Cool News
El Cosmico Reviews The Mediocrity That Is HANNIBAL
El Cosmico here with a review of a film I was sorely disappointed with,
HANNIBAL. Oh, and by the way, SAVING SILVERMAN completely fell flat and was a total
waste of time except for R. Lee Ermey and the super-cute Amanda Detmer. Utter crap.
That almost says it all, but I'll go into a bit more detail. When considering
this film, I remembered all of the things that I loved about SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
The focus, the atmosphere, the writing, the performances, the real, strongly felt
dramatic tension that pervaded the entire film.
Well, if I were Jodie Foster, I would have taken one look at the script of
this film and opted out too. It is just so extremely lacking in all of the things
that I enjoyed in SOTL. For the first hour and a half, almost nothing happened.
No tense moments, NO MYSTERY, no new information or twists, nothing.
More than that, there was no focus. Sure, the film is called HANNIBAL, but for
a good deal of this film, you're wondering who the heck it's really about. The
character of Clarice Starling is practically relegated to being an extra. The
writing for what screen time she has is terribly conventional, predictable, and
uninteresting. It's just going through the motions. Personally, I didn't care for
Julianne Moore in the Starling role, but I don't think Ms. Moore was the problem,
at least not most of it. Jodie might have been better, but this would still be an
unworthy sequel.
Hopkins for his part is excellent, but the material he's given to work with is
similarly a terrible waste. Again, think of everything you loved about his
character in SOTL...why was that all thrown away in HANNIBAL? No dramatic entrances,
no sense of mystery about the man, and replacement of complex psychology with simplistic
psycho-babble. Hopkins does the best he can with it, but for some reason those
making this film felt the need to take what rare moments of dramatic tension there were,
and just as they were building up, the filmmakers punctuate them with hopelessly bland
humor, not only failing in their attempts at clever wit, but instantly throwing away
what little good material they might have been setting up.
I thought Giancarlo Giannini's character was the best, which isn't really saying
much, but again, as much as the material allowed, Giancarlo impressed me. I think he
deserves better roles. To be sure, what few worthwhile scenes there are in this film
are those focused squarely on Giancarlo. Ray Liotta, for his part, was simply a big turn-off for me, but
again, I think this was a bad choice on the part of the filmmakers. If you make the
mistake of seeing this film, you'll see what I mean. Of all of the characters, the
worst choices are made with his. Especially, to say it in spoiler-free fashion,
the choice made near the end of this film, which I thought had enormous, pointlessly wasted
potential.
Finally, there is Gary Oldman. To be quite honest, when the film opened with
his character, and I heard his voice, I thought they'd cast Larry Flint. The makeup
was well-done on this horribly disfigured man. The problem I have with this character
though, is that the accent, in my opinion was comical. Not the choice I would
have made for such a supposedly frightening character. More than that, the writing behind this character, and the total portrayal just came off as, uninspiring. I don't want to give too much away,
but suffice it to say that this character clearly doesn't live up to its intent.
That's really most of the problem here. Of all of the characters, only one succeeds
on any level, and that's Giannini's. The film is called HANNIBAL, but you'll spend the
whole duration wondering who this film is actually about. Who is the antagonist? Who's
the protagonist? What is the real conflict in this film? Why do we care? Is there a
message? Do we learn anything new about any of the characters? What is the point of this film?
Well, there aren't any good answers to any of those questions. More than that, there's
no real atmosphere, nothing even approaching the atmosphere of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The
film constantly jumps back and forth, ultimately going nowhere. There is no sense of fear.
None. No sense of an unfolding mystery. None. No reason to see this film. None.
I watched HANNIBAL with a group of other local reviewers, and of the bunch, whose
opinions vary widely, not one said that they loved it. One of them indicated that he liked
it, although I felt a somewhat reluctant tone in his voice. Most of the others had notably
lukewarm reactions, and the most commonly spoken remark was that the film really dragged. A
lot.
Is it fair to compare this film to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS? Well, everyone else going into
this film will be doing exactly that. SOTL is, after all, the sole reason people want to
see HANNIBAL. It's what people expect. More than that, it's what they want.
So, there you have it. Others may be mystified (suckered) simply by being shown
Anthony Hopkins in moving pictures. Some may think that occasional use of disgusting
makeup means that a film is being artfully and skillfully done. That's what the studios
are counting on, that's how
they make most of their money, simply by putting a random star up on the screen, quality
of the movie be damned. To be sure, Anthony Hopkins is about as sure a bet as they come,
but sadly, HANNIBAL is a film that even he couldn't save. It's just mediocre, through and
through. Decidedly not worth seeing.
-El Cosmico
-
+ Expand All
-
at least somebody has the balls to say it.
-
...wild horses could not drag me away from seeing this one.
-
Ahh what the hell, I'll still be first in line to see this.
-
Feb 08, 2001 1:38:49 PM CST
Oh really, Harry is Fat!! ? Well, then how come Quint seems to
by finalgarbage
Stupid bastard.
-
Sounds like the novel then.
-
Feb 08, 2001 1:49:24 PM CST
Really, HIF? Well then how come they trashed THE CELL? You par
by finalgarbage
What a moron.
-
Feb 08, 2001 1:52:15 PM CST
WAIT, DIDN'T HARRY POST AN EXTREMELY POSITIVE REVIEW OF THE SCRI
by trigger95
Maybe it was Moriarty, but I think it was Harry. And now he's badmouthing the script, saying it was the movie's major problem? What gives? At least have the integrity to admit you were wrong the first time. Oh, I forgot. It's AICN we're talking about.
-
Feb 08, 2001 1:55:42 PM CST
Trigger, you stupid fuck, it's EL COSMICO writing, not Harry!
by finalgarbage
YOU STUPID BASTARD! God damn, this is kind of fun.
-
No advanced screenings? Making Hannibal Lector a good guy? That's like making Sean Connery and Christopher Lambet aliens in "Highlander II"! Of course its a piece of shit! Jodie Foster was smart to bail out of this project. You know you can't make shit like this, but if you put it on film, you can sell it at the ticket booth.
-
Is it me or does Habbibal Lector sound like he wants to say, "WHASSUUUPPP???!!! like in those Budweiser commercials? Everyone should yell it in the theater from time to time.
-
Feb 08, 2001 2:05:58 PM CST
Oh, amazing, HIF, just thrilling. Well, I guess you win that ar
by finalgarbage
Oh wait, yes they have...YOU STUPID BASTARD!
-
i think one of the main problems is that the script did not know what it wanted to be. it had numerous story arcs floating throughout and rather having them all come together and resolve, each story climaxed at different times and the resolutions to each didn't flow; they were forced.
also, it seemed a lot of lecter's character stregth & personality established in SOTL was undermined. he became a crime fighter of sorts. at one point during the film, my friend leaned over and said 'this is like a batman movie'. his statement has a bit merit.
i knew the story of the book so was expecting not to like the movie. ultimately, i thought it was a better movie than expected (it surely looked terrific), but still not a reallly good movie. i think it's worth seeing simply to make your own judgement. -
As finalgarbage so eloquently pointed out (between marathan sessions of jerking-off to old "Facts of Life" Reruns starring Blair's retarded sister no doubt), Harry did not badmouth the script. My mistake, Harry.
-
Feb 08, 2001 2:31:59 PM CST
WEREN'T THE TEST AUDIENCES IN SAN DIEGO SCREAMING WITH FRIGHT AT
by iamlegolas
What the... I thought this movie was supposed to kick major ass? Guess I will form my own opinion when I see it this weekend.
-
This movie bites!!!!
-
Cosmico never reviewed this script! What I said was that Cosmico WROTE THIS REVIEW, NOT HARRY! Which, you would know if you read the article.
-
Instead of shooting the messenger (this site) let's consider the possibility that this film may well suck harder than Monica Lewinsky's hoover ! There were no advance screenings, possibly indicating that the studio knew full well that they'd produced a cucumber sized turd, and that it was too late to do anything about it.
-
I thought it was a decent film that stood on it's own. Not really a worthy sequel, but it would be unfair to compare anything to 'Silence'. Beleive it or not, the darkly comic tone of the movie is more along the lines of 'American Psycho' or 'Ravenous'. Go see it and judge for yourself.
-
And I never said Cosmico reviewed the script. I simply said he badmouthed it, which he clearly does in the review. Now, feel free to get back to your mail-order bride shopping.
-
Feb 08, 2001 2:51:32 PM CST
wait, are you saying it's wrong to jack to Blair's sister?
by finalgarbage
dude, why would you think that? what could be more right?
-
http://www.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/02/08/hannibal.review/index.html
-
Which one was Blair ? It's been years since I saw that series !
