I saw Bland Solo...

There was much that could go right or wrong with "Solo: A Star Wars Story". Many have said that its success or failure would determine Disney and Lucasfilm's long-term plans for the space-opera franchise. 

The signs haven't been promising. "Lego Movie" guys Phil Lord and Chris Miller were fired for allegedly lampooning Lawrence and Jonathan Kasdan's script. Talented and faithful Ron Howard then hopped aboard to save the day, but some questioned whether the Kasdans' vision was salvageable after so much material had been shot. (It ended up that Howard re-shot most of the footage.) For that matter, had the cast been up to task, particularly Alden "Twixt" Ehrenreich? He didn't necessarily look or sound like Harrison Ford, i.e. Han Solo, and was it true that an acting coach had been hired to help him improve his characterization? And what about Donald Glover's Lando Calrissian being bi/pansexual? If true, what a surprising turn, considering what's been long established for the icon, not only in film, but in comics and novels. 

With the deck seemingly stacked against it, most have been sitting on pins and needles speculating on "Solo'"s outcome, wondering whether it might be as polarizing as "Last Jedi". Most will be surprised to find that, in addition to the film being far from a failure, its prime shortcoming isn't a matter of radical departure, but rather blandness. 

The directorial pace is at least competent (as Howard was destined to provide), but Kasdans' script seems like a tamed, is-it-or-isn't-it? western, plagued by G-rated boundaries (despite its PG-13 classification), with pivotal, action scenes softened to a point that would make even the unerring Rey prickle. 

It's so damn frustrating, because the plot's premise implies raucous promise: Woody Harrelson's crafty Tobias Beckett sets forth to steal from the big-time, corporate Empire, in a galactic allegory of a train robbery. Young Solo grasps the chance to join the heist, not only due to his inherent recklessness, but then to reunite with a lost love named Qui'ra (Emila "Game of Thrones"/"Terminator Genisys"), who's destined to become an integral part of an even greater undertaking. 

In addition to the smitten couple, Beckett's adventurous tangents include (at various points throughout) the aforementioned Calrissian; sharp-shootin' Val (Thandie "Westworld" Newton); robotic, equal-rights advocate, L3-37 (Phoebe "The Cafe" Waller-Bridge); and honorable wing-Wookie, Chewbacca (Joonas Suotamo). The Millennium Falcon acts as much as character as in other "Star Wars" adventures; and Marvel Avengers veterans Paul Bettany, as Dryden Vos (originally portrayed by Michael K. Williams prior to Lord/Miller's departure) and Jon Favreau, as Rio Durant (Beckett's loyal, multi-hand man), bridge the jaunts for some crossover oomph. On the surface, one might consider the combination as eclectic and purposeful as "Rogue One'"s. 

Though it may have once seemed odd for "Cheers" favorite, Harrelson to costar in a "Star Wars" feature, his associations with "Zombieland", "The Hunger Games" and "War for the Planet of the Apes" (for which his Colonel Kurtz should have clinched an Oscar nod) make him an ideal imagi-movie fit. Beckett emerges as a plebeian, if not questionable Obi-Wan: his slippery shadiness guiding and enforcing events, which eventually lead to Solo's famed Kessel Run. His interaction with the young smuggler, as well as the other personalities, is smooth and credible, even if Ford's absence stays conspicuous throughout. (Ehrenreich is a swell actor, but his style is much different than Ford's, though why would it have been otherwise? This goes, as well, for Glover when compared to Billy Dee Williams.) 

In addition to Beckett's flavorful inclusion, the pre-Han/Leia romance and budding Solo/Chewy dynamic add some levity to the plot (and man, does Chewy ever shine in the best "I am Groot" way). However, these relationships reflect much of the supporting-character interplay, which is buffered by obligatory squabbles that never become as intense as they could or should. That's a shame, because the ongoing circumstances require realistic, contentious tension (even of a quasi comical kind) to fortify the story's foreboding passage.  

