This movie is hard to summarize other than the phrase " dark grow up fairy tale story". Joe Wright has crafted an unique story where despite a young woman is trained almost from birth to kill, Joe Wright choose to make her preparation for the real world really fairy tale like. Joe choose to let Hanna grow up anticipating fights from people who want to kill her everyday, hunt in forest and the father reading encyclopedias instead of fairy tales for bedtime stories. As the child of puppeteers, its easy to see how Joe makes some of the set pieces
[spoiler] , such as Hanna walk into her father's friend, a magician is full of circus like house, and a field full of theme park like dinosaurs. [/spoiler] . Saorise Ronan did it spendidly as the titular character, with her exploring friendships, kisses and apply the practical aspects of what she learn. Eric Bana is very solid , and Cate Blanchett is fabulous as her turn with the wicked ice queen role [spoiler] with one scene she gleefully seduces the two children for information [/spoiler]

The fighting arcs is not as neat as other action movie - but I will argue that for this movie its perfectly valid: Hanna's path to adulthood is full of bloodshed, and her facing all the enemies her father warned her since her toddlerhood. Its a dark tale, but a fine allegory of a teenager growing up and apply the skills they learned. And its an interesting take after thousands of generic action movies.

_"I just missed your heart."_

A few months after the show premiered, I watched it: I found it to be somewhat disappointing. More importantly, I believed the film would be way better. Now, I've watched it, and I think I prefer the show, even though it was still underwhelming and tedious too often. Past me would be astounded.

But David Farr, creator of the show, took a film with hardly any substance and too little/unsatisfying explanation/resolution. Because of that, the show was more expansive, which I didn't know until now. David also "provided changes" to this film's script/co-wrote it, giving me the impression that he was unsatisfied with the film and felt he could do better with it (in the format of a TV show), hence the creation of the show in 2017, filming in 2018, and release in 2019.

I'm inclined to agree with that close-to-baseless and likely inaccurate assumption. This film's premise worked much better in a TV show format. Everything can be more maneuverable and developed instead of clustered into a nearly two-hour film, which is too little, also pointless (regardless of a longer runtime) for such a premise: one that needs a TV show format.

Moreover, Marissa Wiegler was a much more compelling character in the show, and part of me feels like Mireille Enos gave a better performance: did the character "justice." The route her character went was not only more fleshed out (as expected, given the TV show aspect), but it was also well-done and more enticing than what the film/a film's runtime could offer. In this case, due to poor writing/utilization. And the conclusion of her character in the show was quite good, quite impactful.

I also feel the same way about Erik Heller. Dare I say, Joel Kinnaman "brought more to the character" than Eric Bana did. I know that may be a divisive opinion, as I think I've seen a lot of praise regarding Eric, acting-wise. But it's the same with Joel, I suppose. Either way, Joel's Erik Heller was more "alive."

Still, the show had issues: the lack of excitement that such a premise should have, an overwhelming sense of filler (at least in the first season), and downright dull and underwhelming content, for the most part, making it difficult to care and get invested. But this film felt incomplete: a draft work that nobody bothered to rework in a more informative manner. Maybe that feeling was because I'd seen the entire show (all three seasons) before this film, although if objective, that feeling of being incomplete would've still been there even if I hadn't seen the show yet and didn't notice it.

What's more (and this isn't that big of a deal), there was no conclusion regarding the family. Perhaps the scene for that existed but got cut for some reason. Otherwise, the only remaining explanation is that it was expected of us to fill in the gaps; come to our individualistic conclusion. If the answer is the latter, that's poor decision-making or failure at a good execution by the writer.

Despite all that, there were positives.

First, there was the cinematography by Alwin H. Küchler. That was, without a doubt, one of the film's strong suits. There were specific stand-out shots that I thought were great. In general, the cinematography looked crisp.
Second, some of the camera work was innovative; props to Joe Wright, the director.
Third, there was the score by The Chemical Brothers. It stood out a lot to me because I haven't heard a score like it yet. I thought it was great.
Fourth, the performances. All three leading performers delivered good performances. As far as I could tell, Cate Blanchett's performance was the most nuanced. So, naturally, I think she gave the best one out of everyone. Saoirse gave the second-best performance, and I don't have much to say about Eric Bana except that he was decent. But I prefer Esmé Creed-Miles (Hanna) a little bit more. Same with Mireille Enos (Marissa Wiegler). And the performance by Joel Kinnaman (Erik) was way better.

