Brony Friendzone Reviews Solo: A Star Wars Story


Dastardly Disney once more ruined my childhood. Solo: A Star Wars Story is another pernicious progressive propaganda cash grab. I could barely watch the malicious movie, as my beloved Hand Solo is no longer properly portrayed by the rugged rascal stud Indiana Jones but instead by some babyfaced miserable millennial! How dare people call this monstrous mess a Star Wars movie! No Luke Starkiller, no cool lightsaber fights, no Dark Vader, no Je’daii, not even the Schwartz! And the Millennial Falcon looks different! 

Nothing that remotely resembles a Star Wars movie can be seen! I don’t see any epic heroes in this movie, just some ghastly gangster movie about a hustler and a prostitute. I did not pay fifteen dollars and two hours of my time to see the Godfather! If I wanted to watch Grand Theft Auto, I would play it at home or see great gag videos on YouTube. The plot is better anyway!       

The synopsis is as follows, and I don’t care about spoiler warnings you sensitive snowflakes. A hustler named Hand Solo and a prostitute named Kira escape from their hometown Detroit, but nobody is black. Hand joins the United States Armed Forces, gets kicked out because he can’t be brainwashed, befriends a giant dog named Barf, then joins a pirate gang led by Long John Silver and Angela Davis; all this happens in five fast minutes. The pirate gang boards a train to Siberia in a daring dastardly heist, but they fail to get the kerosene, which you need to make cocaine. Don’t ask me how I know this, CIA! I know you’re watching me through my computer!

Since the pirate gang serves a drug cartel linked to the CIA, this is bad news for Hand and company. The careless crew land at a strip club: cartel headquarters. Long John makes pathetic excuses to John Dryden, his boss, while Hand catches up with Kira. While Hand screwed around with pirates, Kira became a catchy courtesan and sneakily shacked up with Dryden to live a better life. Hand proposes a mission redo, doing a mining heist to get a magic mineral known as quacksium; it sounds like something out of Duck Tales but somehow makes better cocaine. Don’t ask me how it works! I swear I don’t know!     

Hand befriends A Pimp Named Landlow and takes him with Barf, Kira, and Long John through a perilous passage to some country in Africa where you get blood diamonds. Hand gets the quacksium, and the gang rushingly rush back to headquarters to deliver the goods. Lots of irritating intrigue happens at this point, full of reversals, double reversals, triple reversals, and quadruple subversions. Long story short to save you any tedious time trouble: Hand kills Long John by shooting first and Kira kills her pimp Dryden by taking advantage of man’s greatest weakness: woman. Kira becomes the new crime boss, and now must answer directly to the director of the CIA. Hand and Barf catch up with A Pimp Named Landlow to beat him at poker.     

I would give this tragic travesty of a fallacious film a one out of ten. It looks nothing like the Star Wars I love while trying to be Grand Theft Auto, the Godfather, Blood Diamond, Eight Mile, and that one CIA movie starring Tom Cruise. By the Schwartz, the movie even has a freakishly feminist robot who lectures me about oppression! I don’t know what to make of this mess! My brain, my sharp sapience, my central flawless faculty for reason and rational discourse, is melting as I speak! That haggard harpy, Kathleen Kennedy, ruined by precious childhood so much she will send me into a ravenous rage! I will write a scathing review at Rotten Tomatoes at once!

– Darius Reilly the Nerd Rage Ranter

Screen Shot 2018-06-01 at 11.28.30 AM

Critique on Critics


I enjoy analyzing movies, books, video games, and other art, so you would expect me to like movie critics. But I really dislike many critics because they are pompous people who don’t really analyze the film or movie they criticize. They will complain about how they think the acting is wooden or how the plot makes no sense or how the director failed to convey a message, but they rarely go into details. They don’t describe what specifically makes an actor’s character wooden or what ideas the director failed to convey, and they don’t bring any creative ideas or suggestions of their own to the table. Constructive criticism isn’t about being nice. It’s about studying what makes a work of art tick and how to do art better. Critics don’t know how to critique.

