Cool News
HANNIBAL review
HANNIBAL is the best unrequited love story since THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN.
In all the ways that SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was a stunningly solid work of dark crime story filmmaking… Much like how FRANKENSTEIN was a perfect Gothic tale… HANNIBAL is the step forward in the series.
I am amazed at the anger and disappointment being voiced by critics all over… It is almost as if these reviewers wanted to see HANNIBAL be a basic retread of the first film, and have become more disappointed to see something that I feel is far more unique and inspired than SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
I love Silence, I do… but at its heart that film is still basically just a crime thriller. A perfect crime thriller. HANNIBAL accomplishes something entirely different. It never concerns itself with being that same type of story. HANNIBAL is instead a satiric operatic black romance about the Devil picking a bride that would never have him.
Immediately after seeing the film I set out to read the negative reviews, to see their point. To understand them. It seems that this is the exact same case as when the Coen Brothers followed up FARGO with THE BIG LEBOWSKI… the critics revolted and screamed bloody murder about wasted chances and disappointed career turns, when they were ultimately killed by their own shallow sense of expectation. A desire to see the familiar instead of the truly different.
Do we need to see Lecter behind bars? Behind glass? Is he more menacing there? Should Clarice’s part have been the central character again? NO! NO NO NO NO NOOOO!
I have never read more misunderstood interpretations of a novel as I did when Thomas Harris’ HANNIBAL hit shelves… And again with this film I still see the same whining.
Evil in a bottle is nowhere near as compelling or entrancing as when it is beside you at an opera. In HANNIBAL, Ridley Scott and Anthony Hopkins have crafted a character filled with shocking and delightful humor, sizzling intelligence and arresting charisma.
Go back in time to the period when BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN was released. For years people have debated about whether or not it had intentional humor or if it was boggled thrills and suspense gone wrong. James Whale made BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN to laugh at all the conventions of the genre… The dead wanting to marry and love. It was wicked and delicious. Was it necrophilia if they were both dead?
In this film, Ridley Scott actually saw what Thomas Harris wrote… which was his delicious laughter at the success of his creation. A cannibal that everyone aspired to be. A serial killer that people flocked to watch. They watched how the audience always held their breath as Lecter’s hands grazed across Jodie Foster’s fingers in SILENCE and they took note. How silly is it that the audience finds that moment so delicious? So it is romance they want, let’s give it to them.
We watched in OUT OF SIGHT as Jennifer Lopez’s beyond sexy federal marshall got all hot and bothered for a professional thief and escape con in George Clooney… Well here… We can be more, twisted than that, more ironically romantic.
Let’s take all of the world’s favorite Nancy Drew and fix her up for a date with the world’s best cannibal chef!
As different as ALIENS was to ALIEN, so is the case here. As different as THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN was to FRANKENSTEIN… this is the case here.
Hannibal is a wicked gothic Grand Guignol Italian opera about unrequited love. It is not lost on me that we bring Italy into this mix… Italy with its fine history of Giallo Cinema and Fulci Reds. Watching the film all I could think afterwards while talking to Father Geek was how wonderful it would have been to see Vincent Price in his prime play this same character. Hopkins IS Lecter, but oh what a delicious play Dr Phibes would have made of this. It feels very Dr Phibes to me. And Julianne Moore is most definitely Lecter’s Vulnavia.
Phibes was also a fan of all things of taste… music, art, food, atmosphere and décor. Lecter’s Hopkins has the menace of Price’s Dr Cross from the little seen SHOCK, the beguiling charm of Price’s Cardinal Richelieu. However for the first time I saw in Hopkins’ face a bit of longing and a tragic sense of rejection.
The kitchen scene… Reminiscent of Elsa Lancaster’s rejection… the clinging of Fay Wray to Bruce Cabot… all the moments where love failed the tragic central character. I saw the film with one of my long time friends Dorothy Parker and her immediate response was… "What a beautiful love story!"
ABSOLUTELY. Think about the love involved in Hannibal’s letters… sure there is the chiding and poking at her past and familial background, but those are the frustrated tugging upon pigtails in the schoolbus of life. Lecter was giving her hints and ways to trace him, to help her… to bring her closer. He had a special hand lotion made just to let her find him. He travels to the United States with the express purpose of getting her out of trouble. THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND. Hannibal Lecter risks everything to re-enter the United States on the sole purpose of saving her reputation, knowing that the entire country would be after him. Facing every possible obstacle. Willing to incur personal agony merely to preserve the sanctity of her existence.
That’s love. And what does he get in return from her? No understanding, no longing, no love in her eyes. He does it all for her and all she wants to do is cage him, control him and take away the one thing above all he cherishes… his freedom.
HANNIBAL is an allegory for the very state of female-male relationships through the skewed world of Ridley Scott and Thomas Harris. The world where a gentleman is taken to task for his obscure old world tastes.
Ok, maybe my entire perspective is skewed because I was recently smitten and am in the act of being teased to death by the said vixen in question, but the fridge scene was closer to the mark than many could believe. I only wish that when I got the goodbye kiss she would have brought out the handcuffs.
Have a happy Valentine’s Day… see HANNIBAL with the one you love.
P.S. After reading some of the comments down below and some email let me address some of the specific negatives that some folks seem to be having with the film.
First the issue of the pacing in the film and what some folks are deeming to be a 'boring time'. Now I can't argue that you must have been bored at this time with the movie, but to me... at the exact moment you were bored I had an entirely different experience. In SILENCE OF THE LAMBS there is a sequence of simple beauty that illustrates briefly Hannibal Lecter's entire pace of life. This is of course the opera scored sequence in the cage as he kills those poor unsuspecting officers. The music... Remember how Lecter's pulse rate during an attack never raises above a normal heart beat level? This movie is based on Lecter's internal clock. The pacing of his own life... the ease and tranquility of his internal soundtrack... His appreciation for things that take time.... wines, art, literature, music... He is a refined gentleman of exquisite tastes. His life is not one of moment to moment thrills. He isn't a compulsive killer... he doesn't kill constantly. He kills when he needs to or feels it will better the world and provide an interesting meal. I've seen some folks refer to Lecter as a MASS MURDERER, no... he is a cannibal and a serial killer... A mass murderer is someone that kills large numbers of people all at the same time like Charles Whitman on the U.T. tower or George Hennard in Killeen. I found the pacing deliberate and compelling. Hanging on every moment like the tasting of the finest of wines.
Next there is the Gore issue. I found the film remarkably un-gory. With all the hoopla about the gore, I believed that this was going to make the HELLRAISER series look plain, but in reality... we had a couple of expanding pools of blood, a gushing (hidden in shadows) blood flow from a femoral artery wound, there was the spilling pile of intestines... but this was the briefest of shots, the dining of the swine sequence is actually more sound effects than visuals and then the infamous brain scene... this has even been done in film before and even more gory. As for the make-up for Mason Verger... quite simply it was brilliant. While not exactly as described in the book, this is very much realistic. I once knew a comic collector who's face was very much similar to Verger's... no eyelids and all. He had been caught in a very intense fire.... had no nose, lips or ears. He talked in a sloppy unpronounced manner (try speaking with no lips to enunciate with sometime).
As for the unrequited love story not fitting into the genre or into this type of film. SILENCE OF THE LAMBS has often been claimed by aficionados of the Horror genre.... well this is the home of the unrequited love. Frankenstein, Dracula, King Kong, Phantom of the Opera, The Hunchback of Notre Dame, The Creature From The Black Lagoon and even The Mummy all poor victims of misplaced affections and love gone wrong. At least here our lovable monster does not have to die, but like the Creature he escapes to love another day.
-
+ Expand All
-
Yes. Hannibal is the greatest... Maybe I'm weird, a traitor perhaps... I loved all three books, and Silence of the Lambs is my favorite movie. Hannibal is soooooo great. Can't wait to see it again. All must recognized the greatness that is Gary Oldman!!!
-
a positive review of a misunderstood film. Hannibal aspires to different ends altogether than Silence, and i'm happy to see someone endorse this perspective. Hopkins is wonderful. Moore is a intensely delightful.
-
While i dont think the movie was intended to be that much of a "love story" as harry has said, he definitley has brought up some interesting points. and has had a lot of guts to express his opinion when the rest of the critics and people who are about to talk back are going to probably bash him. i found the movie entertaining, yet overly gory. anyone notice the lack of plot? how nothing seems to happen for so long? nevertheless, it was beautiful to look at and very well done. a solid, three star film. great review harry.
-
That was a beautiful review of the movie Harry....
