User Reviews

The plot of Anna is a lot like the movie Inception or Dreamscape. So, in that sense, the basic story idea isn't 100% original. It's set in the near future where there are apparently investigators called remote viewers or memory detectives who are much like psychotherapists who can actually enter the memories of people to determine what has happened. This can be useful in a therapeutic sense but can also be used to determine someone's guilt or innocence. John (Mark Strong) is one of these folks who can enter folks' memories and this is made more difficult due to some of his own troubling memories.

John's latest case is Anna (Taissa Farmiga)—a teenager who is unusually bright and perceptive—but who also might just be a sociopath. However, in viewing Anna's memories, John feels for the girl and thinks that perhaps folks are conspiring to have her committed to an institution when she is quite sane. Why? She's an heiress and her step-father might be setting her up to steal her fortune. But, through the course of the film it becomes more and more difficult for John to trust all the memories of Anna's that he's seen—and she might have some sort of strange hidden agenda. What's REALLY going on? And, by the end of the film, this might STILL be a question you are asking yourself.

This is a movie you best watch while you are 100% percent focused. The ending, in particular, is confusing and might benefit from repeated viewing. I did this and understood what the filmmakers were trying to do—but also noticed some plot problems at the same time. In particular, the film hinges on a panicked phone call John gets late at night from Anna. It sounds like someone is being killed! John does NOT phone the police. He does NOT take along anyone as a witness and he just blindly walks into what turns out to be a trap. Yet, at the same time, he's supposed to be a very smart and competent man! If you can ignore this serious confound, the film is pretty exciting as well as very well acted. Strong, in particular, is really good in the lead, as is Farmiga. In fact, the acting is the best aspect of the film. Despite these being relatively unknown names, the actors did a really fine job. The music also was quite fitting and tense. If only the film's plot problem near the end was cleaned up a bit, I would have given it a higher score. But what good is a mystery-suspense film when there is such an obvious plot problem? The film is interesting and worth seeing but not exactly a must-see for me.

After the development of the secret experiment of persons with the ability to enter in other people´s memories, the justice system accepts the evidences presented by recognized memory detectives. John Washington (Mark Strong), from the Mindscape Agency, is a former detective that had a stroke two years ago after the death of his beloved wife and is retired. However he needs money and asks his former chief and friend Sebastian (Brian Cox) if he could find a new job. Sebastian offers a simple case of a wealthy teenager, Anna Greene (Taissa Farmiga), who is refusing to eat and to help to make her stop her hunger strike. John learns that Anna is an intelligent girl that lives in a fortress and is monitored by surveillance cameras by her family. Further her stepfather wants to send her to a boarding school, but her mother does not agree. Soon John and Anna bound to each other and John starts his investigation through therapy sessions. As far as John goes deeper, he finds past secrets that may be causing her present behavior. Are his assumptions correct?

"Mindscape", a.k.a. "Anna" is an intriguing thriller with a screenplay with many plot points, some of them good and others bad. The performances of the lead Mark Strong and Taissa Farmiga are great and the story holds the attention of the viewer. But the disappointing commercial conclusion is quite silly and the question is: was it necessary to a smart girl like Anna to plot such complex stories to get rid of her family and travel the world alone? Wouldn´t be easier to flee from the boarding school and simulate her death in another way? How could she be using her money if she was considered dead? My vote is six.

Title (Brazil): "Regressão" ("Regression")

First let's get the whole "dynasty" issue out of the way. These days in Hollywood, more care and attention is spent launching the careers of offspring/sibling than at any other point in film history. For example, in other reviews, I commented negatively on Will Smith's courageous attempts to turn his son into the next de Niro. Not going to happen, sorry Will.. This is a different story. Taissa Farmiga has got spark, she's got grit, she's got glow. This is a dynasty that just might find some traction.

Next let's talk about the science because most people won't even know there actually is science. The original title of the film was Mindscape which was borrowed/stolen from the scientific work of the same name by Dr.'s Targ and Puthoff, based on their work done at SRI in the 80s. Using double-blind protocols, their work established for the first time the scientific validity of the RV phenomenon, even though the media mocked them for years afterwards. In other words, the science for this film is not necessarily from Crazytown. That's helpful to know.

As for the film itself, it is surprisingly engaging given its very strange pedigree. Directed by a Spanish director, the film has not one but three major British talents --- Mark Strong, Brian Cox and Indira Varma-- all going "accentless" just for this production.

Overall, this film is also unusual in that it faithfully demonstrates the stoic and disciplined direction one generally associates with British TV drama -- although clearly intended for US audiences. The above comment is actually not a criticism at all, but (to be fair) US viewers may find the pacing slow. It isn't. It is just very, very, controlled.

