Cool News
High Quality Quicktime HANNIBAL trailer + another review!!!
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...
High Quality QUICKTIME - HANNIBAL trailer!!!
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.
-
+ Expand All
-
"Thats all I got to say about that."
-
I saw Silence in the theater at the tender age of 14, thus I am now an emotionally fucked up 25 year old. If the final product lives up to this trailer, I'll probably end up an emotionally fucked up 50 year old.
-
Orgasm.....I can't wait that long! I need a hit, now!
-
Then read the book dummy
-
This review gave me chills. The guy thinks RIDLEY SCOTT is a great director and says that the film is not very good, so it must be terrible. And then says that the movie has fast-cut editing? Well.This is this "great" director most famous caracteristic Ridley can't let one shot be for more than 10 seconds.
-
The trailer looks exacty how I pictured it when I was reading Hannibal. Kudos to Ridley Scott and Zaillian. I also loved how they used a slowed down version of the music from SOTL. Hannibal can't open soon enough.
-
Your wrong about Clarice. Harris DID write about her in SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The theme isn't really developed in the film, but the center of the novel is about two people with tragic childhoods, Jame Gumb and Clarice Starling, and it draws a comparison/contrast to show the effects of such an upbringing and to show two people who took opposite paths because of that upbringing. One was shaped by his past in a negative way. The other, Clarice, the center of the story, is driven to do what she can to take control and make something positive of herself. Harris does write about her. Lecter is there of course, as the mentor archetype (albeit twisted), quite possibly representing the presence of the author. He is vampire who lives off of other's feelings because he has none of his own. He is there, but the book is not about him. Neither is RED DRAGON. Only HANNIBAL is actually about Hannibal.
-
"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!"
This guy obviously doesn't pay a whole lot of thought to what he watches. You know, since Hannibal wasn't behind bars. -
The trailer was fantastic. It looks great. Hopkins has some great lines..."does this mean you are on the case again? If so...goody...goody." My god! I can't wait to see this movie? Only three months until this comes out. Ridley Scott, after this and Gladiator, welcome back.
-
Nov 19, 2000 2:45:14 AM CST
SAW THE TRAILER ON THE BIG SCREEN IN FRONT OF 6th Day....
by geekbasher 3.0
and I was breathless, The whole audience was very attentive and eyes wide focused on what I believe will be the BIGGEST OPENING DAY FOR A HORROR/GENRE FIlM EVER! Sorry VaLENTINE but you will be squashed! I CANNOT FUCKING WAIT FOR HANNIBAL! I LIVE IN SAN DIEGO, WHY THE FUCK DID I NOT HEAR ABOUT THIS SCREENING! DAMN! I GOT INTO THE GLADIATOR SCREENING! MAN I WOULD'VE DIED TO HAVE BEEN ThERE!!! CAN'T WAIT, HANNIBAL WILL ROCK HARD!
-
GRR!
'Ridley Scott can't make a shot last more then 10 seconds'??
What? Like, dude, watch Blade Runner.
I think piano, 'I dreamt music..'
Hannibal Lecter + Scott = good, dude. Impossible to miss. Believe me. -
A) Darth Boner: Lecter is behind bars in SOTL. He's in a cage prior to his escape and probably does look creepier in that than in his glass cell.
B) Groovy trailer. I was going to see this anyway but the appetite has certainly been whetted. I love the ghostly face in the lens flare at the start. I doubt it's intentional but I just keep getting drawn to it.
C) D.O.P.: Ridley can let his camera drift slowly around a scene when he wants to. Note Alien & Bladerunner. It could be that the recent MTV editing style he's chosen has more to do with his new resident editor Pietro Scalia. But of course I could be being biased toward my hero :)
D) I don't think it's fair of Harry to say that Harris writes only about Hannibal. I've got to agree with Sternwood there. And with taser about remaking Red Dragon after Michael Mann's excellent version. Clarice is a vital part of the equation and kudos for casting the ever excellent Julianne Moore over a gaggle of far lesser acresses. -
Yeah, these BOMP BOMP are really funny. Anyway this trailer kicks major ass and I hope that the film will too. Although there is one thing that preoccupies my mind: The end of the film. The most strange and exciting part of the book was the end. I heard that they changed It in the film. I just wonder how... Anyone has a clue???
-
sure sometimes he gets the energy to get up and "work in the garden" but most of the time he just sits back, reads the newspaper or the latest tom clancy book
he is an old man now
give the bloke a break
there would not even be a new movei/book of him if it weren't for thef act that some other weirdo wants revenge
hannibal just wants to sit back and take it easy in his retirement
leave the poor old fellow alone
he is allowed to be relxed and slightly pudgy -
Nov 19, 2000 8:04:12 AM CST
Hannibal's free, so he WOULD be heavier now that he can eat whoe
by drath
Well, I have to see this one now for sure. I think a lot of the comparisons to SOTL is just the typical sequel curse. Time has passed so of course the characters will be different. Will they be as interesting is another story. Of course Harry and the rest of us can't really criticize the reveiwers until we've seen the movie too--damn lucky reviewers. I didn't at first think I'd see this one in a theater. I don't really like horror movies, but they can be fun in large numbers. I remember seeing Apt Pupil and when that guy in the basement rose up behind Brad Renfro a girl in the audience shrieked for five whole seconds. It was scarier than the movie.
