The Beaver

The Beaver

                Walter Black is a depressed man.  He is so depressed that he can no longer function in his life.  The Beaver tells the story of a man who uses a hand puppet as the sole way of communicating in his life.

                The Beaver is a small low budget film that is gaining a lot of attention due to the fact that it is Mel Gibson’s first movie since his very public fall in the media.  Jodie Foster directs and stars as his suffering wife Meredith.  Despite the cutesy look of the trailers, this movie is a heavy drama of a family dealing with a father who has a mental illness.   The movie is slow and at times ponderous, but is made bearable by superb acting performances by Mel Gibson and Jodi Foster.  One thing that is forgotten in the spectacle of Mel Gibson’s personal life is that he truly is a gifted actor.  It is a pleasure to watch two actors executing their craft at such a high level. 

                The film opens aptly on Walter Black’s craggy and weary face as he floats in a pool.  His depression is palpable.  One wonders if Mel was drawing upon personal experience to capture the tone so perfectly.  The voice over is a narrator with a crusty cockney accent.  It takes a bit before the audience realizes that it is the voice of the Beaver.  Walter has reached the depths of his depression where his business is failing and his wife asks him to leave the house.  In a drunken stupor, Walter tries to kill himself only to fail at that attempt as well.  When Walter awakens from his botched attempt, he finds that the Beaver puppet he was wearing on his hand is talking to him.  This is not ventriloquism as Walter lips move along with the Beaver’s mouth as he talks.  The Beaver convinces Walter that he is his only hope to wake up from his fog and he must communicate through him alone. 

                When Walter returns home, his wife Meredith is understandably confused, but their young son Henry is so happy that his Dad is playing with him and is so charmed by the puppet that she gives in to the bizarre situation.  Walter, through the voice of the Beaver, comes alive again and becomes the husband and father that he wants to be.

                The elder son Porter (played by Anton Yelchen) is not so charmed.  Having lived for years under his father’s depression, he has nothing but anger for Walter trying to reenter their lives after having been thrown out.  The puppet is further proof to him that his father is completely crazy.  Porter has his own issues at school and his story runs apart and is equally interesting as Walter’s story.  Ultimately, Porter is terrified that he will end up like his father and endlessly obsesses on ways to be different.  He confesses at one point in the movie that he spent his childhood wanting to be just like Walter, but as he grew up he wanted to be anything else but Walter.

                Walter begins to claim his life back through the Beaver.  He becomes the family man his wife and kids missed.  At work, his new found energy begins to turn around his family’s toy company.  In fact, using the Beaver as an inspiration, Walter creates a new line of toys that gain the nation’s attention.  Soon, the toy executive who talks through a Beaver, becomes a media celebrity. 

                The movie begins to take a macabre turn at this point as his wife realizes that this is not just some psychological coping mechanism rather a true sign of his mental illness.  Any attempt to separate Walter from the Beaver causes him to tumble back into his depression.  The relationship between Walter and the hand puppet becomes less comical and more dark as Walter’s mental illness begins to deepen.

                His elder son Porter tries to cope with his own problems and he struggle with the knowledge that he is his father’s son and depression might be his legacy to him.   The movie becomes more disturbing and offers no easy resolutions.  It is a heavy portrait of a family dealing with mental illness, not a charming movie about an eccentric man with a puppet.  I won’t say the trailers misrepresented the movie, but it definitely didn’t prepare me for this tone.

                I have nothing but respect for Jodi Foster.  Both her directing and acting is top notch here.  Combine that with an incredibly heartfelt and nuanced performance by Mel Gibson and I don’t see how I could not recommend this film.  However, I can’t recommend this film (unless it is to see the redemption of Mel Gibson).  It was just a little too dark and too ponderous to be engaging.

