It's a good film, kind of Leony, lots of character development.
The chronological jumps made perfect sense.
tldr, good slow ish paced action film.
Royal blood doesn't always wear a crown. Hanna is an incomprehensible pile of gibberish with great credentials: Joe Wright, who directed Atonement, reunites with one of its stars, Saoirse Ronan, the phenomenally talented teenager with the unpronounceable name, and the cast also includes Cate Blanchett and Eric Bana. The result is unbearable junk. What went wrong? Just about everything.
In the title role, Ms. Ronan plays a girl raised in a primitive cabin in the frozen wilderness near the Arctic Circle. In the first shot, she slaughters and disembowels an elk. No wonder she dreams of exploring the world beyond arrows and igloos. But something is wrong with Hanna. Her father (Mr. Bana) is an ex-CIA man protecting her from unknown perils, training her to be a perfect assassin with home-schooling from an encyclopedia and a book of fairy tales. When the time comes to send her away, he promises to meet her in Berlin (huh?) and jumps naked into the icy water, giving Mr. Bana another chance to wear as little as the law allows.
When Hanna crawls her way out of an air duct, she's in the middle of the Moroccan desert, pursued by a vicious, cold, mechanical redhead (Cate Blanchett with the worst Southern accent in the history of film), a C.I.A. operative who, years ago, killed Hanna's mother and spent the rest of her career tracking down Hanna and her father to finish the job. For reasons unclear, they seem to be threats to U.S. security.
Are you still with me? While Dad strips down to swim in the ocean, Hanna mysteriously acquires a Bedouin robe and walks all the way to what looks like Afghanistan, speaking perfect Arabic. (Delusional geography is just one of the problems.) For a girl who has never left the forest, the world of electric teakettles, television and hotel swimming pools is a shock as she is captured and hunted by a gay assassin in tight shorts who drives fountain pens through his victim's jugular veins. Hanna stays in contact with Dad through postcards, although they have neither stamps nor postmarks. From Morocco, she makes her way to Spain on a motorcycle in time for a musical flamenco number, leaps from the tops of storage tanks wearing only sneakers and hops a barge, leaving a string of corpses behind. Her goal: to reach Berlin and find her father in a theme park replete with a Ferris wheel, dinosaurs and a Hansel and Gretel house run by an old clown who feeds her raw eggs. It takes almost the entire 105-minute running time to find out who (or what) Hanna is and why Ms. Blanchett wants to kill her, but if you are a true masochist who will sit through anything until the projector stops running, you'll have to find out for yourself.
Hanna is contrived, pretentious and not worth seeing even for the perverse pleasure of watching first-rate talents make second-rate fools of themselves. Maybe the movie was shot during Ms. Blanchett's acclaimed stage production of A Streetcar Named Desire, which might explain why she plays a machine gun-toting European secret agent who talks like Scarlett O'Hara, but not why she has an obsession with flossing and brushing her teeth before every homicide. Nothing else in the demented script by Seth Lochhead and David Farr would make one lick of sense even to Charlie Kaufman.
cho doesn't understand films
This review comes pretty close to summing up the mess the film turned into...
leaps from the tops of storage tanks wearing only sneakers
megalolz.
To say a film is trying to be arthouse but failing shows a complete lack of fundamental film studies knowledge and not even worth trying to argue against.
You can call it pretentious if you like, but the above statement doesn't actually make any sense.
Cho you fail on suspension of disbelief. As the for the jumps to locations - they made perfect sense, although they did take liberties with the time frame - again see suspension of disbelief.
This.Cho you fail on suspension of disbelief. As the for the jumps to locations - they made perfect sense, although they did take liberties with the time frame - again see suspension of disbelief.
Or you are spouting your usual bollocks in the hope of a good arguement, I shall leave you with these instead from people who have far far more experience and knowledge of film-making than you might aquire in a thousand lifetimes.
1. No. A film is art house, or it is not. A film cannot try to be art house if it is not art house. It may borrow from art house in various ways but that's not the same.
2. "argument"
3. I like the way you have assumed my film knowledge based on utterly nothing than me pointing out you made an utterly flawed statement.
4. Reviews are reviews, they're not film analysis or studies.
3. I like the way you have assumed my film knowledge based on utterly nothing than me pointing out you made an utterly flawed statement.
12A advertised as an action film.
No.
In fairness I don't think you backed up your original statements with any logical process, just a judgement and some slagging off.
Oh look, such arguing over taste in films. How refreshingly new.
"No! My view is right!" *throw teddy*