-
I'm looking forward to this movie.
The review given here only makes me want to see it more. The reason? I read the book and to be honest I think most of the readers felt that it wasn't built as your average sequel. The mood was much different from Silence of the Lambs as was the story. Its also true that the book didn't get as deep with Clarice as the first one but I dont think that hurt the story. I'm glad they didn't. Harris didn't try to recapture her deep Psyche like the first one. I felt we got all that from the first and it carries on to the second without explaining every move she makes. If you are looking for a good book to movie translation than I think you'll be pleased. If you want the same Silence of the Lamb experience I don't think you'll find it and Hannibal, book or movie. -
I have been waiting for years for this, there isn't any other sequel I want to see as bad. Jodi's a jerk and it serves her right that Russell Crowe dumped her for Meg Ryan and the stupid movie she wanted to do instead got cancelled: HAHA, she owes something to her fans but I'm glad Juliane's doing it she is a better actress and a babe. The trailer is so cool and hearing Anthony do Lector again has got my juices flowing. I read the book and I liked it, all violence and no sex makes Hannibal a dull boy so I hope Juliane's got some nude scenes in this (nobody has mentioned this important point yet).
-
Thingie: Of course he has shots more long than 10 seconds. But they are few and they are reserved at most to the films that where he was trying to adapt to the media: The Duelists, Alien and Blade Runner. Since then he has drowned us in a fast-cutting mayhem!!!
Motoko_UK: First. Thanks for being totaly polite. Is a rarity in these talkbacks. Second: I believe you are a little biased. It has all to do with Scott, independent of hes choice of editors. He has come from TV and tried to adapt himself, as I said before, to the language of cinema during his 3(soberb by the way)first films, but, since then, he has let go of this adaptation and left only the taste of what could be and mediocre filmmaking. -
Please, regardless of the opening day (which I don't doubt will be huge just on the strength of the Hannibal thing) this movie is gonna blow -- you can make a bad movie out of a good story, but not the other way around. HANNIBAL was a singularly crappy novel after the first two successes cuz let's face it Thomas Harris is nowhere near as smart as his creation, Lecter. Which is fine when he's locked up and we can all IMAGINE how badass and smart he is. But once he's in Florence running around like any other Master Criminal with Class and what Americans think passes for Wit, he is LAAAAAAAME.
And y'know what? Goopy Face makeup ain't scary. And y'know what else? Wild Boars are reallreallyreally NOT SCARY. Harris blew it, and the best his Holywood interpreters are gonna give you is a slasher film with bourgeois pretensions to class.
Dana -
You commented that he lost some of his menace, possible through putting on 20 pounds or so.
The question is - what has he been eating to put on those 20 pounds? Be afraid.
K -
I wasn't that pumped about the film, but man, what a trailer. Suddenly I'm very confident in the whole affair.
-
What was the reason Foster did not do this?! Half of the excitement of the first film was the on screen play of Foster and Hopkins. I just can't buy Moore. Everytime I see her, I think of, "Boogie Nights."
-
Nov 19, 2000 3:46:24 PM CST
I am pretty sure that Gary Oldman is the guy in the wheelchair a
by iamlegolas
-
How could Harris possibly have written this book with big $$$$ in mind (and it took more than 10 years, hello?) with sentences like "Mixed hungers crossed his face; it was Krendler's nature to both appreciate Starling's leg and look for the hamstring." HANNIBAL is a great great novel --the amazing premise being that Hannibal Lecter is the Super avenger of mediocrity, boorishness and barbarism. He kills only the rude, the "free range rude" and those he finds pleasing ("The world is more interesting with you in it"), he keeps alive, like Barney & Clarice & that little boy who ate his liver sandwich. (Heh heh, I sure hope this scene stayed in the movie.) Pant after self-advancement or money (Pazzi, Krendler) or helpless little children (Mason Verger), they you're dead meat.
PS. In the trailer's dungeon scene, that has to be Hannibal carrying Clarice, because Verger is completely paralyzed. -
HANNIBAL in the spring and THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING in the winter. Who the f**k needs summer.
-
but I'll probably end up renting it (but not watching it in my basement!). I've only read the end of the book (yes I'm one of those people), but I'll most likely end up reading it. Also, I don't really think that Red Dragon is that amazing work that you people seem to think it is, but it was fairly interesting. I wish that the man who captured Lecter was in this movie (I can't remember his name right now) because he was interesting in the book. Well anyways, bye.
