Short Takes: "Hanna", "In Time" and "Attack the Block".

Hanna should be required viewing for all women going through the child to adolescent transition, given that- for lack of bullshit-ery - it's essentially a metaphor about how it all goes to hell after your first period. Saoirse Rona, plays the title character, a young girl who has always lived in the forest with her dad (Bana), a CIA agent gone rogue, who one day decides she wants to face her destiny and go to the big world. Trained in all of the deadly arts, Hanna is aware that to lead a normal life she must first destroy Marissa (Blanchett in a delicious star turn) a wicked agent responsible for her mom's death. Highly influenced by Tom Tykwer and, by Charles Laughton's The Night of the Hunter , the versatile Joe Wright delivers a thrilling spectacle that more than makes up for the story's lack of originality. Ronan is reliably perfect, combining child-like awe with chilling heartlessness and Bana once again proves he's one of the most underrated working actors. Wright's combination of fairy tales with biological conundrums feels a bit too stale at times and he can't seem to decide if he's in the mood for some well told Gothic action piece or a green-friendly, almost reactionary, invitation to have everyone move to the mountains and disregard the modern world. For what it matters, the film fares much better and what could've been a weird hybrid of Nell and The Bourne Identity comes off looking as a kick-ass allegory for the pains of growing up.  Grade: ***

Andrew Niccol delivered one of the most fascinating sci-fi movies in contemporary cinema with his remarkable Gattaca. Sadly, now he comes back with a piece of "social" fluff disguised as a dystopia in the making. In a world where time has become the official currency and people stop aging at age 25, it's up to none other than Justin Timberlake to show people how immoral they are. JT plays a Dickensian character who gets thrown into a whirlwind of chaos after he "inherits" more time than he can deal with. When authorities become suspicious about his background, he recruits a wealthy socialite (Seyfried) to steal from the rich and give back to the poor. At the film's center there is a fascinating conundrum to explore: should people live long and prosper or is there an element of truth to eugenics? Of course, Niccol doesn't have time to dwell on this as he has his heroes reenact perfume ads during the entire movie. It's a shame, cause In Time often brims with promise which then turns upon itself in such unexpected ways. You end up rooting for the villains, it makes you think that JT and Seyfried are unsexy (they have such little chemistry that it often feels like you're watching audition tapes),  and for all its talk about social injustice, its own brand of Bonnie and Clyde by way of Dolce & Gabbana feels so preposterous that you only thing you want to protest against, are lazy Hollywood flicks. Grade: *


Aliens invade London. Group of thugs saves the day. The biggest problem with Attack the Block is that it's never truly able to overcome two major flaws. On the one hand, its very own kind of British humor is practically impenetrable, making it a dragging experience for worldwide audiences (something that comedies like Hot Fuzz and The Full Monty had no trouble doing), then, the movie is so in love with its low budget concept that it ends up becoming obnoxiously dull. Grade: **

While Watching "Red Riding Hood"...

...I was shocked to learn that Twilight wasn't the worst thing Catherine Hardwicke has ever inflicted upon us, this one is!

How, and why, you would ask yourself, would the woman who made one of the worst movies of all time, not attempt to atone for her sins with something even slightly better? Heck, even slightly entertaining? What we get is essentially Twilight with werewolves...wait (maybe Catherine resents she never got the chance to have Taylor Lautner shirtless turning into a big dog?)

The plot isn't worthy to even bother with although Julie Christie's appearance is baffling! It's a shame Hardwicke can't even get her to deliver one of those loony performances given by legendary actors in shitty movies. Perhaps the most puzzling element in this (besides just how beautiful Amanda Seyfried can look) is, what the hell does Catherine Hardwicke have against sex?

This movie is filled with morality clauses about infidelity, marriage, virgins, engagements etc. and when she actually tries to create a sex scene (between Seyfried and Shiloh Fernandez), everything is so icy and staged that she manages to make two beautiful people in horny mood, look completely stale and dull.

What do you think is her problem? Is she secretly trying to use her movies (Twilight, The Nativity Story, Thirteen) to make the whole world chaste?

The Wicked Witch of the North (Shore).