I only hope the talk backers are kind to you..not only have you come out in defence of a movie every one and their dog is out to trash..but you're sweet enough to mention something personal and touching at the end...haven't you read your own talk backs?...you're gonna have a million 15 yr olds telling fat jokes, and saying that there's no way you'll get a chick..
but screw that....like I said..the review was excellent and the personal reflection at the end was poigniant (hope i spelled that right)..
thanks for one more kick ass review Harry!!! you're the best -
Cant wait for the Oscars tomorrow!
-
It took me a while to figure out why i felt disappointed coming out of the movie, despite the fact that I loved the book, thought the characters and acting were spot-on and the settings deliciously filmed. It finally hit me though: the novel is a challenging exploration into the concept of morality while the movie was a well done if pedestrian cop flick, with or without the unrequited love angle. Kudos to Scott for keeping the 'best parts' of the horrific ending though!
-
Cant wait for the Oscars tomorrow!
-
Feb 12, 2001 7:35:05 PM CST
Hannibal Livingston Seagull aka Hannibal in New York aka Where T
by mrmxyzptlk
First of all Julianne Moore is no Jodie Foster. The reason Jodie is great in Lambs was because she does what Harrison Ford does in his flicks - they look scared. Julianne never looks scared - she just looks determined. BORING! And somebody please explain one plot point to me: Mason Verger calls his Italian flunkies at the Killer Hog farm to check up on his killer boars. How did the same two flunkies end up being Ginacarlo Giannini's helpers in Florence? Verger offered his men, but Giancarlo says that he is a good cop by himself and has his own men. And then suddenly the two boar-trainers are working with Giancarlo?! Swept Away By Money In The Blue Shit of Cinecitta!
-
Harry took the words right out of my mouth and articulated them better than I could. It's rather ironic that the most emotionally
charge scene Harry referred to
did not even exist in the book... it was cooked up by Ridley Scott with two writers in 3 days.
Scott deserves credit for saving
the film from a generally reviled book.
-
Harry has some pathological need to like a movie, and will find any redeeming little pebbly shit quality in a film and inflate its importance to fit his distorted world view. To even remotely compare this movie to BRIDE OF FRANKESTEIN is an insult to that great film. I didn't want HANNIBAL to be a retread of SILENCE. How could it be now that Hannibal's on the loose, which is how things were left at the end of SILENCE. I just wanted a movie that respected my intelligence. A key character revelation in SILENCE is when Hannibal displays his painting of the Florence, Italy skyline to Clarice. So where does Hannibal go when he's free--TO FLORENCE, ITALY! AND NO ONE THINKS OF LOOKING FOR HIM THERE! Not only that he's walking the streets in the thinnest of disguises. Harry calls it an unrequited love story...give me a break. The movie I watched had maybe fifteen minutes total devoted to this so called love story. The rest was Hannibal evading Det. Pazzi in Florence and Clarice doing absolutely nothing in the F.B.I. basement for an hour and a half. If this movie's a great unrequited love story than Saving Silverman is a deep meditation on the state of male-female relationships at the turn of the century.
-
talk all you want Harry, the movie was still crappy
-
Feb 12, 2001 7:59:56 PM CST
Great, intelligent review Harry, but what did you think of the g
by flaparoo
While watching Hannibal, I always had in mind the sort of "twisted" love Hannibal had for Clarice, but you hit it right on the dot. But you must have had some thought on the brain scene and the makeup job on Mason, you are after all, a geek.
-
I had a different take on Hannibal and what the movie was about, but Harry your review is the best I have read concerning this film as well as your 'Unbreakable' review. I told my wife upon leaving Hannibal that this film would be as polarizing and misunderstood as 'Unbreakable'. I was right. Just as 'Unbreakable' was not 'The Sixth Sense II', Hannibal is not SOTL II. In both of these films, what people mistake for slow pacing is actually very artful and challenging filmmaking that is well acted and unconventional. My God, does everything have to be paced like MTV or SportsCenter to get a rise out of the people who frequent these message boards!?! Hannibal ranks right up there with Alien and Blade Runner among R. Scott's best work.
-
Feb 12, 2001 8:06:18 PM CST
Why this movie isn't as horrible as most say...but isn't as good
by sideblaster ted
Yes, people were expecting SOTL 2. That's why no one likes this movie. And I say big ups to everyone involved for not trying to make SOTL 2. Not that you could if you wanted to. But why bother anyway? This movie is the opposite of everything the original was. SOTL went for thrills. Hannibal goes for horror. SOTL didn't show blood and guts. Hannibal does. It's taking another direction. It's not trying to win Oscars. That's why it has so much "gore". Julianne Moore isn't scared like Jodie Foster was. She's got balls! It's 10 years later! She captured Buffalo Bill! The lambs were silenced! Why the hell should she be scared? Furthermore, what's this stuff about the pig farmers? The cop never said he was gonna take Hannibal with his own peeps. He said he WANTED TO BE INVOLVED TO MAKE SURE NOTHING WENT WRONG SO HE WOULD DEFINITLEY GET HIS MONEY. Didn't anyone read the bloody book? Well, you should because it is 10 times better than this movie. The film leaves A LOT of the book out. Yes, they keep some of the best things but they could have been a lot better with the stuff that was left out. (Mason's BUFF LESBIAN SISTER pushing him in with the pigs makes a lot more sense than his doctor doing it) READ THE BOOK! SEE THE MOVIE AFTERWARD TO MAKE THE BOOK THAT MUCH MORE ENJOYABLE! I love you, Maura. Peace.
-
Yes, there is a love story element here, but it's hidden by the need to show Lecter being creepy and strange. The interactions between him and Starling are limited to the last few minutes of the film. He does not seek her out, and only leaves Florence once his cover has been blown. He comes back to the U.S. not to get Starling to love him but to taunt the feds again - and eat Ray Liotta's brain. While it may be true that he has an unrequited love for her, it does not appear in this film. I nearly fell asleep for the first half, and then only woke up when the entrails started flying. That's pretty sad, if you ask me.
-
not too bad of an interpretation there, harry. it was right on the money. people were shitting on this movie over and over, but they didn't get it. same unrequited underlying theme as almost famous. two awesome movies. i understood it this part of hannibal too but i was too chicken to say anything. im a scared piece of shit. please, please hold me. what to do. what to do..... will anyone hold me PLEASE!!!!!
-
Before I saw this movie I was overwhelmed with anticipation. NOT because I wanted to see a rehashing of SOTL's, but because I longed to see Hannibal Lecter again. I resaw SOTL's the day BEFORE I saw Hannibal and can tell you WHY the movie was flawed and only worked in a few minute ways(mostly only times when Hopkins was on screen).
Problem One: There was absolutley no sense of DANGER in this movie for Lecter or for Clarise. This is ONE of the reasons Star Wars TPM sucked. Remember when the Jedi are being chased underwater by the huge fish and are most certainly going to be eaten? What was thier reaction, oh, its a big fish, no big deal. Also its like the scene when the Jedi are storming the Palace, Obi Wan actually has time to slow motion spin slice the robots. ( I hope you all know the scene which I am referring to)
I was sitting stunned when Lecter was about to be eaten by pigs and was simply waiting for it to happen as if he KNEW Clarise was following him. Also when Hannibal as captured by the " Evil Italian Guys that happen to know the bad guy who lives a continent away" he is captured so simply that it looks like a mall cop can do it. This just lost any sense of validity of the movie to me.
2. The plotline is so over the top it seems like a bad Al Pacino role. This is where Harry makes no sense, in the original book Hannibal make Clarise his drunken love slave and gives her BRAINS to eat. How is this in any way like the book? Right this is how an INTELLIGENT, cultured Cannibal trys to make his love return his feelings.
3. The badguy who looks like Pizza the Hut in this movie MIGHT be taken more seriously IF his injuries might be explained a little more. For example, I saw him cut his own face off and Hannibal feeding it to the dogs but how did he get stuck in that wheelchair? Also if he didnt sound so much like Dr Evil he MIGHT be taken more seriously. Instead he is taken as seriously as Arnold as Dr Freeze. And just because this was just plain dumb. When on earth did that mans butler guy start to hate him so much that he throws him down into a pit filled with ravenous Warthogs? There was no explaination for this, and no history for him to hate the man other then maybe he was tired of changing Mr Groutchy PizzaHeads diapers.
I could go on and on but I dont want to take up the whole group..
Please tell me if im nuts.
Fernwick -
Sorry about that, but did anyone else notice the stuffed lambs head above Clarises bed? Talk about senseless things. Now this woman has been tormented by the screaming of the lambs and that she couldnt save that one little lamb. But now she has a stuffed lambs head over her bed? This is just plain DUMB.
-
Feb 12, 2001 8:19:31 PM CST
Give me a break! The movie was BORING, SILLY, UNINSPIRED. Comp
by superhero
Did this movie scare anyone? OK, forget about scare. Did it intrigue anyone? If so you are easily entertained my friends. Love story my ass. Hack job is more like it. Lowest common denominator ridiculousness.