I give this film: ** stars



Thor

Thor

Disclaimer:  I am an unabashed, slightly ashamed, super hero geek.  That being said, I walked into this film wary as the trailers left me less than thrilled.  Also, Thor was always a tricky comic book to pull of successfully.  At its’ best, it was an epic recounting of the Norse myths.  At its’ worse, it was a ridiculous ‘fish out of water’ story of a Norse God trying to fit into everyday earth life and fight super villains.  It all depended on the artist/writing team.  Ironically, the team of Stan Lee and Jack Kirby, who created the character, gave us some of the cheesiest stories.  It wasn’t until  Walter Simonson took over the reins that Thor became more respectable in the annals of comic book lore.

                Still, this movie is another mile marker on the road leading up to the Avengers movie coming out next summer featuring the characters of Iron Man, The Hulk, Thor, and the upcoming Captain America.  I had to go see it.  I have to say that I was pleasantly surprised.  This is not the best of the super hero movies, but definitely a welcome addition to the Marvel movie universe.  Kenneth Branagh was sourced to be the director.   He is an inspired choice because he brings an appropriate level of Shakespearean drama to the Norse myth (factoid: the English uber-thespian Branaugh says one of the reasons he decided to take the directer's role was because he was such a fan of the comic book growing up).  He layers it over an earthbound story that effectively captures the spirit of the comic book.

                Chris Hemsworth plays the title role of Thor, the Norse God of Thunder.  He brings a charm and swagger befitting the Thunder God.  He has an impish grin that makes it impossible to dislike him despite his arrogant ways.  Thor and his brother, the treacherous Loki (played flawlessly by Tom Hiddleston), are heirs to the kingdom of Aesgard, ruled benevolently by the wise All-Father Odin (played to Shakespearean perfection by Anthony Hopkins).  The Kingdom has known peace since the All-Father led the armies of Aesgard against the Frost Giant hordes of Jotunheim to protect the planet Earth.  The epic battle led to a truce between Aesgard and the Frost Giants and cemented the Aesgardians into the minds of humans in the form of the Norse deities. Odin keeps the power of Jotunheim in a casket locked away in his palace to guarantee the truce.

                On the day of Thor’s ascendance to the throne of Aesgard, the Frost Giants break the truce and attempt to steal back the casket.  Thor, in a fit of arrogant bravado, defies the command of his father and goes to the realm of Jotunheim to confront the King of the Frost Giants.  The ensuing battle permanently breaks the truce between the worlds.  Thor shows the full extent of his mighty power in wielding his mighty hammer, Mjonir.  He lays a path of righteous destruction before being saved by Odin. Thor is defiant and unrepentant in the face of his father’s disapproval. Odin strips him of his power and Hammer and banishes him to Earth to teach him humility.  Odin places a mystic spell on the Hammer that Thor may only wield it again once he has proven himself worthy.

                On Earth, Thor encounters a team of scientists lead by Jane Foster (Natalie Portman), the most attractive worm-hole physicist I’ve ever seen.  The rest of the film walks the tight rope of fish-out-of-water comedy versus heroic action drama.  It’s fun for comic book nerds such as myself to see not only all the cameos (how did they work Hawkeye into this story and did you catch Stan Lee?), but all the characters that start to overlap as well.  Tony Stark’s name is mentioned more than once and the existence of The Hulk is hinted at.   Shield Agent Coulson (Clark Gregg) from the Iron Man films plays a major role as the government investigates the mysterious appearance of an unmovable Hammer in the New Mexico desert.

The earth bound love story between Thor and Jane Foster runs parallel to the cosmic pageantry of Loki perfidiously vying to wrest the Aesgardian throne from Odin.  While Loki is definitely the bad guy, one sympathizes and feels his torment over his conflicted loyalties and pain. The truth of his birth adds an additional dimension to a one-sided character. The movie captures the magic of a ridiculous comic book character and made me remember why I loved comic books so much.  They’re just fun.

There’s one more movie that needs to come out; Captain America: the First Avenger, then the stage is set for the Avengers movie.  Like I said earlier, this wasn’t the best of the comic book series but it was a lot of fun and I enjoyed it immensely.  Long live Thor, God of Thunder.

                I rate this movie ***1/2 stars.



