HANNA-sassian

**** (4.5 stars)

I went to a screening last night and fell in love, almost immediately, with “Hanna”. Every scene is important to building the story of a young girl trained to fight, and fed on revenge for the death of her mother.

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) and her father (Eric Bana) have lived in the arctic woods since she was a child. In that time, he has expanded her education past the World Books they read nightly, to include hunting, fighting, and survival. All of this is in preparation for the day she decides she is ready to face her nemesis, Marissa Weixler (Cate Blanchett); a CIA operative that killed her mother.

There have been movies before, and I'm sure after, that follow the struggles of a person raised away from society. The introduction of new words, new friends, music, animals, places; but here it never feel like a gimmick. Through the brilliant acting of Saoirse Ronan and great writing, we feel almost as if we're experiencing these things for the first time as well. While on the run, Hanna meets up with a family of British tourists who take her in. These are the first friends and people she has had real, true contact with in her life. It’s heartwarming and heart wrenching at the same time.

There's a bit of a divot in Cate Blanchett's performance, but I'm not sure it's her fault. How do I criticize what I also loved about the movie? That is, it's refusal to fill in the holes and missing pieces of the back story. We know what we need to know to move the story along, no more, no less. Still, I wish I knew more about what motivated her. Why, after all these years is she still stung by the one that got away? Why is she so evil? And, she really is. Blanchett plays her like a Southern mother that spits venom.

Director Joe Wright (“Atonement”, “Pride & Prejudice”) breaks out of his sober shell to create action sequences that rival the Bourne movies. The stylized fight sequences are brutal, though the mix of camera techniques could be distracting to those of us that pay attention to such things. DP Alwin Kuchler (“Morwan Caller”, “Sunshine”) has perfected this style of tight shots that seem to drift down to the audience. We never feel preached too, though we know exactly who is testifying. However, the editing keeps the action tight and on line. It’s violence that acts itself out, but is never gratuitous.

That the Chemical Brothers scored the movie seemed a bit weird to me at first, like a watered down “Tron: Legacy”, but I have to say they did an exceptional job. The music alerts us to the action ahead, but doesn’t over take it (hello Bourne) or foreshadow too greatly.

All in all, I highly recommend this movie to everyone. Go see it!

Centurion

**** (4.5 stars)

It makes me nervous to say that Neil Marshall has never let me down. Having written and directed some of the most interesting horror films of the past 10 years, he continues to push the boundaries of what defines him as a filmmaker. His first feature film, “Dog Soldiers”, is on all of my personal lists: Best Horror, Best Movie You May Have Never Seen, etc. It is without question one of the best werewolf movies ever made. Following that, he took us spelunking in “The Descent” which managed to creep me out even though I watched the making of first! “Doomsday” is an underappreciated homage to apocalypse films like “Mad Max” and “The Road”. His newest release, “Centurion” departs from the unapologetic gore that earned him membership in the “Splat Pack”.

[side note: Other members of the “Splat Pack” include Alexandre Aja, “High Tension”, Darren Lynn Bousman, “Saw 2-4”, Greg Mclean, “Wolf Creek”, Eli Roth, “Hostel”, James Wan, “Saw”, Leigh Whannell, executive producer of the “Saw” franchise, and Rob Zombie, “Devil’s Rejects”. You can read more about them here.] 

“Centurion” tells the fabled story of Rome’s 9^th Legion, one so deadly and feared, they were considered unstoppable. As with all things given such a grand title; they were eventually lost in the woods of Scotland and believed defeated by the Picts. Quintus Dias (the always amazing Michael Fassbender) is a Centurion who escapes capture by the Pict leader Gorlacon and joins up with the 9^th while on the run. Shortly after, they are ambushed and General Titus Virilus (Dominic West) is captured. What is left of this great army must now fight to retrieve their fallen leader and escape back to the Roman stronghold. The Picts are not a passive people, and they hunt the Romans with equal virile and the help of their best scout, Etain (Olga Kurylenko). Kurylenko shrugs off any patina from her Bond girl days to play this tortured and mute tracker.

This film got a lot of attention due to its violence level (something we can surly expect from Marshall) and not for the interesting story, great camera work, and fine acting. The complexities of the relationships between the soldiers often mirror that between the Romans and the Picts. Of course its violent and gory, but much of it appears just off screen or from behind: A sword connects with a man’s head, but the camera is behind him so we never really see it connect. Here we have the Roman’s, a civilization that at that time controlled most of Europe and parts of Asian, up against the one enemy they can’t seem to tame, the Picts (Rome met equal resistance from all of the Celtic people). Is it any bloodier than “Glory” or “Saving Private Ryan”? Not really. The difference here is we are fighting with swords and bow and arrow. It’s always unsettling to me how a movie about war can be bloodless. Is this what we should be teaching our children? Not that children should see this movie per se, there is a lot of profanity and gore. (Don’t even get me started on the frequent use of the word “fuck” which was not recorded until the 16^th century).

