'Solo: A Star Wars Story' puts the essential scoundrel in an inessential film

The idea of turning back the hands of cinematic time to tell the heretofore untold story of a hero, villain, or unexpectedly popular sidekick is hardly a new one.

The “Star Wars” franchise is certainly no stranger to this; before the first prequel “The Phantom Menace” hit theaters in 1999, novels, comic books, and other stories that fleshed out the universe were published in the interim since 1983’s “Return of the Jedi.”

During that 16-year gap, interest was kept alive by a steady stream of merchandise and passionate fans who were deeply invested in the mythos. Now, the saga lives on, with new movies coming out almost every year to continue to shed light on both the past and future of the ever-expanding franchise.

It is in an age such as this — the era of interconnected prequels and extended cinematic universes — that a film such as “Solo: A Star Wars Story” stands a reasonable chance of being made.

Chronicling the early days of everyone’s favorite interplanetary smuggler, this film shows us how the pieces that made Han Solo the roguish pilot we know and love came together: meeting Chewbacca, obtaining the Millennium Falcon from Lando Calrissian, and even the circumstances surrounding his particularly infamous Kessel Run boast.

“Solo” answers these questions, plus numerous others that could have easily been answered within any of the countless “Star Wars” encyclopedias churned out year after year.

Unfortunately, it fails to address the most important question of all: Why does this movie need to exist?

Without going into spoiler territory, “Solo” (perhaps intentionally) throws quite a few wrenches into the timeline of events that fans of the “Star Wars” films have witnessed.

This obviously isn’t like the prequel trilogy, which was intended to explain the events leading up to “A New Hope.” Neither is this film like the equally peripheral “Rogue One” which, while just as nonessential to the larger “Star Wars” saga as “Solo” is, at least felt like a story worth telling.

Just like “Solo,” “Rogue One” caused quite a stir among the “Star Wars” faithful by contradicting previous story elements and birthing a number of logical inconsistencies. This is a problem that often rears its ugly head each time an “untold story” is inserted within an already established narrative, no matter how meticulously planned and executed said untold story is.

However, the key difference between “Rogue One” and “Solo” is that while the former was meant to add a layer of emotional depth to “A New Hope” — and succeeded in doing so — “Solo” employs expensive CGI to draw the lines between dots we could have easily connected in our own heads, simultaneously introducing a couple of baffling wrinkles in the “Star Wars” timeline.

While I have little doubt that the wrinkles in question were introduced to set up more “Solo” sequels, when you consider the fact that these new story elements were neither seen nor felt in the main trilogy and the newer films — again, not surprising, unless George Lucas and subsequent directors were clairvoyants — it makes you wonder about the point of adding said elements to the mix in the first place.

It also doesn’t help that Alden Ehrenreich delivers a painfully uncharismatic performance as young Han Solo. When the swashbuckling eponymous protagonist is the least compelling character in the entire film, you know something’s wrong.

Objectively speaking, “Solo” isn’t a terrible film. It’s entertaining, it’s action-packed, it has very few dull moments, and it shows you what a “Star Wars” film can accomplish without relying heavily on the Jedi or the Force.

Ultimately, however, there’s barely enough substance in the story of “Solo” to merit it becoming a feature film instead of just a novel or a cartoon episode.

Perhaps, when Han Solo bragged about making the Kessel Run in less than twelve parsecs, we should have just taken his word for it. — LA, GMA News

"Solo: A Star Wars Story" opens in Philippine theaters on Wednesday, May 23.