Sadly, most people who do know how to critique a book or movie are university professors who would never dare dirty themselves with pop culture. This is sad, because pop culture, not fine culture, is where we deal with today’s issues, no matter how frivolous you think pop culture is. So I will give an idea of what I’m talking about. I’ll delve into a few movies I am passionate about, even though they are not the best films, and critique the critics on Rotten Tomatoes.

There are many wonderful movies critics dump on, and while I agree with some of their points, I see many movies as having potential ideas that were not developed. Copying Beethoven is one such film, where a copyist named Anna Holtz stays with the aging Beethoven as he writes his 9th Symphony and Late String Quartets [1]. Many of the critics write at most a paragraph complaining about how Anna Holtz was made up [2], how Ed Harris should not have used brash acting to portray a brash, unstable man [3], how Diane Kruger’s character is poorly developed [4], a lackluster script [5], and so forth.

I agree with some of the critics but they never go past their assertions. If Anna Holtz is so poorly developed, explain why and how you would have better developed her character. I found Anna Holtz fine because we see all the essentials in the movie; she came from a conservatory and wants to become a composer despite the sexist attitudes of her time. The aspirant truly loves music but has yet to gain the deeper understanding of it only experience brings. Her learning of music is important since Beethoven, in writing his Late String Quartets, closes an entire era of music while creating radical new music that is free from centuries of tradition.

How would I improve Anna’s character? I would give her more screen time with Beethoven while having Beethoven teach her more about the nature of his new music. I would also make Anna compose more as she is growing as a composer in a world where classical music is over. It would be fine if the critics at Rotten Tomatoes even mentioned a few of the points I made but they don’t. They didn’t even seem to comprehend the core ideas of the movie; Beethoven leaving classical music behind and what that means to the composers of the future.

The critics’ complaints about Ed Harris’ Beethoven are silly. Again, Beethoven was a man with a hair-trigger temper whose temperament blew hot and cold. The man may have even been bipolar, which would explain a lot about his extreme mood swings. He was garrulous and warm some days, violent and angry at others, cold and aloof at other days, and had periods of deep depression. So it would make sense for Ed Harris to go a little nuts with Beethoven. Again, the critics don’t bother to justify their ideas too much.

I move to another film, Sleeping Beauty. Emily Browning plays Lucy, a college student who becomes an escort girl of sorts to pay for her college. Her unique job is to drink a potion that makes her fall into a deep sleep so rich old clients can do to her what they please [6]. Critics complained about the movie somehow trying to be a feminist parable [7], the movie not elaborating bigger ideas [8], how the movie is somehow an exploitation film [9]. Only one critic bothers to make a decent critique [10].

I agree with the critics more on this film but I will criticize the reviews I have a problem with first. Ms. Schwarzbaum should really specify what “feminist parable” is in the film before accusing it of having it. I myself saw little feminism in the film, at least not the preachy kind. Mr. Nuemaier says the story hints at bigger ideas but fails to develop them. I agree with him but I would appreciate if he explained what those bigger ideas are. Mr. Schwartz accuses the film of being a “sicko exploitation film” though he doesn’t explain who the film exploits and why.

I do agree with most of the critics who complain of Lucy being a poorly developed character. But unlike most critics, I too create drama and stories, so instead of just seeing something bad I see something good but wasted. At least I will offer a description of her character. Lucy is a very passive and aloof person who keeps herself at arms length from people because of her self-hatred and resentment against other people. While she is passive she does resist the world around her in a passive-aggressive way. Lucy degrades herself with bad odd jobs because of her self-hatred but causes trouble so she leaves her jobs to find worse ones. Her life is a downward cycle with her job as a prostitute being rock bottom.

She has one person in her life who truly loves her but she shuts herself out from him because she has shut herself out from the world for so long it has become a habit. Again, her work as a prostitute, as a drugged prostitute, is the final step of shutting herself out. She works as a prostitute for two reasons very common for most prostitutes. One is the need for money (tuition ain’t cheap, kids!), the other is, again, self-hatred, as she feels she is only worthy of being a prostitute.