-
I'm one of those who is of the opinion that Harris wrote "Hannibal" essentially as a big "up yours!" to a world of Lector worshippers. The media and much of the public seemed to treat Lector as some sort of celebrity, even though he was the most odious character Harris had created. Therefore, he gives the public exactly what they seem to want - a novel where Hannibal is the hero. And then sits back and laughs when they get all uncomfortable about it. If taken from this point of view, the book (and, I'm hoping, the movie) is rather funny and far more entertaining than if it's taken in a straightforward fashion ... Again, this is just MY THEORY. I've read nothing (like interviews) that directly supports this, but it's a theory that just happens to fit the facts. (and this is a far more fun theory to ponder than simply arguing Harris has lost his touch =->) ... Actually, I take that back. It's not exactly a primary source, but I read a quote from composer Hans Zimmer where he claims (in typical deadpan manner) that the movie is really a romantic comedy.
-
Feb 08, 2001 3:26:09 PM CST
IGNORE THIS REVIEW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by dirtman
This film is far far better than SOTL.It now looks like a film rather than a TV series that Demme came out with.And it WILL shock you more than the book did.I have a pirate copy that i have seen 5 times now with my freinds and we are already booked for the preview screenings.SUPERB!!!!!!!
-
Dirtman, you loser, shut up with your "pirated copy". If you can't tell what a crappy film this is, well, then your opinion is automatically impeached. WHY DO YOU THINK THE STUDIO HAS BEEN HIDING THIS FILM AND NOT PREVIEWING IT? Because it sucks, that's why. If not, they'd show it and it would get good word of mouth. Instead, it's being hidden, lots of people will be suckered into going this weekend , it will make a ton of money, and then, through bad word of mouth, it will drop off sharply in attendance next weekend.
-
Feb 08, 2001 3:41:57 PM CST
holy shit, dirtman, are you really dumb enough to think this is
by poohhead
Jesus Christ, man, wake the fuck up! Lay off the drugs, eh? The book sucked, and so will the film. That's the end of that.
-
"Havin' a Bud. Watchin' the game. True. True."
-
Didn't that girl have down-syndrome ? Is that the same as retardation ? Why do I find this so funny... the pills ? You're a funny guy, trigger... a funny guy.
-
Didn't that girl have down-syndrome ? Is that the same as retardation ? Why do I find this so funny... the pills ? You're a funny guy, trigger... a funny guy. Hannibal must suck, I'd love to know about any film that doesn't get a preview.
-
Was it her sister or cousin? Anyway to answer the question, blair was the long haired blonde that used to be a mouseketeer (along with Julie who didn't make it past the first season) and I think the sister/cousin had either MS or MD. I don't think that qualifies as retarded. And the kid of Life Goes On had Down Syndrome. Any other questions?
-
You know what's predictable and uninspiring, El Cosmico? Yours and some of the others' on this site reviews. You forget... Not everyone has read the book. Not everyone is going to think this movie sucks, and not everyone will be WRONG or wasting their time. Hell, by nature, watching a movie is a waste of time most of the time anyway, and that's coming from a movie fan! Which is another point you guys miss in your elitist viewpoints. Movies are, for the most part, intended for entertainment. And if you believe in freedom of expression, you'll believe in freedom to choose and be right about what is entertaining and what is good. In retrospect, however, your views shouldn't attempt to intimidate someone who's views might be otherwise, i.e. calling them stupid if they go to the movie.
I know I come to this site voluntarily and I know I don't HAVE to read the stuff I complain about all the time, but rumors of Harry having sold out some time back with his site are ridiculous. Instead of becoming more mainstream, you guys have just lined up one by one to lampoon anything that isn't low-budget with depressing, violent, vulgar, and / or sarcastic characters.
-
Cosmico's review didn't say you had to read the book, and the guy is giving his opinion. Elitist? How the fuck is it elitist to not like a bad fucking movie? Freedom of expression doesn't mean he has to like everyone's movie, you dumbass. Oh, and "Harry is fat", since you seem to be a clueless dumbass too, I'll fill you in...all radio and online press were banned from attending screenings, that is public knowledge. AICN was able to get people in, but the only other online sites that did were those that have print media as their main business. So both of you, shut the fuck up. You're stupid bastards.
-
Last week Harry runs about five reviews hailing this movie as the second coming of Jesus. Today, he runs one which tears it apart and another that is pretty favorable. I guess I just don't have the IQ to find the conspiracy in this (or to come up with such a clever nickname as "Harry is Fat!!", for that matter).
-
because in ten years when you put Hannibal on your top ten list, I want to shove it in your face and make you eat it! All these babies just waiting to spring into the backlash, to "not follow the herd." Go back to Urban Legends 2 and Final Destination 2 and I Creamed What You Ate Last Summer.
-
A reference to "IT RUBS THE LOTION ON ITS SKIN, OR ELSE IT GETS THE HOSE AGAIN!!!!" would make this movie kick ass. The scenery is beautiful, the locations are excellent. This movie will be excellent. Love, Peace and Chicken Grease.
-
Hollywood has been putting out crap since, the early 90's late 80's. I'll still take my girl to see it. I just pray Spidey will be good.
-
Why don't you turds forget about Silence of the fags and go watch a real movie called SEVEN!
-
Because that film is one of the most overrated pieces of dog shit ever made. I really don't get what you little girls find so scary and disturbing about that film. Be a man and grow some nuts!
-
I watched it again recently and was reminded how amateur most of the film was. The acting by the two leads reclaimed it, and the face-switching and wrong-house scenes (both of which are straight out of the book, big deal Mr. Tally)are cool, but the rest is on-the-nose obvious and melodramatic. And not scary! Was anybody genuinely scared by this movie??? To me, it was the beginning of the P.C. horror we see so often today -- nobody wants to be "rude" anymore and scare the shit out of the audience. Really, look at SOTL again: the music is corny, the set up is clumsy and overacted (especially the lech who runs the asylum) and it doesn't have a bit of the skill, richness, or atmosphere of "Seven", which is in my mind by far the best serial killer movie ever made. (They should retire the genre now) And to anybody who has the Criterion disc of SOTL, check out those lame-ass cut scenes...they really show what a terrible director Demme can be. (Another opinion, no extra charge: the attack on Melanie Griffith and Jeff Daniels at the end of "Something Wild" is scarier than anything in SOTL) Demme has his moments, but so much of the movie was TV-ish, bland. I know all this is heresy cuz the damn thing won Best Picture and all, but hey, let's not let the truth get in the way, huh? Oh, and can I join the party...YOU'RE ALL STUPID BASTARDS!!! Hey, that WAS fun...
-
What are you, high? SOTL was an awesome movie, much better than seven, which was fairly predictable after the first twenty minutes.
-
Ah, now I remember....Blair was pretty well stacked and had a pechant for jumpsuits. I always had moreof a hankering for Jo. She started out as a biker chick with attitude if I recall. Tootie and the fat Hutt chick never did anything for me !
-
you knew this movie will suck if jodie foster declines to take it! why would she NOT accept this role if it was a well written movie? SOTL was one of her most proudest movies she's done. god bless her for having the integrity to look beyond mere $$. although you can't say the same for those *sshole studio executives who only want to milk a cow for quick $$. ridley scott is great for big *ss action movies or films that have a great visual look. but he can't do a suspense. he doesn't have that depth. gladiator was a popcorn movie, a very well made popcorn movie but it had no depth.
-
especially those of you who havn't seen the movie, yet think we're interested in hearing your opinion of it. why not reserve judgement until you've SEEN THE FUCKIN' THING??? then you'll have something to talk about.
respectfully,
sergio -
especially those of you who havn't seen the movie, yet think we're interested in hearing your opinion of it. why not reserve judgement until you've SEEN THE FUCKIN' THING??? then you'll have something to talk about.
respectfully,
sergio -
Hannibal killed multiple Miggs in SOTL (or rather induced him to kill himself) and was punished by being forced to watch religious TV. Got to agree with you, though...Miggs had one hell of a line.
-
"I ate his liver with some fava beans and a nice WASSSSSAAAAABI!" "Wassabi, Doctor Lector?" "Wassaaaaabbiii! Goody Goody!" I have to agree with Uncapie in that making Lector some kind of hero to root for is pretty weak. I've said it before, it isn't any different than Freddy Krueger. Once you start cheering for the monster, the thriller/horror film has lost its point, and has veered into camp. Perhaps Harris was trying to pull a fast one on the public by satiating their bloodlust and then some, but that doesn't change the fact that the guy is a hack. He wrote the book for $$$, and it's sad that in 10+ years after SOTL was written he had nothing new to write about. If they try to remake Red Dragon I will personally have to firebomb the set. Manhunter remains the best film of a Harris book (even if not as faithful as SOTL), Mann the best director, Will Graham the best protagonist, Dennis Farina the best Jack Crawford, and finally, BRIAN COX IS STILL A BETTER LECTOR/LEKTER!!! Remember psychologican thrillers? When you were asked to think inside a film? Sit and spin, folks....