Fast Five

Fast Five

Okay, sometimes you don’t have to intellectualize every film you watch.  It doesn’t have to be a great piece of art for one to enjoy it.  “Fast Five” is the fifth installment of the “The Fast and The Furious” film franchise.  All snobbery and pretentions aside (as well as a belief in logic and the laws of physics), this film is a fun, fast-paced action packed roller coaster that features manly men doing manly things in a manly way, with hot chicks thrown in for aesthetics. 

                The core team of Dominic Torretto (Vin Diesel), Brian O’Conner (Paul Walker), and Mia Torretto (the incomparable Jordana Brewster) reunites in only the third film of the series to feature them.  As fans recall, the last one ended with breaking Dom out of a prison transport and all of them going on the lam.  The film opens with Brian and Mia living a life in hiding in Rio de Janeiro.  Impoverished, they are talked into one last car heist by local friends.  All the while, wishing Dominic were there to help (using his name with almost religious reverence).  Of course, when he arrives, he seems to act like he is the Savior.

                The car heist is everything you would hope for and beyond.  It defies all credulous possibilities of physics and human endurance, but it’s a lot of fun.  You keep thinking that there has to be an easier way to steal cars from a train. Really, do you have to hijack sports cars from a high speed moving train?  I would think taking the cars after the train stopped would be an easier plan.   Not as much fun I guess.  Of course, you can’t end the movie in the first fifteen minutes, so this heist sets up the betrayal and revenge motive for the rest of the movie and the stakes get raised even further as Dom and crew become public enemy number one. 

                The person they ripped off was the local Brazilian crime lord, Reyes (played by the always villainous, Joaquim De Almeida) and of course he wants their heads. Reyes also has the local authorities in his pocket and utilizes them to their fullest.  Dom and Brian decide they can only do one thing (as one does in every action movie); “We need to assemble a team”.  I will say that the director, Justin Lin does a great job assembling a fun group of characters (of course all with a super hero style skill set that defines them).  The group includes such action favorites as Tyrese Gibson, Chris ‘Ludacris’ Bridges (trying to phase out his rap name to become a serious actor), Sung Kang, and a few impossibly attractive women (still not sure what they brought to the team other than eye candy).  Throw in two bickering Brazilians for some comic relief and you have your super team.  They decide to strike back at the crime lord by stealing all of his $100 million dollars (which he keeps conveniently in cash in vaults).  We’re all set, right? Wrong!

                Let’s add another major action star who hasn’t had a hit in a few years.  Super Federal Agent Hobbs, played by Dwayne ‘The Rock’ Johnson (who’s had better luck shedding his stage name than Ludacris).  Hobbs and his team are the super feds they call in to go after the biggest and the baddest.  The Rock plays the character over the top and everyone loves it.  He believes in ‘Old Testament’ style of law enforcement and the team is visibly shaken (except Dominic of course), by the mere mention of his name.

                The roller coaster starts and never stops with both the good and bad guys after the Fast Five team.  The machismo is spread on thick and the manly feats are impossible.  Buckle up and enjoy the ride.  The film tries to portray the lead up to the meeting of Vin Diesel and The Rock as a meeting of Titians.  Not sure I felt that way, but the film tried to tell us that was the way we should feel. Of course, when you have two leading male action star’s egos in action films, they have to fight.  And the fight can only lead to a standstill in which each man gains a begrudging respect for the other even though they communicate only through macho insults.  Admittedly, I would be the first to say ‘Yes Sir’ to Vin Diesel if I ever met him in public, however; I must say that The Rock’s physical presence and stature dwarfed Diesel’s and I never bought the fighting to a standstill.  The Rock truly has a super hero’s presence where Diesel reminds one of a bar room bouncer.

                I won't insult the action premise of this film by trying to describe the plot anymore than I already have.  I have to say that I thoroughly enjoyed the film despite (or maybe because of) all the eye-rolling over every action cliché being recycled, yet expanded upon.  I would call it a guilty pleasure, but I don’t feel guilty.  It’s just a fun film.