"I'm a pain in your rectum
I'm that bitch y'all slept on
Heavy hitter, rhyme splitter, call me Re-Run
Hey, hey, hey, I'm what's happenin'"
- Missy Elliot

Few films capture the horrors of being a teenager in the way Mean Girls does. This first-class satire directed by Mark Waters and written by, Academy Award nomination-robbed, Tina Fey (adapted from a book by Rosalind Wiseman) is a hilarious (in a laugh to keep from crying sort of way) that deals with the lives of a group of teenagers and their interaction with "the plastics": the popular girls everyone hates and loves.
The Queen of them all is Regina George (Rachel McAdams) a girl so hateful that when we first meet here we learn that "evil takes a human form in Regina George."
This gives path to my favorite shot in the film.
Highlighted by Missy Elliot's addictive "Pass That Dutch" we see a blond queen being carried by her faithful slaves.


All of them seem to be honored that they get to be used as Regina's means of transportation. Like a perverse Cleopatra she relishes this moment and makes her subjects know she knows how much they love her for being her slaves.
She smiles at them filled with satisfaction (never disbelief) and we understand that her every wish is fulfilled by them.
However her glow comes with a warning, "don't be fooled cause she may seem like your typical, selfish , backstabbing slut-faced ho bag but in reality she's so much more than that."
And she is, as the plot moves forward Regina makes it clear that her reign will be over when she wants it to be over.
Later in the film we get a bookend to this first glimpse of Regina's glory. After wreaking havoc in her high school and in the process destroying her kingdom she watches the scene with the same sly smile we saw before on her face.


As people around her insult and hit each other she just stands there completely untouchable. It might be because the others are so concerned that they haven't even noticed she's there but we know that to Regina this actually means her subjects are still so terrified and respectful that they would never approach her like they would an ordinary being.
The camera in this shot pulls back and we see that Regina stands above some stairs like a wicked Madonna from a Renaissance tableaux.
Regina's always on top, even when she's not.

This post is part of the "Hit Me With Your Best Shot" series, hosted by the very fetch Nathaniel of The Film Experience.

Chloe ***

Director: Atom Egoyan
Cast: Julianne Moore, Liam Neeson, Amanda Seyfried
Max Thierot, R.H. Thomson, Nina Dobrev, Mishu Vellani

Why do prostitutes always have unusual names? Are they pseudonyms they take on to embody their profession or is their career choice in a way determined by the way they're called?
This is one of the many enigmas embodied by the monosyllabic title character (played by Seyfried) whose main concern is giving her clients total satisfaction.
As part of her work, as an upscale prostitute, she makes it her job to find out what people want before they do and find ways to fulfill their every fantasy.
When she's approached by gynecologist Catherine Stewart (Moore) and after stating she doesn't work with single women, she encounters a strange request: Catherine wants Chloe to seduce her husband David (Neeson) and find out if he's cheating or if he's willing to do it. Catherine however and not her husband will be the client.
Always the professional, Chloe takes on the assignment and then meets with Catherine who attentively listens to how her husband acts with the young woman.
Seduced by the idea of learning more about her distant husband, Catherine establishes an unorthodox relationship with Chloe which soon proves to be more than either bargained for.
With Chloe Atom Egoyan once again explores sexuality and the way it affects the way we shape out life stories but perhaps because it's not his own screenplay (it was written by Erin Cressida Wilson and based on a French film) he doesn't always succeed in making the plot entirely his own.
The film is divided by two clashing ideologies; a dichotomy of sorts that's fascinating and complex in theory but feels unfinished in execution.
With Chloe and Catherine we have two women who are both extreme opposites and simultaneously compliment each other. They both built careers that depend on genitals, they both lack something in their lives and they are both fascinated by seduction.
But while Chloe relies on the dreams to rule her life and work, Catherine firmly establishes to one of her patients that "an orgasm is simply a series of muscle contractions" and there's "no mystery" to them.
What should we perceive from the fact that in a way Catherine is lying to her patient as she obsesses about the fact that her husband has stopped making love to her. Why doesn't she take this matter to her own hands in a literal way?
The fact that Chloe seems to be more in tune with who she is, should result remarkable until the movie turns her into a version of the character Rebecca de Mornay played in The Hand that Rocks the Cradle and seems to pass judgment on her.
Conversely we might also begin to wonder what's going on in Catherine's mind, the way her emotions lead her to act irrationally makes us see her behavior as a self sabotaged attempt at female emancipation.
Can she be creating a diversion to justify her own dissatisfaction with her marriage? While she thinks she's taking her destiny on her own hands in a way she is also relinquishing her happiness to her husband. Is blaming him the only way she can find to become free? In the process isn't she also becoming like him?
The notions of perception and the unknown are wonderfully executed by the two lead actresses, Moore as brilliant as ever, lingers dangerously between paranoia and despair. As she explores the fear of aging she also delivers one of her sexiest performances.
Amanda Seyfried is revelatory and has us guessing her motivations until the very end and in a way it's her performance that elevates the movie from a sloppy sexual thriller to a complex character study.
When Chloe reaches its climax, instead of complaining about the unsurprising road it takes we are left wondering if in the insane turn she takes in the end she wasn't in fact just satisfying Catherine's need for a little drama to make her feel alive?
After all she was the client.