Not only that, another positive thing was the enveloping atmospheric tones of bliss and tranquility in two scenes: the scene when she was on the motorcycle with that guy and the scene when Hanna was looking out the rear-view mirror; the score was important with both. Those two scenes invoked a feeling. That kind of thing happened a few times in the show, too. Both it and this film had the help of music. But actual songs (not cues from a score) were a helping hand in the former most of the time, and not just regarding those tones; the song choices also enhanced some scenes.

This film had some positive components, as I've brought up, which are always appreciated. Unfortunately, it seemed half-baked. I can understand people having liked it more than I did/have, except a lot seem to have gone a step further. Like it's worthy of the highest praise. I don't get it. Maybe, back in 2011, when it was released, it was easier to love. I think someone not liking it as much is more likely if their first viewing was in the last few years or this year. In my case, I feel like having already seen all of the show played a factor. I may have gotten a different overall impression of this film had I seen it first.

**_European adventure/spy thriller about a real, um, super girl_**

In the wintery wilderness of northern Finland, an ex-CIA father (Eric Bana) has been training his teen daughter, the titular character (Saoirse Ronan), to survive in a harsh world of cutthroat government agents. When the girl's ready, she's introduced to the real world where she's ruthlessly hunted down from North Africa to Germany by a mysterious intelligence operative, Marissa (Cate Blanchett), and her heavies.

What I like best about "Hanna" (2011) is its uniqueness, stylishness and picturesque globetrotting. This is top-of-the-line filmmaking with a hip, kinetic, quirky tone and superlative score, comparable to "Lucy" (2014) and Tarantino thrillers like "Kill Bill" (2003/2004). It's not a great film because there's not enough depth or mindfood, but it contains a few elements of greatness and is overall entertaining enough.

We learn Marissa is preoccupied with Hanna for unknown reasons; so, while she's an expert agent, this obsession is her kryptonite. Subtext-wise, the movie's an obvious metaphor for a child reaching adulthood and the agonies of being a loving parent (preparing them for the world, teaching them necessary skills to survive, giving them increasing freedom, being candid about the callousness of life). It's also somewhat of a fairytale about the relationship between a father and daughter. Later in the film Marissa asks Erik, "Why now?" and he simply replies, "Kids grow up."

I liked the dichotomy of the so-called normal banality of the civilians compared to the single-minded cold-bloodedness of the agents. If you object to the sometimes unwieldy fight scenes, go parent a child, wait eighteen years, then view it again and see if you feel the same. The film's often thrilling, but don't approach this as a straight action flick or you'll probably be disappointed.

There are low-key things that are clumsily explored, like the RV family perking Hanna's curiosity about life (remember she grew up isolated in the northern wilds), but this was an obvious mechanism to make us feel bad that she was on this life-or-death mission, and different than these "normal" kids, yet at the same time special and more exciting, which is how the daughter & kid brother viewed Hanna. The individual used as a tool is hardly innovative, but I nonetheless appreciated this take on it.

The film runs 1 hour, 51 minutes and was shot in Finland, Morocco and (mostly) Germany.

GRADE: B+

SAIRSE RONAN IS THE ONLY PERSON TO PLAY THIS COMPLEX LONELY YET POWERFUL CHARACTER. ONE OF THE MOST INTERESTING FEMALE ASSASINS EVER TO BE PUT INTO FILM. SO YOUNG, SO SCARY. HERIOC

This is a very cool movie. I wasn't totally sold on the premise based solely on the overview but there is a lot more to Hanna than just your run-of-the-mill assassin story. I didn't necessarily pick up on the "fairy tale like elements" while watching it but in hindsight, they were definitely there.

Saoirse Ronan is really, really good.

I also really enjoyed the soundtrack. The Chemical Brothers style fit perfectly with the pace and theme of the movie and got me bumpin' on more than a single occasion.

Overall, I give this movie an 8/10. I'm super interested to see what Seth Lochhead does next.