Solo: A Star Wars Story

First Hit: I liked it and thought it did a great job of bringing Han Solo into the overall Star Wars story.

Sometimes prequels to an established story fail. Other times they add and bring to life characters that we’ve already been introduced to. This film is one of the latter. Just like the 2009 film Star Trek did for the Star Trek movie and TV series.

Here, Han (Alden Ehrenreich) has a big job to do. He must give us cocky irreverence alongside being a strong capable person and carry a believability of his intention to be a strong dependable character of the resistance in the future.

The first part I really loved was his flying his low-level cruiser into a very tight area and getting stuck. It is the attitude that he can make it yet accepting he didn’t and then moves on. You also sense that he learns from each mistake.

He gets separated from the love of his young life Qi’ra (Emilia Clarke) and vows to her he will come back for her.

I loved that his last name “Solo” is given to him by an Empire recruiting officer. He has no last name and no family, so when the officer says, "your name" he says "Han" and the officer says "Han what?" and Hans says he doesn't have a last name, so the officer says “Han (waits a moment or two) Solo” because he's alone and a renegade – perfect.

After joining the Empire, he gets expelled from flight school, and finds himself fighting for the Empire by slogging it out in the mud which he detests because he sees himself as a fighter pilot. He becomes slightly enamored with Captain Beckett (Woody Harrelson) who he soon finds out is only parading as a Captain to get over on the Empire and make some money because he owes Dryden Vos (Paul Bettany).

Failing this Beckett, his wife Val (Thandie Newton) and Rio Durant (voice by Jon Favreau) decide to steal some hyper-fuel Coaxium as a way to repay Vos. Their problem is that Solo, hoping to join them by blackmailing Beckett, tries to turn them in but the tables are turned, and Solo gets thrown into jail to battle the beast.

The beast happens to be a Wookie named Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo) and because Solo speaks a little Shyriiwook (Chewbacca’s language) they plot to get out of jail together. They do, join Beckett and make an attempt to steal the Coaxium.

Failing this, Solo runs into Lando Calrissian (Donald Glover) who owns the Millennium Falcon, and together they try to find and steal more Coaxium because Solo thinks Qi’ri is being enslaved by Vos, he wants to buy her back.

This is the set up and what the viewer gets is the introduction of Solo, Chewy, and Lando for the future films. It also sets the tone for the resistance whom Solo helps.

The downside of the film is that it is a little long. However, it is engaging. The film does not depend on computer generated graphics and stuff to make it work, it depends on characters that you learn about and begin to care about or dislike. They bring in just enough of the upcoming story, the Star Wars series of films, by building a strong base for these characters. Did Solo really win the Millennium Falcon in a card game?

Ehrenreich was excellent. Although I didn’t think anyone could bring the swagger of a young Harrison Ford Solo, Ehrenreich did a credible job. Clarke was very strong as Qi’ra. She hid her changed alliances very well and kept the audience and Solo guessing. Newton was great in a smaller role as Beckett’s wife. Harrelson was outstanding as Beckett who was a swindler extraordinaire always looking out for himself and his wife. Suotamo was excellent as Chewbacca. I thoroughly enjoyed how he and Solo because partners. Glover as Lando was very strong. He carried the basis of the future and older Lando perfectly. Bettany was outstanding as Vos. His growing evilness as he got angrier was perfect for the role. Jonathan and Lawrence Kasdan wrote and excellent script. It carried the deep Star Wars theme through the entire picture. Ron Howard, as director, showed why he’s one of the best and an excellent choice to make this prequel.

Overall: Extremely entertaining and worthy of the Star Wars franchise name.

Inferno

First Hit:  It started interestingly and then simply fell off the table by an overly complex and poorly developed script, poor acting, and feeble direction.

I’ve not been a fan of any of the Da Vinci Code oriented films. The best was the first and quickly sank with Angles & Demons. It stays on this downward track with Inferno. Here we’ve got Tom Hanks reprising his character Robert Langdon, who knows more than anyone about Dante, his words, and other’s interpretations of Dante’s work.