Blasters may be fired, but "Solo" never once gets down and dirty during its two-hour-plus running time. There's no long-term, stand-out villain (Bettany's Vos is effective, but in dire need of extension); no loathsome bloodshed or grandiloquent sacrifices for the causes displayed. (Death in "Solo" is generally fast and hollow.) This distances the prequel from what old Lucasfilm would have produced (the Ewok movies included) and becomes ever more obvious when one dares to link the film to a certain man accused of shooting first. 

As for Solo's roguish competition (a candidate for his own solo film and from whom some occasional, snappy chatter does enter), Calrissian faithfully deploys the charm, or is it the con? No matter. We've come to expect both from the character, but how 'bout that reputed, mythology-changing, sexual-fluidity slant? Does it rise in Glover's version, and if so, how much does it tangle the tale?

Ultimately, that controversial component thrives no more than it does in the film's second trailer. People can debate the vague interlude as much as they want, but really, folks, it doesn't become what many feared. For the record, I'm glad the alleged novelty is a dud (though, per the Kasdans' insinuations, it could yet invade a different prequel/sequel--dear lord), but to play devil's advocate, what's at best implied is but another example of the film's exasperating restraint: a blunting stunt to keep the playing field safe, so as not to offend varying viewers. 

This need for compromise prevents "Solo" from progressing in either direction. That's good in one sense, since we damn well didn't need another SJW reinvention, but the approach also reduces the story into consistent, mamby-pamby ambivalence. To instigate this drawback, there's just enough cowboy residue in parts to make one wonder why it never matches the smuggling scoundrel we met (or will meet) in "A New Hope".  

"New Hope'"s western influence once led its intrepid competitors to install a dusty flavor into their own allegorical tales. The proof prevails in Glen A. Larson's "Battlestar Galactica"; Luigi Cozzi's "Starcrash"; William Sax's "Galaxina"; Roger Corman/Jimmy T. Murakami's "Battle Beyond the Stars"; Peter Hyams' "Outland"; and John Carpenter's "Escape from New York". These science-fiction efforts are proud to exploit the cowboy concept to the max. (Now, that I think of it, so does George Miller's Mad Max quartet.)  "Solo" could have taken the formula even higher, enough to have made it "The Good, the Bad and the Wookie".  Instead, the film remains spasmodic with its western roots, not to mention the broad, fantastic foundation from which its titular hero sprang.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: To succeed, "Star Wars" must get back to the basics. It gained mass appeal in '77 because it recalled the legacies of John Carter, Buck Rogers and Flash Gordon, in addition to those of Gene Autry, Roy Rogers and Hopalong Cassidy. It didn't play it safe or take a pre-politically correct stance. It told a solid story of good vs evil, with charred death, doleful annihilation and euphoric triumph as reasonable parts of its landscape. 

In all honesty, it doesn't matter who stars in these films (a shaky, high-school portrayal of Hamlet is still Hamlet); who directs them (whether upcoming satirists or respected veterans); who emulates John Williams' cues...if CGI or old-school techniques are used. If the characters and their stories stray from what they're meant to be, by being too bold or reserved, no one will stay loyal to the cause. New fans won't latch on; old ones will fall to the wayside. Many already have.  

I dunno. Perhaps there's still a chance to salvage this once admired-across-the-board franchise, to keep it in good graces with those who've loved it from the start, while attracting new followers. I mean, gee whiz, "Solo" can't be the end of the line, can it? After all, Disney intends to enchant folks with Favreau's small-screen series (although SJWs have already denounced it sight unseen) and of course, "Episode IX" hovers on the horizon. 

Then again, if one considers J.J. Abrams' recent, stupid-ass, social-justice declaration and Kathleen Kennedy's dictatorial craving to produce a Rian Johnson "Star Loves" trilogy, is there any real, new hope of reinstating the basics? Shucks, blandness might be the least of our concerns...