Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: A Piece of His Mind
Review: I read the book Hannibal and thought it was unfilmable. I was pleasantly surprised therefore to find that two superb screenwriters, David Mamet and Steve Zaillion, were able to make the changes necessary to delete the parts of the book that didn't work while keeping the essence of Thomas Harris's exercise in dark malevolence.

Hannibal Lecter is the boogie man. He is the distillation of the nightmare villain...brilliant, cultured, educated, refined, erudite and thoroughly ruthless and bloodthirsty. He is a creation of fiction, no more real than Dracula or Professor Moriarty. He bears no resemblance to actual serial killers, who by and large are a drab, colorless, undistinguished lot. Maybe that's why we are fascinated by Hannibal, all that talent and charm put to wicked uses.

Please note one thing, the book and the movie take place 10 years AFTER Silence of the Lambs. Clarice Starling is not the wide-eyed innocent of Silence, but a street-tough working cop that is getting jerked around by the bureaucracy she has served faithfully and well. She is the only truly moral person in an unjust and cruel world. It is that morality that ironically is her attraction for Hannibal. It would have been interesting to see, but I'm not sure Jody Foster could have brought that toughness to the role. Julianne Moore did fine.

Anthony Hopkins owns the role. As in Silence, it isn't him jumping out and going "BOO!" that makes us uneasy, it is the sinister stillness and self-posession of his Hannibal that frightens and chills. All that evil nastiness contained within that can be unleashed at any time. Hopkin's Hannibal is a marvelous creation of wit and charm, ridding the world of "free range rude".

Speaking of nastiness, the movie is wickedly funny with lots of nasty tidbits. "Okee dokee, here we go now" as matter-of-factly as an usher or a tour guide, "bowels in or out?".

I don't know if Thomas Harris was trying to write a sequel so over-the-top lurid as a challenge to Hollywood "I dare you to film this" or if he looked around at a culture so harsh and unjust and cruel and crass that he decided to pour all of that into his book and pull a terrific stunt...make the cannibal the hero. Regardless, he gave us a deliciously wicked read that Ridley Scott has transformed into a stylish and wicked movie.

Not for everyone's taste (pun intended) for sure, and not with the broad appeal of Silence, Hannibal exists on it's own terms and has it's own pleasures and rewards. The supporting performances are all fine, cinematography excellent. Finally, the material ultimately is not as emotionally engaging as Silence, and for that it just misses 5 stars...but another encounter with Clarice and Dr. Lecter is more interesting than most.

Rating:
Summary: Malnourished Gory Monochrome; A Mixed Aftertaste
Review: Remember that famous line from The Silence of the Lambs where Dr. Lecter steps up to what must be quadruple glazing, bullet and tooth proof glass, looks straight at the young Clarice Starling, and with the least possible inkling of smile, says: "A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver, with some Fava beans and a nice Chianti. Hssss." Immortal. Now, ten years later, comes the eagerly anticipated sequel. And the fundamental difference between Jonathan Demme's exemplar 1991 film and Ridley Scott's concoction is that Scott would have given you a sudden flashback, accompanied by a burst if undefined instruments on the soundtrack, detailing Hannibal's soggy meal. I'm not just postulating here. There is in fact a sequence where one of Lecter's vinegary victims, who has, unfortunately for himself and the world survived, describes a dinner he once shared with the articulate doctor. The actor playing the victim is the always magnetic Gary Oldman, and he can tell a story. But Scott doesn't give him that chance. Instead he cuts to an out of focus sequence where the narrator cuts off his own face, hands it to Lecter who in turn feeds it to the dog. Scott is after gasps of shock here. And he gets them. Hannibal goes for senses, whilst Silence went for the psyche. Hannibal is to SOTL what a one-night-stand is to a rewarding, complicated relationship. The former, however, is not entirely without appeal.

But let's stop the comparisons for a moment. It's true that they're inevitable, but Q-What is Hannibal, at least theoretically, on its own terms? A-A richly ornamented, superficially atmospheric, diminutively symbolic gorefest. Scott's direction here is as clinical, inert and visually striking as ever. The only sequence that seems to have been shot on a bright day is the opening five minute raid that sets the story on motion. Clarice, now played by Julianne Moore, who is no less attractive then Foster was in the first film, is in trouble for a drug bust that went badly wrong. The aforementioned rich vinegary faceless victim who has enough money "to occasionally rent a senator from time to time" sees her as a perfect bait for Lecter. He senses, correctly, that the good doctor is attracted to distress, and moreover, he detects the implicit gravitation that Lecter and Starling have for one another. From his mansion, in his state of the art technology filled room, he pulls his strings. And Clarice stays in distress.

