Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: How a director can mess up a franchise
Review: Three directors have now taken their at-bats with Thomas Harris's Hannibal Lecter story-cluster, and only one really hit it out of the park. Michael Mann made Manhunter, a very Michael Mann film in his Miami-Vice period-aesthetic--in other words, instantly dated and slightly ridiculous. Then Jonathan Demme, with the great help of a really sound screenplay by Ted Talley and a very inspired production team and cast, turned The Silence of the Lambs into an enduring film classic. Now Ridley Scott has taken his swings--why did he whiff? The answer, to me at least, is simple--he didn't understand what Demme and company did. The opening sequences of Hannibal reveal the directorial mistakes. First the titles appear to appropriate a number of David Fincher's postmodern stylistic moves without understanding how they were appropriate to material like Se7en and Fight Club, but not to the operatic Hannibal that Harris wrote. We can probably forgive him that, since Fincher's "collage" approach and various forms of ramped-up cinematography always looks swell. Then we get a big shoot-out with cars crashing and the whole Hollywood "action" apparatus, and the mistake is apparent. Demme opened Silence with a titles sequence over Clarice Starling running through the woods--cueing audience expectation to terror, that she was being pursued, only to revise our expectations in revealing that Starling was running an obstacle course--training--and that the real scene was in Jack Crawford's office. There, the stylistic motif of the film, closeups and shot/reverse-shot editing, established the basic dynamic of the story--internal processing, mental activity, dialogue. This would be reflected in the numerous scenes with Lecter and Starling. The parallel motif of messing with our expectations for action that turns out to be training is also repeated several times. The film works to create in us a sense of our own mistakes, leaves us often in the predicament Starling is constantly dealing with--how to know how to proceed, what to do, in a highly complicated and ambiguous mental environment. Ridley Scott doesn't seem to get any of that. Admittedly, Harris's novel doesn't give him the same great material that Demme got form the earlier book; the thing I noticed most was that Starling and Lecter are separate for most of the film, and aren't even the dominant characters. Hannibal is dispersed in character, with Mason Verger, the Italian detective, Paul Krendler, and others getting screen time that doesn't seem organized (recall how structurally tight Silence was, with all its doublings--two serial killers, two doctors, two mentor-figures competing over Starling--and for all that, clearly the story of Hannibal and Clarice). More than anything, we can see the problems of this film by looking at the work of Anthony Hopkins. An actor of great instincts, Hopkins seems to realize that the material here is ridiculous (he's become a slasher, instead of a mind-mangler), and so he rushes briskly through his scenes (what else can you do when you are sauteeing a man's brains before his very eyes?). There's no savoring of speeches as in Silence. Hopkins seems to know better than to linger over the pedestrian screenplay. Julianne Moore, for her part, is wasted in this role--an intelligent, insightful actress, she could easily have carried the same kind of load that Jodi Foster did in Silence, wholes scenes depending on nothing more than a subtle facial expression, but Moore doesn't get the chance. Not to worry, though, since we can be sure P. T. Anderson will write her another superior part in his next film. This isn't a terrible film, but it doesn't even come close to living up to its potential, let alone the expectations of the "sequel" to The Silence of the Lambs, and the blame seems to lie with director Scott and the screenwriters--what exactly did David Mamet contribute, by the way? After watching this, I recommend you go back and look at Silence again, and understand how a great film results from nuanced directorial decisions, outstanding scripting and cinematography, and inspired acting...

Rating:
Summary: better than the first one but not for the squemish
Review: Except for the first 15 minutes, which has a stock police shootout, Hannibal is totally engrossing and never predictable. There are even a few moments of genuine suspense. Anthony hopkins is superb. I can't imagine anyone else in the role. Gary oldham is also outstanding. There is a little gore. But I actually think this movie is less graphic than the first one. I found the subject matter of Silence of the lambs too disgusting. The ending is a genuine shocker and I kept looking at the screen wondering, how did they do that? A great movie.

Rating:
Summary: Unnecessarily disgusting
Review: This movie is simply foul, with a poor storyline and grotesque visualizations. Pick up the Silence of the Lambs for a good thriller, but pass this one up if you plan on eating anything in the next two weeks.