I rate this film *** 3 stars



I Am

I Am

               I am usually not a fan of documentaries.  However, I read an article on ‘I Am’ the other day and decided to give it a try.  Tom Shadyac is a well known A-list Hollywood comedic director who is best known for films such as ‘Ace Ventura: Pet Detective’ and ‘Bruce Almighty’.  Tom was living the Hollywood high life when a cycling accident left him severely incapacitated (he ultimately recovered) and on the verge of death.  During his incapacity, Tom had an epiphany about the meaning of life.  He sold his Hollywood mansions and jets and moved into a mobile home community.  He assembled a camera crew and set out with his team to discover the true meaning of life.  This documentary follows this journey.  He asks: “What is wrong with society?  How can we make it better?”

                It’s hard to review this film as it is basically a series of conversations with leading scientists, philosophers, and spiritual leaders.  However, I have to say it is one of the most fascinating documentaries I have ever watched.   I was totally engrossed and riveted throughout the entire movie. 

                This movie spoke to me as I often think about the false promises of material possessions.  Ever since I left for the Peace Corps with everything I owned in two suitcases, I have examined our societal drive for accumulation of possessions.  I strive to live a Spartan lifestyle, but fail more often than I succeed. 

                The thing that attracted me to this movie is that it is not some spiritual New Age diatribe of peace, love, and harmony, rather it is an almost scientific analysis of human nature and how we have veered off the track of what we are genetically meant to be.  Shadyac examines how the writings of Darwin have been perverted to create an almost ‘every person for themselves’ society.  He dives in depth into Darwinism and shows how Western society has gotten what he said wrong. 

                Scientifically, all things in nature exist in harmony.  There is balance and cooperation for survival among all species.  Every species takes only what they need to survive and balance is created from that. The human need to accumulate and horde is a relatively recent phenomenon occurring in only the past couple 1000 yrs.  Even more modern cultures like Native Americans and in Eastern philosophies consider accumulating more than one needs to be a mental illness.  The only things in nature that consumes more than they need are cancers and viruses. 

                Shadyac also examines how humans became the dominate species when we are probably one of the weaker physical species out there.  Our ability to work cooperatively and sympathetically allowed us to evolve.  We are genetically hard wired to feel sympathy and to assist others in need.  This has caused us to work together to create community.  The rise of Western culture in the last millennium and the scientific method have caused us to turn our back on this way of existing.  We have forgone cooperation for competition.  The result is a world of wondrous creation, but a depletion of our environment and resources as well as a sacrifice of contentment and the rise of spiritual isolationism.  The movie counters the argument that we hard-wired for violence and war and demonstrates how we are actually built to experience love and sympathy.  The scientific explanations seemed very plausible and fascinating.

                I take everything with a grain of salt as the movie does not address everything.  The have and have nots exist in all species as the alphas subdue and dominate the betas.  This topic is never fully explored, rather only briefly touched on.    I do find it a fascinating look at the biological nature of happiness and how material accumulation does not lead to happiness.  We all think that if only we had this or that we would be happy, but when we acquire the coveted item, it does not make us any happier.  The movie does provide an interesting road map to happiness based on taking only what you need and giving back what you don’t. 

                A lot of limousine liberals preach this philosophy from the comfort of their mansions.  Many become ‘Prophets for Profit’ and make a lot of money off of preaching non-materialism.  Tom Shadyac holds a lot of credibility with me as he is walking the walk.  He has given up all the trappings of a Hollywood millionaire and devotes much of his life to service.  He is content in his mobile home and riding his bike to work.  He looks upon his pre-accident life of excessive wealth as mental illness from which he has recovered.  He is content

I rate this documentary **** stars

               



Atlas Shrugged Part 1

Atlas Shrugged Part 1

Ayn Rand is well known as a writer whose works have produced a manifesto for modern conservative thinking.  Her best known work is ‘Atlas Shrugged’ (while personally, I consider her best work to be ‘The Fountainhead’).  I never had much respect for her as a writer as I considered the dialogue stilted and her story lines to be a bit trite and one dimensional.  However, if you view her works more as a political and economic treatise that uses fiction as its’ platform to deliver the message, then you can appreciate it more from that perspective.  Republicans claim her work for their own with an almost religious fervor, even though I think her beliefs line up more with Libertarian thinking.  The philosophy is Capitalism 101.  While this may not seem revolutionary, one must consider the age during which it was written.  During the first half of the depression era 20^th century, all political beliefs were up in the air and being debated by intellectuals.  There were strong communist and socialist movements happening here and abroad and our current economic and political system was by no means guaranteed.  The Russians went the route of Communism, while the Europeans leaned towards Socialism, and here in the States, after a brief flirtation with Socialism during the New Deal, gravitated  towards capitalism.