-
I enjoyed this review until it said that Hannibal contained "sizzling intelligence". Not this movie. My intelligence was insulted to the point that I was sizzling in my seat. I know that Scott couldn't just come out and rewrite the entire novel, but the entire fbi subplot just doesn't work for me. Wouldn't Clarice try to defend herself against these charges? Didn't she try to call off the raid? Wasn't she shot with a mack 10? I know that a couple of years have passed, but this seems like an entirely different Clarice.
It just doesn't seem like anything really happened in this movie. Don't get me wrong, I love black comedy. I like taking chances, but a movie isn't good just because it makes an attempt at mocking itself and the audience through dark humor. The only character that takes any real journey is Dr. Verger. Hannibal Lecter has turned into something like Anne Rice's version of Bruce Wayne. Who knows why Clarice is basically in some kind of character coma?
It's just too bad that Harris decided to trade in the interesting backstory behind Lecter and Clarice for some pretty scenery. I hear that there's going to be another sequel to Hannibal, so hopefully they will either flesh out the story behind this Bride of Frankenstein relationship, or we'll find out if Clarice can still hear the lambs or not. -
come ON people, Hannibal, while technically great, really fucking fell short. great ideas in there, but to me... the reasons why both Silence and Manhunter were so great is that the character Hannibal Lector acted as a beautiful accent to an already engaging story. main problem i had with Hannibal is that the story we were presented with was promising, but definitely not as engaging as the previous ones and in the end just didnt deliver. i was also pretty pissed they wasted Ray Liotta, that guy needs some sexed out work and he just aint getting it.
-
Thanks for putting together an intelligent well thought out review.
I am gald that this film was not a re-tread of Silence, and was something re-markably different. The love story angle fits and is accurate... read Thomas Harris' novel on which this film is based if you don't believe me. -
The more I think about this movie the more I like it. The final dinner scene makes me laugh now. I am happy to finally get to read the book (always watch the movie first, that way nothing is ruined). Here's my take: I absolutely agree about the love story. Lecter practically screams it while reciting Dante. This IS a LOVE STORY. A sick, sick, sick, distrubing love story. Also what do you think is worse: A genuis killer who eats his enemies, OR a Buruea that eats it's own? Who has done in more of the "uncivilised", Starling or Lecter?
Harry you nailed it with the supplement from the guy who compared it to Unbreakable. NO MORE RETREADS. -
Harry, you've committed cinematic blasphemy by comparing James Whale's sly masterpiece, THE BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN. You see TBOF was funny yes, dark yes, but unlike hannibal it wasn't mean spirited and it wasn't BORING. Hannibal is a complete failure.
Jodie Foster made a wise choice to opt out of this clunker.
anyway here's the list.
1)Julianne Moore spent an entire hour in a dark basement staring at a computer screen. I'm beginning to think that the internet is becoming a crutch for lazy screenwriters. 2) Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling--I usually love her work, but her performance fell flat...I guess you can blame that on the screenplay. 3)Mason Verger--sure he looked gross...at first...they showed him so much, the effect just wore off... basically a useless villian..he belonged in a comic book movie. 4) There is an entire 45 minute section where NOTHING happens, the movie is just plain boring. 5)Okay let me get this straight...Hannibal wipes his prints off of a wine glass, but he isn't worried about showing his MUG in public even though it's posted on the FBI's website and has probably been on America's Most Wanted. 6) Positioning Hannibal as a hero, hey I'm as liberal as they get, but c'mon, what is this world coming to when the audience cheer for a homicidal, flesh eating serial killer? 7) The last twenty minutes...DUMB, DUMB, DUMB and the special efx were so cheesy, I for one just laughed.
8) Clarice/ hannibal interaction... that was the MEAT of SOTL...there was absolutely NO chemistry between Moore and Hopkins....hell, they didn't even have many scenes together, how are we supposed to buy this as a love story? 9) Ray Liotta, wow talk about BAD performances...but did he really deserve to die, just for being a jerk? 10) Boring, Boring no movie has an excuse for being boring... -
It was different but it was still a bad movie.
-
I didn't look at my watch once during the entire movie. It kept me awake and reasonably entertained.
I liked SOTL, but am not fanatically devoted to it, so I guess my expectations weren't as high. I also enjoyed the novel HANNIBAL by Thomas Harris, and while I thought the ending was bizarre, it didn't ruin the book for me. Besides, it was a bizarre novel to begin with.
I actually liked the movie better, the ending worked for me this time around.
The final scene on the airplane was great. And do not leave until after the final credits roll (nothing huge happens, just a little farewell message from H.)
I knew what was coming in the movie, having read the book last year, but was still enthralled. I wish things had turned out differently for poor Rinaldo Pazzi, though.
The last half-hour was a little too much like a Batman movie, but those pigs were fun to watch.
All in all, the movie worked for me. It entertained me for a couple of hours, and that's all I ask. The SOTL fanatics will disagree, but to each his own.
P.S. Thomas Harris is still under contract to write one more book for Delacorte (the publishers of HANNIBAL). HANNIBAL was the first book of a two-book contract. I don't know if his next book will be another Hannibal/Clarice novel (the last sentence of HANNIBAL felt like Harris was wrapping up the entire saga of Dr. Lecter for good). Harris is not exactly prolific, though, so we may be waiting a while for his next book. -
Harry, you are hilarious. It never fails to amuse me to see a critic such as yourself trying so hard, huffing and puffing all the way, to reach and call a piece of dog turd like "Hannibal" a rose just because it has an interesting texture to its surface.
-
one technical aspect i would have enjoyed more would be if scott would have built up the appearance of mason. i mean, they just flash right into his face. some suspense please...kudos to the review once again harry. to all the people that dis his review, you'll never understand life.
-
Feb 12, 2001 9:12:56 PM CST
This movie was good, but nothing more. Pulp trash, but good pul
by lenny nero
Problematic, anti-narrative, and gleefully gross.
-
On it's own, this movie was slow, uneventful, and a pathetic excuse of a movie. It was beautifully photographed but that's all. Even Hopkins performance, which was great, didn't even live up to the hype. And Julianne doesn't even come close to Jodie Foster, even though she is also a damn good actress. Don't know what you thought was so great, Harry. For me, it was a massive letdown a la Episode I.
-
Why would anybody want SOTL2 anyway? SOTL is probably the most over-rated movie I've ever seen....well, second at least, Seven is the most over-rated, at least SOTL was decent, Seven was the most predictable boring garbage ever. SOTL was nothing but a by the numbers whodunnit murder mystery. There were a million movies exactly like it before it and there's been a million after it. Hannibal is a movie that doesn't fit in any box and is a movie that keeps you guessing all the way through. Actually, the script problems probably helped this, I mean everybody already knew the book ending and it was fun to wait and see how they pulled it off in the movie. It wasn't as good as Manhunter but it was better than the second one.
-
No I didn't want or expect a SOLT retread. No I don't mind gore - in fact I love gory flicks... but this is NOT a good movie. Yes I can see Hannibal's love or affection for Clarice. Although not for Julianne Moore's Clarice. Julianne Moore's Clarice Starling is flat and uninteresting. Although I love her work elsewhere her portrayal is just uninteresting. Her accent was annoying too. Jodie Foster / Jonathan Demme knew a dog when they saw it. If the filmmakers wanted a gory horror flick they should have totally gone that way instead of this half assed way. Gary Oldman and all his great prostetics were wasted. He isn't bad / evil / interesting / demented enough. Since it made $58 mill over the weekend I heard that Hopkins will do #3 ... nice sellout Sir Tony! Yes go the Sly Stallone route and onto Hannibal 3 /4/5. Soon one of the best movie characters will be a joke. I can only hope Ridley Scott's hit or miss record makes BLACKHAWK DOWN a major hit both critically and financially. I watched Hannibal knowing it was panned, I had low expectations so anything decent would have been a nice treat. It didn't even beat low expectations. Wait for it on cable.
-
Hannibal was fucking awesome. To all those people who say it sucked, what do you know? YOu wouldn't know good taste if Julia Roberts sat on your face!