-
Anybody saying that AICN pumped the script and then trashed the movie doesn't understand the way that works if they're saying there's something wrong with doing that. A script can be great and a movie crap or vice versa. I fucking loved the "Gone in Sixty Seconds" script that Scott Rosenberg wrote, but then the movie - which still credits the man - turned out to be utter shit. You can judge a movie by reading a screenplay, seriously.
-
Ok, it sounds like you've got a few good points, but if you read the book, you know that in Hannibal, Lecter isnt the villain...Verger and his cronies are. He wants revenge, and will go to great lengths to get it. But the only reason why it's called Hannibal is because Lecter is more or less EVERYBODY's trophy....hell, its the same deal in SOTL....Lecter isnt the monster, Buffalo Bill is! lecter is just the neutral observer. The problem lies in giving him too much attention....nobody remembers that the very reason why Starling went after Lecter is for advice on how to capture the WOMAN SKINNING, GOVERNOR'S DAUGHTER KIDNAPPING Bill....Lecter's already i jail....he's a caged animal...and while he steals the show with his own sick personality.....in the end, he plays second fiddle to the danger at hand..and now in Hannibal, Lecter is playing the potential victim....Verger wants his "pig revenge"....Clarice just wants her peace of mind in catching him.....the government...well, duh, the guy's on the Ten Most Wanted list....but in the end, Verger has the best shot at Lecter, and of all the things that could potentially kill Lecter, Verger's is the least righteous (then again, the guy did get him to feed his face to a dog...)...this is why Lecter is such an intriguing, and sometimes cheerable monster....he knows damn well what he is...and the very ability and wish to lead that simpler life, inside a library, playing the violin makes you, ultimately, wish he finds peace...but he wont get it...and he's willing to resort to the methods of old to try and keep it...of course, when the government and Clarice start closing in, he's more than willing to play the game again.....anyways, I'm definitely takin' my ass to see this thing later today....I'll make up my own mind as to whether Ridley S. screwed us all or not...also, one last thing before i get out of here....I will personally bitchslap the next person who calls Silence OR Hannibal a fucking horror movie! It's a CRIME DRAMA and a THRILLER with some sick characters....some people couldnt handle it, got scared so they called it a horror...too bad! those things in Silence are NOT there to scare you like in a horror movie...they're there to add to the peril that the FBI...nothing more. The only time I've ever confused a Suspense for a Horror movie is 8MM....that movie just plain disturbed me....but even then, i knew that it wasnt there to scare.....I'd appreciate it if people made the distinction from now on....thank you...Revolution is my name....
-
To remake "Manhunter" would be stupid. It stands on its own. And Hannibal is a bad guy. Verger is after him for revenge, but shouldn't he be the lesser of the two evils and not the main bad guy? Also, the producers screwed up. They could have had a "Clarice Starling" series in between these two pictures leading up to the events in this film. By-the-way,that "Wasssabbiii" line is pretty funny.
-
Remember always that Jodie Foster is and ACTRESS. Meaning she wants to be looked at. Doesn't every actor? Uh that's their job. I think Foster turned this down because she's not the main character, she secondary to what's going down on Vergers' Farm, and the great cat and mouse game in Italy. If you read the book you will see that the Italian police detective or Vergers sister or Barney or even Kempler(whose role should have been reprised by Gary Cole)receive as much time and attention as Clarice. It was all Hannibal. Silence of the Lambs was all about Clarice. I'm sorry but I really think it was a vanity play on Fosters part. Although I do think that the novel was unfocused and pretty much a joke by a laughing all the way to the bank Thomas Harris. He should've stayed in Italy with the plot. It's like the Batman sequals in novel form. Too many unneeded characters for 1 story!!!So yes Mooncake it could've been the Lynchian characters and plot points in the script that turned foster off but yet again...I don't think so...As for your Ridley Scott can't do suspense comment...You have not seen Alien...and if you think you have, you're wrong...that was THE film that perfectly melded sci fi and horror...no other has done it justice...ever!!!I won't even bother breaking down the classic moments of suspense for you, since you will go out rent the widescreen version and see it all for yourself...and then apologize for your ignorance to Scotts' work...And yes Gladiator was mostly crap...just plain weak...no sympathy for Crowes plight or anyones for that matter. No great battles in the Arena...okay 1...but the film was titled GLADIATOR right???The Oscar buzz is totally unwarrented...for ANY catagory! So no I don't have a throbbing pocket rocket for Scott. But I recognize greatness and classic filmaking and Alien is both...Will Hannibal be either...no...will it be fun to watch Anthony Hopkins chew and swallow scenery and a frontal lobe or 2 for a couple of hours...oh my great goodness yes!!!So go bone up on your suspense Mooncake...then we'll talk...I think I'll go have a dance with my little pal in the red velvet suit now...Coops been trying to claw his way back into reality again...gotta love the little scamp for his tenacity..Black Lodger gone...
-
i really hope you are wrong about this film. okay review and everything but i must say that this film is really different from SOTL. No offense but FOR CHRISSAKES the name right up there on the marquee is HANNIBAL not CLARICE. This film is about the manhunt for Lecter and more or less refers to that possible dark romance that was seen in the book between him and starling. As for verger, they had to find a new way for him to talk because it would have been hard for audiences to comprehend him had he been made to talk like he did in the book (since he has only a part of his tongue left over from the Lecter attack, he has trouble pronouncing plosives) besides he is not unerringly evil, he is just a sociopathic pedophile with an S&M fetish, a creep who should have had worse things done to him years ago.
Frankly El Cosmico, i'll try to approach this film with an open mind and keep your review in my head but ultimately try to remeber that this is a totally new and different realm for all of the characters involved.
One last thing, i think that brian cox did a helluva job portraying Lecter but needed a few more of hopkins' redeeming Lecter qualities (being more haunting instead of a straight up normal-talking, garden variety serial killer, for instance). if he took some of those qualities without hamming it up like hopkins has a slight tendency to do with this character then and only then would he be the better Hannibal Lecter. -
One thing i forgot to mention, Miss Clarice Starling herself, Jodie Foster said she would have reprised this role for 20 million dollars according to recent reports. Unfortunately, Mr. Producer of Hannibal, Dino De Laurentis, refused and thought she was asking to much since her character plays second fiddle to Lecter in the movie.
-
Feb 09, 2001 9:15:10 AM CST
you take the good, you take the bad, you take em both and then y
by sundown
Hannibal? It still *looks* good. anyway the my fav on the facts of life goes WAAAAY back to the first season. I popped a mad boner for the tom girl chick. Anyone remember her? Has she ever done anything since. She always would wear baseball hats with her catholic school girl outfit (that was back when they were in that school) and had long blonde hair and freckles and man was she hot. Tutti was too and she wasn't too young for me at the time... Blair- I don't know she had a pig nose and bad dye job...Jo was BUTCH and looked like Travolta in a wig. The chick with MS the cousin was a stand up comedian who was funny for all the *wrong* reasons...hehehe and Natalie was obviously a cow!!! Y'know my old doctor used to treat Corky from life goes on! 6 degrees of sundown.
-
It's strange having to compare the evils of Verger and Lecter...on one hand, you have a cannibalistic evil genius....but i do think about the last murders her performed...mostly revenge kills....doctors trying to abuse him, people who wronged him, etc, even when he's still trying to be at peace through the arts....no, thats not making him into the good guy, but then think about Verger....an S&M and drug addicted pedophile and child abuser who might end up jerking off to the "video" he intends to make of Lecter(dont wanna ruin TOO much for those people who havent read the book or seen the movie yet).....and in the book, he also has a penchant for abusing his sister in various ways...(speaking of which, if they had kept that role in the movie, Chyna would have SO been perfect in the part).....if you ask me, he's the bigger villain, and ultimately, thats the evil tha must be slain before life can go on....as for Manhunter/Red Dragon, I still havent seen Manhunter(damn Blockbuster here only has one copy...and it's out!), but i have read the book...personally, if it was my movie, I wouldnt make it....if it's only for the purpose of bringing Lecter back a third time, then fans will be disappointed, and it'll be a waste of money...Lecter's got maybe, what, 5 minutes of screen time written into those pages? The main villain is a Joaquin Phoenix-face muscular dude named Francis Dolarhyde....and personally, sorry to all of his fans, but Will Graham was a stick-in-the-mud pain in the ass in the book....so, let's not be wasting our precious time here....however, if a fourth Lecter fix is truly what Hollywood thinks the masses want, then a movie based on how Will Graham captured Lecter in the first place might be worth a shot if Harris is willing to keep a close eye on it....last thing we need is another book universe first-turned-genius-then-turned-shitty...i won't mention any names...::coughcoughQueenoftheDamnedcoughcough::.....now, if you'll excuse me...I'm having an old friend for lunch....Revolution is my name....
