My thoughts on Solo?
As many will know I really didn't like TLJ. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I think TLJ damaged the franchise, and damaged it significantly.
I did like Solo, though.
The film is a little uneven at times, but given it's history, I'm okay with that.
Let me explain. The original version of the script was given to a couple of directors known for producing comedies (another directorial 'bad call' by Disney). When their work neared completion (pre special effects) it was shown to Disney execs and what they had produced (and Disney really should have seen this coming) was a comedy. Despite Disney's repeated failures with this franchise, even they realised this wasn't going to do well, so they looked around for a replacement director. A half-finished movie that has gone badly wrong is not an easy sell to any director - their name will go on the film at the end, and there's only so much you can do once principal shooting is complete.
I think Disney got incredibly lucky that Ron Howard was up for it. As I understand it, many scenes were re-shot and there was a serious overhaul of every aspect of the movie. For the avoidance of doubt, I think Ron Howard's done an excellent job.
I have only seen the movie once, but you can still tell it was originally meant to be a comedy. There are quite a lot of scenes where the actors were building towards punchlines, and developing comic set pieces, BUT, and it's an important but, the endings of those scenes have clearly been re shot, and they don't end in desperate attempts at humour.
Ron Howard has carried out a reversal of this film's likely future, brilliantly. It's a reversal worthy of the film's protagonist himself.
Those that have read deeply into the old 'Legends' novels will find that Solo's history has been re-written. Back in the 80's there was a trilogy of Han Solo novels by Brian Daley. I read them eagerly as a kid. None of the history of Han Solo in those novels has survived into this movie. The 'Corellian bloodstripe' (the red stripe up the side of Han's trousers was meant to indicate he had served with distinction in the Corellian navy) is gone. This history is all ignored. Corellia's history as a civillised, prosperous planet with a strong navy is gone too. It's now another planet in the category of Tatooine, or Jaaku - a hell-hole that no-one returns to (isn't this becoming a cliche for a Star Wars movie?).
So that's what the movie is not. What is it?
Solo is essentially a hybrid creation story/heist movie - it is essentially a Disney Star Wars imitation of what Marvel have done so well with each of their superhero movies.
Frankly, it's a lesser imitation of this film trope, but it's more than good enough for the current state of Star Wars movies.
Aiden Ehrenreich, as well all know going in, looks nothing like Harrison Ford as a young man, and this is a bit of a distraction at times. But he's got the personality and charisma to pull off Han Solo as a young scoundrel, just starting out.
The scene where Han meets Chewie, is a bit of a cinematic cliche, but I enjoyed it, and I think it works. Their coming together as a duo is not forced, and works well. In my view, their friendship develops naturally and credibly. The essence of the characters we see in the Original Trilogy is there, and it is completely convincing that these two would still be together many years later, to end up in the Mos Eisley Cantina looking for an easy money job taking an old man, a farm boy and two droids on a passenger trip (with no questions asked).
As you'd expect from a contemporary Star Wars movie, Emilia Clarke is not just there as eye candy. She has an important role, and is no push over. I'll accept that there are a couple of moments, when she comes across weakly (as there are in Game of Thrones), but that's her acting style, and I don't think it detracts from the movie at all.
The Kessell Run is explained in this movie (Kessell isn't quite as described in the Han Solo trilogy of novels, either). I liked the explanation in this movie, though. The Kessell Run couldn't be a race, as the Millennium Falcon is a freighter, not a racing ship. The Kessell Run turns out to be a course through a difficult area of space along the only viable route to the planet Kessell. I think it works as a concept, and it was done well in the movie.
I liked Danny Glover's Lando, too. Lando Calrissian is a complicated man. He is a scoundrel, but he yearns for respectability, and isn't phased by the responsibility that that brings (he does his best for the people of Cloud City in ESB in very difficult circumstances). One of the comedy gags that was clearly part of the original script was that Lando was meant to be super-successful at the start of the movie, and yet when the Solo team actually get to the Falcon, it's been 'clamped'. They've reshot that scene so it isn't a punchline any more. You do notice what was meant to have been a laughter moment, but they've straightened it out. As I say above, the film is uneven in places, but given the project Ron Howard took on, I really do think he's done well.
Woody Harrelson is a mentor figure. His initial encounter with Solo is a little weak in an action movie context (barely acceptable in a comedy), but after that weak moment, he works quite well. I think Woody Harrelson is a v talented actor (Natural Born Killers, Hunger Games, as well as Cheers - he was convincing in all of them). I think that if Ron Howard had been in charge earlier, more could have been done with this movie through this character, but apart from those weak opening scenes, he's always captivating. You can see why Solo looks up to him, and is prepared to follow his lead.
I've tried to avoid spoilers in sharing my thoughts on this movie, as I know many will read it before they see the movie.
I liked this movie. I think it's a worthy addition to the Star Wars franchise. It's not Rogue One, and it's not the original trilogy either, but it's certainly fun, entertaining, true to the Star Wars universe and on a par with or better than the prequels.
So why the poor showing at the Box Office?
1) If you don't know the background, its 'uneven' qualities will trouble you and cause you to disengage with the story and the characters. No movie should need extra information for it to be understood / appreciated.
2) As I said at the top of this post, I think TLJ damaged the franchise. TLJ did well because no-one wanted the movie spoiled before they saw it. A lot of people saw it, disliked it, and then didn't say anything for a while for fear of spoiling it for others. That negative experience does feed in to subsequent films viewing figures however. This is a perennial problem with movie franchises. It's often after a superficial success that the franchise dies.
3) Solo suffered by comparison with Marvel's Infinity War. Infinity War was a good movie. And the comparison's are stark. Both movies are part of a large franchise (also owned by Disney) but the people in charge of the Marvel franchise are clearly placing a higher premium on good writing and directors, than those in charge of the Star Wars franchise. If Ron Howard had had this movie from the beginning I'm sure it would have been a much better movie.
I can only hope that Disney can learn that lesson. The next stand alone movie is supposed to be 'Kenobi'. It may not surprise you, given my forum name, that I liked that character. I was dreading a movie about him, after TLJ. But I have a new hope for that movie now.
On a separate note, there is an interesting precedent in the Marvel Universe movies for dealing with movies that don't assist the franchise overall. Hulk in 2003 (with Eric Bana) was replaced by Incredible Hulk in 2008 (with Edward Norton) - both Universal studios movies, it was a complete reboot. Thereafter we have the Ruffalo version of Hulk in Avengers Assemble. There have also been a succession of Spidermen. Reboots can work. In my view, Star Wars didn't need a reboot when TFA came out, but it does now.