Filmed on location in Scotland, the cinematography of Sam McCurdy (Marshall’s longtime collaborator) is breathtaking. No establishing shot is wasted (*cough* *cough* Harry Potter), and is instead used to transport the viewer to the freezing tundra, dark and damp woods, or through a raging river. When coupled with Chris Gill’s editing (“28 Days Later”) it creates a tight 90 minutes of action and suspense. Make-up artist Paul Hyett (another frequent Marshall contributor, “Hunger”) has outdone himself as well. Legs are wacked off, heads severed from their body, gashes carved into the torsos of fallen soldiers. Bloody and disgusting.

If you haven’t already seen “Centurion”, I highly recommend you add it to your queue today!

RED: Retired, Extremly Drab

*** (3 stars)

Monday I went to a screening of "RED" at the Movie Studio Grill. A highlight may have been the delicious garlic fries I ate while we waited for the movie to begin (10 minutes late).

"RED" is based on the comics by Warren Ellis ("Transmetropolitan" one of my favorite comics of all time) and Cully Hamner. Frank Moses (Bruce Willis), retiree, spends the day tearing up benefit checks just so he can talk to Sarah (Mary Louise Parker); until one night when three men break into his house and try to kill him. Now, he's on the run with Sarah as his hostage. You see, Frank isn't who he seems: He's ex-C.I.A. and one of the best "wet" men (i.e., hit man) the agency has ever seen. Calling his old team together (Dame Helen Mirren with an uzi!!, John Malkovich, and Morgan Freeman) to figure out who is trying to kill them and why.

I still can't decide how I feel about this movie, so I've decided to do something a bit different and just give you my pros and cons.

PROS:
* Anything from the twisted mind of Warren Ellis is a-okay with me. He is beyond skilled at creating worlds and characters that appear on the page full formed and relatable. He has a wicked sense of humor too!

* Script- Jon and Erich Hoeber ("Whiteout", "Battleship"-based on the game) wrote a funny script with a lot of great one liners. I'd love to see the final script to know if I should also include them in the Cons.

* I heart Bruce Willis. Since the "Moonlighting" days, he has been one of my top actors. Able to perform comedy as well as action, he only gets better with age. In "RED", his casually cool demeanour is the perfect antithesis of Parker's neurosis and Malkovich's paranoia. A preposterous scene (alluded to in the trailer) where he steps out of a moving vehicle and empties two clips into another car is great. Too bad the director and editor couldn't showcase the scenes natural momentum.

CONS:

* Bad direction- Robert Schwentke (the German born director of "Flightplan" and "The Time Traveler's Wife") seems completely out of his element. The film clips along from poorly edited vignette to vignette. The majority of the film is shot in wide and mid shot which is great for action but increasingly boring for human interaction. Dialog seems to drift off into the ether. It's apparent some of the actor's were having a good time, but it didn't translate to the final picture. Instead, we're left with a feeling of "huh" when the final credits roll. A more experienced action or comic director would have done a better job. I'm not saying everything needs to be the frame-for-frame translation of "Sin City" or shot on blue screen, that certainly didn't work for "The Spirit" and I'm holding out hope for future Zac Snyder films; but it would have been a lot more interesting. Here is an amazing story, the "Bourne Identity" for the early bird supper crowd, and it's boring.

* Editing- See above. Thom Noble is an Academy Award winning editor ("Witness", nominated for "Thelma & Louise"), but he hasn't really done a lot in the last 10 years. Clearly Schwentke has a hard on for him (he edited both his previous films), but was he the best person for this job? I think not. His approach to action is more controlled and still (e.g., "Reign of Fire", "Mask of Zorror", "Red Dawn"), which does not lend itself well to full impact shoot 'em ups. Suggestions: Saar Klein ("The Bourne Identity"), Dan Lebental ("Iron Man"), Michael Kahn (see: Steven Spielburg), or Stuart Baird ("Casino Royale").

* Karl Urban. I'm so sorry dude, I love you but you were killing me in this movie. Was it the accent? You've done American before with no problems. What gives? Were they giving you hell for your "Xena" days? Come on! You've done some good work: "Lord of the Rings", "The Bourne Supremacy", "Doom" (who expected that to be good?!), and "Star Trek". Please don't get nervous, I still love you. Consider this your yellow card.

* Music. I don't even know what was going on with the score, but it was making me crazy.

*Script- Okay, I decided to include this here as well. What can be easily white washed in a comic is glaringly apparent in a movie. We are smart consumers. We devour crime and espionage shows like "Alias", the Bourne and Oceans trilogies, and "Mission:Impossible". Therefore, we want to see the planning not just the execution. If you are going to cheat us, the execution should be amazing.

All in all this movie wasn't bad, it just wasn't as great as I expected it to be. I suggest adding it to your Netflix queue right now and spending $10 on something else.