Search This Blog

Showing posts with label joe wright. Show all posts
Showing posts with label joe wright. Show all posts

Sunday, April 10, 2011

Hanna (4/5 Stars)

Once upon a time there was a very special girl who lived in the woods.

Hanna is the name of a teenage girl, played by Saoirise Ronan, who apparently has spent all of her life in the arctic somewhere with no other human contact but her father, played by Eric Bana. He has been training to be the ultimate warrior. She can hunt deer with bow or gun, she knows several languages, she is an expert at mixed martial arts, etc. etc. What is he preparing her for and why her? Well, we don’t really know because he never tells her and this movie more or less doesn’t explain anything until Hanna discovers it for herself. Events unfold. Her father tests her ability one day and finds her ready. He hands Hanna a honing device that will give away the position of their house in the woods if switched on. Hanna switches it on. Her father gives her instructions on how to be captured, kill the CIA agent on her case in her holding cell, make her escape by evading a SWAT team in an underground labyrinth, and to meet him in Berlin. The rest of the movie is the unfolding of that plan in various chases and fights. No doubt, the sheer ambiguity of what is going on dampens the suspense and urgency of “Hanna,” and one can see how this movie could have been downright awful. But there is behind this movie a very good director named Joe Wright who has been able to assemble a terrific cast and construct some damn good action sequences. Because this is the type of story that is impossible to know if it is worth watching until the end scenes finally provide some motivation for what you’ve just seen, the only way it can work in the meanwhile is if there is plenty to admire that can stand alone. There is. You can appreciate the clean crisp look of “Hanna.” You can admire the acting ability of Saoirise Ronan, who has created a character that is believably both an innocent and a killer. You can admire Cate Blanchett’s stoic style and screen presence. You can admire Tom Hollander’s ability to look dangerous in short shorts. You can admire the chases and fights all of which are logically edited, competently shot and choreographed, and develop within the thin overlapping lines of creativity and possibility. Finally the ending does make sense of the beginning and things that happened are justified. This is actually one movie that I wouldn’t mind seeing a sequel to. Of course, I don’t mean another thriller like this. I’m thinking more along the lines of a comedy where Hanna tries to assimilate in the world and gets a job working at a carnival or something. I think that would be funny. Just throwing it out there.

This is Director Joe Wright’s first true action movie. It suits his style very well. In the past he has done dramas like “Pride and Prejudice” and “Atonement” but they have always felt and moved fast. Wright loves to move his camera around his characters in long shots. In “Hanna” there is an especially impressive fight scene with Eric Bana and five special agents in a Subway station. The camera tracks ahead of Bana as he enters station with an agent following him. As he walks forward the camera circles around Bana revealing adversaries on all sides. A fist-fight starts (hand to hand combat because the head bad guy wants Bana alive)  as the camera keeps on circling. This goes on until all the bad guys are incapacitated, at which point Bana picks up a dead bad guy’s phone, calls the last number and acquires some useful information as he is walking out of the station. The entire scene was done in a single unbroken camera shot. It must of required a hell of a lot of choreography, planning, and practice. This is something directors rarely do especially in fight scenes as it is much more work for something the audience might not notice anyway. (The point of long shots is to add realism to a scene. There isn't any movie cheating in a long shot because nothing is being edited.) But the fact that the director can pull it off at all is a testament to his coordination, skill, and ambition. That doesn't mean the technique can't be overused though. Wright's seemingly favorite thing to do in this movie is focus in on Ronan’s face as she is hurriedly going somewhere. Since the camera is moving quite a lot, the background of a shot is always changing and noticeably out of focus. It can get dizzying. But then again, it is a very watchable face to look at. It always looks like its viewing the world with heightened awareness. Go ahead and Google Saoirise Ronan before going to see this movie. If you find it objectionable in any way then “Hanna” is not the movie to see. You will be staring at her in close-ups for a substantial period of time. (Psst, I think Wright might be in love with Ronan...or at least her face)  



