She’s the Titular Character

Title:  Hanna

Actors/Director/Anything Worth Mentioning Right Away:  I’m not entirely sure whether I’ve reviewed this movie before or not.   I tried to watch it once before and only made it halfway through, so I might have given it an inaccurate write-off review.   I am here to correct that now by giving it a proper write-off review.

Introduction:  Once again, I got this movie on DVD from the library for free.

Location:  They go to a bunch of places with a bunch of climates, so yeah, I’d say that they had a budget.

Plot:  Hanna is a young girl who grows up in isolation because, as it clearly explained to us in the beginning of the movie, if she is revealed she will be hunted until either her or her hunter is dead.   Her hunter is played by Cate Blanchett.    Of course Hanna goes out into the world and gets hunted.    So it becomes this cat and mouse game where you know one of them will not be alive by the end and, well, you can guess which one lives and which one dies.   Movies aren’t named after losers.   Well, except for “The Losers”, but that’s different. 

Acting:  Aside from the woman who once portrayed Bob Dylan, we also have Eric Bana and, yes, that girl from “The Lovely Bones”.   For what it is, the acting is convincing.    There are seemingly a handful of pale blonde actresses that could have been the lead.   What about that one from Arrested Development, Archer and Love & Other Drugs?   Or Gwen Stacy in Spider-Man 3?   Or was that the same actress?  I don’t know, pale blondes are a dime a dozen in Hollywood.

Production:  It was a big budget motion picture, yes.

Sex/Nudity:   Not really, no.  Too much action, but not that kind of action.

Special Effects:  They are good for what they are, but more on that below.

Overall Verdict:  It’s funny that this movie stars the same young actress who was in “The Lovely Bones”.   Why, you ask?   Simply because this movie was to me what I felt after watching “The Lovely Bones”.    This movie had a fairly simple, typical plot that you could see coming from miles away if you’ve ever seen movies before this.    However, the big claim to this movie (as with “The Lovely Bones”) must be the visuals of it.   It is pleasing to the eyes, even if not the mind.   For that, yes, it is good, but why can’t we have a visual spectacle and a movie with a plot that makes you think?   I guess Hollywood just thinks audience are too dumb or suffer from a.d.d. to the point where they cannot have both.   I find that to be false, but my opinion doesn’t seem to matter when it comes to big budget movies like this one.