-
About time somebody stated the same viewpoint i walked away from this movie with....and while i could take this time to start the book-to-movie argument about the new ending, ya know what? i won't...not yet, anyway...no, instead, i would like to take this time to say "fuck every critic in america"...thats right...you heard me....because EVERY critic's review ive heard has TAKEN A STAB at this movie in the worst way...why, you may be asking? EVERY ONE OF EM WANTED SOTL ALL OVER AGAIN! Damn it, no sequel should be EXACTLY like the original!! Will you assholes get that through your thick jaded skulls?!?! Silence should, and will always stand on it's own...time to move on....to put it in other terms, if you eat the same meal for three years in a row, what are the odds you're gonna hate it? if you're a video game player, and a kick ass game comes out, and 7 sequels come out just like it (examples--The Street Fighter II "Unable to Count to 3 Just Yet" fiasco and the Megaman series), eventually, youre gonna fuckin' hate it....or even WORSE, if a game comes out, it kicks ass, and then somebody makes a SHITTY game JUST LIKE IT, guess what? YOURE GONNA FUCKIN HATE IT!!! JODIE FOSTER IS GONE!! LECTER'S OUT OF JAIL!! DEAL, MOTHERFUCKERS!!! DAMMIT!!! ::sigh:: I'm sorry...im just aggravated with critics these days...especially Ebert (giving fat bastards a bad name for over 20 years)....this is the same hippopotamus ass who gave The Cell 4 Stars, and gave X-Men 2.....i can't stomach him any longer....or any of these "respected critics" who stopped enjoying films the second they got a paycheck to review them.....so yeah...fuck 'em, may they all be raped by a vulture...now that i've vented i can get down to brass tacks...just to paraphrase my thoughts, Hannibal was just plain entertaining and jumpy(and STILL scarier than Scream 3)...and yes, it got the "monster needs love" story down pat for this day and age....and it leaves the door open for everybody's favorite cannibal to return (though check the El Cosmico Hannibal TB for my thoughts on them remaking Red Dragon/Manhunter).....either way, thankfully the critics didnt affect the general public's heads that much...third biggest opening in history, to which i say, kick ass.....now, if you will all excuse me...i need to run to Napster....FAST! Revolution is my name....now let's all say thank you to Mr. Lars Ulrich for screwing us all out of free music... ::flips the one-finger salute::
-
Which is the reason for all the negative bleating. If this movie bored you then you're too easily bored. Where, in this movie, is there a section where "nothing happens"? How ADD-impaired are some of today's audiences anyways? And as far as critics go - if this was an European film, the critical establishment would already be hailing it en masse as some kind of masterpiece. Its attention to texture, mood and atmosphere would be regarded as taking rightful precedence over the stilted, but necessary, conventions of its plot. But because its an American film - a sequel no less - and because it's supposed to fulfill the surface demands of a mainstream blockbuster, shortsighted critics and audiences have given it a knee-jerk dismissal. But there's far too much that's excellent here for it not to gardner a far better reputation over time. I'd say it's already well on its way to a cult following.
-
Feb 12, 2001 10:10:47 PM CST
Hannibal, overhyped movie without content but wins a prize for b
by mooncake
the only thing positive i can say about Hannibal is that whoever manned the camera did a beautiful job!
everything else sucked big time. the way the story is set up lacks simple logic! not for a minute did i feel any suspence or terror. we just sat there waiting for something remotely interesting to happen. the only scenes that gave me any reaction were those grosteque scenes. does a supposedly great director have to resort to this in order to make a movie sell? why not have ridely scott do another texas chainsaw massacre flick? i thought Gladiator was a above average popcorn movie before, but now i have to relabel it as a MASTERPIECE compared with this sh*t!
oh btw that scene with moore & hannibal at the dining table together was goddam ridiculous! moore is a friggin FBI agent, she could have just clubbed the bastard to death with a chair! how hard is it to kick an old guys *ss? this film insults your intelligence. -
I can't believe people are reading things into this movie that simply are not there. Just because you want it to be. This movie isn't about Hannibal. This movie isn't about Clarice. This movie isn't about anything but silly gore. I don't expect sequels to be retreads, but I do expect some consistency. Hannibal acts like an idiot, not the genius who's mind we actually saw working in SOTL. He gets captured by the cartoonish henchmen so easily, and don't try to say getting caught was intended to "save" Clarice. He does not allow his capture at the end. And how does that "save" her. I think a better sequel to compare this to is Terminator II. All the glitter, but with huge holes in logic
-
Feb 12, 2001 10:27:42 PM CST
How great would Hannibal be if they had filmed the real ending.
by pepperseed
Hollywood cops out, it took $58 million this weekend for fuck's sake. It was always gonna be a hit. Our apparent love affair with this character appears to stop short of actually accepting the possibility that we could ever really love him, because in the movie, Clarice doesn't want to love him either. Thomas Harris was daring us to go all the way, daring us to accept that Lecter could be bad _AND_ Get the girl,
and they didn't let him. Thereby, depriving the good Doctor of that wich he offers up to us in spades. Satisfaction. They copped out. Talk about not getting the joke. Cocksuckers. -
This is a little better. When I came out of Hannibal on opening night, after reading negative review upon negative review, I thoguht to myself "Myself, what is all the fuss? I loved this film. THe title is NOT Silence of the Lambs 2: Electric Boogaloo. The film is called Hannibal." Sure, Hannibal has gained weight, and sure he's got more of a humorous side, but wouldn't you change over the course of ten years after being held captive in a cell? Yup, of course I would. Lecter, good for you. Besides, I rarely ever see a film that I can't stand. I love almost all movies. I would never walk out of a theater in the middle of a film, no matter how horrid it is, unless, of course there was an emergency. I think it's safe to say that I would rather be in a theater watching a movie than jsut aboot anything else. But tehn again, noone cares about the me anyway.
-
Why does everyone keep harping that Hannibal is a horror film. It's not. It plays more like a tragedy/thriller/romance film. Why do you think so much of it is set in Italy, and why there is so much operatic music in the film score? If you approach it like a horror film, of course you're going to hate it. Oh, as far as the gross out factor, the only scene that is really clearly graphic is the dinner scene, the others you only see it for a split second. Give me a break, Scream was a lot grosser!!!!!!!
-
The Big Lebowski was great. I liked it a lot more than I liked Fargo. It wasn't a sequel to Fargo, so of course any idiot who expected more of the same was sure to be disappointed. Critics and audiences liked Aliens, as I recall. I think most of them recognized that Cameron had taken it in a different direction.
Hannibal isn't nearly as good as SOTL, but if you see SOTL as essentially just a standard crime drama, or can reduce Foster's Clarice Starling to "everybody's favorite girl Nancy Drew detective," I really despair of ever getting you to understand what Demme, Foster, Ted Tally, Hopkins et al were getting at.
But best of all was Red Dragon, and why did Michael Mann have to turn his serial killer into such a typical dumb-ass movie killer dope at the end? The ending of the book is a thousand times better. But maybe Mann thought having the Red Dragon guy get so upset imagining his blind girlfriend was cheating on him that he goes berserk and gets himself caught made Manhunter more of a "love story". Search me.
That's what's so terrifying about all those Friday the 13th movies. The super-powerful killer with all the magic powers is right there with you at the opera, or on the camping trip, not in a cage somewhere. Booga Booga! But of course, those people never came up with great dialogue like "Okey Dokey". -
...John Vernon was not in it as "The Mayor".
-
Harry, cut the crap, you are getting brainswashed by all the Hollywood bigshots. A)The begining of the movie was good. B)Mason Verger was cool, especially his home. c) the movie sucks when Hannibal goes to the states. Hopkins doesn't even talk in the manic hannibal voice, he is a bore. d) the ending was plain disgusting, Hannibal is a sick fuck.
-
I cant stress how much your review is like my feelings towards this film version of Hannibal. Despite all the supposed "allure" Lecter had in Silence, it is deffinetly completed in this new movie. But what the hell, the violence is just worth going to see the movie in a theatre. And I must say that Hannibal's rejection from Clarice is the cruelest in all cinema.
-
Harry, the love aspect was cool. He does a lot for Clarice, yes. But it was disconnected from a lot of the film. But that is what kept the movie interesting. Not as good as the first because it was not scary or suspenceful, and he was scarier behind the glass. The way he can get into your mind is much more terrifying than anything else.
anyways, Silence is a great film, Hannibal is a very good film, and Manhunter sucks ass. -
Feb 12, 2001 11:22:47 PM CST
This is One Of Those Movies That's Going To Be 50/50 Half Will L
by the founder
I don't want to say I was disappointed in Hanibal, its just that I haven't found the right word to use instead of diappointed. I went in expecting the movie to be somthing different than what I saw, but I still enjoyed it anyway.I guess I could blame it on the advertising of the film.I have to agree with Fernwick on three big points of the film which are: How did Mason end up in a wheelchair,thier was no sense of danger or suspense throughout the movie, and when did Mason's doctor Cordell develop some form of hatred for him that would cause him to dump Mason in the hog pit? The only answer I could come up with is that Mason told him he was already involed in the crime, and when Hannibal told him to dump him over and blame it on him it looked like the best way out of going to jail.Thats what I'm thinking his reasonning could be.
