Hanna (2011)

Tags

Action, Cate Blanchett, Drama, Eric Bana, Hanna, Jessica Barden, Movie, Olivia Williams, Saoirse Ronan, Tom Hollander

they grow up so fast...

PG-13

Saoirse Ronan, Eric Bana, Cate Blanchett, Tom Hollander, Olivia Williams, Jessica Barden

Sebastian:  So, Hanna, is your mom and dad still together?
Hanna:  My mother is dead.
Sophie:  Niiiice one dad.
Sebastian:  I’m sorry to hear that.  I lost my mom when I was very young, so…
Hanna:  It’s alright, it happened a long time ago.
Rachel:  Hanna…what did your mom die of?
Hanna:  Three bullets.

Hanna (Ronan) is a 16 year old girl who has been secluded in the forest for most of her life and trained by her father (Bana) to be a deadly, and very intelligent, assassin.  She believes she is ready to leave seclusion and face the dangers that await her.  Dangers in the form of Marissa (Blanchett), an agent who has a past association with Hanna’s father.  Once she’s out in the world, Hanna starts to discover all kinds of new things and new people, but there’s not much time to enjoy it when you’re being pursued by ruthless special agents…

First of all, how was Joss Whedon not involved in this?  A teenage girl beating people up all over the place?  That’s, like…his thing!

Secondly, I really wanted to like this one more than I did.

Not that I disliked it.  It’s just…it was so good at times that the lesser aspects of it really stood out.

Some of the character motivations weren’t very strong.  For instance, why was Marissa so hell bent on killing everybody and everything in her way just to get to Hanna?  Why such an attachment?  Cate Blanchett was definitely good and creepy as the villain, but I never really felt like I knew here character very well.  Same with Eric Bana as…Erik, Hanna’s sorta dad.  His history is a bit of a mystery too.  There are some explanations, to be sure, but those are more about events rather than emotions and motivations.  The movie tells us there are emotions there, but doesn’t really show all of them.

I guess all of that would be okay if it didn’t leave the ending of the movie feeling so emotionally hollow.  Of course it ends with a series of chases, even culminating at a sort of abandoned carnival type place (one of multiple movie cliches featured in this one).  There’s no real emotional resolution, and when the title popped up again at the end (kind of out of the blue like in INSIDIOUS), I was left thinking, “…that’s it?”  Okay, there’s a pile of corpses, but…so what?

Like I said, though, there are good parts.  The performances are all top notch, especially Saoirse Ronan as Hanna.  She’s sort of a more realistic version of Hit-Girl from Kick-Ass.  The script may occasionally drag her out of character, but her performance is always good.  It’s a physically demanding role, and she seems up to the challenge.

Thankfully, Cate Blanchett isn’t as over the top as she was in the recent Indiana Jones disaster.  She’s just as ruthless, but much more grounded in reality.  Though, not above threatening little children.

Stylistically, the movie is kinetic without venturing into Tony Scott territory, thankfully.  Plus, it’s not afraid to slow down for some touching, quiet moments, like when Hanna befriends the daughter in the family she latches onto as she flees her pursuers.  There are some good moments spent with that family.

All in all, I felt like a good premise and a quality first 2/3 of a movie were a little wasted on an ending that just fizzles out.  I would have liked to have seen more communication and resolution between the characters rather than just another typical chase/shoot-out.

Is it that hard to write an ending to a movie?  Maybe I should try it some time…

HANNA!

Trying to scientifically manipulate humans into perfect killing machines never ends well…

10 – 1.5 for the lackluster ending – 1 for a few moments, mostly regarding Hanna’s character, that didn’t really make sense = 7.5

Robin Hood (2010)

Tags

Action, Cate Blanchett, Drama, Kevin Durand, Mark Strong, Max von Sydow, Movie, Oscar Isaac, Robin Hood, Romance, Russell Crowe, William Hurt

fortunately for you, I just love boring men...

PG-13

Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Kevin Durand, Oscar Isaac, Max von Sydow

Eleanor of Aquitaine: Milking a dried udder gets you nothing but kicked off the milking stool!
Prince John: Mother, spare me your farmyard memories.  You have none, and I don’t understand them.

After King Richard the Lionheart (Danny Huston) is killed, his younger, more obnoxious, brother John (Isaac) takes over the throne.  He is immediately duped by a traitor, and French loyalist, in his court into inciting a civil war that will weaken England and allow the French army to conquer it.  Meanwhile, Robin Longstride (Crowe) is returning the sword of Robert Loxley (Douglas Hodge), who was killed in an ambush, to Loxley’s father, Walter (Sydow).  Walter requests that Robin pose as his dead son, which leads to Robin’s involvement in all kinds of action and battles and stuff.