The film starts confusingly with Langdon hurt in the hospital with a head injury. He’s confused and is being attended by a physician named Sienna Brooks (Felicity Jones). We are also introduced to Billionaire Bertrand Zobrist (Ben Foster), who is convinced that the world is on the verge of collapse. It is 11:59 – one minute till the world collapses because of over population and environmental issues caused by the over population. To right this sinking ship, he wants to spread a virus that will wipe out earth’s population.

With these two plot setups; Langdon being attacked, having amnesia, and why he has a projection device showing Dante’s hell in a picture but the picture has been altered, and the other setup is Zobrist wants to destroy the world’s population. Added to this we have people trying to kill Langdon, the WHO (World Health Organization) trying to stop Zobrist, WHO agent Christoph Bouchard (Omar Sy) who appears to be on some other side, Vayentha (Ana Ularu) a motorcycle riding person wanting to kill Langdon, and Harry Sims (Irrfan Khan) a hired security consultant whose interest in anything is questionable.

Confused, you got it, and that is how the film unfurled itself. What really muddied up this story is that the writer and/or director wanted Langdon to have a tangential and unrequited love interest with WHO’s Elizabeth Sinskey (Sidse Babett Knudsen).

Some of the visual scenes were well shot which helped me to stay somewhat engaged with this lackluster movie. I also loved the, from the air, shots of Venice and Istanbul.

With a bad screenplay and poor direction Hanks was as bad as I’ve ever seen him. There just isn’t enough to be interested in or care about with his character. The device of having him slowly get his memory back during the first half of the film was a waste of Hanks’ talent. Jones character was better than Hanks, but I didn’t buy the shift in her role late in the film. It didn’t surprise me and it just didn’t work. Foster was OK as the guy predicting the end of the world. Khan’s role was sufferable and difficult to watch let alone buy. Knudsen was good in her role until it got to the emotional connection with Langdon, that part denigrated the character. Sy’s role didn’t seem defined and was unclear; it didn’t work for me. Ularu was in a poorly constructed and acted role. David Koepp wrote a horribly convoluted screenplay. Ron Howard knows how to direct so I don’t know what went wrong with the film outside of him just doing his best with the presented screenplay.

Overall:  If there is another film in this series I will not go see it.

The Beatles: Eight Days a Week - The Touring Years

First Hit:  An amazing and touching look at four young men from Liverpool England that changed music and the lives of many people forever.

For anyone one growing up as a baby boomer you will have some memory of The Beatles. Maybe it was listening to the 45 rpm single records or the 33 1/3 rpm LPs. Maybe it was the news programs showing thousands of people screaming their names as they went from place to place. Maybe it was watching them on The Ed Sullivan show.

Over the years, those memories have been enhanced and guided by various films, books and stories about The Beatles since their breakup. I’ve read all the books, seen all the documentaries, read all the articles, but none of them affected me as much as this film.

I teared up early in the film as joy, wonder, and respect overcame me about these four young men who followed their dream, to make music, together. I cannot say enough for Ron Howard and his ability to put together strings of old interviews, concert footage clips, while adding present time interviews with both Paul and Ringo and a small select group of others who were part of their concert past.

I was touched when Paul talked about the moment when Ringo joined the group and that they all knew the final piece was in place. He also spoke about how happy he felt when he and John realized that they both wrote music as their most favorite thing to do. Ringo spoke about how the group held each other together when they were being overwhelmed by admirers. Then they spoke about how in the back of a Loomis armored truck being shuttled off the field at Candlestick Park in San Francisco, they decided together that they were done with playing live musical concerts.

As with all their decisions, they did things together. They supported each other regardless of what came up. For instance, the whole issue that came up about John saying, that at the time, with young people they were more popular than Jesus and the controversy this statement started. Or even, more importantly, when they refused to play a concert because there would be segregation of black and white audience members. In fact, they were the first band to have written in their contracts that their audiences cannot be segregated.  