I expected to see Hannibal chowing down on a few people, and although I knew he wasn't going to be the main villian I expected more out of Mason and his henchmen.I really thought this Mason was going to be this evil mastermind, but instead he fell somewhat flat.Although I liked Jodie Foster better in the role of Clarice I do think Moore did a good job with what she had to work with. I felt that she was wasted at some moments during the movie.I do agree that to much time was wasted on the officer in Florence he wasn't as cunning as I expected he would be from what people have told me who read the book.At any rate I wasn't expecting a SOTL story over again(for those of you who were you need to watch the SOTL again and you'll see that the story was based on a different serial killer and although Lecter was in it IT WASN'T HIS STORY he was giving Clarice information on how to find the killer in Lambs)but I was expecting more out of Hannibal. -
Jason Goes To Hell had more depth than Hannibal. El Stinko!
-
What is all this crap about "ALL"the critics hating it?I read good reviews in Rolling Stone,Entertainment Weekly,and Time,to name just a couple.Hell,Time even seemed to nail the fact that the film IS a love story.I didn't see anything negative about this film until I read the posts here(surprise,surprise)!It seems sometimes that you can't win with the geek faction.If you create a totally original sequel,your screwed(take Hanibal),If you retread the same old crap(scream3)everone pisses and moans about lack of originality("It's the same shit!!!!It sucks!")And GOD forbid you have two really cool fantasy films in production simultaneously!!!!!!!!!!!!(uh-oh here I go!)Just look at the Star Wars vs.Lord of the rings debate!How fucking SILLY is that?What,we wait years and years for some good fantasy and now we feel the need to pick sides????Why because more than one are in the works?Listen boys,it will be okay to anticipate more than one!We've been neglected FOREVER,so we pissed and moaned,"No promising geek films!"Now we have the Lord of the rings trilogy(Fucking Guranteed, TRIOLGY!YES!episode2,Matrix2(and 3!filming!!!!)throw a little spider on top for seasoning,and I see a banner year (or 3) ahead!!!But that's just me,you all can continue to piss and moan!Enough people read these sites,if you continue to piss and moan,maybe we'll get back to one COOL project every five years!Keep it up.Slam one,favor another,(after all if it's not YOUR favorite,IT MUST SUCK!)studios ARE paying attention to this site(unlike most talkbackers,unfortunatley)
soon we'll be back to dumbass movies like He-man!Or worse yet van damme in cyborg 20!!!!
BACK TO HANIBAL.....Good movie,nothing like the first!Bravo!Manhunter and Silence had an individual feel,so does Hanibal!Jodie Who?I love her,but I'm not missing her here.Moore nails the character,watch again and pay attention this time!!!!Must stop rambling...............
screw spellcheck! -
What's up with the insta-quote at the top of all of Harry's reviews now?
-
Feb 13, 2001 12:06:59 AM CST
Harry, thank you for the most honest review of this movie. You
by cutter20
Harry, for nearly a year now I've been regularly coming to your site because frankly, you are the only reviewer I trust any more. My local newspaper shithead, Donald Munro, gave Hannibal a C+ and wrote the entire review in the style of a recipe. "Add one dash of lousy script, one pinch of brilliant acting", etc. Thank god you didn't do anything annoying like that.
Thanks for an awesome review of a movie that I really truly loved and wanted for the critics to love. And all you talk backers- you are right too. SOTL:Hannibal::Fargo:Lebowski::Alien:Aliens. Thank you, thank you, thank you. -
Yes, my first time connecting to the internet with my Sega Dreamcast! Now I must get a Keyboard.....This freaking sentence took me ten minutes to write!
-
This movie does have some of the most grotesque images I've seen on film. While the Liotta finale is disturbing, I found myself amused by it. It was somewhat comical to me. The thing I found most horrific about Hannibal was Mason Verger's face. Good God! That is the most terrible image I've ever seen. I have a strong tolerrance for blood and guts, but I found myself having to look away from that dude especially in the scene where he meets with Clarice. The camera had an extreme closeup of him for minutes at a time. Hats off to the makeup artist behind that one.
-
"Hannibal" is not as bad as many of the reviews, but it took too long to get going. In SOTL, Hannibal was one scary bastard, he was able to get to Chilton's pen, even in a straightjacket, with a mask, on a hand cart. You didn't know how he was going to escape, but you knew he would. In "Hannibal," he suddenly turns into Lois Lane, unable to free himself from a few measly hand restraints and worst of all, he has forgotten how to pick a lock on a pair of handcuffs. All of "Hannibal's" violence was telegraphed, except for the surveilance footage. The film took too long getting Clarice and Lecter back together. This reminded me of the first half of a two-part episode of an 80s TV show. ("Yes, Arnold is trapped in the old man's bike shop and yes, Dudley is being molested, but tune in next week to see if they escape!") If they cut about an hour of the film, and moved the ending to the middle, I would have been happier. Dino De Laurentiis strikes again ("Danger: Hannibalique?"). The best part of the movie is when Hannibal tosses the dish towel on Ray Liotta's sorry ass. F*ck Ray Liotta.
-
I loved the original "Silence of the Lambs," but I for one would not want to see a sequel that simply rehashed the original. What an utter disappointment to see Ridley Scott and company waste the efforts of Anthony Hopkins. Of course, Scott offers beautiful cinematography, but it takes the plot and hour and half before anything really interesting happens. The first hour and half is like watching one of those over the top "artsy" European perfume commercials. I think Ridley fell so love with his visuals, that he forgot that he had to tell a compelling story. Also, I discovered why Jody Foster passed on the role... there was nothing for her to do. Again, for three quarters of the movie, Clarice sits in a basement office and grinds her teeth trying to track down Lecter. Get her out of the friggin' office and out into the world tracking Lecter. But nooooo, we got to see all the characters simply walking around, posing in front of all the pretty scenery. Zzzzzzzzz. As for Hopkins, he's great, but gone is the sizzzling genius from "Lambs." Instead, the director replaces brains with gore. Well, that's all for now, I think I'll go watch "Silence... " or "Manhunter" and try to forget the borefest that is "Hannibal."
P.S. I love "The Bride of Frankenstein." -
Looking at this film like a tragic, unrequited love story, I think a much better ending would have been for Lector to surrender himself to authorities. Think about it. After the opening ill-fated shootout, and Krendler's accusation of withholding evidence, Starling becomes a reveiled figure, both in the media and in the FBI. Bringing Lector back into custody would revive her career and bring her life back into order. For Lector, it would be the ultimate sacrifice from a character who values freedom above all. Ending the film with a punchline (feeding brains to a kid) seems unbefitting for Lector. And the book's ending would have difficult to convey on screen. Unlike some people, I bought into the book's ending, from the perspective that Lector fucked up Starling's mind so much with drugs and brainwashing that she became his virtual love-slave. Harris even writes that it was unclear how much of her previous life Starling even remembered. Just a thought from an admittedly novice amateur screenwriter.
-
I had a great time with this film and even though a decent sequel to one of the finest thrillers ever made seemed impossible, I really enjoyed this one almost as much for it's dark and twisted romanticism. It truly is a love story! Face it... everybody wants to be like Hannibal Lector. They want that smooth, chilling voice that can overpower the weak willed! They want his intellect and gentleman's taste (minus the human flesh). Hannibal is exactly the way one should perceive the devil to be, seductive and intelligent! He's not just some monster in the street... he's James Bond! The critics were already trying to compare this to 'Silence' but it wouldn't be fair. They are different stories and one is not trying to be like the other. Oh, yeah... hooray for Harry in his eternal quest for love! Make sure cupid's arrow aims for the heart my friend! In closing... Julliane Moore is HOT!!
-
Are you people only entertained by mindless action and gore? I thought the acting was incredible and I watched with delight from start to finish. I can't understand the deal with these people saying they were "falling asleep" or how it "dragged on",... what's the matter with you? As for that person who mentioned there was no sense of danger... um... remember Inspector Pazzi? We understood that he was a decent man and a loving husband who fell to temptation. I personally wanted him to survive because of this and every time he confronted Lector... there WAS a sense of danger. By the way, remember that scene where Clarice picks up the phone and believes she is talking to Pazzi, only to hear the chilling voice of Hannibal Lector on the other end? The entire audience was cheering and clapping during that moment! It was one of the greatest experiences I'd had with an audience since 'Pulp Fiction'!
-
SOTL was great because we never got to see the actual murders. We only saw the aftermath. Where as in Hannibal, we saw everything. The suspense was gone. The mystery and fun of the movie was not there. The movie is just ok.