-
Feb 09, 2001 10:54:12 AM CST
See the film and make up your own mind. Don't skip it just bec
by fatal discharge
Even with critics who you mostly trust, there are always cases where they are waaaaaay off with how you see the film. Ebert's review of Blue Velvet comes immediately to mind. Also, I can't stand when someone tries to discourage you from seeing a well-made film that has controversial elements or might turn off some people with its subject matter like Hannibal obviously will. See it yourself and make up your own mind. And somehow I don't believe this review's claims that it had no atmosphere - a Ridley Scott film with no atmosphere?? Isn't the criticism of most of his films (for example Blade Runner) that they're all atmosphere and no substance (wrongly I might add)? As for the studio wanting to "hide" the film from the press - bwahahaha!!!! This studio does not need the press to promote the film or need "word of mouth" (as someone claimed) to make a ton of money. It already is highly anticipated by a large portion of film-goers. Look at the tracking numbers at 'Inside.com' if you don't believe me.
-
Orson Welles plays the Third man and they spend most of the movie talking about him but he only shows up for a few minutes. What a rip-off!!!!!
And the movie is shot with a whole bunch of dutch angles, like an old Batman episode or Battlefield Earth!
And let's not talk about that repetitive soundtrack.
-
"I've never seen so many cheap whines since my days as a Paul Masson spokesman! At least I can count on you guys liking my final screen performance in Transformers the Movie. At least that film wasn't all over the place like that embarassing debut. I still can't believe I thought that sled thing was clever."
-
Many people didn't like Hannibal or found the ending preposterous. I did not feel this way at all. Initially I agreed with most people's reaction but after reading it a second time I realized it was the best possible ending. Harris agreed to write the novel under the stipulation that there would be no editor. Some of the flow was lacking in that regard but I see Harris' point of wanting it to be all his.
As for the film, I am wary but I will lay down my eight bucks like the rest of the movie going herds. I will keep an open mind my only concern is the Scott has impressed me less and less with the passing of time. I found Gladiator pregnant and poorly edited in in terms of storyline and pace. Earliest scenes in the movie were best. It was certainly not on par with Alien or Blade Runner. But I digress. I'll give Hopkins a shot and remember everyone, he's a fictional bad guy, its not wrong to like him. And is he really bad? Most of the people he killed and ate were snobs and/or deserving, except for that census taker. -
But, there's two bad guysand how can one be less evil than the other and how can one be the so-called "good guy" in the plot? If you remember, Hannibal splayed one cop open in a crucifiction/angel pose and ate another one's face off. Verger is just as bad, perhaps even worse as a pediophile. I couldn't feel myself feeling sorry for Hannibal or rooting for Verger to go after him. Its like a story I wrote about two serial killers that share the same love interest, but go about their business, until they both meet each other at the girl's apartment. A violent fight ensues and they both go out the window to a ten story swan dive on the pavement meeting their ends. The girl can't understand this as they were both in love with her. Her weekness: she's blind. The problem with the story was is that theyr were both assholes to begin with, but shared a common bond. One wasn't nicer than the other. How can you root for the strangler or the slasher? Ergo: "Hannibal".
-
Won't a remake of Red dragon look a little odd , when all three Hopkins versions of the Harris books are watched one after another.He'll be ten years younger ,and a bloody LOT thinner, in the middle film!{Silence}I notice for Hannibal they've had to remake, the form fitting half *Hockey mask* muzzle that Lecter wears.I suspect ,this isn't because the original prop wasn't available... but that it no longer fitted Hopkins face!.He worked out a bit before Silence , to be a convincing threat.For Hannibal it looks like he savaged doughnuts ten times a day.He seems more like, hes recreating his role ,as a tubby welsh theatre director in *Noises off*.. than Lecter.finally , has anyone one elae noticed that Hopkins performence in Silence of the Lambs , seems amazingly close to Richard Burton in the John Hurt Version of *1984*.Same Hairstle ,boiler suite, stiff pose , slow speech patten , and both welsh.He appears to be the characters role model.Im surprised no one picked up on the Burton connection , when Silence first came out
-
It was Blair's cousin, and her name was Gerri.
She wasn'r retarded, or afflicted with Down Syndrome -- she had palsy, and was afflicted with a horrible case of bad-pun-itis. -
Hannibal was an utter bland bomb exploding on me and killing my afternoon at the movies. i went in with very little expectations, but i wasnt even entertained, much less given some plot and performances to interest me. Its going to go down as a stinker, and hopefully the people involved will learn a lesson about creating a movie with some goddamned tension....Who am I kidding? They dont care, they all are just in it for thier hefty paychecks. Fuck em', and dont waste your time with this did.
-
Many years ago, I went to see a movie rated "V, for Violence." Nice gimmick, I thought. When I arrived at the theater, the first thing I noticed were the cops. Probably just another robbery, I thought as I stepped up and bought my ticket. I couldn't supress a bemused smile when the cashier handed me a "vomit bag." Yeah, right, I thought.
Then I entered the lobby. The first thing that I noticed here was the godawful stench of vomit in the air. Then I saw people staggering to and from the bathroom, some of them escorted by cops (who were there, I now saw, to control the, uh, flow...).
That's when I got nervous. What have I gotten myself into? I wondered. I made my way down the aisle to my seat. The stench of vomit was even more pronounced here. The floor was... slippery... The lights went down and the movie started.
The "money shot" in this movie (MARK OF THE DEVIL) is a scene where a young woman has her tongue ripped out, on screen. When this happened in the movie, the guy sitting next to me (and people all around me in that stinking theater) bent forward, jerked open that handy vomit bag, and let loose.
Unless you were there (or at any one of the other films that followed in its footsteps), you have no idea how sickening it is to be surrounded by a theater full of puking patrons...
I almost chucked myself.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Ridley Scott and Anthony Hopkins and everyone else associated with this film (HANNIBAL) for bringing back those memories.
-
Castaway, you say that Brian Cox should have been more haunting, and less like the "garden-variety serial killker". How many fucking serial killers do you know? Most of them are pretty fucking weird. Hopkins' mannered performance (which somehow managed to be minimalist AND scenery-chewing at the same time) was EXACTLY what you would expect from a guy like that. Most interviews with serial killers have been rambling maniacs like Manson, or introverted pervs like Dahmer. Brian Cox playing it "normal" is what MADE it haunting. The way he was so polite with the phone operator telling her he's lost the use of his hands so she'll dial the number for him. It was calculating, menacing genius. The only serial killer I can think of that didn't come off like a total wacko was Ted Bundy (and that's arguable). But he's the exception, not the norm, and I think going that way was more effective. But hey, apparently you and the rest of LemmingAmerica really enjoyed Hopkins' overacting, so I'll just beg to differ and be a snob.
-
Well, I went in with no expectations and I wanted my money back.
Just a waste of two and a half hours out of a sunny afternoon. Tony Hopkins and Gary Oldman were the only brightspots. Moore completey sucked as always, how anyone can consider her a competent actress is beyond me, but hey that's just my opinion. -
Why, Lazarus Long my dear boy, you misunderstand me. When I said that Cox's performance should have been more haunting I met that in a solemn manner (i will take heed in my misusage of the term garden variety serial killer though). If you look back up at my post, in one of the last paragraphs, I myself even say that Hopkins was hamming up and overacting his role in SOTL (although, i do sugar coat it alot with words like "slight tendency to do") even though i still think that his performance was very magnificent.
Very good idea for a new Bud commercial involving wasabi (sp) too bad it can't be CHIAAAAAAAANTI though, that would be more in relation to the characters in the commercial. As for your denigrating the author though, all i have to say to that is maybe the author got tired of having people screaming in his ear for a new tale about Lecter and decided to produce an over the top, near ridiculous novel (like you have so elegantly said in your post)and sent it in as a big joke while still attempting to adhere to the way his characters act and liking his job. Either way if Hannibal bombs or soars, it will be one big fat fucking joke now won't it?(if you want to get in a real Castor Troy crazy mood like i am in right now, GOIN' FOR THE FREE RIDE BAYBEEEE!!!!!)By the by, if the guy is such a hack how is it that he has had bestsellers, films based on his bestsellers, and one of those films to SWEEP THE FUCKIN' OSCARS? HUH? If he is a hack then how in the world was he able to pull two of the most compelling suspense novels of our time out of that neverending abyss that is probably his fat ass? If you think the guy is a hack, fine then don't go see hannibal. Instead spend this weekend burning your SOTL DVD and protesting dept. stores carrying the new edition of Manhunter on DVD if you want to follow your own credo of hack hating. I'll bet you don't like trey parker films either. There are improvements galore that can be done to Manhunter like the god awful '80s music track for instance or Will Graham's little pep talks with himself (you did it didn't you you son of a bitch) although that one part where he sees the mother of the family thru the killer's eyes was really creepy (light was eamanating from the mother's mouth and eyes). Dennis Farina though a good Jack Crawford is not the best Jack Crawford, Will Graham did great, Brian Cox was near excellent (i shouldn't say that i know because he had even less scenes than Hopkins did in SOTL), and Michael Mann was okay (the man himself has said he himself would like to remake Manhunter). As for your calculating menacing genius remark, that my friend was written in, we still have yet to see Cox's aspect of Lecter that is the almost supernatural prowess of the world around him. Except for the aspect of sniffing for Graham's piss poor after shave, his rapt attention that Hannibal usually has(referring to the part in SOTL that had Lecter watching for the right time to snatch that ink pen from his tormentor to use later in his own escape as well as the novel itself of HANNIBAL where lecter severs a man's femoral artery without even getting his knife wet with blood) fuck my babbling about that anyway since it is the screenwriter who wrote that in and not me actually thinking that Hannibal is a real living person (i'm a bad poster! [SMACK]). Although I will always hold these reservations, i will still bow down to the great film Manhunter is.