I enjoyed Whoopie Goldberg’s interviews especially when she realized that The Beatles taught her that she could be anyone she wanted to be and feel good about it. The surprise her mother gave her when she said they were going to Shea Stadium and see The Beatles was priceless.

Elvis Costello, Sigourney Weaver, Larry Kane, and all the other interviewees were perfectly placed into the archival footage. This film was amazingly edited to create a strong story about the life The Beatles were having during the touring years.

Ron Howard did an incredible job of piecing together this footage to present a strong story about The Beatles and their touring years.

Overall:  Fantastic and made even better because seeing the film in theaters gives attendees a bonus, The Beatles performing their Shea Stadium concert. Pure joy watching these young men play together.

In the Heart of the Sea

First Hit:  Started interestingly, ended good, but the large middle was monotonous and slowly sank into the dark of the sea.

Films based in the ocean with underwater sequences have a higher likeliness of not being good. I’m not sure why except they become dark and slow.

Yet, films shot inside submarines and underwater tend to be better (Like: Hunt for Red October 1990 or Run Silent Run Deep 1958) as my dad would have attested to. He probably watched the latter more than 20 times and could recite the dialogue of every character. Why? Probably because submarine films are character based while ocean films must have ocean characters. Of course the film "Jaws" would be an exception.

This story is about a whale called Moby Dick and how Herman Melville wrote this famous story. The view of the story is from one of the survivors of a multi-year whaling adventure which included 90 days of being stranded on the ocean in a dinghy.

The survivor Tom Nickerson (Brendan Gleeson and the young Tom/Thomas portrayed by Tom Holland) is being interviewed by Herman Melville (Ben Whishaw) about the experience he had when the whale scuttled the Essex after almost 2 years hunting whales. Moby destroyed the ship and left the remaining crew to drift.

The other part of the story is about the disagreements and personality differences between Captain George Pollard (Benjamin Walker) and First Mate Owen Chase (Chris Hemsworth). This initial focus of the film was interesting as was Melville’s interview with Nickerson. However, the rest of the film tried to be interesting through visuals and very little on the strength or weaknesses of the individuals and when they tried it wasn’t very interesting.

Hemsworth was OK but there seemed to be little depth to his character. Walker was mediocre as the privileged captain. Holland was good as the young seaman learning how to me a man. Whishaw was very good in his small part as Melville. Gleeson was the spirit of this film and the best part of the film. Charles Leavitt wrote a so so script for most of the characters except Gleeson and Melville. Ron Howard didn’t come close to creating the masterpiece I think he wanted.

Overall:  The previews I saw telegraphed this uninteresting film.

Rush

First Hit:  Extremely well-made film about the rivalry of 1970 Formula 1 racing legends James Hunt and Niki Lauda.

This is a sit back and hold on to your seat film, as Ron Howard, makes everyone seem integral to the story, including the cars.

The British Hunt (played by Chris Hemsworth) is a charismatic, hard drinking, smoking and instinctive race car driver. His goal is to drive fast and win races. He doesn’t know much about the details of the cars he drives, he just knows when they are good and how to drive them fast.

His archrival is Austrian Niki Lauda (Daniel Bruhl) who is meticulous, knows everything about the cars he drives and knows the risk of everything he does. These two guys are as different as night and day, except they both like to go fast. We are immediately immersed into each of their personalities as Ron Howard makes sure you “get” what each of these guys are like.

Then there are the cars; the sound and power of these cars comes through on this film in spades, yet it doesn’t overwhelm the film or scenes. The races are used as check points on the evolution of the driver’s lives.

Hemsworth is very good at portraying the intense, likeable, Hunt and gives the audience glimpses of his depth as a person. Bruhl is absolutely amazing. His embodiment of one of the most famous drivers is amazing. Peter Morgan wrote a fabulous script that let both the characters breathe while the racing was the stage. Howard shows, yet again, why he is one of the best directors around.

Overall:  Whether you like racing or not, it is wonderful and intense film. It is a Rush.