Meanwhile, Lecter is hibernating in Florence, the city he once drew from memory in his underground cell. He is spotted and identified by an Italian police officer, (Giancarlo Giannini a long way from Seven Beauties), who, the script quickly implies, is in dire need of money to satisfy his young wife's expensive tastes. He reports the doctor's presence, and things are set in motion. Rather than using this officer's flawed benevolence as human center for his film, Scott typically relishes the opportunity to stage the operas he and his wife frequent; complete with painted faces and elaborate lighting. A small detail, that Amazon would probably consider a spoiler, also prevents him from being the center of the film. It is Hopkins who must now carry the film. His lines, which were creepy behind the thick glass of Silence would be laughable out in the open. Sensing this, he underplays all his scenes. In the hands of another actor, a silly line like: "I've been giving serious consideration to eating your wife" would have been farcical. His understated performance salvages some of Lecter's enigma that was so pathetically shattered in Thomas Harris's 600 page laborious mediocrity of a novel (Harris actually went so far as to describe Lecter's tough childhood). On the other hand, notice how Moore speaks with a thick southern accent. Then compare that to how Foster spoke with a stilted one; trying to cover up her indigent upbringing. A character trait way too complex for Hannibal I'm afraid. It is unfair to criticize Moore; she does what she can with a one dimensional part.

Here I must admit that I approached Hannibal with low expectations. And I must admit that as such, I enjoyed it. Try to limit the comparisons to the earlier film such as Hans Zimmer's "effects" score versus Howard Shore's mournful revelatory one in Silence. (Last one I promise.) Scott, with the help of his Gladiator cinematographer, John Mathieson, has taken Harris's desperate, empty novel, and covered up with style and gore. He can not escape the fact that pure evil is infinitely more fascinating when it exists in the background, or on the sidelines as it did in Silence (I guess I lied), but less compelling up close, because then it has to be explained. Evil is a garnish that should be carefully applied lest it become ineffectual. My guess is Dr. Lecter would probably agree. This film, the gory, guilty pleasure that it is, would insult his sense of taste.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent
Review: I would like to have in my dvd collection ManHunter, Silence Of The Lambs, Hannibal all in DVDFormat in a box set of all the trilogys Thanks,Ralph DiGiovanni

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal is now a vegetarian?
Review: Just before I left to the cinema to see this, I recieved a phone-call from a friend of mine who had just returned from her viewing. She said it was simply rubbish and that I shouldn't waste my money. "But of course, you'll see it anyway." And by god was she right. First thing, WHY do American films have the NEED to make everyone in the world speak english (even aliens seem to speak it) I was kicking the chair in front of me during the whole time when Lecter was in Italy, and all the italians were walking around speaking english.

Okay, so that can be pardoned... I mean, subtitles don't make for a big box-office success, now do they? Let's comply to the norm, even if it makes the film look stupid.

Then there was nothing. At all. Just a build-up to something which never came. It feels as if they only had the dinner scene and thought "ok, let's build fluff around this". And if the ending in the book was so "unadaptable" by hollywood standards (okay, so it WAS a bit poo) why bother making the film?

Acting was good though. But there wasn't much to act with. No interaction, no chemistry. One dinner scene and Voila! the film was finished. END

Rating:
Summary: insides out
Review: i enjoyed silence of the lambs but i am not a hardcore fan. i went into this movie not exepecting nothing short of a small plot and nothing but pure gore to get the fans through it. in a way that's true, but i enjoyed it alot more than i thought i would. hopkins plays an excellent lector as can be expected and julianne moore definetely fits in well as clarice starling. i dont miss foster at all.

i think that horror fans can definetely appreciate this. the story is decent enough not to bore you, and the gore scenes are some of the best ive ever scene. some people gave away some of the best scenes but just in case i wont explain them in detail but lets just say there were people who threw up during this movie. a tip from me: save your appetite and eat after you see this movie, your food wont look the same as it used too. go check this movie out.

Rating:
Summary: Your Job Is To Craft My Doom...
Review: From the moment the movie starts till the end credits the feeling of fear never leaves your mind in this excellent masterpiece of a movie.People like me who have read the book will be delighted by the screenplay and will be pleased with the small variations, which overall make the movie more exciting. This being the follow up to Thomas Harris` "the silence of the lambs" sees hannibal lecter in a much more sophisticated and calculating role, and even though the thought of him attacking is always possible, you will always prepare yourself for something just as disturbing as the ambulance scene from the silence of the lambs, where hannibal makes a mask of skin in order to escape from his cell.The way in which the movie refers to events from the silence of the lambs is also superbly done, as you watch it you will start to remember even the smallest details about scenes, and we even get to see some archive videos of hannibal, which we hear about in the silence of the lambs. Another nice touch is the way in which the character "Barney" was included.Barney, to recap, is one of the nurses who looked after hannibal in the dungeon, and although they werent exactly friends we here of what he and hannibal had to say to each other and how clarice intrigued him.The gore level in this movie out of 5 would be 6.Although the movie is not a wall to wall bloodbath some of the scenes will make you feel very shocked and disturbed.I personally think this is the best movie ever made by far, the story is not shadowed by hannibal fans lust for blood and the suspense,drama, and mystery are perfectly evened out on screen. The amount we learn about hannibal also compliments the story perfectly and how is able to read clarice like a book.