I will of course give Manhunter a 2nd look and probably end up owning it just because it has the psychopathic cocksucker in it (damn capitalist america and my needlessly collective ways) So I'll put my hat off to you for now. See you when the Red Dragon remake hits video Lazarus..... -
First off, does anyone else notice those little graphics Harry displays? like the one I was looking at just now where someone comes up behind him & cuts his head off. Kinda bizarre. Anyway I may or may not go see "Hannibal," just wish the pointlessness of it had been a little less obvious. Now that I'm forty-something I find I have more of a real-story-jones than I used to. I chiefly wanted to address a few previous posts: to Lazarus Long, yes Brian Cox was the better Lecter. He exuded sickness. Hopkins exuded slickness. (A famous critic, maybe Stanley Kauffmann, once compared the way Alec Guinness & Peter Sellers would've played a given part. The same applies to Cox & Hopkins.) To gkosanovich (hope I spelled it right): how can anyone be said to be "deserving" of being murdered? Murder is bad whether the victim is a saint or a scumbag. That's the whole point. If it's not an absolute, then it's meaningless--worse, it invites moral chaos. To Eddie Poe: I saw "Mark of the Devil" on video a few years ago & found it almost comically amateurish, a la Herschel Gordon Lewis' old stuff. Those people vomiting in the audience must've been hypnotized by the publicity. But then it's all relative, isnit; when I was a little kid I saw "Tormented" on our black-&-white TV & it scared the bejeezus out of me; several decades later when the "Mystery Science Theater 3000" people lampooned it, I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Which was the "right" reaction?
-
I haven't seen a film this misguided in a long time. There are so many things wrong with it it boggles the mind that Steven (Schindler's List) Zallian wrote this crap. For one, they have a protagonist (Clarice), who does absolutely NOTHING for 3/4 of the movie. When she finally does do something, her motives for doing them aren't believable. Some might say that Hannibal is the protagonist in this film, but the movie isn't set up that way, and if he is, why bother having Clarice in the story at all? The only part of the movie worth watching is the stretch were Detective Pazzi is hunting Lecter in Italy. Why? Because it's what the movie should have been...the hunt for Hannibal, with Clarice doing the hunting. Instead we get Gary Oldman looking like a diseased chimp and Ray Liotta playing yet another slimy jerkoff. What a waste of talent, all the way down the line, and what a waste of a great set up. I think I'll have to watch Manhunter (not perfect, but way better than this tripe) and Silence of the Lambs to cleanse my palate.
-
JHFC, I hardly know where to begin about this movie. How about the production values. You can see the goddamn boom mike poking down in to the shot several times during one scene! The scene is where Starling has just been framed and is being questioned by the FBI. Look up, there it is, several times--and not just once or twice. It not only dips down into view, but you can see it turning to face ach of the actors as they speak their lines. WHAT THE HELL? It was sooo bad I kept trying to rationalize it as a n intended part of the scene, like she was being recorded for the record or something. But there was no other indication that this was the case. I can hardly believe that a film of this kind has such an obvious error.
Now, about the story: It sucks. I know nothing more about any of these characters than I did at the end of the Silence of the Lambs. This is not a thriller. like that film was, it is a slasher horror pic plain and simple. Face it, they have packaged it up with enough pseudo-intellectual language, that the high brow set will not feel ashamed to go and see what basically amounts to a Freddie movie. How dissapointing, after Silence. -
...if a movie isn't framed properly by the projectionist you'll see things on the fringes of the screen you weren't supposed to, and the filmmakers probably didn't know were there. I didn't notice any boom mikes, however, I wish I had, so I could've seen something other than the atrocity unfolding before my eyes!
-
Feb 09, 2001 8:38:35 PM CST
Thanks for ruining my carefully-orchestrated plan of not trying
by arcturus
Of course, I am being sarcastic when I use the term genius here; dope is more like it. How can you be so careless, inconsiderate, and brainless as to put down in your headline that Hannibal is "mediocre"? With NO SPOILER WARNING!!!!You've just clued me in to the fact that the film is not an all-out must see, a near-universal critics darling. Now I know that your opinion is probably similar to the critics out there, so they're probably in agreement with you. And I know enough to know that some of them probably actually do know what they're talking about. Maybe even you're among these knowlegeable ones. Which makes it worse. It more than likely IS CRAP; of course I have to make up my own mind when i see the thing, but you've unduly influenced me toward the negative when I go to sit down in that theater. Hopefully, the next time you're in a theater, probably a porno, you'll sit down on the remanants of some sicko's used enema and have to leave the theater immediately due to profound embarrassment, never to be able to sit down and write a movie review or spoiler headline again.
-
Feb 09, 2001 10:29:16 PM CST
I'm glad to say that El Cosmico was terribly terribly wrong
by castor777
Sigh - I refused to read this review before seeing the film and after just seeing it, I had to read what Cosmico had said. And I'm glad to say, he's dead wrong. So wrong I wonder if he really knew what he was going into. I'm sure all of you are just itching to compare this to Silence of the Lambs. But a word of advice - whether it's a sequel or not, it's called Hannibal; not Silence of the Lambs 2. The two films are rather hard to compare in most terms. Silence of the Lambs is an intense, psychological thriller where as Hannibal is a devilishly fun and very entertaining movie. The whole bit about the first hour and a half where NOTHING HAPPENS is the first false statement in this review. The character development of Clarice (a shootout brought to screen very well from Harris' novel), Mason Verger (the flashback alone is disturbing enough, but you learn much much more about this true villian of the film), and Hannibal (few interesting flashbacks and some great moments in Florence) make it a very interesting hour and a half. In fact, now that I am recalling, 5 people are either brutally attacked or murdered in these 90 minutes; excluding the shootout, which would bring the body count to 10. Than this bit about Clarice being a side character... well again, the film is called HANNIBAL! I for one don't really want to spoil anything for any of you that haven't seen it. I advice to take a look for yourself and than decide.
-
Did anyone else notice that Gary Oldman's Verger character was identical in facial expressions and speech patterns to Jim Carrey's Fire Marshall Bill character from In Living Color?
-
did anyone else notice mark margolis and vijay singh both in the film at the same time. I found it rather odd considering their both parts of Darren Aronofsky's recurring acting troupe. In Pi, Margolis played the mentor and Singh had an edited out role. Both were highly praised by Aronofsky on the dvd commentary. In Requiem for a Dream, Margolis played the pawn shop owner and Singh played the mailman. In Hannibal, both played experts of scent examining Lector's letter to Starling. This cannot be just a matter of chance.
-
Fuck all ya the movie was awesome. It wasnt se7en, but damn if they didnt try. I do agree that some of the books' "zest" was lost but i can accept that, if only because of the balls ridley scott had to do this film, and to do it right. In regards to everyone who's going to bitch nd moan that "its not the book's true vision" or "but they cut out to many characters" SHUT THE FUCK UP. Hey its thomas harris's book if hes okay with the job they did in the process to bring this to the screen, than that's all you need. Realise that this is the real world and you opinions count for shit. Then go suckle on your new star wars boxed sets.
-
Castaway. the definition of "hack" is "a person who works solely for commercial success. While this term is thrown very loosely around here, it could easily be applied to Spielberg (one of my favorite targets), and it certainly can be applied to Harris. Was he a hack back in 1991? Of course not. He wrote SOTL and Red Dragon well before that, and wasn't a household name yet. But ask yourself: what the fuck was Harris doing for the 10 years after SOTL: The Movie came out? If he was writing Hannibal for 10 years I feel pretty sorry for him and his questionable talent. My guess is that his fat paycheck caused him to rest on his laurels for a while. When he ran out of money, he decided to give the sheep what they wanted and concocted Hannibal in a year or less. It was for $$$, nothing else. Again, he may have been trying to stick it to the public, but that doesn't change the fact that he still has nothing to say -- because he hasn't done ANYTHING else since writing SOTL!!! He couldn't even be bothered to write his own fucking screenplay! As for all the people saying the film is called "Hannibal" and not meant to be SOTL 2: The Further Adventures of Clarice...Ridley Scott and the producers of Hannibal may not be to blame, but having bad source material doesn't excuse them either. It was a bad idea, on HARRIS' part, to write a book using Lecter as the focal point. It was ANOTHER bad idea to make a movie out of it. So we have every right to complain about how it isn't even close to being as interesting as SOTL the film, or the book. *** And as for you pre-pubescent losers trashing Manhunter: just because the film is very indicitive of the 80's doesn't make it a bad film. Mann was an genius at tone and mood. Heat has almost the exact same feel of Miami Vice/Manhunter, but with a modern soundtrack. If you can't appreciate Manhunter being of its time, how can you objectively watch any old film? Does Technicolor look "fake" to you? Does Citizen Kane look uninventive to the MTV generation? Try looking at things in context and you won't come off like such a naive viewer. Sit and spin, folks...