                Enough of the history lesson. This movie is part 1 of a 2 part movie.  I was wondering how this movie would translate to modern day as the story dealt with a Rail Corporation trying to survive in a country turning away from its’ Capitalistic values.  Trains have not been a major economic force in decades (ironically, many surviving on the government subsidies this story claims to despise).  In a not-so-clever plot device, this movie takes place in far flung 2016 where the price of gas and steel have made air travel unaffordable and trains are the only practical mode of transportation (okay, weak I know, but I will give it a pass as this story is too closely bound to the train industry to be able to change the type of business and remain faithful to the story).

                Introducing Dagney Taggart (Taylor Schilling) and her brother James (Mathew Mardsen) as owners of Taggart Rail Co.  Dagney is the protagonist and a Capitalist with a capital ‘C’ who is portrayed as beautiful, smart, and driven.  Her brother is her opposite.  He is weak and not very bright.  He complains about unfairness in life instead of taking responsibility and he is slowly driving their company into the ground due to alliances and deals he makes with the government.  Dagney is trying to save her company, but she is not too busy to notice that the world’s remaining business leaders are disappearing.  They vanish without a trace after coming into contact with a mysterious individual who seems to explain to them something so radical that they decide to drop everything and go with him.  Dagney is left to try to keep her company afloat in an environment where the government is increasing the country’s economic crisis through collectivism, subsidy and business limiting legislation.  The more the government tries to make things equal, the more chaos it causes the economy. All the while, Dagney tries to understand the mysterious phrase ‘Who is John Galt?’ which seems to be whispered everywhere.

                Dagney finds a kindred spirit in the form of steel tycoon Henry Reardon (Grant Bowler). Henry is a self-made man whose entire family leeches off him to maintain their high society lifestyle.  All the while they resent him for their dependence and travel in circles that seek to enact socialist initiatives contrary to everything Henry believes in.  Reardon is not concerned with them, rather he is focused on creating his business and contributing to the good of mankind through creation rather than charity.  Dagney needs his steel to build her rail lines and Reardon needs Dagney’s company to take a chance on his experimental steel.  They have no interest in governments or unions, they just want to create something and make a profit while doing so.  This is the basis of Ayn Rand’s philosophy.  Everyone must be productive and earn.  Charities and subsidies (when forced by the government) are a drain on society.

                Dagney and Henry face continual and growing opposition from the government that does not want them to become too successful.  Their success might adversely affect their political cronies and hurt other less productive businesses.  They struggle to succeed in a country that has come to resent free enterprise and will do anything to stop it. 

                The movie is obviously low budget and from what I understand had trouble getting funding to be made given Hollywood’s left leaning climate.  I’ve never paid much attention to right wing conspiracy theories, but I must confess that this movie made me wonder.  This has not been well promoted on line.  I couldn’t even find it showing it was released in theaters on Yahoo until today (17 April 2011).  The Yahoo movie page does not list the times it is showing at local Chicago theaters (or that it is even there) and there are no critic’s reviews of the movie.  I’ve never seen anything like that before.  The only reason I knew it was showing is because I saw another movie the evening before and noticed it in the theater.  I would hope a major online company like Yahoo would not blacklist a movie merely because of a political philosophy.  That would bring up much larger questions in my mind than the movie tries to address.

                I don’t think the movie is that good nor will it change any minds that haven’t already been made up.  This book was revolutionary at the time, but today it doesn’t contain anything that we haven’t heard thoroughly before.  The story seems cliché and, since it follows the book closely, the dialogue and acting is awkward and clunky. 