Mark Strong's character is the "glue" that keeps the film together This requires him to be simpatico with the audience, and he is. Ironically, the actual script requires Strong's character to "have trouble staying grounded" (quote), yet it is precisely Strong's ability to ground the film that keeps it flowing.

As for the story itself, to go into detail would likely spoil it. I would really really like to tell you that the theme behind it is new but it simply isn't. (If you are a curious cinephile, look up the 2003 production LIFE OF David GALE.)

Bottom line: good clean fun. But what this film will be remembered for is young Farmiga.

Again: Many spoilers ahead.

At first, I kind of liked this movie - the two lead characters are well played, and so is their relationship as it develops through the meandering memories and the developments in the supposedly real world. It's adequately somber. The twists towards the end were a bit obvious in my opinion - of course she was luring him to the house and setting him up, and of course these were his memories, with the distant guy watching in precisely the way the main character explains at the beginning.

Unfortunately, once you start to think about the plot, it falls apart.

He's a detective, yet he doesn't really look at any of the clues he has taken home (e.g., the yearbook) in any depth until after the case is practically closed. Nice evidence board decoration he had on the wall - he should have perhaps drawn one up for this case too. And when called, he does this oh so old stupid movie mistake of rushing in without telling anybody. When will movie writers finally stop using that?

Her side is even worse. There were signs of her interacting with the outside world, e.g., her drawing of stairs where he believes to have seen her. Was she able to occasionally escape? Apart from that, nothing of her whole back-story was explained; did she or did she not commit any crimes? Had she just been at the wrong place in the wrong time? How much was fabricated by her, how much was honest? What was with that "Mousey" confusion? Who was lying about what now? And finally: If she wanted to be assumed dead to get away from her parents, didn't sending the picture refute that purpose entirely? What is she living on now anyway? If running away was all she wanted, she evidently didn't need this convoluted plan to do so. When our main guy arrived at the house, the doors were already wide open.

I guess you can explain some of those aspects away with "those were just his memories of her memories", but frankly, I think that's just an excuse for a script which was too obsessed with its twists.

I thought Anna was surprisingly well done. The characters were very well developed as you see back story on every main character through memories. Whether it's all true is debatable. What starts off as a cat and mouse game becomes much more. Highly enjoyable film even though it borrows concepts. I mean really it's all been done before you just have to do it different nowadays.

John Washington is a memory detective - he is able to access memories in order to solve crimes. Traumatised by the death of his wife and baby son, he is given an "easy" case - assisting Anna, the daughter of wealthy parents, who is refusing to eat. But the case proves to be far less straightforward than anticipated: is he being manipulated by a sociopath?

Mark Strong is Washington and Taissa Farmiga (Vera's younger sister) is Anna in a strongly acted thriller with mildly supernatural overtones, which keeps you guessing all the way through. There is relatively little action or violence, but that doesn't really matter- this is primarily a thoughtful piece, and a mildly unusual one.

Though perhaps I shouldn't be reliant on one film, or show, being a reason to take interest in any actor's career, especially after watching The Quiet Ones, just because of Olivia Cooke, with me seeing a handful of Taissa Farmiga work, I felt confident going in. For, thus far, she hasn't done a film, or show, in which she was bad, though this isn't to say the production itself might not have been terrible. So, with this in mind, I gave this a shot.

Characters & Story

One man, John (Mark Strong), who has seemingly gone through the great tragedy of losing his wife and son finds himself trying to return to work since, as bills stack up, he realizes he can't sit around in self- loathing. So, he tries to go back to work as a "viewer," someone who looks through a person's memories, detective style. But, like his personal life, his career is far from perfect. For after transposing his memories onto someone, and having a stroke during the process, he has embarrassed himself to the point the only person his boss, Sebastian (Brian Cox), would trust him in seeing is an old patient of his: Anna (Taissa Farmiga).

With John meeting Anna comes a complex story in which this innocent faced girl seemingly has the world against her, with the only exception being her mother who seems to be guilt-ridden and ready to throw money at any problem her daughter is part of. But, with one man in jail because of her, a girl with a hole in her throat, and a step-father who seemingly believes she should be committed, for reasons which would possibly benefit him, you are forced to evaluate who is lying, and whether the doe eyed innocent look of Anna is masking something dark and sinister.

Praise

When it comes to a lot of actors and actresses, they usually fight against typecasting in order to create a diverse filmography and show they are capable of doing more than one character archetype. With this film though, Farmiga plays up her general look of doe eyed innocence to possibly play you. For as we meet her, get to know her, and go through her memories, you are led to believe that perhaps, as she says, she is the victim. One which dealt with bullies, an abusive step-father, and now is locked up in her room because her step-father wants nothing more than to have her committed so that when her mother dies he can control her inheritance.