-
This film is NOT a great film. Compare it to Castaways and Grinch as three films that will be seen by alot of people that do not deserve the success.
-
Did they get it right when recreating Lecter's attack to the nurse mentioned in SOTL? IIRC Dr. Chilton said "he did this to her (the nurse) when she bent over to examine him"... but that was clearly not the case in the surveillance footage Clarice was watching???
-
That is the weirdest, grossest, best movie-going story I have ever heard. I'm completely serious. What the fuck was goin' on there?? Was this in the 1960's, like a William Castle type thing? Was this in America? I remember the tail end of those days when they would post a "nurse" in the lobby, but your deal is just beyond the pale. (Or should I say, pail? As in the vomit pail?) What gets me is you actually WENT IN after you smelled the place!!! You win my award for Bravest Movie Fanatic. And I was thought I had it bad sitting through "Lorenzo's Oil"... Damn. Take a bow, dude.
-
Feb 10, 2001 9:13:49 AM CST
Mediocre is absolutely right (CONTAINS SPOILER, sort of)
by i am_notreal
Because the script took too many shortcuts. You don't know what makes Mason tick, or Krendler, or Hannibal, or Clarice, for that matter. Shallow, shallow, shallow. Scott did what he could visually, but the script needed so much more work. Not just in character development (cripes, I think even "The Cell" had more character development), but in the story...SPOILER COMING IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT!!!!! How did Hannibal know anything at all about Krendler, enough to decide to go to his lake house and set up camp there? In the book it was just as house that he'd rented. Hannibal's been overseas for years! He wouldn't know Krendler if he bumped into him on the street! Yet he's stalking the man basically from the moment he touches down in America. In the book, he nabs Krendler because Margot betrays him (Krendler, that is). The movie script CHEATS!!! Plus there's the fact that Mason was silly and Krendler just wasn't nasty enough. The more I think about the movie the more I'm disappointed. Easily the biggest letdown I've experienced in the movie theater in a long time, bigger even then TPM.
-
The best thing in the movie by far was the absolutely gorgeous, stunning , beautiful actress who played the wife to that old coot (the Italian cop) played by Giancarlo Gianinni.
The movie however was (although decent) not even worthy to be the toenail clippings of the masterpiece that was SOTL.
But that woman, oh...............
SHE WAS HOT! -
Feb 10, 2001 10:31:47 AM CST
Castor777, "five people are brutally murdered in the first ninet
by batutta
Geez, what deep qualifications you have for a film's success...people die, movie good, me go whack off!
-
yea, that's right - 5 people either are brutally attacked or murdered in the first 90 minutes. so what? i wack off from it? what a piece of idiotic trash you have proven yourself out to be. that was in response to what el cosmico said about NOTHING happening in the first 90 minutes. so a film that has 5 people attacked or murdered in the first 90 minutes of a film about a SERIAL KILLER kind of proves my point. so don't take words out of context and stop tryin to just diss people on talkback that state their opinion when you aren't even going to give yours. only insulting someone else who u don't even know and have to take their words out of context to even try and be funny, u fail miserably at it.
-
Feb 10, 2001 11:44:44 AM CST
I'm convinced El Cosmico has some of the worst taste of AICN
by tall_boy
I'm sorry, eveything he liked has sucked, and everything he thinks sucks has ruled. Its a tottaly backwards system for me. Go Hanibal! whoo!
-
I saw this last night, and have to say it is fucking hilarious. Pure cartoonish campy gore. Tom Savini would be proud.
-
Hannibal was a good ride. We got to see Lectur out roaming the streets, which was cool. But it turns out he is a far scarier character when he is behind the glass, but still. There are sime wonderful moments in this film, and there are some truly gross moments. It is a beautifully photraghed, brilliantly acted, and well directed B Picture. I liked it a lot, but I love SOTL more.
-
Sure Hannibal isn't Silence of the Lambs, but it's a great film. If this film was to stand on it's own, I think the critics opinion would have been a lot different. Comparing these two films is like comparing apples and oranges. Watching Hannibal is like being caught in a nightmare, (and I don't mean that in a bad way!) It's definately not a "main stream" shoot 'em up movie, it's more dreamlike, ethereal. If you're expected Silence part 2 you'll be disappointed, but if you expect Hannibal 1, you'll have a great time!
-
I think that was a very insightful analysis of Harris' motives for writing the book, ie as a critique of Lecter's "fans". Manhunter and SOTL were extremely well-researched, thoughtful, mournful meditations on child abuse, sexism, violence, depravity... in addition to being exciting reads. Hannibal was profoundly stupid, and the film, which condenses out some of the more interesting elements of the book (eg Barney and Verger's sister) is worse. I don't particularly care why Demme and Foster chose not to do it. Their decision looks, in hindsight, to be on a level of genius with Keanu's opting out of Speed 2. The difference being that Hannibal will make a lot of money, gross a lot of people out. It's still basically well-made garbage, with no soul.
-
Feb 10, 2001 12:57:36 PM CST
Not putting out a book in ten years is because they have nothing
by fatal discharge
That is idiotic, Lazarus Long. Maybe Harris has a life to live besides writing. Besides, he took almost that long between his other books. Kubrick only made a film every 5 or 7 years also. Did that make him an opportunist who only made a film for the money? Gimme a break. And for those crying out for some "meaning" or "message" in Hannibal, remember that the other two books were from the investigators viewpoints who were looking for meaning in the madness of a serial killer's motives while Hannibal is from the killer's viewpoint who is at the mercy of his own psychoses. A lot of people who saw SOTL and thought Lecter a hero went out and THEN read the book. If this pissed off Harris then I say he has a right to be pissed. But then those "moviegoers" who then read Hannibal when the book came out suddenly weren't prepared for what it's like to be in a serial killer's mind and hated the book. Books are much more in-depth into a character's thoughts (obviously) than a film. A book from a serial killer's viewpoint is not supposed to be pleasant or make sense for that matter because that is how a serial killer's life IS. If you want to read a really disturbing book from a serial killer's perspective, try Ramsey Campbell's The Face That Must Die. It's even more unpleasant because you experience the killer's hallucinations and his thoughts about the people around him are so insane that I couldn't get through the book. I admire it because that is what it would be like to be such a vile and insane person but I don't "like" it because it is so unpleasant. I may be misreading some people's views on Hannibal (some will just not like it for other reasons) but I think what I said is valid for a lot of people who aren't generally fans of horror.
-
This movie sucked the high hard one. My review.
I hate getting duped! Hate it! Hate it! Hate it! I remember when I walked out of Silence of the Lambs, like most people, I wanted a sequel yesterday. I wanted to see Starling as an FBI special agent hunting down serial killers. I wanted to see Hannibal eating and torturing victim after victim. More than anything I wanted to see Clarice Starling and Hannibal talk again, to have that tense rapport again. I wanted the creepy feeling that the mood and tone and acting in the last movie gave me!
Finally when the book came out I had hope. The movie couldn't be far behind. Then I read the reviews of the book. All gore, no substance. Clarice turns cannibal and runs off with Hannibal at the end. Yuck. Then, Dino De Laurentis, who has made some of Hollywood's worst films ever, picked up the movie rights. Swell. When Jodi Foster is shown the script, she bows out because it perverts the character of Clarice. Oh well. There went my hope for a good sequel. Then a funny thing happened, Ridley Scott signs on to direct. Hmmm. The script gets a re-write to change the books unpopular ending. Word is that Julianne Moore nails the part of Clarice cold. Early test screenings are strong. Can it be possible that this film will buck the odds and be a worthy sequel? I thought it just might surprise me.Not a chance in Hell! This film sucked harder than a closet full of Lewinski's.