This is the best movie ever made... Ta Ta

Rating:
Summary: A Knockout!!!!
Review: I loved this movie Julianne Moore is my favorate actress.Anthony Hopkins was better than ever.This movie was 10 times better than Silence of the lambs.This was much gorier than it's procedor I have saw this six times and it's just getting better and better.I recomend everyone sees this soon.

Rating:
Summary: From the Service of Light to the Service of Darkness
Review: The talented Mr Ridley has created cinematic masterpieces, both visually and spiritually in which true heroes battled evil. The films left the viewer feeling inspired by the compassion and courage that human beings can show when facing terrifying threats. These compelling film masterpieces are "Legend," in which Tom Cruise, in his first movie role, battled the Devil to save his betrothed; "Blade Runner," in which Harrison Ford battled his own evil; and "Alien," in which Sigourney Weaver fought an alien dragon. In all these morally lucid and visually captivating films the heroes won against the beasts. Then apparently Ridley Scott decided to try to beat another beast (Hollywood) at its own commercial game by showing that Mr Scott, too, can draw the masses' dollars to the Colliseum of Hollywood's usual violent, inhumane fare. In "Hannibal" Mr Scott used his prodigious talents to make a hero out of Hannibal, the Devil; and to muddy the message of the battle against evil by having the Devil save the heroine Clarice. Mr Ridley Scott has used his unique and exquisite sense of beauty to make the cruelty of Hannibal "palatable." The dark aspects of the Hollywood dream machine have found their new knight.

Rating:
Summary: Holy Hannibal!
Review: I LOVED this movie, no doubt about it. Completely different from Silence of the Lambs, and perhaps better. Hannibal shows a more human quality, if possible for him, in this one. He's as obsessed as ever with Clarice, and you can tell that he's been thinking every single day about her before this movie begins. It is, however, very slow to start and Clarice should have played a larger role, I think. She said very little throughout the movie, in my opinion.

Rating:
Summary: Better Than The Original!
Review: I know by making that statement many people will automatically disagree with me. But, I can't help it, it's what I honestly feel. "Silence Of The Lambs" was indeed a good movie. One though, I must admit, I felt was given a little too much credit then it deserved. For instance, if I were to write a review for it, I would probably give the movie 3 stars. But, the trouble I had with "Lambs" was that it didn't completely carry me. I wasn't totally involved. "Hannibal" on the other hand I find to be a very gripping, intense, and entertaining movie. The only reason one might dislike this film is because it's a sequel. I too personally dislike many sequels, expect for the ones we all love, "The Godfather part 2", "Empire Strikes Back"....ect. But there's something about this film that just had that certain something where I couldn't take my eyes off it. Ridley Scott, who is just coming off his "Gladiator" success, has made yet another wonderful film. I think everyone knows what this movie is about. Either they saw it already in theathers, or where told by friends. So, I won't go into detail about this film. I will only mention the strong points of the film. Lets start out with the acting. Anthony Hopkins is wonderful once again as Hannibal Lecter. There is a change in the character now. That change is for the better I feel. Lecter seems, and excuse me for the use of this word, more cool. He has more of a suave input on things now. And I personally like him this way. As for Julianne Moore, well. she's just great! We don't miss Foster at all in this movie. Moore delivers an excellent performance. I only wish her and Hopkins had more scenes together. But the ones they do have, hit the jackpot. They both seemed to play off each other very well in this movie. I was really surpised to see Giancarlo Giannini (Whom I personally rememeber seeing in Visconti's "The Innocent"). He doesn't really have what I would dare call a strong character in the film. I mean, no one I know is going to see this movie for him. The one person who is amazing in this movie goes unbilled. He plays Mason Verger (I'm still debating if I should reveal in or not, oh, why not, everyone's seen the movie already) Gary Oldman is a real highpoint in this film. I couldn't even recongize him in this film. The next thing to talk about is the screenplay. I love David Mamet's writting style. I hope there are others out there who enjoy his work as much as I do. Ridley Scott, in my opinion does a wonderful job setting up things. He's a director whom I'm really taken notice to lately. Well, there you have it. Those are my reason to go see this movie. And, I know it's kinda early on in the year to say this, but, this movie could be one of the best films of the year!