Miller midway into production with Ron Howard taking over directorial duties and having reshoots doesn't help matters, either. I am reminded of its prequel cousin Rogue One (#888), which mostly utilized characters we had no recollection of prior to its release, and it made the most of what it wanted to tell with a tinge of seriousness and a fair story.

With this film, there is a share of old and new characters, and the appeal of the movie depends on how much appeal they bring to something that generally hits more than it misses, but it also will depend on how you see Ehrenreich in the main role. There is no understating how Harrison Ford managed to make this charming rogue of a character come to life through the four films he appeared in, and it may not be something you can just have someone take over and have a smooth transition. Needless to say, Ehrenreich is a bit shaky at times in this role, particularly around the first half (and any sort of close scene with Clarke), but I feel that he does tend to seem a bit more comfortable around halfway through, and he manages to handle the climax fairly well. Perhaps a better actor would've served the film better, but the best thing that can be said for him is that at least the writing for the character tends to compliment him enough to where it isn't a terrible experience to see it played out. Harrelson plays his mentor role with some relish that make the part seem alive at times, sticking out fine in his time on screen. Clarke is okay, but I feel that she is slightly underdone by the writing on her character, which isn't always consistent to make her seem interesting to follow at times, with the chemistry between her and Ehrenreich not being particularly too great (although I won't say it kills the film's spirit at least). In a film about one charming rogue, it is the appearance of another charming rogue that steals the show, as Glover captures the character originally played by Billy Dee Williams without any sort of doubt, capturing the cool nature of why he is compelling to follow with from his first appearance in the movie. He's fun to watch interact with the others, and I suppose I really did need a scene with a room dedicated to all of his capes that he wears. Newton is okay in her brief time on screen, with Bettany proving to be a fair adversary. Waller-Bridge is fine, although some of her bits can prove to test one's patience with a droid with moxie - for better or worse. The rest of the cast prove just fine to watch. The action sequences and effects are finely done, as one might expect, and the movie tends to move at a fair pace, without becoming bogged by cliches or too much predictability. The writing by Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan (who had served as writer for films involving the character in The Empire Strikes Back, Return of the Jedi, and Star Wars: The Force Awakens) has a fair amount of focus to making sure that the characters do tend to have interactions with each other that prove fruitful and occasionally amusing, even if tends to tread familiar lines, although at least it doesn't plod too much through its 135 minute run-time. Is it an entirely necessary movie? I suppose it depends on if you really wanted (or needed) to see an adventure of a younger version of a character you (probably) liked. The film likely won't win any new converts into the Star Wars mythos, but it will prove to be satisfactory entertainment for people looking for a good adventure, and I think that is likely the best hope one can have when watching a film sometimes.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.