Dear John *

Director: Lasse Hallström
Cast: Amanda Seyfried, Channing Tatum, Richard Jenkins
Henry Thomas, D.J. Cotrona, Cullen Moss, Gavin McCulley

Your knowledge of Nicholas Sparks' work doesn't need to be so extensive to know the kind of movie Dear John will be. His formula of doomed love, life threatening diseases and third act twists has been established in films like A Walk to Remember, Nights in Rodanthe and especially The Notebook.
This one is obviously not different but by now the formula is so established that this one isn't even fun.
The lovers this time are Savannah (Seyfried) and John (Tatum); she's a good girl who doesn't drink, smoke or curse and he's the former rebel now on army leave.
They meet when he rescues her purse after it falls on the ocean, she is so impressed by his lifesaving skills and pecs (after all her "whole life is in that bag") that two weeks later they're already declaring eternal love for each other.
During these two weeks they frolic in the beach, make out under the rain and Savannah even diagnoses John's coin-collecting father (Jenkins who obviously deserved better) as slightly autistic.
When John has to go back into service, they decide they will write each other and keep no secrets, which turns the film into a dull, uninspired version of a Green Day video. For almost half an hour Dear John takes on an epistolary form and the sun tinted, overlong montage that serves as background for the actors' readings, comes to a sudden end on 9/11.
John decides it's his duty to reenlist and their relationship enters a limbo that makes the film take a turn for the worse as it suggests that the evil war is responsible for the leads' tears.
Perhaps nothing about the movie intends to be fresh but little in it makes its existence justifiable. Tatum and Seyfried, while pretty to look at, have no chemistry and never evoke the angst and longing we're supposed to perceive from their tacky Now, Voyager redux quips about the moon.
The issue might not be the actors but the terrible writing which seems reasonable on the surface but might lead to some disturbing and complex realizations from anyone with the slightest analytical capacity.
In the time of instant gratification and e-mail, Savannah and John's love isn't only utterly fantastical but also fake; instead of breaking hearts the movie should serve to stimulate naive minds and make them realize that perhaps this so called love is nothing but fear of commitment represented through the perpetuation of a faux state of romance.
When the reasoning for a life altering decision is justified by saying "you think it was easy without you", it's fair to say that Dear John isn't an ode to the romantic but to the idiotic.

Jennifer's Body ***

Director: Karyn Kusama
Cast: Megan Fox
Amanda Seyfried
Johnny Simmons
J.K. Simmons
Amy Sedaris, Adam Brody