-
Thanks for the great review Harry. So many critics rehash the blurb and/or previous reviews. It
-
harry the last 15 minutes was so outrageous and over the top.but i loved the performances by oldman who was hard on the eyes hopkins looked like he was having a grand time and moore did a fine job,and i loved liottas swarmy fbi agent so 7.5 out of 10 for me
-
I read "Hannibal" when it first came out and I can see where it is a story of unrequited love, but what about the ethics involved in what Lecter and Verger do? How can this film be reviewed from a romantic perspective without taking into account the extreme immorality of its players?
-John -
I haven't seen Hannibal yet; but if I don't like it, Harry, you are full of shit for having a different opinion than myself. If I do like it, you merely validate my genius.
-
HARRY, I WAS SURPRISED TO READ YOUR EXCELLENT REVIEW OF HANNIBAL. I HAVE FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO AGREE WITH YOUR REVIEWS FOR SOME TIME NOW (EXCEPTION: MEMENTO), BUT THIS TIME YOU HIT THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD! HAIL TO RIDLEY SCOTT FOR NOT TRYING TO MAKE A 'SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, PART II', BUT A TRULY ORIGINAL TAKE ON HANNIBAL. IT'S ANOTHER MISUNDERSTOOD MASTERPIECE OF HIS.
TA TA! -
Good job Harry, you got it right. Great review, you spoke about most thoughts I had on the film. To the people who feel there is no real point to the movie, just a bunch of undeveloped themes, well the film gives you insight into all of Hannibal's thoughts and morals, it never truly spells anything out for you which is great. The movie IS Hannibal Lecter its his character transformed into a film starring him if you get that. Hence the name.
-
So, Hannibal Lecter is "an old school gentleman" who is rejected for his "obscure tastes"???
Excuse me? Hannibal Lecter is a *cannibal*. He eats other people because he likes it. He's an utterly amoral serial killer who nearly gets a "friend" killed (Will in Red Dragon), kills his own patients because they're annoying (Raspail in SOTL), and cruelly digs into another "friend" for her class origins (Clarice in SOTL). He's a monster, a Jeffrey Dahmer with an education.
Y'know, Ted Bundy liked "obscure" things like opera and good wine (and since when is classical music "obscure"????). And Arthur Shawcross was generous to his friends and family. And Eileen Wuornos was an outspoken feminist. And Kenneth Bianchi wrote poetry to his girlfriend. None of this changes the fact that they were serial killers who deserved everything they got. Why should Hannibal Lecter be any different?
And the idea that ANY law officer, at ANY time, could or should return the affection of a serial killing cannibal, is repulsive. Talk to a cop for once instead of reading Thomas Harris's imaginative fiction, or going into multiple orgasm over Ridley Scott's cinematography.
Hannibal Lecter isn't a gentleman. He's a monster. Expecting a Clarice Starling to return his affections is about as realistic as expecting a cat to bay the moon. The book was slammed by the critics for exactly that reason: it's a betrayal of the characters in SOTL.
Not to mention a betrayal of the audience, that we're supposed to sympathize with a man who eats brains for jollies. Give me a break! -
I am not saying that Hannibal was an awful movie, in fact, I thought it was a little better than okay, but all I wanted was a little tension and all I got was gore that was meaningless. Your review however made me so sick by your bullshit rambling and ass kissing that I now dislike the movie more than I did before. Bride of Frankenstein?? Give me a break.
-
There were also great reviews from Owen Gleiberman (EW), Richard Corliss (Time) and Todd McCarthy (Variety). You are in good company. Thomas Harris is NOT a hack, he was incapable of rehashing SOTL II, he wrote a completely different kind of book. Ridley Scott is NOT a hack, he was incapable of copying Demme. This is a film that is a love story not a police procedural, which explains why hack-brain reviewers just don't get it. DOH!
-
Nobody is suggesting that murder is in any way morally right.
To appreciate 'Hannibal' we are simply asked to understand the mind of this serial killer, not to empathise with him.
How is that wrong? -
Because the script took far, far too many dishonest shortcuts. My problem is not the gore, or the pacing, or that it's a love story, or any of things you mention. It's merely that the characters in "Silence" had depth, while the characters in "Hannibal" are cardboard cutouts. If Harris hated "Manhunter," how can he possibly like this?
Think about it--the botched drug raid had a terrible, tragic momentum on the page, but on film it was the product of one gung-ho cop. The script totally and completely missed the point of that scene, and it goes from Clarice with a gun to Clarice in tears, whereas the book at least allowed her a few moments to be numb. Then the scene's over and done with, gone, whereas its reverberations were felt throughout the rest of the story on the page. Then: I've made this point before, but how does Lecter know anything about Paul Krendler, enough to choose his lake house as a place to set up and wait? He knew Krendler in the book because Margot Verger gave him up to get rid of him. On film: cheap, very very cheap, just the kind of Hollywood plot twist / deus ex machina turn that undermines the entirety of a movie. Tally's script respected its source material. Zallian's seemed determined to be its own work, and failed as a result. Good visuals, good acting, but overall only the most generous review could call this movie anything but an enormous disappointment. But then Harry knows all this and more if he read my e-mail. -
I am so glad I'm not the only one who see that Hannible is basically a modern Dr. Phibes film. The movie does work on a dark comedy level.
-
You know Harry, if they filmed the movie that you wrote about, it would have been half decent. But you know what? THEY DIDN'T! I think you were projecting your own wants on this movie. HANNIBAL was boring on so many different levels. It had the suspense and excitement of TALENTED MR. RIPLEY. There was ZERO suspense. Are you saying that the film should have had no suspense? What about the scene with Liotta's brain - why have Liotta drugged up and not understanding what was happening? This ruins the terror. I'd rather see Liotta come out of it ... a sense of realization dawn on him ... the terror in his eyes as he realizes his brain pan is exposed ... Now that would have been scary. The way it was done ... it was just laughable. The entire film was like that. I agree with you ... this movie is UN-GORY. How can you make a movie about a cannibal that isn't gory? That isn't suspenseful? You have to try hard to achieve that.
-
By the way, Dark Horizons has posted a list of 24 errors in Hannibal. Here's one: Hannibal licks the envelop, yet when Clarice gets it the envelop is ONLY closed with wax. That's only one. Check them out; some are pretty good.
-
I'm sure no one including myself who thought this was a bad movie was disapointed because it was not a duplicate of the original. But we did want to see a movie equally as good if not better and unfortunately, this was neither.
-
You're right about this being a love story. And you are very right about this being like aliens. (turning a slow, intense ride into a fun house ride). But, there is one major problem. There aren't really aliens with acid for blood that eat people. There really ARE serial-killers. Jeffery Dhamer really DID poor acid into people's brains to turn them into "sex zombies". Knowing this, how can we delight in the brain scene or in any of hannibal. "Hannibal" is flawed on a basic conceptual level. People being horribly killed just isn't amusing.
The makeup was great though. -
It may be true that there have been gorier scenes than those in Hannibal, but I think that the audience of "Silence" was misjudged. My point may be moot due to the opening weekend gross, but I think that this film will dip significantly next weekend. I believe that the audiences like "Silence" so much due to the interactions between Starling and Lector. It wasn't about gore and violence. During the original film I don't remember large numbers of people turning their heads from the screen in disgust as they did in "Hannbial". I'm glad this film has found an audience, but the gore in this film just does not cater to the mainstream in my mind. I guess we'll see next weekend, perhaps it is I who misjudged the audience.
-
He's a fucking psycho! And 'delicious laughter' ??
-
By the volume of ads running in the weeks (months?) before the release, I knew this one would suck big time.
2000 was a grim year for film - and 2001 isn't starting much better.
www.toptopsecret.com -
I dunno. The acting was fine. The directing was fine. The FX were a-ok. Oldman's makeup was superb. But...it seemed uninspired to me. I guess the fact that the story that they had to work from wasn't anything really special had a lot to do with the fact that this film was just "ok", but nothing that I would bother seeing again. I didn't feel that I wasted $7, but I wouldn't recommend it to anyone unless they have time when there is a matine playing.
Oh, and where the hell did Starling hide those handcuffs? I know she found them on the dresser, but the only place conceivable to conceil them was by kiester-stash as far as I could tell.
I did like the child on the plane bit though.
-
Right from the brilliant opening credit sequence, scored to Bach's "Goldberg Variations," which, not coincidentally, was the piece that Lecter listened to in SOTL *after* his initial attack on the officers -- essentially, the first piece of music he enjoyed upon regaining his freedom -- I was well aware that Ridley Scott planned to immerse us in the good Doctor's reality for two hours. This is as finely crafted a film as Scott has made in his mostly distinguished career, and to see it so widely misunderstood is, in some way, oddly comforting. People reacted with this kind of anger to EYES WIDE SHUT upon its release, as well; taking Kubrick to task for disobeying the laws of our world and plunging us headlong into a vividly imagined erotic dream state. Leaving the theater, I knew HANNIBAL would sharply divide audiences, but such is the price one pays for delivering so uncommercial a follow-up to one of the most beloved films of the last decade. Well done, Mr. Scott, and well reviewed, Harry!
