Saoirse Ronan with a blood-spattered face in "Hanna"

Up-and-coming auteur Rian Johnson recently tweeted, “The filmmaking in Hanna was pretty humbling.” That’s high praise coming from the man behind the indie caper sensation “Brick” and the quirky con flick “The Brothers Bloom.” But high praise is old hat for “Hanna” director Joe Wright who’s used to being gushed over by cinephiles. The minutes-long Dunkirk beach tracking shot in “Atonement” practically sent movie geeks into heat. But with “Hanna” Wright deliberately sheds his austere period-piece elegance and opts for a more modern, frenetic style of showing off.

Hanna (Saoirse Ronan) is a 16-year-old super-soldier who lives in a cabin deep in Finland’s icy forests with her father Erik (Eric Bana). Trained in martial arts, literature, language and mathematics since she was a small child, Hanna has been forged into one of the most skilled and vicious assassins in the world, though, she doesn’t really know why. And her father, a former government agent-turned fugitive, isn’t too keen on telling her the whole story. She knows only that she must kill CIA agent Marissa Wiegler (Cate Blanchett) to avenge the death of her mother. When Hanna finally feels her training is complete, she pushes a red button that alerts the CIA of her location. And the bloodsport begins.

“Hanna” is a fresh, exhilarating take on the revenge thriller. It’s a fast-paced chase movie with fantastic action choreography, a compelling and humanistic script and engaging performances. Wright even manages to slip in a few legitimate insights into the psychology of a directionless teenage girl. This is the movie “Sucker Punch” director Zack Snyder wishes he were capable of making.

The cast is rounded out by strong supporting players, notably Tom Hollander, who plays a deliciously loathsome contract killer employed by Wiegler. Blanchett, however, is the film’s lone dull spot. Her usually commanding presence is curiously absent. She feels out of place in a role that seems more suited for someone like Tilda Swinton. But a miscast central villain isn’t enough to derail the sheer thrill of this hard-hitting flick.

And underneath it all, crashing and spiking its way onto our eardrums, is the terrific score by British digi-musicians The Chemical Brothers. The duo’s industrial electronica soundtrack scoffs at traditional cinema sound cues and bullies its way into the spotlight. And it’s exactly the kind of overbearing, disorienting collage of sound “Hanna” needs.

Jokes about Hollywood’s increasing tendency to recycle old ideas in the form of reboots, remakes, sequels and prequels are more commonplace than ever. But “Hanna” is one of the few faces brave enough to stand out in the crowd.

Robin Hood chronicles the life of an expert archer, previously interested only in self-preservation, from his service in King Richard’s army against the French. Upon Richard’s death, Robin travels to Nottingham, a town suffering from the corruption of a despotic sheriff and crippling taxation, where he falls for the spirited widow Lady Marion (Cate Blanchett), a woman skeptical of the identity and motivations of this crusader from the forest. Hoping to earn the hand of Maid Marion and salvage the village, Robin assembles a gang whose lethal mercenary skills are matched only by its appetite for life. Together, they begin preying on the indulgent upper class to correct injustices under the sheriff.

With their country weakened from decades of war, embattled from the ineffective rule of the new king and vulnerable to insurgencies from within and threats from afar, Robin and his men heed a call to ever greater adventure. This unlikeliest of heroes and his allies set off to protect their country from slipping into bloody civil war and return glory to England once more.

Director: Ridley Scott
Writer: Brian Helgeland
Studio: Universal Pictures
Cast: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Vanessa Redgrave
Release: May 14, 2010

Director: Wes Anderson
Writer: Wes Anderson
Studio: 20th Century Fox
Cast: George Clooney, Cate Blanchett, Bill Murray

Release: November 13, 2009

Let me first make the point that Benjamin Button has almost nothing in common with, and is far superior to Costner’s bloated tale of self-aggrandizement; however, these two films do share one glaringly disappointing characteristic–Missed opportunity.

The concept of Waterwold is good.  Sadly though, a good concept can’t make up for a disheveled script and shoddy execution.  It’s a shame to see a good concept mishandled by the the wrong filmmaker, tainted by a poor performance, or fettered by thoughtless pacing or art-direction.

Benjamin Button, on the other hand, has all the ingredients of a would-be masterpiece:  A great concept (from a short musing by F. Scott Fitzgerald), a skilled and visionary director, Oscar-caliber screen talent, and Claudio Miranda’s breathtaking cinematography.  This boon of favorable components results in a beautiful film that’s technically as sound as they come.  So why does it only earn three out of five stars?  Because it could have earned five.

Relative criticism is, I think, the most ethical way to evaluate a work of art.  This means that I critique a film based on whether it accomplishes its goals–not on how it compares directly to another film of a completely disparate genre.  Of course I take in to consideration the so-called cinematic worth of those goals and evaluate accordingly.  This is all ridiculously subjective, but if you want to get philosophical, most things in life fall into that category.  All axiology and credo aside, what I’m trying to say is that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, as beautiful and well crafted as it is, failed to achieve the too-lofty goals it set for itself.

Fincher skillfully illustrates a story that is sweeping, epic, beautiful, and tragic, but fails to give us a reason to care about its central figure.  Brad Pitt (Burn After Reading, Fight Club) is undoubtedly a talented actor but seems disinterested.  Any emotion we might feel is virtually negated by Pitt’s pseudo-understated performance.  Eric Roth’s Forrest Gump-like script isn’t bad, but feels forced and disjointed.  Cate Blanchett (Babel, The Aviator), on the other hand, shines throughout the film.  Unfortunately, dazzling visuals and some great acting aren’t enough to overcome the outstanding dilemmas of incongruous storytelling and the complete absence of a resolution.

This is not to say that a film, in order to be considered a good picture, requires a neatly packaged conclusion that ties up every loose end and makes you feel better walking out of the cinema.  Some of the greatest films deliberately do just the opposite, but they all have a focused purpose.

Why was this film made other than to show the world how far CGI has come?  Is it a call to live this fleeting thing we call life to the fullest?  Is it a commentary on the futility of love or the manipulation of one’s own destiny?  Ultimately it doesn’t matter because whatever the underlying themes and message were–the very reasons for telling this story at all–were a mere afterthought.

Though Benjamin Button is a mild disappointment it’s still worth seeing.  If for nothing else, see it for the flawless CGI transformation, Miranda’s spectacular cinematography, and Blanchett’s inspired performance.  Plus, it’s better than Waterworld.