                As a political treatise, I found this to be an effective way to illustrate the philosophy. As a film, I found it lacking and unengaging.  In those ways, I find this film faithful to the book.

I rate this movie 1 star: *

The Conspirator

The Conspirator

                I am a big fan of Robert Redford as a director.  He has produced such classics as the visually beautiful  ‘A River Runs Through It’, the thoughtful ‘Ordinary People’, the intriguing ‘Quiz Show’, and even the low key ‘The Horse Whisper’.  As Robert Redford has entered his twilight years, his movies have become decidingly more political in nature.  I don’t mind this in general as there have been many great political movies in recent years (Frost/Nixon) and past (All The President’s Men), but I don’t enjoy being hit over the head or lectured by a movie.

                The Conspirator takes a great and little explored subject matter, the story of the men and women accused of killing Abraham Lincoln, and turns it into 2 hours of lecturing on the evils of Military Tribunals.  I can’t imagine Redford is trying to draw any analogies to modern day (yes; that is sarcasm in case it’s not coming across).  Let me say, I’m not even against movies that have a political view point.  The Tim Robbins/Sean Penn movie ‘Dead Man Walking’ is a perfect example of how a movie can have a political view point, yet still explore both sides of the argument rationally without vilifying opposing opinions.  The Conspirator portrays the accused, Mary Surrat (Robin Wright) as almost saintly despite her resentments and everyone else trying to prosecute her as dastardly villains.

                I’m jumping ahead of myself, though.  The Conspirator follows the trial of Mary Surrat directly after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.  Mary Surrat was the woman who ran the boarding house where John Wilkes Booth and his conspirators (including Mary’s son) plotted to kill Lincoln.  Mary was an unrepentant Southerner who claimed that she thought her son was only plotting to kidnap the President (that makes her less culpable?).  The Southern attorney and Senator, Reverdy Johnson (played inadequately by the usually fantastic Tom Wilkenson) decides that Mary has no chance with a southerner representing her, so he appoints a young northern Yankee war hero, Frederick Aiken (played by another Brit, James McAvoy doing a much better job than Wilkenson with the period accent).  Aiken is dead set against taking on the job of defense attorney as he has deep seated resentments against the South and is as angry as everyone else over the assassination of Lincoln.  Reverdy convinces Aiken that the military tribunal being assembled to try the conspirators is unconstitutional and has dire consequences for the soul of the nation if enacted against citizens.  Kevin Kline plays Secretary Stanton as the villainous man who sole purpose is to convict Mary and the conspirators as fast as possible in order to calm the nation and return to healing the North/South divide.  Due process to Stanton is an inconvenience as he has already decided their guilt in his mind.

                I will say it was interesting to see how the court process worked back then and the physical landscape of 19^th century Washington was interesting as well.  However, what followed was a historical ‘Law & Order’ episode (and like ‘Law & Order, it should have lasted only an hour).  The movie provided no surprises nor disputed history.  The conspirators were the ones who killed Lincoln.  The only question was the degree of Mary Surrat’s guilt.  The movie tried to portray her as a pious mother trying to protect her son, but somehow Mary never gains the sympathy of the audience (speaking for myself and those around me).  The movie’s sole purpose was to outrage us over the lack of constitutional rights and the tragedy of human rights that would follow.  I agree with the theme in principal, but perhaps a subject matter with less guilty people would have inflamed my indignation more.  The film made its’ political point early on, yet kept pounding us over the head with the message ad nauseum.  We get it; “Military Tribunals on citizens are un-American”. 

                I do admire the historical detail and the effort for authenticity.  I also admire that they did not choose to portray Mary Surrat as an entirely sympathetic figure.  Redford seemed to not want to overly focus on Mary (she was the human face to the message), rather the broader issue of how if one person is not afforded the rights provided in the constitution, then we are all in jeopardy.  I get and respect that viewpoint, but I view movies as a source of entertainment and art.  Something that touches us emotionally and illicits an aesthetic reaction (whether positive or negative).  This movie failed to do that on both counts with me. It did not outrage me nor provoke thought that I had not already considered.  It just fell flat with all the charm and engagement of a 2 hour Civics lesson.

