Monday Morning Talkback: Let's Hear About Hanna
A potent combo of good reviews and strong word-of-mouth (not to mention some expert marketing by the gang at Focus Features, right out of their American playbook) lifted the thriller Hanna to a solid third-place finish surprise second-place finish at the weekend box office. And now that you've seen it, it's time to talk it over.
As per Moveline's weekly talkback tradition, consider this your open forum to praise, rage, expound, inquire, joke, gripe and/or inveigh with wonder and bemusement. Sky, limit, etc. Keep it to the movie itself, please, up to and including...
· Dynamite young star Saoirse Ronan, or her castmates Eric Bana and Cate Blanchett
· Proven dramatic filmmaker Joe Wright took on his first big action film. How did he do? What should he do next?
· How did everything you'd seen advertised about the film match up with what was onscreen?
· Where does Hanna fall on the "girl-power" spectrum? Does it deserve to weather comparisons to Sucker Punch?
...so on and so forth. Have at it!
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
No comparisons to Sucker Punch please. Not the same animal.
I read the short summary of what the movie was about on IMDB. So I went in mostly blind. So I cant say its what I expected.
It was a satisfying if weird movie. Had multiple different movie elements I could latch onto. A decent action element, a thriller element, odd Blue Lagoon culture shock, even some artsy cinematography at times.
It also had some very odd parts sure, but it worked as a movie.
I loved Hanna. It's the most stylish movie I've seen in ages, and Saoirse may be one of the best actors working today, regardless of age. I do have a small beef with what is supposed to be a "progressive" film, though. I guess it might be a *spoiler*, but why is the only non-heterosexual character in the movie the most loathsome villain? I'm sure it is not what Joe Wright and company intended, but someone in my screening yelled out "Yeah, kill that f****t!" during that scene. A weird misstep I think, but mostly it was fantastic, and my favorite movie of this year so far.
Over the top, but loved it. Feel free to read my review.
Shane >> I loved that villain. He was very original. And I wouldn't say he was the most loathsome. At least, I wouldn't argue that the actor's lack of popularity compared to Blanchett makes him more loathsome. The only reason I liked Marissa at all was because I love Blanchett. And I wouldn't argue against the seedy actor choices he made that were supported by the director, costume designer and hair-stylist, anyway.
I think that nut-job in your audience distorted your perception, perhaps?
I just saw another movie recently (which isn't out yet) and there is, shall I say, a similar example to the one you present. The only difference is that the gay character isn't nearly as loathsome. In fact, after the Q & A, I learned that the director (who is gay-friendly) and a good chunk of the audience distorted their own perceptions of the gay character's responsibilities to the mess he created. The audience had cheered his death (as they did other deaths). What got me is that they also thought he played a larger negative role in the film than he did, when, actually, he had some redeeming features that were lost on a lot of the audience members including the director. But, the director was gay-friendly (to a great degree), so go figure.
I don't think the Hanna gay was any more loathsome than the two murderers in Fargo. And they were straight. And I don't remember if the audience cheered when Marge took care of them, but I wouldn't be surprised if they did.
David: Thanks for your insight. Your points are well taken. I guess I found that guy to be an even more despicable character than Blanchett's because the movie makes the interesting decision to humanize her a little bit ("Get up. Now!"). By showing her perspective occasionally, the movie gives her at least a little dimensionality, while Bisexual Baddie is just a track-suited Terminator. I did like his little evil whistling song though.
There are three winners after "Hanna's" break-out:
1- Focus Features showing the Industry that the independent faction can gain a hell lot of ground when they know what they are doing, and FF's promotion of Hanna was greatly rewarded (and much more clever than anything the Weinsteins are doing. Ever since 2004: Lost In Translation, Brokeback Mountain, Atonement & Pride and Prejudice, Burn After Reading and -very likely- Hanna, all grossed over 100 million worldwide -with microscopic budgets- and all received pretty good reviews, more or less. They could jump for something bigger if they want to, but that shows great management. Their only problem now would be wether pushing Saoirse or Mia Wasikowska for the best actress nod, which tends to be a problem for them.
2- Joe Wright, but above all, envelope-pushing filmmakers worldwide, that are now getting a larger window in a mixture of growing popularity in a tough market. Consider the Coen brothers, Nolan, Arronofsky, Duncan Jones, Blomkamp: All adult oriented filmmakers that are getting widespread success in the box-office and amongst critics. So don't mind the fact that so much crap (and its sequels) seem to be all around: The future of quality in the mainstream looks way more promising than most people think. Wright is the new rider.
3-Finally, Ms. Ronan: She ain't going to become a household name immediately after Hanna. Probably she has a long road to go to become an opener. But she is bound to become the favorite between filmmakers, which is the only thing that matters to have a REAL career. The critics are in love with her epically, and a considerable market-segment pretty soon. It's not that she ran way ahead of Dakota or other actressess of her generation, it's just that her carrer is practically settled.
Sorry for sounding like a bastardly-cold-exec
BALLACLAV: #3, what do you mean by "her career has practically settled"?
Yeah, I might have carried away a little, but I'm still standing for it-oh, I'm referring to Saoirse. Settled in the sense that she needs not worry about not getting high-profile, quality roles. Let us say that she (along with Mia Wasikowska and Jennifer Lawrence, so far) are going to be around for a long time, each in her own turf.
See ya!
I loved this film. It was an artistic masterpiece. It takes a skilled director to make it believable that a little girl can kick some serious ass. And it certainly was believable. Though the plot was moderately thin, it didn't much matter. All we needed to know was that she was a trained assassin, and she can take down five guys at one time. The Chemical Brothers also provided for some great soundtrack music during the action scenes. To think that this only cost 30 million dollars to make, and it was of Mission Impossible caliber. I also wrote a review on my blog -- http://www.thedishmaster.com. You can find it over there.
I think this film is either I love it or I hate it. Many people complain about the plot being thin, which is true, but it has enough meat on it to move the story along. The audience is given a very big clue first: the singular word title. It's all about Hanna and her experiences. Wright cleverly and specifically shows that whatever Hanna sees, we see. So it may bother some, I was completely fine with it because it doesn't try to be something else. This film very different from what the general audience is use too, so being met with disdain should come to no surprise.
Ah! Okay. I didn't know what you meant. I was head scratchin'. Thanks!