Playing the role of bad guy is Cate Blanchett, a CIA agent intent on capturing Hanna. She is exceedingly impeccable in this movie. There isn't a single blemish or a hair out of place. She looks like she's been carved out of alabaster marble and fitted with a fiery red wig. Cate the Great gives off a natural fierceness but unfortunately never goes over the top. I’m still waiting for a performance from her that matches that one line about being a hurricane in “Elizabeth: The Golden Age” but goes on for an entire movie. I can definitely see her in the type of role that a Jack Nicholson would play. One of her hired henchmen is Tom Hollander, playing against type as an unstable mercenary with a strange sense of fashion. He does good work as well. This is his third movie working with Wright who has only made four movies. They make a good team. There is also a family on vacation that Hanna meets on the road and travels with for part of the journey. The mom is Olivia Williams who you may remember as the teacher in “Rushmore.” The daughter is about Hanna's age. She quotes pop culture references as if they're important. I think it's a toss-up over who sounds more like a freak. Anyway the family provides a welcome human and comic element in between all of the chase scenes. In one side scene Hanna goes on a double date with the daughter and a couple of soccer players they meet at a campground. They listen to music, which Hanna has never heard before and then there is almost a kissing scene. Almost. I’m telling you this character would be great in a comedy. She reminds me of the aliens from “3rd Rock from the Sun.”

All the Grimm Fairy tale stuff in the production design are a nice touch. It makes perfect sense for a child-in-danger movie. If you've ever read a un-Disneyfied version of any of the tales you will know what I mean. The Grimm's had literally no qualms about putting children in mortal danger.



p.s. Coming Soon! Hanna 2 - Death in Montana!

Sunday, October 24, 2010

The Soloist (3/5 Stars) April 30, 2009

The Soloist may be a tad too realistic for comfort. It tells the true story of Los Angelos Times reporter Steve Lopez, played by Robert Downey Jr., and his unconventional friendship with a homeless street musician named Nathaniel Anthony Ayers, played by Jamie Foxx. 
Story goes, Steve Lopez, caught in a mid-life funk and following a bike accident that left his face scarred was out wandering around the LA times building when he heard the sound of a violin. Searching out the sound he found a homeless man playing a violin with only two strings underneath a statue of Beethoven. The man is hard to have a conversation with, as he talks toward the wind in hurried sentences. Still after gleaning that this man had once attended Julliard, Lopez decides that this just might be a story. 
It could have ended there, but a grandmother with arthritis sends Lopez a cello and tells him to give it to Ayers. So Lopez does so, but he won’t simply give it to Ayers. He looks up a homeless shelter and tells Ayers that they are going to hold it for him, and if he wants to use it he has to go play it there. Lopez doesn’t know why, but Ayers doesn’t want to go anywhere near this place (called LAMP in the movie). And so Lopez, and we vicariously through him, are soon introduced to a very ugly world, the several streets in Los Angelos that we all drive by and never actually see. Where all of the failures and decay of human society coalesce and hang around each other like such festering rot, growing like a cancer in the heart of the city. It is a humbling experience to witness such a place for the first time. I lived near Los Angelos for most of my life and never knew it existed. It is embarrassing that we as a society allow such places to exist. Director Joe Wright structures this movie around this place as if it is the third main character in the movie. And how he does this, combined with Robert Downey Jr.’s eerily unromantic performance, is what makes a story that would ordinarily be uplifting in other hands, uneven and only mildly enjoyable. Director Joe Wright isn’t sugarcoating homelessness or mental illness. Like Dustin Hoffman in “Rain Man” Nathaniel Ayers is not ever going to get better. And Steve Lopez understandably doesn’t want complete responsibility over an unstable homeless man, no matter how talented. He’s no hero and this movie contains no miracles. 
The only thing that could have made this a great movie was great choice in music. Unfortunately that didn’t happen. I’m no huge connoisseur in classical music, but I know a heck of a lot more than most people, and the only song I recognized was Beethoven’s Eroica Symphony. That also happened to be the best song in the bunch. The rest of the pieces sound very much like ordinary classical music where the theme goes in circles and never gets anywhere. I know there are better songs out there. They could have at least played some Mozart. I also will say this; classical music does not go well with concrete. It doesn’t particularly work when a cello plays and we are treated to a view of a massive parking lot. I believe the point of Ayers playing was to get away from the city. It doesn’t work to actually show the ugliness that is LA when he’s playing his music.
Of course, whether this movie is enjoyable or not doesn’t deter its inherent nobility. This is one of those movies that you should like strictly on principle. It’s about growing up and taking responsibility. Which is all very good, but not usually what people are looking for when they go and see a movie.

