Hanna

Hanna

Year: 2011

Director: Joe Wright

Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Cate Blanchett, Eric Bana

In My Own Words

                Hands up those in Australia who remember Full Frontal? If you do, you know exactly what I will be talking about in this In My Own Words.

                I am, of course, going to be talking about the Eric Bana which we Australians knew back in the 1990’s. The Eric Bana who was on our television screens each Thursday night at 8:30pm. No, Full Frontal wasn’t an incredibly dramatic and intense drama series, it was Australia’s answer to Saturday Night Live with its collection of send up skits. Unfortunately, the series which I so loved came to an end in 1996, but the memories of Eric Bana as the comedian lives on.

                If someone had told me then that Bana was going to be one of the leading drama and action stars in Hollywood not even 10 years after the show finished, I would have been extremely confused of how anyone could take him seriously. He has definitely proved himself as a fantastic actor and I am very proud of how far our fellow Aussie has come. Yet, sometimes when I watch him in a movie, I am still expecting him to open his mouth and crack a joke or start up on of his famous impersonations as the Aussie bogan, Peter (pronounced “Poiter”), Australian television personality Ray Martin or his very funny portrayal of Tom Cruise. So Bana has gone from imitating the Hollywood heavy weights for a living, to being one of them. Ironic the way the world works out, isn’t it?

                These are my own words and here is my review.

Review

                What comes to mind when you think about a film about a child assassin? Violence, confrontation, uneasiness? Most likely words of this nature and nobody could blame you for thinking this. How about if the movie starts when the “child” in question is in the latter half of her teenage years which doesn’t really make the film about a child assassin, but about a young lady who has been trained as an assassin? Therefore, Hanna is a misunderstood film and rather than creating the controversy which one thinks it would, it is quite amazing really.

                Saoirse Ronan is Hanna, the sixteen year old who has been raised in the Finnish wild by her father, Erik (Eric Bana). As an ex- CIA agent, Erik has trained his daughter as soldier trained to kill. Hanna is sent into the world for the first time to travel across Europe and meet her father in Berlin. As soon as her presence is known in the outside world, she has agents on her tail wanting her dead and she comes face to face with the agent who killed her mother, Marissa (Cate Blanchett). Hanna learns what it is like to be a typical sixteen year old in the outside world and also learns who she really is.

                The story of Hanna may seem disturbing to some people, but it hardly seems disturbing on screen. Sure there is violence, which is to be expected in a film about an assassin, yet the story is really played out as a piece of art. The storyline and script itself is good, but the techniques used to bring the story to the screen are far more impressive than the writing.

The cinematography is just beautiful. There are some amazing panoramic landscape shots and the editing during Hanna’s escape from the agents is brilliant. Director Joe Wright chooses some great locations for the film. The filming locations are very interesting and in the final scenes with playground equipment and the swans and wolf mouth keep everything fresh even at the end of the film. If you really want to get in depth, these images which are part of the landscape could also be seen as symbolic of the childlike innocence which has been destroyed.

In the scene when Hanna is escaping for the first time from the agents, the thrilling images are accompanied by a fantastic soundtrack by The Chemical Brothers. The best thing about this soundtrack is that it isn’t techno or electronic music pumping constantly throughout the film, but the sounds are mixed up depending on what is happening in the film at that point in time. One would think that the film was choreographed around the music by how well it matches up and not the other way around.

Saoirse Ronan, this young woman loves the roles that push her boundaries, and why not? She pulls them all off. As Hanna, she physically suits the role as the young girl brought up in the wild. She doesn’t really give a great deal of emotion in the scenes where it is needed, yet she is great as the girl who has never got to experience anything that a typical sixteen year old has. She also doesn’t show a tremendous amount of aggression, which one would normally expect in an assassin. There is aggression there, just not enough.

Eric Bana seems to glide through this role. Like Ronan, he doesn’t show a great amount of emotion. Yet, it is great to see him in another action role. He is a natural in this type of role and looks right at home in the action fighting sequences. Cate Blanchett is very good as the role of the evil agent. She really is quite terrifying and becomes the role with every ounce of her being.

Hanna is truly a work of art. It is visually beautiful and everything is pieced together with the greatest accuracy and care. It is always a great joy to see a film know that it is a piece of art and live up to it.