Rating:
Summary: WOW!
Review: i absolutely love this movie...the way that the movie was filmed and the soundtrack have been so perfect...not only do they do the bo0k justice, they also gave it a very elegant and surprisingly for a horror flick, a feeling of affection and devotion...kinda like a freaky, strange love story. but that's not the point of the film...it's a great sequel...not quite like the many disappointments we get used to with other movies. Julianne Moore displays wonderful acting skills...and Anthony is simply...great..need i say more? basically, it's a great movie, with a great cast and great direction!

Rating:
Summary: Wanted to like it, just didn't.
Review: What is it about Ridley Scott movies that induce boredom? Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator, and now Hannibal all look great, but they are simply missing SOMETHING. Character development maybe? I'm not sure. Hopkins is great, though. He made the whole experience somewhat worthwhile. There are quite a bit of extras on the second disc, though, so if you are high on special features, this one may satisfy based on that alone.

Rating:
Summary: The sequel of the year.
Review: HANNIBAL (2001, R= Strong Gruesome Violence, Brief Profanity, Gore, Disturbing Images, and Sexual Dialogue) The Cast: ANTHONY HOPKINS, GARY OLDMAN, JULIANNE MOORE, RAY LIOTTA and FRANCESCA NERI. The Genre: Horror/Drama/Romance/Sequel The Plot: Ten years after the prison breakage of Dr. Hannibal Lecter, Lecter is now walking the streets of Italy freely under the name of Dr. Fell. When Clarice Starling receives a letter from him, she begins tracking him down. But an Italian Inspector Pazzi has already discovered Lecter's hideout, and disgusted face Mason Verger wants his revenge upon the doc. The silence has now been broken. What Works: An edgy suspenseful story line with great performances from ANTHONY HOPKINS, RAY LIOTTA, and questionably GARY OLDMAN. The ending is absolutely unforgettable! Ridley Scott's crafting and weave of suspense and almost unbelievable romance works nicely. What Doesn't: The strongest and most sickening gore you've ever seen to bring a new light to the Dr. Lecter story, showing you something you've never seen before. Also, Julianne Moore's replacing of Jodie Foster as Clarice, which tears down the film's credibility. Reality Check: ANTHONY HOPKINS still has that spine tingling charge in him, which makes him still the scariest actor ever, and brings Lecter to new heights. And while, the romance is somewhat believable, it just doesn't make sense to me in my mind in the type of film it is. The Catch: Children will have nightmares for months if they see this film. And for those of you who are sensitive to gore, you may need to bring a crate full of vomit bags, because the end will make you gag to death! OVERALL: "This spine tingling, worthy sequel to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is extremely well done with great performances, and features Academy Award worthy directing. This sequel is one that actually lives up to what the original was and still is."

Rating:
Summary: After 10 years of hibernation, the doctor is in the house
Review: After viewing 'Hannibal' at my local Loew's in February, I thought it would be a worthy purchase on DVD in August. I am a fan of Sir Anthony Hopkins, especially his portrayal of the deranged Hannibal Lecter, M.D. I was really hoping for more of a psychological movie, with a lot more interaction between Lecter and Starling. Their interaction is what made 'The Silence Of The Lambs' such a creepy movie. This movie, however, keeps Starling and Lecter apart for a good 2/3 of the movie, and their time together is not quite at all like in 'Silence'. It seemed that a few scenes were for mere shock value and not for the good of the film. Sure, I enjoyed Lecter's "bowels in, or bowels out?" but it wasn't completely necessary, and neither was the wild boar scene. The ending, however, was priceless, and made the movie. It seems like maybe the doc has feelings afterall? The deleted scenes and pictures are pretty cool. I really don't know why Ridley Scott cut some of those, some would've helped create suspense I thought, like the visit to the Baltimore institution. The letter sequence, I thought, was also better on the alternate one, it explained what did happen to Jack Crawford. The movie did entertain me though, I do wish there were more ties to 'Silence Of The Lambs' and a little bit more psychological interaction between Lecter and the other characters, but I guess it's hard to top 'Silence' (it did win 5 Academy Awards in 1991).