"Jennifer's evil" says Needy (Seyfried) to her boyfriend Chip (Simmons). "I know" he replies with a bit of a "duh" look in his face.
Jennifer has been Needy's friend since infanthood ("sandbox love never dies") and in a way they compliment each other.
Needy's the geeky-with makeover potential- looking, good girl with a steady boyfriend and a curfew.
Jennifer is the hot cheerleader with a thirst for boys who pretends to be a virgin just to turn on her victims more.
People around them wonder what the hell they have in common, but as many other things in high school, the nature of their friendship remains a mystery.
Things change after a bar burns down and Jennifer's boy hunger seems to develop into actual demonic cannibalism.
Jocks turns up dead, Jennifer turns up mysteriously bloodied in the middle of the night and Needy has more slasher worthy moments than anyone would ever dream of.
Kusama's teen-thriller packs a hell of a punch and owes most of it to Diablo Cody's terrific screenplay which obviously makes an extensive use of pop culture references ("it's true! It's on the Wikipedia") but manages to outlive its otherwise temporary shelf life by contributing to the dying teen flick genre.
"Jennifer's Body" might not bring anything new to the table, in fact Cody sometimes seems to betray the very nature of her story. For example why did she have to bring it all down to good old fashioned geek vs. hot competitiveness when there's been a million more movies like that before?
But when she's on a roll the characters deliver some truly brilliant, and extremely quotable, bits of dialogue that both poke fun and exalt the adolescent life.
There is nothing really scary about the movie (even if Fox does seem like she might eat you alive to stay wrinkle free) but Cody taps into some fascinating issue circling modern life.
For one, she is unashamedly open about sex and ignores the ridiculous cliché that "smart girls" don't have sex.
When Chip coyly announces to Needy that he'll be getting condoms for their date later during the day, Cody is in fact screaming that "smart girls have sex...with protection". The film offers several moments of refreshing maturity that play out in awkwardly sweet moments.
We are also reminded of the indifference our culture has grown towards violence. As the murders increase in the town where the movie takes place, it's only a matter of time before they're seeking the next big thing ("sorrow was last week's emotion").
This trait is embodied through Jennifer who struts the halls without a care in the world, even if everything outside is collapsing.
When Needy proclaims "we had faith. We were fucking idiots" the post-Obama world seems to balance on a tightrope for a fraction of a second...
Then we're being vastly entertained by the sight of two girls in formal dresses fighting inside a pool and everything goes back to normal.

Mamma Mia! **1/2

Director: Phyllida Lloyd
Cast: Meryl Streep, Pierce Brosnan, Colin Firth
Christine Baranski, Julie Walters, Stellan Skarsgard
Amanda Seyfried, Dominic Cooper

During a decade long career where they sold over two hundred million records, Swedish pop group ABBA marked an entire generation (and their kids) by providing them with some of the greatest (or is it catchiest?) songs ever made.
Despite the popularity of their music, the group has always lacked the snob approval to deem them transcendental and to some their work remains vapid bubble gum confections.
This film, adapted from the wildly successful musical, delivers the goods in the same way. Nobody watching it can say they didn't enjoy it, but does that make it great art?
One can say the director looked to achieve this effect intentionally, but that would be wishful thinking considering what sloppy work she provides in telling the story of Donna (Streep), a free spirited single mom living in a Greek island.
Her daughter Sophie (Seyfried) is about to get married and wants to know who her father is. With this in mind she peruses through her mom's journal and comes up with three candidates: Sam Charmichael (Brosnan), Bill Anderson (Skarsgard) and Harry Bright (Firth), all of whom her mom had sex with around the time she was conceived.
She invites them secretly to her wedding, where joined by Donna's lifeling friends Tanya (a sensuous Baranski) and Rosie (scene stealing Walters), and every other inhabitant of the island, they will give path to mistaken identities, screwball situations and more singing and dancing than you'd expect in under two hours.
Truth is that for all we care the story could've been about a martian in love with a cow and the raison d'etre would still be finding a way to insert the ABBA songs in it.
First time film director Lloyd proves that she lacks the cinematical eye to make the theater to film transfer come off as something more than bellbottom camp.
The musical sequences, which come one after the other in what could be called "greatest hits filmmaking", are staged as if a drunken karaoke singer decided he wanted to continue the party on his way home.
It's true that the infectious beat of the music and all the colors and pretty people (Seyfried is especially good) can help achieve some joy, but once the party's over, the hangover will reveal all that went wrong before.
The problem with "Mamma Mia!" is basicallly that it looks cheap; with musicals the director has to be very careful into creating suspension of disbelief by making non musical moments segue into the songs invisibly.
For Lloyd it seems, this meant not rehearsing a single thing (what was up with those dancing divers?) and giving her actors a chance to improvise, which ironically makes the film look stagey and chaotic. During one of the first musical moments you will make up your mind on whether this is kitsch heaven or punishment worthy of boot camp, with "camp" being the key word.
The one undeinable thing is that the film fully belongs to the great Meryl Streep.
Gifted with a voice that gives the songs the dramatic dimension they were accused of lacking, she turns "The Winner Takes It All" into a somber, regretful moment of love long lost, while on "Super Trouper" she rejuvenates thirty years right in front of your eyes.
But it's on the title track with her sly smile, scarily contagious joy and fearless approach towards building a character that she is at her most glorious.
Whether you like the film or not, you really have to take a chance on Streep, how she does it is a mystery, yet you can't help but dig her, she truly is the dancing queen!