The plot is lukewarm and mediocre at best. Starling's FBI career is on the skids after she "botches" a drug dealer arrest. This leads her to be re-assigned to investigate the whereabouts of Hannibal Lecter due to a new tip on his whereabouts. We come to find that Dr. Lecter has moved to Florence and is working under an assumed identity. A cop in Florence recognizes him and tries to capture him. There is a substantial reward offered for his capture by a horribly disfigured millionaire who is Hannibal's only living victim. This is the first of many gripes that I have is the fact that Hannibal is in Florence for half of the movie trying to outwit a cop there. Who cares? I don't. We have seen Hannibal evade FBI SWAT teams in the last film. And far more creatively than how he evades the cop in Florence. I don't mind spending a bit of time to catch up on where Hannibal has been for the last ten years but don't drag this part out for half the movie. When he finally does come over he begins stalking Clarice and giving her pop psychological treatment over cell phones as she walks through a mall in a scene that is designed to be creepy but falls flat (It even goes as far to mimic the finger touch from the first film by having Hannibal swipe the back of her hair on a merry-go-round. How original.). As he is leaving the mall pig wranglers from Sardinia, who work for the millionaire, capture him. Yes pig farmers, so what the FBI couldn't do for 10 years pig farmers do in two days of his return. Asinine and it only gets worse from there.
The story is structured so that both Hannibal and Clarice have an arch nemesis that they have to deal with. Clarice has Agent Krendler a crooked Justice Department agent who is set on ruining her career and Hannibal has the millionaire bent for revenge. The problem is that not enough development happens between either of the two to make either of them interesting. It also cuts into the Clarice hanibal time that everyone wants to see. Well don't hold your breath. They only get together for the last third of the movie and it's a total letdown.
The film doesn't possess a single quality that I liked about the first film. The mood is not there. The relationship between the Hannibal and Clarice seems like a lesser retread of the Silence scenes. (There are even scenes of her listening to recorded conversations from the last film. Please! " Have the hacks stopped writing Clarice?") It isn't creepy. You can predict when Lector will show up to kill someone on cue. The acting ranges from adequate to pathetic. While Julianne Moore is passable as Starling she isn't given enough to do. Hopkins falls under the James Bond/Arnold spell of spewing a campy line or two before killing someone. He turns the brilliant madman that he created into a campy comic parody all for the low low price of 25 million dollars. It got to the point where it felt like he was going to wink at the camera ala Ferris Bueller. Gary Oldman is unrecognizable as the millionaire by both looks and acting performance. Ray Liotta is a one dimensional sleaze cop. He is the one ruining Starlings career but he is not fleshed out as a character at all. We never get to see what's going on inside his head, well sort of but not how I meant it.
In short it's a huge letdown. Even the "gore" aspect that they have been playing up didn't live up to expectations. I have seen worse gore and better. The "grand finale" is about the most ridiculous thing I have ever seen. Shame on all of those involved for tarnishing the image that I had of Silence of the Lambs. They have perverted one of the few horror/thriller masterpieces with this piece of garbage for a buck! Shame on you! On a one to ten scale I give Hannibal a 3 out of 10. Wait for video and then smash it!
-
First of all, I never said that El Cosmico said everyone did or should read the book. I merely said that everyone didn't and so everyone won't have the same opinions. Secondly, I didn't call the right to dislike a movie elitist, I called the intimidation of those who might like it by implying that they are or would be stupid for going elitist, and that's not even the rigtht word for it. Secondly, cursing at me is no good. It's downright laughable. If I can get you that upset with no cursing, why do you even bother? You must really want to give me a laugh.
-
***SPOILERS***
I along with some of my college buddies saw Hannibal on opening night. There were a lot of hicks in our theater in Shippensburg. The overall consensus was that we really enjoyed the movie but there were some inconsistencies film-wise.
Did Starling get shot at the drug raid? If she did, surely she would have had some damage on her.
Another thing we were talking about was the ending. I thought it was good but not what I expected. Hannibal feeds the kid on the plane some brains. Roll credits.
A lot of shots of Hannibal and Clarice were left out. Mike Wallce interviewed Ridley Scott on 60 Minutes 2 and they showed Hannibal being lifted in a cross-like pose (mask on) up to the pigs. Wallace said this was the climax of the movie. The clip also showed the pigs running toward Hannibal. This follows along the lines of the book but these shots were never in the movie at all. Hannibal chops his hand off and then he is on a plane.
Additionally, he was never shown carrying Clarice in his arms with his mask on. Entertainment Weekly has several pictures of this scene on its web site. Again, these clips didn't make the movie. Lastly, the scene when Clarice's hair was brushed in the trailer wasn't shown along with the merry-go-round. My friends and I were thinking that possibly, Scott filmed a 4 hour movie and broke it in half. This is kind of along the lines of Matrix 2 and 3. Verger is still pursuing Hannibal. Hannibal is still gone. Clarice and Hannibal's conflict is never resolved but, you can still see that he will never injure her. So we think that this is not the end of series. Aby comments or questions? Harry what's the dilly, yo? -
the way i remembered it was the woman whipped out an uzi and started firing at clarice. she did take one in the stomach but she had a vest on. the gun continued to fire, but an uzi will not shoot very accurately after the first shot has been fired. pretty much because u really can't keep a gun dead on target after the first shot has been fired, especially not an uzi. so most likely, clarice only got hit with one bullet. as for when clarice fired, she didn't get a very clean shot. in fact she shot the lady in the shoulder right above the baby, which i kind of doubt she was aiming for. as far as things being cut the pigs coming towards hannibal, hannibal carrying clarice, and clarice's hair at the merry go round were all there. one shot that wasn't in the film that was advertised (and in the book) was when clarice went to get some more information on hannibal back at the prison where hannibal was kept 10 years ago in SOTL. she shines her flashlight on the glass where hannibal was kept behind and you catch a small glimse of him, looking very similar to the first shot of him in SOTL. i'm sure we'll see that whole scene on the dvd though...
-
Ugh! This is quite possibly Ridley's Scott's worst film. And I've seen all of them. The book was Tolstoy compared to this cinematic dungpile!
-
This movie is a complete disappointment. Not just as a sequel, but as a movie entirely. Sure, I wanted to see another SOTL, but I was prepared to go anywhere as long as the story remained fairly intelligent. Unfortunately, this script just isn't very convincing. From the beginning, you kinda wonder why Clarice is getting hung out to dry after the botched drug raid. She tried to stop the raid. Why wasn't she even trying to defend herself? I just didn't believe any of the backstory about her problems with the fbi. It just seemed so forced and fake. I accepted that Verger was the kind of guy to get drugged and peel his face off, but it took me a little while. You'd have to get me SUPREMELY wasted before I would peel off my own face. Verger's demise was pretty funny, too. I'm not talking about how he dies, I'm just referring to how he ends up on the ground. Verger's doctor just kinda dumps him out. Just kinda says, "Hey. Why not? Out you go!!!" Of course, why does Clarice just jump out in the middle of the barn and yell "Stop! I'm a cop! Just stop it, guys!"
I could continue bitching about the other plot about the Italian police. I could ask "If this doctor arranges a multimillion dollar reward, international toll free lawyer, etc.; then what the hell is up with the mysterious callback at the telephone? Wouldn't that be a phone call that you would want to answer?"
I hate seeing a movie that just makes you sit and wonder why the plot is so inane.
I will admit that the movie is pretty to look at. Hopkins did a good job with what he had to work with. Verger was creepy to look at, but none of the dialogue ever creeped me out. I didn't feel any real emotion while watching this movie. The heavily foreshadowed hanging was cool, but I just found myself chuckling at most of the other "horrifying" moments. Other than getting to the credits, it didn't seem like much of a journey. The characters were still the same, and you just don't feel any great emotion for any of the characters. This isn't a horrible movie, but it just isn't that compelling. If you think that The Gift is a gripping thriller, then you will probably like Hannibal. -
The film I saw Friday was a brave, intelligent solution to the problems posed by Harris's novel. While I expected a more straightforward suspense driven approach, Ridley Scott has created a lush, dark romance-even with the literal romance of the novel's unusual ending discarded. The result is a brave, rather unusual take on the Beauty and the Beast archetype-with the emphasis on Beast, given that Clarice is certainly a supporting character. Those complaining that Lecter does not have the "caged beast intensity" are not respectful of the fact that he has been loose and maintaining a low profile for ten years! To be sure, this is a flawed masterpiece-Oldman's Verger is not sufficently menacing, and Ray Liotta's Krendler is considerably over the top. Still, this is that most rare of films-superior to the novel upon which it is based. Hannibal is a daringly fresh sequel to a much revered masterpiece (although not superior to sotl). And to those of you prasing Brian Cox's portrayal of Lector as superior, you must have saw a different film than I-Cox is understated, but appears to be as bored as I was with his performance.
-
"Hannibal" got some of the details from "The Silence of the Lambs" movie wrong too.
1) In "Hannibal," Clarice says that Lecter killed 3 policemen when escaping from Memphis; in SOTL, he killed two: Sgts. Pembry and Boyle.
