Hey folks, Harry here with a couple of treats for you. First up we have the super duper ultra crystal visuals and audios... HANNIBAL trailer... and next a review of the early San Diego test screening of HANNIBAL. This review is not spoiler filled... in fact there are nearly no spoilers in it at all. Now, I've seen in some talkbacks some folks asking why noone seems to be giving credit to David Mamet for the HANNIBAL script... and how come we all seem to be praising Steve Zaillian... I'll tell you. Mamet's script was terrible. Awful. A complete waste. I LOVE MAMET, but he was... COMPLETELY WRONG for the script. Zaillian came in... throughout that draft all together, grabbed hold of Thomas Harris' HANNIBAL and crafted a fantastic script. The film you will see comes from Zaillian's keyboard... not Mamet's. Second off... we have this review of HANNIBAL from Easy Rider, and while he seems to have liked the film quite a bit... he prefers SILENCE OF THE LAMBS... citing that Clarice's character was more fully developed there. HELLOOOOO? Knock Knock Knock? Since when has Harris' novels been Clarice's books? Ummm... was she in RED DRAGON? Ummm... Nooooooo. Clarice was a toy for Lecter, he is the central character about whom Harris has written. Pure delicious, lip smacking evil and this is his film. Clarice is here... but this is HANNIBAL's film... you might take a hint from the title. When you walk into the theater be prepared for it to be Hannibal's story. At last. Here's the trailer and the review... enjoy...
Harry,
I am sending you my review of Ridley Scott's HANNIBAL, based on my reactions
to it from the San Diego screening. (Yes, it DID happen. It's no B.S.
story. Why MGM and Universal feel that there's a need to test this film is
waaaay beyond me, as it risks letting the finale and all the film's secrets
loose. I will not spoil those secrets for everyone here, but I will mention
what I feel about them.)
The premise of the movie has already been
elaborately revealed on your site, and I see no reason to go on elaborating
when it's unnecessary. It follows the basic storyline of the book, though
it's a remarkable improvement in how it cuts out the various, uber-weird
subplots within Thomas Harris' work, and manages to put more emphasis on the
Clarice-Lecter relationship. Credit Steve Zaillian for condensing it all
into a watchable 2 hour movie. HANNIBAL is many things: it is a Ridley
Scott film, beautiful to behold and gripping in its intensity. It moves
fast, even though I clocked it in at 2 hours. It is well crafted and
fascinating.
But HELL, I'll just be the first one to come out and say it:
HANNIBAL is not a great film, and it certainly doesn't match the original
Jonathan Demme masterpiece. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS had a story marked with a
sense of emergency, as Buffalo Bill was on the prowl, and Clarice Starling
was in a race to the death to save the next victim. It was also a
psychological war between two great minds: Clarice, whose vulnerabilities
somehow became her greatest strength, and Hannibal Lecter, the man who needs
no explanation. HANNIBAL, however, has neither the immediate focus of the
first film's storyline, nor the intense psychological love/hate buildup
between the two leads. This isn't particularly Ridley Scott's fault, as the
book source material was SO out there, that this is indeed perhaps the best
movie they could have made. Don't get me wrong. It's good. But somehow
there's something missing from all this. Whether it's from the story, the
acting, the direction, I don't know, but the film just doesn't have THE SOUL
that the first film did.
And perhaps the reason might be with Julianne
Moore. But it may not, either. Moore is an exceptional actress, and she
aquits herself well. Like a well trained stage actress doing Shakespeare,
she has the right look, the right accent (sounds just like Jodie Foster did),
and the right moves. But she's not really given that much to do, and her
character isn't as well developed or as fascinating as what Jodie Foster had
to work with. Though Clarice is hardly a minor character in HANNIBAL, she
seems pushed back to the second billing, and Moore's interpretation of
Clarice just isn't as edgy or as vulnerable as Foster's. Now this is not to
put any blame on Moore's shoulders. Make no mistake. She's good. Very,
very good. If she's not Foster, than she really is the next best thing. But
the story doesn't let her reach the full emotional spectrum that Clarice was
given in the original. I love Julianne Moore, but I love Jodie Foster too,
and if it HAD to be a choice between them, I'd put my money on Foster.
Now
on the flip side, there's Tony Hopkins. He's really the whole movie, and he
seems to love doing it. Whatever he was paid ($10 million? 15? 20?) he's
worth it. But even Lecter doesn't seem to be as dangerous or menacing as he
used to be. I'll tell you, watching him in SLIENCE behind those bars,
staring out at Clarice, at US, without blinking. DAMN FUCKING CREEPY! But
in HANNIBAL, Lecter's more relaxed, less intimidating, and less frightening.
(If Hopkins had lost another 20 pounds, it might have helped a bit.) But at
those moments where he does his stuff, he's in grand form.
Now, there's been
some production makeup drawings of Gary Oldman's character posted in the
past. (HARRY NOTE: Click Here to visit FetalFilms.Com that had them sketches!!!) What has ended up in the film isn't as garish, but still REALLY FREAKY
AS SHIT!!!!!!!!!! The skin is SOOOOOO leathery, a brilliant makeup job likely
to give me the shivers long after the movie's over. AGHHHH!!!!!!!!!
And how
is the direction? Well, c'mon asshole, it's Ridley friggin' SCOTT. It's
gorgeous. The lighting is harshly contrasted, stark, with brilliant colors,
unlike the subdued look of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. These ARE different films,
and as most of the sequel takes place in Florence, the deliberate change of
the look is understandable.
Scott has used a lot of Italian opera within the
film. Even if it is just temp music, it somehow works with the Florentine
setting. But I think that the film actually needs a few more quiet, personal
moments like SILENCE had. It's as though everyone is trying to make the film
move as quickly as possible, they have decided to cut the scenes very
quickly. Perhaps to add a few longer, quieter moments would make the buildup
of tension more effective when it comes.
HANNIBAL's gonna make a shitload of
money. Will it win everyone Oscars like the first film did? Likely not, but
it will give us a great ride
I have to hit the road myself,
Easy Rider.
|