But, as convincing as Farmiga is, the story of the film creates a counter-balance which makes you question whether Anna is to be trusted at her word, or if maybe she is more "gifted" than her mother, and step- father, give her credit for. After all, John is surely not the most mentally stable of men, so as much as you want to trust his judgment, you also want to question it at the same time. This combination makes it so that while you'll likely lean to one side, and then shift to the other, the story keeps you from being able to pinpoint who is right or wrong until the end.

Criticism

I should note though, while the mystery is quite interesting, I'm not going to pretend as if this film really pushes itself as a thriller to the point where it will highly perplex you. It certainly does try, and you have to give it to all of those involved for their performances really do help push the idea that, if even for a second, you could be wrong. But, try as it may, using discrepancies, vivid memories from Anna, and a plot twist here and there, the film overall seems to think of itself as more complex than it actually is. Though, I will admit, the ending may make you realize that you certainly didn't know everything.

Overall: TV Viewing

Farmiga and Strong play off each other well to the point they may have your mind go back and forth when it comes to deciding Anna's innocence. But, the main reason why this is getting the "TV Viewing" label is because this whole scenario of seeing someone try to counsel a disturbed young individual has been done a few times before, and arguably better. So while Anna (Mindscape) does try to craft a good mystery, it sort of gives itself away as if it thinks you would remain guessing until the end of the film. Which, honestly, you might. But, if you have seen many a film like this before, you may get a sense of deja vu.

Mark Strong has a loyal cult following, and I can get on board with that. He's interesting to watch. But this film isn't worthy of its leads. The story isn't clever enough, and the movie relies too heavily on clichés to create atmosphere.

Rather than casting a Brit in the role of Anna, the British actors (Strong, Brian Cox, Indira Varma, Richard Dillane and Saskia Reeves) all accommodate newcomer Taissa Farmiga by adopting faux American accents. The whole film, complete with blue filters and a couple of outdoor shots of some American Metropolis with no name (it's filmed in Spain), is a kind of inauthentic American thriller.

The premise is clunky, requiring some awkward exposition from the outset. This must be some time in the future, because detectives can read minds now. Strong's "John," (no last name), while recovering from a personal tragedy which is interfering with his work, is assigned to "Anna" (also no last name), a teenager with an eating disorder. Even the names in this movie are generic. In a plot device shamelessly lifted from "Inception," the film that "Anna" desperately wants to be, John's wife loses a child and uses her husband's gifts to live in her memories, ultimately unable to escape her virtual reality. We never meet her.

Anna's messed-up parents never really get their comeuppance, which is unsatisfying. In her home, she's monitored by a nurse, Judith (Varma), through a camera installed in her bedroom. I've never heard of such a thing happening in real life. The nurse hits it off with John instantly, although there's zero chemistry on camera, and after a perfunctory date in a depressing bar, John politely declines an invitation to "come upstairs" within 24 hours of meeting her. These people are all very unprofessional.

When the nurse is thrown down the stairs, purportedly by Anna (we never actually find out whether she did this or any of the other horrible things she's been accused of), John goes to the hospital and clutches Judith's hand as though she's the love of his life. She spends about 5 minutes on screen throughout the whole film. Cox is similarly underused. Accused of serious misconduct which later proves to be groundless, we're never really sure what to make of him, and ultimately it's not pertinent to the plot anyway.

The film requires serious suspension of disbelief. For an empathic detective, John is bafflingly obtuse. He treats a young girl (with a history of sexual abuse by an older teacher) in her bedroom, of all places. The treatment requires them to hold hands. Anna flirts brazenly with him from day one, but a few mumbled comments about transference notwithstanding, he never distances himself from her. She sketches him, watches him sleep, and at the end of their treatment, she hugs him, as does her mother. In real life, a psychiatrist/mindreading-detective would be like "WHOA!"

In fact, it's not clear why John is allowed to "treat" a vulnerable child with obvious mental and behavioural issues, let alone administer sedatives prescribed for her mother. He's a detective, not a psychiatrist. Who gives children sedatives after a trauma anyway, outside of an intensive car unit? And how is this new, unproven method of entering a person's mind and witnessing their memories deemed appropriate for an unbalanced juvenile? And how does it actually work?

However it works, Anna seems to be more cunning than everyone else in this film, which beggars belief. John makes so many obvious missteps you wonder if he's ever seen a movie before. I felt like yelling at him, like you do in pantomimes. "Don't go into the woods!"

I'm still not clear on what Anna actually did and what she didn't do. The twist towards the end neatly resolves all of the outstanding plot holes, in the same way that finding out the whole movie has been a dream is a resolution. It was profoundly unsatisfying. John, released from the pain that's been haunting him for years, celebrates his new-found freedom by "going upstairs" with the nurse we forgot existed. It's almost identical to the ending of the underwhelming "Blood," in which he also plays a detective, also with Brian Cox.