-
Come on, Gary Oldman looked like Fire Marshall Bill. Everyone I say this to completely agrees with me.
The movie wasn't so good either. -
Drawing the line between book and film is hard. Preference? Sure. Your imagination vs. what you see. Maybe you saw something else in another way or thought that character was too important to leave out. From Thomas Harris, the mother and father of this Trilogy, to Michael Mann, Ted Tally, Jonathan Demme, David Mamet, Steven Zaillain, and Ridley Scott. Different imaginations and different ideas in visualizing this Trilogy. I have enjoyed all three. The books are thrilling, and the films chilling. The most recent addition, HANNIBAL, was not as bad as I expected or had heard. I did feel some characters from the book were important and should have been there, like Mason Verger's sister, Margot, but that is my opinion. Perhaps it is the need of what will work best for audiences and a film. I think Ridley Scott is easing back into the game of filmaking, especially now since GLADIATOR is nominated for best picture. He hasn't shed all of his "bad" skin, but well on his way. The film seemed to be daring enough to thrill and repulse audiences. Anthony Hopkins maintained his cold but interesting character and added a huble humanistic side which makes him even more likable. It appears we even lose more feelings for Clarice and could care less what will happen to her. I did prefer the book ending to the movie's ending. I thought it more important to watch her fall completely under his spell and whisk away with him becoming the "BRIDE". I fell it is not the best movie adaptation of the three, but certaintly no failure.
I am glad to see some recent films taking a more naturallistic stlye of lighting. Cinematography was nice and it seemed, in FLorence mainly, Street lights and windows provided the only light and no three key setups washed out any of the beautiful rooms or settings. Gary Oldman's make-up was exceptional and did convey a different view from what I had imagined Mason to look like. I did not like the fact we did not see the scene after Clarice visits Barney and returns to the Mental Hospital. You can see the shot in the trailer with Hannibal's reflection in his cage. It was a frightening scene one in which really sets her back on the case. I wished it could have stayed. I did not feel Mason's servant, Cordell, hated him enough to kill him, and that is not how Mason dies oin the book. It was the lowest moment for me. All in All watchable and interesting, not the best but a decent film. Definately a tad of light from the dying arms of Hollywood and the crap it continues to produce. -
I agree with most of Harry's points, and will even conceded on a few that I hadn't thought of, but I must say the movie suffered horribly from BAD DIALOGUE. Which, is really not surprising since the movie seemed to be directly lifted from the book. It seems logical that what is on paper will sound good spoken, but that is not always the case. There are nuances (sp) and cadences (sp) for speech for each medium. That said, my only other real gripe against the movie is that, as it was directly lifted from the book, the movie's story was building up to Clarice and Hannibal running away together; could see it coming a mile away. Clarice and Hannibal are two sides of the same coin. The ending that Scott gave us was cheap, contrived and pointless. I actually prefered Julian Moore than Foster, so what really irks the crap out of me is that Foster's bitching screwed up the movie. And then she didn't even have the balls to stick with the flick.
-
Mason Verger was the best effect in the whole movie. A perfect blend of make-up and superb acting. His face was so disgusting, I think it was the sickest thing in the movie. Gary Oldman was perfect (as always), but there were a few scenes that needed better development, I agree. when that Cordell guy dumped him into the pig pit, my friend and I were like WTF? but I have to say it was hilarious the way Oldman was yelling Cordell! and desperately fiddling with his wheelchair joystick. heh heh. a cool death, even if it was confusing.
and when is Harry gonna get the academy awards list up? Speaking of Gary Oldman, I'm so damn pissed that he wasn't nominated for supporting actor, for the Contender, and Jeff Bridges is. He was good, but Gary Oldman deserves it more! Come on Harry, give me a proper place to vent. -
Great review, Harry, and many excellent, frequently-missed points. However 8^). Why doesn't it matter to you what Hannibal does? Rather, why is everything about this misunderstood "gentleman" so important...EXCEPT for the fact that, oh yeah, he brutally kills people? Why is no one else's life important, just because Hannibal loves Clarice? I can have sympathy for him, yes, but that doesn't excuse what he does, let alone wax an elelphant, as you do, about what a fantastic character/person he is. As far as the "loveable monsters" you mention at the bottom, I think you missed the boat on that. Most of them are victimized by the outside world, and/or thrown into it by their misplaced "love" or desire for a pretty face. Trapped in an untenable position, they kill to try to get out of it. They are NOT serial killers/cannibals who also happen to fall in love with one of their pursuers - - who, in Hannibal's case, is pursuing him for his crimes, not just victimizing him for being "different". However, Dracula is probably pretty close. Most of the other monsters deserve an apology for being included in Hannibal's company). (As much as I dislike the things Harry describes as reasons for being banned from Talk Back, how do those things make someone a "jerkwad loser" any more so than being a serial killer? Maybe it's that you can do ANYthing you want to, [and injure as many people on-set as you want to] as long as it entertains Harry...8^).
-
Maybe I am the only one who thinks this, but after viewing the film a second time, I don't think that Foster could have pulled this one off. The character of Starling is jaded, old, and worn out by the time Hannibal comes around. Foster, in any of her roles, has never been able to portray something like that. Moore "looked" tired in the film, tired of the bs of the system, and knowing Foster's past performances, I think that Moore did a little bit more than Foster could have. Don't get me wrong, I liked her performance in SOTL, but as Harry said, this isn't a crime movie. Okey-dokey, Im done
-
But alas your gayass lame attempt to have me banned has eluded you A-gain. Bwa... bwa... bwa hahahahahaha. Keep banning me bitch, I'm gona keep coming back. Did anyone else think that the make up in the film kinda looked like Arseface? Fuck I want to see a Preacher movie so bad. This movie kicked ass. I have to agree with Harry's bitch ass though the gore wasn't half as much as I had expected, I don't know why everyone had their panties in a bunch about it. And I'm predicting an oscar for Ridley Scott for this film.
-
allright, Harry, you saw the greatest unrequited love movie ever, i saw hot dog sh*t.
SPOILERS...
if you can say those measly few minutes of hannibal kissing clarice at the end "sweet" then you can say scream 2 was the same way when the randy character professes his unrequited love for neve campbell then gets hacked to pieces. don't read that line if you wanted me to spoil scream 2. none of the characters in this film were remotely likeable!
Verger was possibly one of the coolest looking characters i've even seen on film. Awesome make-up job, although he was a completer rip-off of ARSEFACE from the "PREACHER" comic book series, and yet, jim carrey should sue too, just in case.
the french cop, i almost liked until he got offed! and then verger's assistant pushing him into the pig pit without remorse, where the hell did that come from?! i mean did we see any past abuse from verger to his assistant besides ordering him to get him some lunch?! what the hell was that all about. and then when hannibal kills the gypsy, the frog-cop didn't even have the sense of mind to turn that old fart in and surely get another reward that way!? long drolled on movie with absolutely shallow characters... i left the theatre insulted by this trash... 'till that make another horrendous LECTER III: dentures of death i'll still think this sucked
PEICE! -
Forget about Hannibal, go read a good book!
STEVE ALTEN - AUTHOR of MEG!
-
You're absolutely right. Great bit o' writing.
-
So who the f**k was that guy. Intelligent comments welcome...
Anyhow, just saying that I'm looking forward to the movie (this Friday in the UK). Might make sure I eat before tho. Can't see myself being that hungry afterwards... -
I was of course referring to DarkVictory. The few posts that appeared before mine may have been offended...
-
Feb 13, 2001 9:38:00 AM CST
If this movie was about unrequited love than it didnt get around
by chrisk102
The movie was long, pointless, and without focus. Hopkins didnt even act like the same character as silence of the lambs. Where was the slithery snake voice with the subtle Southern accent? Nowhere. He simply sounded like Sir Anthony.
It is insulting that Harry puts detractors of Hannibal in the category of "wanted-another-silence-of-the lambs" because that simply isnt the case.
Also, I like the fact that in the book the Starling and Hannibal become lovers much better then the movie version. It is almost as if the filmmakers were too pussy to go all the way with the intended ending. That would have been something different and unexpected, to have Clarice give in to Hannibal. Instead, we get a cop out. Two hours of non-events followed by a cop out ending. Yeah, great movie. -
...Harry is a clueless Webmaster. But I love the fact that he has the stones to post his take on that vile drek Hannibal with such pride and panache, as if he's discovered fire or something or other. I love it when film geeks wake up in the middle of the night with some cockamamie theory and then pass it off as Thanos-scoped revelation. Hannibal was one of the most disappointing efforts in recent memory and I hope that this reminds all that Ridley Scott hasn't made a good movie in twenty-two years. Of course, the brunt of the blame should be levied upon Thomas Harris, who follows up a brilliant book with nonsense like Hannibal.
