I don't believe many of the reviewers of Hanna know what the word "pretentious" means. If they do, they must enjoy mis-applying it to undeserving movies.
What's the pretense? The story is simple. It's not a bad story, it's a basic story. It's neither deliberately convoluted, nor goading in its symbolism. If you can't follow the narrative, maybe Steven Seagal movies are more your speed.
Easy-peasy summary (spoiler alert): A government agent involved in a classified and illegal embryonic DNA-manipulation experiment goes rogue when he's given the order to terminate a woman he'd recruited, for whom he'd developed a particular fondness. Rather than follow orders, he gathers the woman and her young daughter (one of the test subjects), Hanna, and attempts to go on the lam. But, his 'handler' intercepts him and attempts to gun them down along an empty stretch of highway. Her shots cause a car crash, but the three escape and run. The mother is finally shot, and the agent and Hanna succeed in disappearing.
The agent spends the next 13 or so years raising, educating, and training Hanna. He does this with a mission in mind - a revenge scheme to be carried out when the agent is satisfied that Hanna is prepared and mature enough to decide.
The rest of the movie is Hanna's tribulation after setting the revenge scheme in motion. It's sprinkled with moments of self- and world-discovery and some realizations about her father-figure, but it's still just a standard adventure with a heroine facing obstacles and adversaries on her way to achieving a goal.
I really don't see what there is to complain about, overall. There are technical faults, and a few moments that were less than believable, such as her grappling the underside of a Humvee coming out of a manhole in a split second. Hello, massive spinal injury. But, it's an action flick about a genetically-programmed perfect soldier. It's supposed to contain absurd near-super- human feats.
Is it "derivative?" No. Unless every romantic comedy is derivative. Unless every war movie is derivative. It's a formulaic piece, sure, but it doesn't rob another work. It's a spin on an idea. There are all sorts of ways to spin the "let's cook up a perfect soldier/human being" idea. From that, we get Universal Soldier, Resident Evil, Captain America, Twins. Four significantly different movies. In Hanna, we get a fifth: "What happens if the experiment is performed on embryos?" with the follow-up question, "What if one of the children is raised outside the control of the scientists/spooks?" with the bonus question "Yet, what if the kid is still trained to be lethal in combat?" and for extra fun, "What if the kid is a girl?"
All of that makes Hanna quite unique in its flavor. Add in the visual aspects and the Chemical Brothers score - It's just irrational, to me, to hate on this movie.
It's certainly not the best I've ever seen, but it's one of my favorites.
What's the pretense? The story is simple. It's not a bad story, it's a basic story. It's neither deliberately convoluted, nor goading in its symbolism. If you can't follow the narrative, maybe Steven Seagal movies are more your speed.
Easy-peasy summary (spoiler alert): A government agent involved in a classified and illegal embryonic DNA-manipulation experiment goes rogue when he's given the order to terminate a woman he'd recruited, for whom he'd developed a particular fondness. Rather than follow orders, he gathers the woman and her young daughter (one of the test subjects), Hanna, and attempts to go on the lam. But, his 'handler' intercepts him and attempts to gun them down along an empty stretch of highway. Her shots cause a car crash, but the three escape and run. The mother is finally shot, and the agent and Hanna succeed in disappearing.
The agent spends the next 13 or so years raising, educating, and training Hanna. He does this with a mission in mind - a revenge scheme to be carried out when the agent is satisfied that Hanna is prepared and mature enough to decide.
The rest of the movie is Hanna's tribulation after setting the revenge scheme in motion. It's sprinkled with moments of self- and world-discovery and some realizations about her father-figure, but it's still just a standard adventure with a heroine facing obstacles and adversaries on her way to achieving a goal.
I really don't see what there is to complain about, overall. There are technical faults, and a few moments that were less than believable, such as her grappling the underside of a Humvee coming out of a manhole in a split second. Hello, massive spinal injury. But, it's an action flick about a genetically-programmed perfect soldier. It's supposed to contain absurd near-super- human feats.
Is it "derivative?" No. Unless every romantic comedy is derivative. Unless every war movie is derivative. It's a formulaic piece, sure, but it doesn't rob another work. It's a spin on an idea. There are all sorts of ways to spin the "let's cook up a perfect soldier/human being" idea. From that, we get Universal Soldier, Resident Evil, Captain America, Twins. Four significantly different movies. In Hanna, we get a fifth: "What happens if the experiment is performed on embryos?" with the follow-up question, "What if one of the children is raised outside the control of the scientists/spooks?" with the bonus question "Yet, what if the kid is still trained to be lethal in combat?" and for extra fun, "What if the kid is a girl?"
All of that makes Hanna quite unique in its flavor. Add in the visual aspects and the Chemical Brothers score - It's just irrational, to me, to hate on this movie.
It's certainly not the best I've ever seen, but it's one of my favorites.