Atonement 01/01/08

Remember those old farts that wax nostalgic and comment that they don't make movies like they used to in the good ol' days. Well they're full of shit. If this fall season is any indication, movies are not in danger of a decline anytime soon. In fact I would argue they are as good as they ever were, and movies like Atonement make the case that they will be for some time to come. 
The most impressive thing about this movie (besides the movie itself) is that it is young cinema. This is only director Joe Wright's second movie and the two stars Keira Knightley and James McAvoy are in their early twenties. The best performance is by Saorise Ronan who is only thirteen. With life expectancies as high as they are, these people could be making movies for the next fifty years. Isn't that exciting. 
Atonement plotwise is a very simple story. A young girl commits grievous harm to an innocent romance. There are two parts and an epilogue. The first takes place in 1935 and consists of the tragic misunderstanding. The second takes place during World War II. The epilogue (The only weak part) is disruptive jump fifty years into the future. I'll talk more about that later. The brilliance of this movie succeeds on the way that this simple story is told.
I call it right now, and I will be very surprised if it doesn't happen, that this movie will get Oscar nominations for Directing, Editing, Original Score, Sound, and Cinematography. It may also get nominations for Costumes, and Best Actress (Keira Knightley). The movie flows in and out sublimely through a mix of clever editing, musical themes, typewriter keystrokes, and superbly choreagraphed film shots. The plot weaves around itself in time and space but it is never explicitly explained to the viewer because the direction does such a good job of relating it subtlely. And there is one long shot, that I'm sure everyone will be talking of, that takes place during the British retreat on Dunkirk beach. It is five minutes long and wowed me with its complexity. Better yet, it works both ways, as a superb piece of technical direction but also an emotionally charged spectacle. This shot alone should gain Wright a nomination for directing. 
Knightley and McAvoy are the two leading stars of young British cinema. Here they do a great job. In my eyes, they both matured greatly on screen through this movie. McAvoy especially has a more adult look to him. Knightley continues on her insane streak of good to great movies. Having said that I believe the best performance goes to Saorise Ronan, the naive pretentious little girl. I'll go a little farther and say that her costume direction is the best of any this year. You can tell just by looking at this charachter what she is all about.
Unfortunately this movie has a really weird epilogue tacked onto the end of it. I don't think I should give it away, but it was bewildering to me how so many talented people could make such a great movie and than spring this sort of ending onto it. Just the visual contrast in it was odd. That and the fact that it jumped the movie timeline fifty years and than gave us a fakeout that nullified a good quarter of what we just saw. What they should have done is give us some warning to this sort of thing. A brief snippet of the interview at the very beginning of the movie would have made it all right I believe. That way the surprise wouldn't take us completely out of the story.
Can I give a thumbs down to a great movie because of a bad ending. I choose not too, but do I request that Joe Wright make his next film a true cinematic masterpiece. I am convinced he can and should do so.

Pride and Prejudice 11/30/05

"The Virginia's are adding new French tile to the bathroom. A bit unpatriotic don't you think?" A quote from one of the best movies I've seen this year. Perhaps the best romance I've ever seen. I must admit, I had a prejudice against this movie. Being a guy, I've found it a badge of honor to not like Jane Austen. I once saw "Sense and Sensibility." Thought it was silly. This movie wasn't. If I were to nominate Oscars, two locks would be for Keira Knightley's performance. Another would be for the superb directing by Joe Wright. Amazing are the long shot's at the ball, the camera skillfully captures moments from each and every one of the ensemble cast. Facial expressions are shown in great detail and meaning. Such is important, when manners forbid anyone to say anything impulsive. The language is awesome, in that it inspires awe. I would bet everyone in the movie has studied Shakespeare. They speak fluently and intelligently, something not often seen in today's movies. Again I must say that I thouroughly enjoyed the movie, and no longer have such a absurd prejudice against Jane Austen. Chick flicks or not, I wouldn't mind seeing another adaptation of her work. (Especially done by Joe Wright, starring Keira)