Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: a poisoned valentine
Review: "The Silence of the Lambs" remains one of my very favorite movies of all time. When I was in graduate school, I wrote my thesis on the way that the film offers not only a brilliant thriller, but also an exploration of human transformation and the myths hidden within "The American Dream."

When "Hannibal" was published, I rushed out to get it to see what Thomas Harris had concocted for us. I approached the novel with caution; the very title seemed weak and without even a hint as to what the story might really be about at its core. Unfortunately, my suspicions were confirmed: while the novel's scenes in Italy were reasonably exciting (if pointless), the film's denoument was an absolute betrayal of everything that we knew about these characters as believeable human beings. Yes, Harris has the right to do what he wants, but the climax seems to me an attack on everyone who loved "Silence" (and "Red Dragon"/"Manhunter"): I can sense Mr. Harris at his computer, muttering "So you like these people that much, huh? Well, take THIS! Hmph...idiots."

The film's choice to alter the ending is a good one...but it doesn't change the fact that this film is a pretentious and disgusting bore. Ridley Scott creates a beautiful atmosphere in some scenes (particularly in its Italy section, like the novel) but the bottom line is that there is simply no story here. Starling has been reduced to a caricature of feminine defensiveness (and the circumstances which cause her to fall out of favor with the FBI are purely plot-driven and with no hint of reality), while Lecter himself has become a parody of menace -- a Freddy Krueger for the art-house set. The merry-go-round scene is my favorite -- what would Lecter have done if Starling had turned a half-step and seen him just as he reached out to touch her hair? "Er, ah...hello, ah, Clariiiiice."

Mired in its own lack of plot (not to mention lack of people we care about), the film sinks in its own gratuitous arrogance. And to make things worse, the film thinks that it is on par with "Silence" -- you can feel it desperately clinging to its delusions of adequacy in every frame, while it has none of the class, intelligence, metaphor, and grace which that film carried with it every step of the way. The film's approach to its violence is also abhorrent: while Silence" knew that what is unseen will always be more frightening than what is seen, "Hannibal" spills its guts (literally; sorry, I had to say it) all over the screen like a grade-Z freak show. The only performer to escape unscathed is Giancarlo Giannini -- now if the story had focused on just him and Lecter, that might have been something.

"Hannibal" is one of the worst movies I have ever seen, even worse than those 80's slasher flicks I remember from my youth. Why? Because at least they knew what they were and didn't pretend to be something else. "Hannibal" is wretched excess. Jodie Foster, Jonathan Demme, and Ted Tally were wise to steer clear of it. You should do the same.

Rating:
Summary: What a waste of talent!
Review: What a waste! 5 excellent performers combined into a product that has more holes in it than swiss cheese. Aren't agents supposed to advise their clients against mistakes in judgment like this?

Has anyone figured out how Lecter can afford to flit about from country to country? Is he selling surplus body parts? And doesn't anyone check passports anymore? Whose name and picture are on Lecter's, anyway?

The "R" rating should be for "repulsive". However historically accurate, the hanging was predictable. Same with the knifing in the street, and dinner scene at the end.

Too bad that characters were left out of the movie, Verger's sister, in particular. She was one of the more interesting persons in the book. And why should the good doctor pitch Verger to his fate with the piggies? Motivation, anyone?

The 2 stars are for the score, the photography, and the makeup. The music was grand, and the photography, both interior and exterior, was exceptional. And Gary Oldman probably didn't recognize himself when he looked into a mirror. Also a plus: Francesca Neri.

In short, don't waste your time, nor the rental fee. All of the principals can be seen in far superior products. I was not just disappointed; I was downright disgusted. And the special goodies on the second DVD? By the end of the feature, I really didn't care....