Rating:
Summary: Just read the book
Review: I was not surprised to hear that "Hannibal," Thomas Harris' stylish sequel to "The Silence Of The Lambs," was going to be made into a movie. Nor was I surprised that the movie, in typical Hollywood fashion, went for the gore rather than character development. Ridley Scott's direction veers between European film noir and slasher flick with touches of MTV--as in many of his other films, including "Gladiator" and "G.I. Jane," he loves those slow but sharp action shots. Anthony Hopkins, reprising his role as cultured killer Hannibal Lecter, does the best with what he's given, as does Julianne Moore, who plays Clarice Starling with grim determination. Gary Oldman (who, despite Amazon's claim, is listed third in the end credits on the VHS version) turns in his usual creepy performance as Mason Verger, Lecter's only surviving victim, bent on revenge. Giancarlo Gianni looks rather bored in his role as the Florence police inspector who discovers Lecter in his new life as a medieval archivist. As is often the case with books turned into movies, a lot of the background information that makes characters interesting is tossed over the side, but Scott makes sure to keep the blood, although (believe it or not) a lot of the gore is toned down compared to the book, the final dinner party especially. "Hannibal" the novel is a fascinating character study. "Hannibal" the movie turns the good doctor into a pop icon on the level of Freddy Krueger and Jason Voorhees (and also, of course, leaves an opening for a sequel). Choose wisely!

Rating:
Summary: He Eats People When They're Not Polite ......
Review: One has to wonder how well an ambitious sequel project such as Hannibal would have stood on its own had not a cinematic master such as Ridley Scott been involved.

What gave Silence of the Lambs its impact was not so much the horrific elements of serial killer psychology as the curious relationship between genius madman Hannibal Lecter and FBI agent Clarice Starling, bringing to light her role as the crusader, the protector of order, motivated by personal redemption. In this outing, the attention shifts more to Lecter, as well as the others who are out to get him, and looks more deeply behind some of the more warped motivations people have for justice. To the "evil" Hannibal, it is simply a matter of dealing with people who have no class, whose basic rudeness is way out of line, the rationale being they are put to better use as hors deuvres. To the unfortunate others (Gianini, Liotta, and Oldman in one of his most deliciously repulsive roles) who have the poor judgement to go after our Cannibalistic Crusader, it seems to be more about financial betterment, inflation of image, and good old petty vengeance. None of which can be considered as overly admirable human qualities. Needless to say, none of these fools have any idea what or who they are dealing with, and (without giving too much away, as if you couldn't figure it out anyway) are ultimately dealt with accordingly. With fine wine.

Way beyond the level of evil madman, Hannibal is more like the boogeyman who will get you if you're not good .... or even if you don't behave respectably. This is what ultimately saves Clarice: despite her determination to bring him to justice, Hannibal always seems to recognize in her a basic respect, pure and selfless, and (also without spoiling the story) in his own way acts as the protective surrogate dad, an element touched on in "Silence" and developed on here. This of course does not prevent him from messing with her head just a bit, to demonstrate what he is truly capable of as a psychotic of genius proportions, in a grisly final scene that has been criticized for its low denominator shock value. I myself found it to be quite cerebral.

Director Scott displays his trademark expertise in creating an elegantly dark mood throughout, a sense of dread that keeps one watching and enjoying the ride. Julianne Moore portrays agent Starling with every bit as much conviction as predecessor Jodie Foster (they could almost be sisters), bringing into the role as much as this story would allow. Hannibal's other less-fortunate pursuers are, in their own ways, more vile than he, and it is a bit of warped fun watching them get set up for their fates in elaborate scenarios that (sorry, I can't help it) won't leave you hanging, won't boar you, and may open one's mind. And the generous serving of extras on this double DVD make it a great addition to anyone's library ..... like getting the main course, seconds, and dessert all on one plate!

Hannibal may not have made the Cultural Phenomenal splash that "Silence" did, but it has all the markings of an enduring cult classic, and further elevates Hopkins' Dr. Lecter to a dark icon for our generation. Just be sure to give yourself a couple of hours before or after mealtime before attempting to digest this (at times) unsavory course. It's always good to try new things .......

Rating:
Summary: Undesevedly bashed
Review: I don't understand how this movie got such a overhyped image for being "unusally grusome" "should be rated x" "Unusually gory" This is rediculous,people have to remember this is a story about a serial killer,not Barney,not Mary Poppins. Yes there is Gore in this movie,but it all fits into the character of Hannibal Lecter,and I feel isn't unnessisary. I found the movie to be actually quite good,Lecter uctually comes off more humanized,in this sequel then in silence.Obviously the fact that Lecter is locked up for most of Silence limits the amount of gore,compared to this sequel. Point being it's a very good,compelling movie,and if the plot of serial killers is too hot to handle,stay out of the kitchen.