If I were to review this movie based on the reaction to it by the person sitting directly to my left in the theater, I would have to call it the best movie of the year.  There was laughter, there were tears, and there were several fist pumps.  She loved it.  But this is not my friend’s blog, it’s mine, so I have to write about my own reaction to it, which was much more subdued.

Sure, it had a few good triumphant moments, and a laugh here and there, but I think it was just too derivative for me to get too excited about.  There’s some Braveheart, some Gladiator, Lord of the Rings, and even some Saving Private Ryan.  The romance is predictable, the battles are routine, and I don’t recall anything else that really surprised me.

Lack of originality is more easily forgivable, though, than the fact that Robin Longstride is a dull character.  They try to give him a touching past involving his father, but that comes off as derivative as well.  Robin really has no personality at all.  I’m not sure how much of that is Crowe’s fault and how much is the writer’s fault.  It’s probably a combination of both.  Crowe seems to be sleepwalking through the role a bit, and doesn’t bring the fire that he did to Gladiator.  But then again, he doesn’t have any cool “My name is Maximus” type speeches in this one.  Instead, Robin has to yell about unfair taxation, people’s rights, and getting some sort of charter, or something, signed.  It just doesn’t quite have the same impact.

The most interesting characters in the movie are Marion Loxley (Blanchett) and King John.  Starting as a Prince before having the crown forced upon him by his brother’s death, John goes through the most interesting character arc in the movie, though ultimately they make him too cartoonishly evil in the end.

The battle scenes are Braveheart-light, as there’s only a PG-13 level of blood and dismemberment.  I think that adds to the movie’s overall feeling of being just lukewarm.  The whole thing just seems toned down and flat.

It’s not a bad movie really, but it’s not a memorable one either.  That’s especially true of its lead character, which is a shame because this is a guy that’s supposed to be legendary…and I can barely even remember any of his dialogue.

Maybe you wanna wear some armor around your neck if you think there will be arrows used in the battle you’re entering…

10 – 2 for a boring lead character – 1 for a lot of derivative scenes – 1 for a generally flat/dull tone = 6.0

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button (2008)

Tags

Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett, Drama, Movie, The Curious Case of Benjamin Button

PG-13

Brad Pitt, Cate Blanchett

Daisy: Will you still love me when my skin is old and saggy?
Benjamin: Will you still love me when I have acne, wet the bed and am afraid of what’s under the stairs?

Benjamin (Pitt) is born with a strange affliction of being the size of a baby, but the age of a very old man.  His mother dies giving birth, and his father, frightened by Benjamin’s appearance, leaves him on the steps of a nursing home where he is raised by Queenie, who works there.  Benjamin grows in size to a normal adult, but also becomes younger and younger along the way.  This poses several problems, but most obviously it makes it difficult for him to be with the love of his life, Daisy (Blanchett).

I went into this movie expecting to love it and really be moved by it.  I’ve always been a David Fincher fan, and I like the actors involved.  So it was a little disappointing to find myself about 3/4 of the way through it thinking that, while it was good, it just seemed to have no real heart to it.  The cinematography was amazing, and the special effects to make Pitt (and the other actors) look older and younger were incredible.  But up until about the last half hour of the movie, I just didn’t feel any emotional connection to the characters or the story.

I thought Benjamin was actually a little bit dull as a character, and Daisy in her 20s just wasn’t very likeable at all.  It was as though the movie was so concerned with telling its story, it forgot to stop and smell the roses every now and then.  A few moments of joy – and appreciation of joy – here and there wouldn’t have hurt.

The whole thing felt like a mash-up of Big Fish and Forrest Gump.  I had the same reaction to Big Fish as I did to this movie.  I liked both, but neither affected me as much as they seemed like they should.  That could be due to subject matter, though.  Some people cried like a baby watching Big Fish, and I’m sure plenty did for the entirety of this movie.  I just wasn’t one of them.

I will say, though, that the last half hour or so was quite moving.  You know where the story is headed, as do the characters, and that adds to the heartbreaking nature of the movie.  I wish there had been more of that emotion and purpose throughout.

10 – 3 for characters I didn’t care much about until the end + .8 for really good special effects – .5 for boring musical score = 7.3