-
Nov 19, 2000 6:28:49 PM CST
That is Oldman in the wheelchair but it is not Oldman carrying t
by scatmuncher
...It's Lecter, and it's the trailer's only hint as to the film's finale.... (licking lips :] )
-
And ones from the multimedia section (L of the Rings in particular) when they don't appear in the windows tempoary internet folder, and 'save as target' does not work. Please help.
-
At least for Silence of the Lambs. But I can understand that Hannibal is in fact based on Hopkin's character. In fact, the title of 'Lambs' refers directly to Clarice's dilemna. Hannibal is not the star of that film and never was.
-
Man you're right! Clarice in the book Silence of the Lambs is real different from the Jodie Foster character and I remember when I saw the movie there were some things that were off because people kept saying what a babe Clarice was and men were always eyeing her and Hannibal said that thing to her about how she'd used men in the backseats of cars and it just didn't fit. All right sometimes Jodie Foster looks okay but basically she's a plain Jane and the character was supposed to be beautiful and in the Hannibal book he talks about how beautiful she is and Jodie ain't beautiful and she ain't sexy either which some girls who aren't beautiful are.So it didn't make sense that all the men in the book (Chilton too) were acting like they were hot forher.
-
Okay people,
I have been following the movie for about a year now ever since I read the novel for the first time and let me give you my opinion on teh novel, the movie, the director, the actors and the trailer.
First of all: Scott as a director. Give the guy a break; the benefit of the doubt. He's done some pretty amazing movies ('Blade Runner', 'Alien', 'Thelma and Lousie', 'The Gladiator') and definately more movies than Jonathan Demme (who only did two big movies, knowing 'The Silence of the Lambs' and 'Philadelphia'). I was at first a bit afraid that he might focus too much on the cruel scenes and too less on the interaction between and the development of the character. 'Hannibal' is not about all of those cruel scenes. It is abou the banality of evil. How far can someone go to seek his revenge (Mason Verger) and what has caused someone to become a mass-murderer and cannibal (the events that took place in Lecter's childhood in relation to his sister Mischa). Some scenes in 'Hannibal' are amazing and from what I have heard (from people who saw the flick already as well as from director Ridley Scott himself) the movie tries to focus on the relationship between Lecter and Starling. That was also the weakest point in Demme's 'The Silence of the Lambs'. I read the novel first and then saw the movie and the novel was even better than the movie because it describes better the relationship and how it grew between Clarice and Hannibal and the way he emotionally presures her.
What was very striking about the cinematography (from the trailer and the photos on the official site) that it is all very warm; a lot of blue and black (the scenes that took place in the US), that immediately reminded me of the cinematography for 'Jurassic Park' (I know absurd comparison) and the Florence scenes reminded me of teh cinematography of 'The Talented Mr. Ripley'.
Then about the acting: Julianne Moore is one of my favorite actresses. I already liked her a lot before she signed up for 'Hannibal'. I absolutely adored her in 'Magolia', still one of my all-time favorite movies.
Hopkins: need I say more. He's not making a parody of the character Hannibal Lecter. Lecter is a parody himself. He's sophisticated and articulated and he's always trying to show off his intellect. He does that in Florence, he did that whenever e spoke to Clarice and he does it when he starts buying exclusive food, wines and equipment. He is decadent but calls this having a fine taste.
Now some actors/characters are still unknown:
- Who plays Margot Verger. Obviously not a well-known actress. I can't imagine she'd be left out of the movie. Her character is way too important for that. She's the only one having control over Mason, her brother. Rumors were saying Sarah Michelle Gellar was playing her but I guess that ain't true. I still think Pam Greer is perfect for that part (but I guess it's too late for that, huh?)
- Ardelia Mapp: probably left out of the movie; her part is very small anyway.
- Jack Crawford; he dies in the novel and probably is left out also
- John Brigham; there's a guy called agent M -
I remember reading somewhere, I think it was either popcorn.uk or on a universal studio's bb, that Margot is not in the movie. She was too minor a character and the plot points that she was a part of (lesbian couple wanting a baby, child molestation/incest when she was young, killer of Mason) were deemed either taking away from Hannibal's malevolence or unfit for a mainstream film, even an "R" rated one.
Ardelia Mapp is actually important in the book only as a sort of a deus ex machina device. Krendler's being an asshole and gunning for her, Mapp tells Starling that she heard it through the grapvine. You wonder if Clarice is still with Ardelia voluntarily, Clarice sends a letter to her. I doubt Ardelia will be in the movie. At one point in the book it even gets to the absurd: Clarice needs a black iron fry pan, but doesn't own one. Well Ardelia has one, by gum!
John Brigham will be replaced by someone ethnic, so that cast isn't completely white. The only two people in the book who cared about him anyway were Clarice and Deus ex Machina Woman, Ardelia.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 419 total posts 209 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 131 total posts 129 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 123 total posts 122 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 124 total posts 58 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 191 total posts 47 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 43 total posts 43 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 42 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 27 total posts 27 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 506 total posts 26 posts
- HANNA's Saoirse Ronan to boss around seven little people -- 77 total posts 24 posts