Anna (2019) Review: Besson Reloads Nikita

Is Anna worth watching?

Mostly yes. Anna is a sleek, enjoyable spy thriller with a couple of terrific action scenes and a scene-stealing Helen Mirren, even if Luc Besson is largely remaking his own greatest hits. Its time-jumping structure keeps the double-crosses coming, and Sasha Luss is a credible physical lead. The reservation is its familiarity: the story of a young woman turned into a state killer is territory Besson has covered before, and more memorably, and the plot’s constant rewinds become a gimmick well before the end.

What is Anna about?

Anna Poliatova (Sasha Luss) is a young woman in the Soviet Union with a hard past and no obvious future. She is spotted and recruited by the KGB, trained as an assassin, and sent to Paris under cover as a fashion model, where a glamorous new career gives her access to powerful men. She answers to Olga (Helen Mirren), a flinty senior officer, and is watched closely by Alex (Luke Evans), the agent who brought her in. As she grows more skilled, she begins to look for a way out, and the CIA, represented by agent Lenny Miller (Cillian Murphy), takes an interest in her.

Anna is written and directed by Besson. It is a French production in English, set at the tail end of the Cold War, and runs 119 minutes.

A heroine built for action

Luss, a former model who appeared in Besson’s Valerian, is well cast in a role that uses both sides of that career. She is convincing on the catwalk and, more importantly, in the fight scenes, which demand real physical commitment. The standout is an early restaurant sequence in which Anna takes on a room full of armed men with whatever is at hand; it is brutal, inventive and cleanly shot, the kind of set piece Besson can still stage better than most.

Mirren is the film’s secret weapon. Olga is dry, ruthless and very funny, puffing on cigarettes and delivering withering put-downs, and every scene she appears in gains an extra spark. Murphy and Evans are solid if under-used as the two men competing for Anna’s loyalty, and their characters are more functional than full.

Twists on a loop

The film’s signature device is its structure. Scenes regularly jump back in time, “three months earlier” or “five years earlier”, to show what really happened behind an event we have just watched. At first this is clever and keeps the audience off balance, revealing layers of manipulation between the KGB and the CIA. By the second half, though, the rewinds become predictable in themselves, and the story starts to feel like a puzzle designed for the sake of being solved.

Visually, the film is crisp and polished, with Paris and Moscow rendered in cool greys and fashion-shoot sheen. It is slick entertainment, with little of the emotional texture of Besson’s best work.

Déjà vu with a new name

Anyone who has seen Nikita, Besson’s 1990 story of a young woman trained as a government assassin, will recognise the outline almost beat for beat, and Léon lurks in the background too. Anna adds a Cold War setting, more twists and slicker fights, but not much new insight into its heroine. Her inner life, her motives beyond survival and her relationships, are mostly handled through plot mechanics rather than character. It is entertaining, but rarely surprising in the ways that matter.

Who should watch Anna?

It is a good choice for fans of female-led action films and twisty spy thrillers who want slick entertainment rather than depth. Expect frequent, bloody violence, some sexual content and strong language; it is best for adults. It works well as a Friday-night watch and asks for little beyond enjoying the ride.

If you like it, go further:

• Léon: The Professional, Besson’s own high point, with a far more emotional take on killers and loyalty.
• No Time to Die, for bigger-budget espionage with its own share of double-crosses.

The verdict

Anna is a stylish, well-made assassin thriller that delivers strong action, a memorable Helen Mirren and a busy plot full of reversals. It is also a retread of ideas Besson explored better three decades earlier, which keeps it from being more than good genre fun.

Rating: 3.5/5