Again, the movie could have done a much better job with Lucy’s character but at least I understand what her character is beyond the most basic level. To do this, I suggest replacing her “everyday at life” scenes with more “important events in her life” scenes that shows how she resists human intimacy and destroys the people around her. And I would use her character to develop a “big idea”; how a normal, boring woman – who isn’t addicted to drugs and didn’t come from a broken home – can spiral down into sex slavery because of all sorts of patriarchal factors.

I would also develop the characters of the old men who sleep with her. Yes, they are privileged scumbags who exploit women, but they are also old, sad, and pathetic people. An almost dead woman is the only person they can relate to anymore. We do catch subtle glimpses of the old men’s characters by the way they use Lucy’s body. One man wistfully sleeps next to her as if she was his long lost spouse. Another man bites and batters her while calling her a dirty slut. Another man carries her like some kind of strongman or protective lover. These scenes are fascinating and I wish the movie made the scenes longer to better develop the characters of these strange, shady old men.

My final critique is about Red Letter Media’s review of the Rogue One Star Wars movie [11]. Red Letter Media shows what a good critic is like and what a bad critic is like. They did a thorough breakdown of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy that is amazing. They went in detail over every single reason why the Prequels was bad, from bad plot to poor character development, but they also understood why the Prequels had those faults to begin with. They lacked an artist’s vision and George Lucas used them as a cash grab. Now George Lucas is embarrassed Disney made one prequel story better than an entire trilogy.

This brings me to Red Letter Media’s review of Rogue One. While I did agree with some of their ideas they complained about a lot of things for new reason. I agree that Jyn’s character could have been developed better while reducing the cast to only three or so key people rather than having many poorly developed characters.

I really liked Jyn’s character arc even when it could have been explored more. She comes across to me as a hardened and scarred person, almost like someone with PTSD. At the start of the movie she is a wayward criminal and terrorist who lost her parents and was abandoned by her godfather. Rotting in a labor camp, she has no hope and can only see darkness in the galaxy. By joining the Rebel Alliance, Jyn gains hope, symbolizing the new hope the Alliance gains as they battle against the mountainous odds against them. Soon after Jyn and comrades die for the Rebel cause, ending a tragic character arc.

I think Jyn’s tragic story arc should have been developed better and given a strong focus as the driving point of the film. A well done, character driven story arc around Jyn would have been amazing. I appreciated how the rebels were not space wizards but ordinary people fighting against the huge odds against them. Again, such a focus would have really helped the film. I at least know writer James Luceno did her backstory justice in Star Wars Catalyst, as Mr. Luceno is an excellent writer who fleshed out many great Star Wars characters such as Darth Plagueis, Palpatine, and Tarkin. The Star Wars comics and novels tend to be better than the films and are, ironically, the real forces keeping the franchise alive.

But Mr. Plinkett and other critics at Red Letter Media also made silly complaints, like the appearances of TIE fighters and AT-AT walkers, even though they are the Empire’s military technology. But the most telling complaint was when one critic said new Star Wars movies would have to stay in a narrow mold to be good, but even then he wouldn’t like the new movies for being rehashes of older films. He admitted, in essence, there was no pleasing him.

That moment hit me. I realized the guys at Red Letter Media were the ultimate bitter Star Wars nerds. No new Star Wars movie will ever be good for them because they are so hung up over the Original Trilogy, or rather their nostalgic hype over it. Here is a dirty secret: the Original Trilogy was never great. Had Red Letter Media existed in the 70s I guarantee they would have complained about how awful Star Wars was and stupid people were for liking it. Critics are odd and pompous creatures.

And they are older than radio. Voltaire even mocked a man of letters in his novel Candide who might as well have been a movie critic. The learned man owned a vast library of the world’s greatest writings but didn’t like any of them, complaining about the faults of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and Paradise Lost. The naïve Candide concludes the learned man to be profound and wise as no great author satisfied him. Again, critics are odd and pompous creatures. Their reviews are useful to a point but are often blinkered by their narrow range of tastes and prejudices. They demand great art, then get angry when the muse does not throw herself on the laps of such inept yet arrogant mortals.

“Remember, a statue has never been set up in honor of a critic.” –Sibelius