8/10

The Lovely Bones

The Lovely Bones
Year: 2009
Director: Peter Jackson
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Rachel Weisz, Mark Wahlberg, Stanley Tucci, Susan Surandon

In My Own Words
I really didn’t want to write this review. Not because I have lost motivation at all, or even that I am not in the mood. I didn’t want to write this review because I always hate writing bad things about a movie I have really been looking forward to. However, this is all part of being a film critic and it has to be done.

I read the book “The Lovely Bones” by Alice Sebold about 2 months ago and I absolutely loved it. It was one of the most beautiful books I had read in so long. I had been looking forward to the movie before it, but after I read the book, it was leading the way as the Boxing Day release that I most wanted to see. Obviously it took me a bit longer to actually get around to seeing it though. I thought that the book was so wonderful that nobody, especially Peter Jackson, could make it into a bad movie. It was a silly thought to have, as 40 minutes into the film I was thinking “This book should have never been made into a movie”. The book is just far too complex with too much emotion in its words to be transferred onto the screen in a two hour movie. In saying this, there are certain aspects that could and should have been done better. Maybe Peter Jackson should stick to the adventure genre that he has established himself in.

It’s such a dull feeling seeing a film that you expected so much out of when it turns out to be far less than your expectations. I normally try not to expect too much from movies so I won’t be disappointed if it is a flop, but this one I felt so strongly about considering it is such an amazing novel. My advice, read the book if you think the film sounds interesting. You’ll feel more satisfied after that than the film. Harsh, but true.

These are my own words and here is my review.

Review
“The Lovely Bones” is the return to the drama film for award-winning director Peter Jackson. Box office wise it is a triumphant return, but critically wise, not at all. This film could have been spectacular, but it falls in a mess not even half way through. “The Lovely Bones”, based on the best seller written by Alice Sebold, is about a young girl by the name of Susie Salmon (Saoirse Ronan) who is murdered by a man in her hometown and travels to her own heaven. From there she watches all the people on Earth that she has left behind and who are affected by her death.

One would think that “The Lovely Bones” would be an extremely moving movie that so much could be done with. Peter Jackson turns it into just that, a movie that so much COULD have been done with. This is probably the wrong way to say it, Jackson does do so much with the movie, but it isn’t the right mixture to make the film into a masterpiece. Fans of the book will be severely disappointed in this film and people who have not read the book will be confused and disappointed. Jackson overdoes certain aspects of the film and neglects others. It is no doubt that there are some dazzling images and the cinematography is amazing throughout the film, but a film with a subject matter such as this cannot rely on stunning images to pull it through. If the film was primarily about the afterlife, this may have been acceptable, but throwing what is happening where Susie was left behind makes it an uneven balance. There is not enough of the emotions which her family go through to make it a particularly emotional film or to feel any connection to these characters at all. People who have not read the book and watch the film, will be confused with some parts and wonder why some things are happening, particularly at the end. Jackson leaves much of the book out and some parts which he does include, do not make sense without the parts he leaves out. In Jackson’s defence, he would have to make the film far longer than what it actually was to truly capture the essence of the emotion which is supposed to be felt as well as the beauty of heaven.

The acting in the film is not half bad, although there is not enough of it. Ronan is the star of the film and does do a good job. She exhibits the characteristics of a young, innocent teenage girl and goes through the emotions to come to the understanding of her death. Rachel Weisz and Mark Wahlberg as Susie’s parents, are good in parts, but far more could have been done with their characters. Although they do well with what is given to them, there is no chemistry between them on the screen, but this can be attributed to no in depth character and relationship development throughout the film. Stanley Tucci, as Susie’s murderer, is the stand out of the film. His character is the only one with is well developed and creates a bond with the audience. He oozes the air of that unusual neighbour that nobody knows much about, but everybody knows there is something not quite right about him. In all, the acting is not bad by any of the characters, bit is just badly directed.

It is such a shame to see Peter Jackson’s direction take a downturn after the success of “The Lord Of the Rings” and his remake of “King Kong”. It would seem that he tried to take the winning aspects from his prior successes and bring them into “The Lovely Bones”, a film that does not rely on special effects to make it memorable. “The Lovely Bones” is first and foremost, a disappointment.

3/10