None of the characters in this film are developed in a way that makes them relatable, and you never invest emotionally in them. Anna herself is cold and robotic rather than engaging and seductive, and despite Strong's tangible talent, and a lot of superfluous smouldering, we never really get a handle on his character. He's just a cardboard cut-out of an American detective with personal issues. Maybe if we'd seen more of his relationship with his wife, instead of just a glimpse of blurry memories and a photo that could have been clipped from a catalog. The nurse was more of a plot device than a person, so we never get to see John engage with anyone on a human level.

Strong and Cox are actors of substance, and it's a pity to see them wasted on an underdeveloped story. Farmiga isn't bad, but she's too young and inexperienced to carry a film. I'm not sure who they're pitching this to: savvy "Inception" fans, or the teen-girls who might have watched "The Bling Ring." I doubt it will satisfy either audience. Why they changed the name "Mindscape" to the mindlessly generic and well nigh unGooglable "Anna" is beyond me.

"Anna" is an okay way to kill a couple of hours, if you don't have anything else to do. But Dorado's attempt at a Hitchcockian suspense movie falls flat. If you want to see Strong in a moody noir-ish thriller, try "Welcome to the Punch," a proper British film where everybody uses their real accent. Or just watch "Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy" again.

I gave it a 10 our of 10 because I liked it enough to watch it again and still found it mentally engaging.

I think the movie makes the most sense when you watch the entire movie with the perspective of John being jail, doing these sessions. It explains the other guy in the house (looking for anna in the dark) when John was being questioned by the police. I think Johns "halucinations" of Anna are really, real memories that he is having of his sessions of Anna. If you go into a memory and you see the person doing the sessions off in a distance, will you always associate that face with the memory in real life? She has already proved her ability to control the sessions with the clicking clocks and water that triggers Johns memories.

How about the photographer? I don't know. My best guess is her being able to use this ability long before her run in with Mindscape... any other guesses? How was she able to penetrate his thoughts? When he put his hands on her in the photo room?

Why would she fake her own death if she was so smart to begin with? As for the other comment about her freeing John with the photo.... By the time she sent it photo to prove he was innocent, she was far enough away to be anywhere. Is this movie full of nothing but lies or half truths? Why did she mix up mousey? Did her step dad really want the family fortune? who wouldn't >.> but was he the kind of guy to go to those lengths when he was already on an allowance? Was Anna trying to kill herself or did she just want that shade of red?

How accurate are the memories? John himself said that they can not be 100% accurate but its all we have sometimes. Is there a way to look at this movie and have it all make sense?

An unusually designed film which in every way delivers the themes of deceptive, sycophantic, cooperative behaviour.

The director of Orphan and non-stop, Jorge Dorado; he manages to use a selection of true emotions, portrayed beautifully by actor Mark Strong and actress Taissa Farmiga. I think Jorge Dorado's intent for this film was to create a thrill full experience for the audience, accomplishing his desired aim.

The star presence of Mark Strong engaged myself as we're all used to the striking villain role and tough guy he's often referred to playing. Strong's character John, is much opposite; faultless, innocent, gentle. When taking his first job after a traumatic experience, he becomes overly involved with Anna; portraying this soft character. Taissa Farmiga plays Anna, a girl who ultimately has many qualities and sides to her which perfectly reflects her deceptive persona. She's almost predictable in her behaviour, allowing you to piece the outcome of the film together, but saying this, not all is lost from the unexpected twist. In comparison to these two characters, I find others just seem to fade within the film; this includes Brian Cox's mediocre performance as Sebastian.

Although I find the film to be not that original, I enjoy the concept and thought Jorge Dorado did a marvellous job as a director. A sinister type of setting, with the added creepiness of the flip back and forth from mind to reality. Saying this, I find the film misses points of explanation... what was with that "Mousey" confusion? Apart from these minimalist mistakes, I can say with honesty that it was well worth the watch!

"Anna" or "Mindscape" is a story about John Washington (Mark Strong), a memory detective. John, like some others, have the ability to access people's memories with the use of a device and some ESP powers. Recently John has had some problems as his own memories about his dead wife have been interfering with his work.

John has been given the job of Anna (Taissa Farmiga) the daughter of a very wealthy family. She is 16 and is on a hunger strike. She is extremely intelligent i.e. "off the charts" and gifted. Her step-father (Richard Dillane) believes she is "haunting." With a step-dad and a teen daughter, our minds always go there, but in this film we are dealing with a far more complex issue.

John enters Anna's memories, which makes things more complex as her memories don't seem to fit the facts...or do they? The film is a mystery as we, like John, attempt to figure out if Anna is the victim or perpetrator.

It is a good mystery. Anna draws us in with her intellect. The color red plays a role as the color of blood, roses, dark room, and John's beach house.

May be too slow for some people.

Parental Guide: 1-2 F-bombs. Brief photo nudity. Adult themes.