Rating:
Summary: A Vomitive
Review: Being very fond of "Manhunter" and "Silence...," and having read the book, I was excited by "Hannibal." I sat in a packed house opening night. And I was repulsed by so much of the film that I wanted to walk outside, vomit without cessation for many hours, and promptly leave. First off, outstanding actress though she is, Jullianne Moore is not Jodie Foster. Anthony Hopkins is great fun to watch, sure, but he seems wildly out of character this time around ("Okey dokey?!"). The cincematogrophy is gorgeous, and the swelling arias are beautiful, but then Scott decides to throw some unfathomably graphic bit of imagery at us. Some opening shootings aren't too bad, and Gary Oldman's "melted wax puppet with leprosy" makeup is only initially chilling, but then we see a vicious throat-cutting. A crude disembowling. An impaling. A session of guesome (although rather amusing) sweetbread feedings. And, of course, the piece-di-resistance, a bunch of pigs ripping the faces and limbs off of a bunch of flailing victims. Now, I have a strong penchant for gore, but this is absurd. The DVD redeems the film, however, with a smorgasboard of extras. There are some neat deleted scenes, an interesting alternate ending, and a few other things worth digging into. But just for a rental; the extras aren't quite good enough to hoist this film out of its' significantly gory rut.

Rating:
Summary: Hopkins Wonderful, though movie moves slowly.
Review: I was quite a fan of Silence, just as I have always been a fan of Anthony Hopkins. Of course, when Hannibal was released on DVD- It was on my to-see list. The acting was superb, though this film is certainly not for the weak of heart (or stomach), and the effects were very nicely done. Unlike Silence, Hannibal was focused mainly on the Doctor himself, leaving the viewer to almost grow to like him. I suppose some of the most intriguing films are the ones that you aren't exactly sure who the villain is, and they sometimes leave one guessing. My one complaint about Hannibal was that it was rather long and moved quite slowly, repetitively, up until the last half hour. With a lack of action and almost plot in some areas, I found myself bored a time or two. However, I would still recommend Hannibal.

Rating:
Summary: So disappointing...and I blame David Mamet.
Review: I've read Hannibal 3 times now - it's one of the best books I've read in AGES, and to see the screenplay butchered the way Mamet has butchered this, is just so horrible. I was looking forward to seeing this movie for so long, after having enjoyed the book so much. What a disappointment. The characters (the ones they didn't omit, and ESPECIALLY Hannibal himself) are flat & poorly developed. The storyline has been sped up & hacked to bits to accommodate the Hollywood standard of a 2 hour film.

To be fair, I believe Ridley Scott should share some of the blame for this film's shortcomings. All done & said, this film was really poorly done.

Rating:
Summary: HELLO CLARICE, YOU ARE LOOKING DIFFERENT THEN I REMEMBER
Review: After the first half of the movie trying to justify that Clarice is now Julianne Moore and not Jodie Foster, this movie became fun horror digestible fare.

Hopkins goes over the top as Hannibal the liver eating psychotic. Moore plays fare as Clarice, but WE NEEDED JODIE FOSTER to make it a real sequel.

However this is a gorey, fun horror flick perfect for rentable Halloween fare. Other than that "Hannibal" is not the Oscar fare of "Silence of the Lambs".

Rating:
Summary: Questionable material gets a glossy package
Review: If you wondered how--or why--this material was brought to the screen, the DVD has generous commentary from the deLaurentiis', Ridley Scott and, most crucially, Anthony Hopkins. I believe the material would have been scraped had Hopkins passed. But his agreeing to repeat the role, the principles all were deluded into thinking they could recap the success (both commercially and artistically) of Demme's "Silence of the Lambs." There's an obsessive need to justify "this isn't a sequel" when it clearly is. And a failed one. Scenes that would have explained what was happening in the theatrical release (for instance, Anthony Hopkins licking Julianne Moore's automobile steering wheel) were excised, leaving us to wonder why Hopkins was even at Moore's door much less her dining room table. There's a very telling segment called "Reaction" when a video camera records the audience at the premiere in New York, and the audience reaction is so distracting with revulsion, yet Ridely Scott comments repeatedly they didn't want "too much." The film's final sequence and ending (where Harris' preposterious conclusion is discarded) is disappointing, when the filmmakers clearly had every opportunity to redeem the project, the actors and the audience. But they fall off the same cliff that Harris did: trying to tackle the glowing success of both book and film of "Silence of the Lambs." Although watching "Hannibal" alone on DVD at least keeps you from being embarrassed at having bought a ticket. The transfer of both film and sound is superb.