I rate this movie *1/2 stars ( I added the half star out of respect for the authenticity of the period).

Hanna

Hanna

             Hanna has all the ingredients of a movie that I wanted to love.  It has the morbid fairy tale atmosphere of a Grimm’s Fairy Tale, sprinkled with the stylish euro-intrigue of a ‘La Femme Nikita’, and topped off with the international action espionage of ‘The Bourne Identity’.  Throw in a protagonist who, for all intents and purposes, has super powers, then how could I not love this film? Somehow the movie does not bring all these ingredients together in a satisfying manner.

            Seeing the trailers for this and even the opening scene of the movie, I was very excited.  However the movie just doesn’t deliver as well as I had hoped.  Perhaps my expectations were too high, but this movie fell short.  That doesn’t mean the movie didn’t have good qualities and interesting moments.

            The movie opens in the snow covered wilderness of Finland with an animal skin clad 16 year-old Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) hunting a buck with a bow and arrow.  Saoirse is ethereally beautiful as Hanna and brings a woodland fairy quality to the role.  Soon after skillfully killing the buck a mysterious man sneaks up behind her and exclaims ‘You’re dead!’. What follows is a fight sequence that demonstrates Hanna’s incomparable skill and sets the pace for the rest of the movie.

            The man turns out to be her father, Erik Keller (played by Eric Bana).  Her father has raised Hanna in the remotes of Finland and trained her to be a killing machine.  Erik is trying to escape his super spy past and hide and prepare Hanna as long as possible before ‘they’ eventually find them.  The Finnish scenery is beautiful and their woodland shack is straight out of the aforementioned Grimm’s Fairy Tales.  However; Hanna is an adolescent and becoming restless.  The home schooling she receives is not enough to satisfy her desire to see the world or to know someone else besides her father.  Erik leaves the choice to her to reenter the world with the warning that the woman who killed her mother is still after them and will stop at nothing to kill her.

            The woman who killed Hanna’s mother (and attempted to with her and her father for that matter) is a CIA officer named Marissa (played by Cate Blanchett).  As soon as Hanna and her father come back on the grid, she dispatches agents to capture them.  For reasons I’m not sure I understand, Erik leaves his daughter to be captured while he sets a date to meet her in Germany.  Hanna is captured with much difficulty and it isn’t long before Marissa realizes what a formidable killing machine the 16 year old Hanna is.

            I think this is where the movie could have gotten better, but took a downward turn in many respects.  The action sequences were shot in jerky, hard to follow sequences.  The music choice of house techno music detracted from the scenes and you ended up with all the aesthetics of a strobe light going off on a night club dance floor.  After escaping, Hanna finds herself in Morocco and must travel cross continent to make it to her pre-arranged rendez-vous with her father in Germany.   I feel there is much that could be explored here, but wasn’t.  Hanna stumbles across a family of English hippies (at least the parents were, the kids were endlessly embarrassed by them) and Hanna makes her first friend with their daughter.  This dynamic provided some of the movies better moments as Hanna struggles to feel what normal feels like and relate to someone her own age when she has never met anyone other than her father.

            Marissa sends villainous, yet cartoonish, euro assassins after her and the rest of the movie is Hanna avoiding and killing them on her journey to the mythical land of Berlin to meet her father.  Marissa is cold and calculating with an ‘evil step-mother’ vibe that adds to the already fairy tale quality of the movie.  As the movie progresses, you learn the history of Erik and Marissa and how everything is not as it appears.  Ultimately, no one is innocent (except Hanna) and the world of espionage is not populated with the pure-hearted (but we already knew that).

            Perhaps I’m being unfairly harsh on this movie as I had high expectations, but one measure I judge a movie by is if I’m waiting for it to end.  If a movie is good, it is over before I’m ready.  With this movie, I was checking the time through out, hoping it was almost over.  I will give it props for being a stylish and having a great concept.  I just can’t recommend it.

I rate this movie ** stars