2) "Hannibal" depicts Lecter attacking the nurse from a standing position when she gets too close to him in a video from the Baltimore asylum; in SOTL, he attacked her while lying down for an EKG as she bends over him as described by Dr. Chilton.
3) In "Hannibal," Lecter talks about Clarice's father being a nightwatchman. While this is correct in terms of the SOTL novel, the SOTL movie says he was a town marshal; so the "Hannibal" screenwriter couldn't even decide which SOTL source to follow for continuity's sake. -
In "Hannibal," Clarice Starling talks about Lecter killing his patient Benjamin Raspail in order to remove a bad flutist from the Baltimore Philharmonic Orchestra and serving his sweetbreads (pancreas) to officials. In SOTL, Raspail was beheaded by his lover Jame Gumb, aka Buffalo Bill, according to Lecter when interviewed by Starling. Lecter said that he found him that way and tucked him away, putting his head in a jar after he had missed three appointments.
-
Really liked Hannibal. It's certainly a faithful adaptation of Harris' novel, save for the ending. I'm not sure they came up with an ending that was substantially better but I think it does work. As with the book, I think Hannibal is a flawed but often masterful piece of work. And as I see this TB has delivered the usual fan-boy claims that Brain Cox was the superior Lecter I'll add my two cents to say that Hopkins simply owns the role. Cox is a great actor and I love Manhunter but Cox's portrayal was of a grumpy old man. Not a bad portrayal but hardly the incarnation of urbane, sophisticated evil that Hopkins was able to deliver. Hopkins made all the right choices with Lecter - he's supposed to be a somewhat arch, theatrical presence. He has mannerisms that are indictative of a personality that can consume intellectually and emotionally anyone he turns his attention to. Cox played Lecter as drab and unassuming and given the parameters of what the Lecter character had to do in Manhunter that was fine but that wouldn't have been passable in either Silence or Hannibal. In those films we have to belive that Lecter is superhuman, capable of acts that are outside the margin of even a "normal" psychopath. Even if Cox had returned to play Lecter, it's probable that he would've had to alter his laconic approach.
-
Where did you go wrong Ridley Scott? You used to make such great movies and now you suck. HANNIBAL was the equvalent of SCREAM 3. A fucking slasher sequel. Nothing more. Thanks alot Ridley Scott. You've ruined my like. P.S. GLADIATOR sucked too.
-
This movie is a travesty. I am amazed that anyone who has read the book ever gave this script the thumbs up, even Mr. Harris himself. Where is the background on Lector?!? Where is the flashbacks during the war?!?! Where is the scene where Clarice revisits the holding cell (which I could have sworn I saw in the trailer)!??! I don't think the new ending is worth a pile of dead rats in a tampon factory!!!! Sure the one in the book is wierd, but at it kept the characters true to the story. The way this script plays out has Lector becoming a complete pussy. Wait, I forgot: Where the hell is Verger's lesbian sister and the cattle prod!?!?!
Geez. I hate it when they rush a movie. Mr. Scott did a good job with what he was given, but couldn't Ms. Moore at least dye her hair?!?!? Fuck, I can't believe how dissappointed I am. I want my two hours of life and all of the hope I had for the future back.
Back to Ringworld I suppose.....
Hasta!
-
I didn't read the book, but I'll bet this got better treatment--seems that the shootout at the beginning with the drug maven, combined with Liotta's political machination was designed to say that everyday horrors are just as disturbing as any boogeyman. Other than that theme (which hardly played out effectively), this movie was a massive disappointment. Colossal waste. If you are wavering, do not go. I saw SotL 5 times. This is not a worthy sequel.
Dwarf out. -
A lot of people seem to be referring to Oldman's role as "uncredited," despite the fact that anyone who stayed in the theater for more than 2 seconds would have seen his name clearly listed IN THE CREDITS. I find it odd that since his name is not in the opening sequence, he's somehow uncredited.
Oh yeah, and for the record, it isn't SOTL, because it lacks that smooth flow and sense of purpose, but it certainly was a great thrill to see Hannibal Lecter doing all the things that SOTL would only talk about or cutaway from. Ridley Scott isn't a great director, but Hopkins is certainly a terrific actor. And when was the last time a mainstream movie (3rd highest opening of all time according to incoming B.O.) made half the audience bolt for the barf bags. That end sequence was mind-blowingly horrifying. All in all, an uneven but enjoyable follow-up. At least the end doesn't make you laugh like the book. -
Where was the tension? Where was the fear? I was grossed-out numerous times but never afraid. I thought the first face-to-face meeting between Starling and Lector would have been more memorable. Hopkins was perfect with what he was given, Moore was merely adequate. Wasn't Clarice's hair in SOTL dark brown? The color should have at least been the same in this movie. To summarize I'm not really disappointed because I wasn't expecting much in the first place.
-
Believe me, I'm in no hurry to defend "Hannibal" the movie, because it wasn't very good, but in all fairness it must be pointed out that the tally of 3 from Memphis was supposed to include the ambulance crew (in which case, it probably should have been 4, with the guy in the back and the driver, although you can at least assume the guy in the back got it when Hannibal popped up behind him and ripped off his fake face), and that Hannibal's reference to Clarice's father as a "nightwatchman" was supposed to be a jab--she maintained throughout the book that he was a marshal, although Hannibal believed he was just a security guard. However, your point about Raspail vs. the movie SOTL was dead on--in the film he was the head in the jar, but in the book, the head in the jar was Jame Gumb's old lover Klaus, not Raspail, and Raspail's sweetbreads really were served to the Philharmonic board by Lecter. So the movie "Hannibal" wasn't sure where it should turn to for continuity, the book "Silence" or the movie "Silence," which just makes the script even worse, really.
-
It's a pretty darned good thriller. Even Keanu Reeves (gasp!) gives a good performance as Hillary Swank's abusive husband
-
I haven't written on this thing in months, but since I read the book this weekend, I thought I should. First of all, never ever listen to any reviews on this site, they are all bogus and not worth it- who can forget Harry's glowing "End of Days" review recanted the day it came out. PATHETIC- and you're pathetic if you read them. Second, i haven't seen the movie but the book is modeled almost entirely like "Lambs." If you remember, Harris there too tried to make you feel that Lector was the lesser evil of the two villians in the piece- here, too, he does the same thing? I find it a bit insulting and too much of a coincidence that the Gumm character in "Lambs" is an evil transsexual and Verger in "Hannibal" is the evil homo-pedophile while Lector is portrayed not only as a sexually indifferent hetero where his crimes are concerned but even a gentleman in courting Clarice at the end- oh, how wonderful he is not to rape and pillage such a confused kidnapped knock-out like Clarice. So, it's basically the same plot disguised, although I'm taking a bit of umbrage at his sexual fingerprinting. The ending to the book is unjustified by any and all explanations Harris can put forth about it- it simply wouldn't happen, please how stupid can Krendler be? So don't blame the people who made the movie, blame Harris- he took eleven years to write the same thing over again, only with a different ending that makes no sense so he could claim some progress.
-
I went to see Hannibal on the opening day, completely new to the entire SOTL trilogy. Yes, I had not seen Silence of The Lambs until I came home after seeing Hannibal. It may have seemed ass backwards, but it affected my opinion of the film. Leaving the theater after seeing Hannibal left me edgy, which not many movies do to me. Being a hard person to accomplish that to. I
-
Talk back bitches, you are all just pissed because Hannibal didn't kill Starling, lol!
Heh, Mr. Scott is getting full of himself, isn't he? The digital work fit in here better than it did in Gladiator (in Gladiator, I nearly started into seizures). And anyone who doubts the grace of the great goddess Julienne Moore is just wrong wrong wrong.
If only the movie had ended like the book, sigh.
-
Starling clearly mentions in "Hannibal" that Lecter killed three police officers while escaping from Memphis in SOTL. I doubt that she, having freshly reviewed the case file on Lecter, would commit such an obvious error as to confuse the two ambulance guys for police officers. Also, in SOTL, her roommate and friend Ardelia mentions that they found the ambulance in the Memphis airport, impying that both men were dead.
With regards to her father being called a nightwatchman, the basic problem is that Clarice gives no indication as to whether Lecter is right in calling her father that. If I hadn't known that her father was town marshal from the previous film, I would have assumed that he was indeed correct. The novel SOTL does describe Clarice's father as a nightwatchman, so I can only assume that Zaillan the screenwriter got that tidbit from the SOTL novel rather than the movie, even though "Hannibal" the movie is supposed to be a sequel to SOTL the movie. I agree that in the SOTL novel, the head was that of Klaus and that Lecter killed Raspail and served him to the officials; however, since "Hannibal" the movie is supposed to be a direct sequel to SOTL the movie, one would expect some continuity between the two films and that "Hannibal" will rely more on the SOTL movie for it facts when there is a conflict between the novel and the movie. I therefore still stand by my assertion that "Hannibal" is the product of sloppy research on the part of its screenwriter.
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