Rating:
Summary: Gross AND dull!
Review: It's hard to be both stomach churning and boring at the same time but this film manages to find a way. "Hannibal" has three of the goriest Grand Ginioul moments in any splatter film: Mr. Lecter hangs & disembowels an Italian detective at the same time; some hungry worthogs dine on another group of villans (leaving nothing to the imagination); Hannabal feeds an FBI agent his own brains! However, you have a long forgettible ride before you get to any of that. Hardcore HG Lewis fans are going to use the fatfoward button a lot. The rest of use should just stick with "Manhunter" and "Silence of the Lambs".

Rating:
Summary: Not for everybody
Review: This film lacked the style of "The Silence of the Lambs" and only hard-boiled gore fans will like this one. Hopkins is a better actor than this film and I don't think he needed the money so much that he would stoop so low as to protray a ... like Hannibal. As mentioned before this film is not about suspense or terror which can be overcome as it was in "The Silence of the Lambs." It is all about gore. Don't let the R rating fool you because it deserves an X just for the gore.

Rating:
Summary: Glossy, smart, different from Silence
Review: First of all, let's get one thing out of the way: this is not, nor will it ever be, a classic in the same way as its predecessor, Jonathon Demme's Silence of the Lambs (1991). It is a different film, with different goals.

That being said, watching Silence of the Lambs and Ridley Scott's sequel Hannibal one after the other (as I just did) is quite instructive. I realized that the second film is really a smart, densely woven deconstruction of the first. It rather methodically dissects the characters and situations of Silence of the Lambs by inverting them. For example, in the first film Clarice went to Hannibal, who was in a glass cage, because she needed something he could offer; in the second film, Clarice is the one in the cage - the public-relations nightmare of an FBI raid gone horribly wrong. It is the now-free Hannibal who comes to see her, to satisfy his own needs - and also to dole out retribution on her behalf.

This natural, even logical extension of their odd "courtship" from the first film, along with subtexts drawn from Dante and Shakespeare (yes, Shakespeare) deepens the psychology of their rather Fruedian relationship. Clarice is like Lavinia, daughter of Titus Andronicus, who is metaphorically raped and crippled by the system she is sworn to uphold. Hannibal recalls Titus himself, reincarnated in an ironic, post-modern form, as he becomes the (admittedly unwanted) instrument of her revenge. The film even ends with a grisly dinner scene and the sacrifice of his hand. (In a bit of cool irony, Anthony Hopkins also played the title role in Julie Taymor's film version of Titus in 1999 - a parallel seemingly lost on most - though not all - reviewers.)

Thomas Harris' novel of Hannibal also inverted characters and situations from Silence, though to an even greater extent (those who have read it know exactly what I mean). The film, however, does not commit to Harris' "fall from grace" arc so completely, instead substituting metaphor and literary allusions. Just as well; it is hard to imagine a modern film audience buying into the concept of an "evil" Clarice. Hannibal the film takes these ideas about as far as a populist film can, then it turns them loose for us to take home and think about.

Julianne Moore takes over the role of FBI agent Clarice Starling from Jodie Foster, and, of course, Anthony Hopkins reprises his brilliant turn as Hannibal "the cannibal" Lecter. The performances are first-rate all around, including supporting work by Gary Oldman as Dr. Chilton's doppelganger, Mason Verger; Giancarlo Giannini as an Italian detective with the significant (and unfortunate) name of Pazzi; and Frankie Faison as Hannibal's guard from the mental institution, Barney.

David Mamet and Steven Zaillian's screenplay is literate; wry. Ridley Scott's direction is, of course, a visual delight - though he has lately become a little too enamored of gimmicky stuff like quick-cutting, under-cranking, and narrow shutter angles. Hannibal would have benefited had he lain off some of the MTV stuff.

The DVD release is well produced, with a sharp picture and terrific sound that really showcases Hans Zimmer's haunting (and at times wickedly funny) score. The second DVD is full of first-class extras, including documentary material, multi-angle stuff on the ill-fated fish market shoot-out, storyboards, and other goodies.

Hannibal made money in its theatrical run, yes, but was not taken too seriously, being perceived as a sensationalist, Hollywood sequel to a more thoughtful original. But I think it will actually grow in stature in the coming years, as people look past the sensationalism and marketing to realize what a really smart and witty movie it is.