-
Nice try, but if you had really seen "The Silence of the Lambs" or even bothered to read the book, you will know quite emphatically that it did NOT end in a "flashlights-in-a warehouse" scene, which then renders your entire comment about the movie as an overrated cop movie completely suspect. Hannibal Lecter would consider that quite rude, and we all know what Lecter does with rude people, don't we?
-
I liked the darned movie, for the most part. The Florence sequences were not boring at all. In fact, I though the pace was superbly calibrated, and what a pleasure to see Giancarlo Giannini in a substantive part for a change. And I don't understand the critics whingeing about Dr. Lecter's quips as if he were the second coming of Freddie. He never says anything in the film that isn't completely in context of the given scene. Finally, I hope that vixen realizes how lucky she is, Harry! You GO, Boy!
-
Feb 13, 2001 11:13:16 AM CST
Harry, respect ya for stickin your neck out like this ...
by dreadprtroberts
Harry, respect ya for stickin your neck out like this ... but NO this movie sucked ... clarisse is all wrong ... she wasnt scared enough ... she didnt have that mixture of emotions playing on her face ... when she handcuffs lecter ... she should have been absolutely terrified and reaching for some superhuman bravery ... but she is too strong and controlled and sure of herself ... it diminishes the disturbing horror that is lecter. That is my strongest problem with the film ... lecter was nowhere near as scary as in the first film ... you know the shiver you get when he escapes and is on the loose "oh my god this guy is free" ... well none of it here ... ehhh ... kill a few people ... show some gore ... no psychological terror ... dissappointing. Absolutely nothing was disturbing psychologically ... all visually ... the brain wasnt disturbing either ... just gross ... ask yourself ... were you terrified when he was in her apartment and she was asleep? ... NO ... because you knew he wouldnt do anything ... that scene should have had you on the edge of your seat ... instead it turns into a waste that should have just been left out. Clarice wasnt complicated enough and was too much of a "Sig W. from Aliens" type .... There were just too many things that took away from the terror that is lecter ... small things like verger wearing the mask ... there was also the potential of a great scene when clarice sees lecter for the first time ... and the mixture of fear in her eyes ... would have been great ... but the first time she sees him in real life is just after he is zapped and is being hauled away ... and the first time she sees him face to face is when she saves him ... come on ... where did the real terrifying lecter go ...... MAN Harry ... you give too many films thumbs WAAAAAAY up ... even if there are people that didnt think this film sucked ... it was NOT as great as you say ... losing a little respect for your opinion harry!
-
okay- not such an original subject titles, but there is much to discuss and so little time.
this movie has left a huge impact on the screenwriter inside myself. i would describe this movie as a great draft and the type of movie that leaves you thinking, "if only they did this..."
the love story is what sticks. but i disagree that it is about unrequited love. i would say it is about unconditional love. in the book, harris tells of some of the reasons why hannibal is a cannibal and why he cares so much for clarice. he traces it back to his sister's murder. THAT IS SO IMPORTANT and i feel should have been demonstrated through flashbacks. that's why i didn't really like the kiss scene. i was actually anticipating a kiss on the forehead. i am not denying that hannibal may lust for clarice, but i don't think he would kiss her at that particular time. in "silence", we get the feeling that hannibal loves her for her ambition and her humanity. he loves her because they are both opposite sides of the same circle. everything she does, deep down, is to silence the lambs in her head and save the defenseless (also to make her father proud). you might say that hannibal wants to kill the slaughterers of the lambs, while clarice is trying to save them. a lot of people say that the movie glamorizes hanniball, but i don't agree. hannibal is very much like he was in "silence." he only kills to protect himself and occassionally, in his mind, to make the world a better place. so he and clarice aren't as different as they at first seemed in "silence". he sees her as his sister, but with the power to protect herself.
the acting in it was superb. in different ways, i liked julianne better than jodie. or maybe they were both right for the part in different ways. julianne lacks the entire innocence that jodie has, but that seems right. the fbi has made her cynical, and the constant humiliation by them has made her slightly tougher... but only slightly. julianne is a master of subtle acting. when she tells hanniball to "shut up" and when she says to her tape recorder that barney has not been told his rights, she is perfect. you still see the country girl. and even when she reads hannibal's letter and talks to him, there is an almost-smile. hopkins said he picked her from the list of actresses, and i think he may have a crush on julianne moore, or maybe it's just great acting. BUT THESE TWO HAVE GREAT CHEMISTRY, especially since they hardly see each other (like sleepless in seattle).
so what are clarice's feelings for hannibal? in the first movie, she finds paternal protection in jack crawford and in hannibal. they are the only ones who seem to recognize that she is tough and smart. and her instinct allows her to break though his cell and touch his hand. she shares a lot of things with barney, who also finds a trusting relationship with hannibal. i would have liked if they kept some more of the things barney says in the book about how he and hannibal had an understanding.
i didn't like that the film spent so much time in florence; i felt that needed to be quicker. and i don't think that it was done to show hannibal's pace; it just seems poorly edited. what happens in florence is entertaining, but the important thing is that he gets away. it shouldn't have been more than a third of the movie. more time needed to be alotted to the end, because that was of the most importance. hannibal does like fine things, and i can't believe that clarice never thought to look there. or maybe she did and was holding the bargain she made with him at the end of "silence".
clarice can't help but feel protected by hannibal. she knows instinctively that he will not harm her, and that's why in some ways this ending was better than the book. but it is clearly not an easy ending to create.
first of all, i think clarice liked knowing that hannibal was out there, watching her from afar, but not killing anyone... at least, she didn't know he was killing anyone and was hoping it would be the "rude" that would be killed. but she and hannibal both know that she may need to capture him to get her job back. hannibal doesn't think fondly of the fbi, and probably thinks it is a waste for someone so extraordinary to be unappreciated and humiliated all the time. hannibal, on many levels knows that he cannot abduct her or take advantage of her. and a large part of him comes back to give clarice the challenge of catching him. but i don't think he loves her enough to stay caged; after all, he can't protect her that way anyway. but if he is to be caught, he would rather it be starling that does it. i think both of them would enoy talking through that glass again, but it can never happen. not with their conversations recorded, and their relationship scrutinized. so it's a no-win situation. and that's why it can be seen as unrequited love and unconditional love. it's so unconditional that it needs no kiss or consumation. that would be almost sacreligious to hannibal.
i think the ending was almost-right. in the book, clarice doesn't realize that paul's brain is cut open and thinks that he is sincerely apologizing to her, which is both funny and intense. but i have to agree that the very end of the book had to change. it was not clarice's destiny to be under the spell of hannibal. maybe they should have incorporated that as a fantasy of hannibals'. it would be almost-heaven for him to arrive at an opera with clarice in buenos aires... then again, he loves the fighter in clarice and for that fight to be gone, would be a tragedy in his eyes. and pity the person who would say the wrong thing to clarice... he'd have to kill most of the buenos aires population!
what is my suggestion? i would have liked to see hannibal put her in a temporary trance like the one in the book, where he discards some of her demons. i would have liked to see some sort of drug-induced confessional between the two characters. clarice would be weak in body, but not in mind. then i would have liked her to see paul apologize. i didn't buy the fact that she was able to call the fbi... i don't think hannibal would have made that happen. but the handcuff scene was great. and when he asks her if she would ever say, "don't do this if you care for me" and she says "not in a thousand years"... GREAT STUFF, GREAT ACTING! she doesn't say it tough, but matter-of-factly, and knowing that what she says is why he loves her. i would have liked him to kiss her on the hand, instead of the mouth and say something like, "till we meet again". and i was hoping that she would leave the fbi, but i have no idea what she would do. she likes the hunt, and in many ways, is as much of a killer as hannibal. but i envisioned her changing the story around as to what happened to her, while in hannibal's clutches. he would find it amusing if she made up some story about how paul took care of her wound and tried to save her from an obsessed psychopath. hannibal would relish in her lying to the press and the fbi!
i didn't like that they had hannibal breaking into clarice's home. may i say that it would never happen! first of all, mason's guys were following her and would have seen him go in. secondly, she would wake up! i didn't buy the fact that he was in her house, lighting candles in front of her and she didn't open her eyes! i think that scene was made for the purpose of putting it into the coming attractions! in the book, it is much better, because he sends her presents and clues and is just following her, when he is caught.
other things i would have liked to see or hear about in the movie..
1. hannibal makes dogs eat mason's face, because mason is starving the dogs, so they will eat each other.
2. obviously, the stuff involving hannibal as a child. (harris' books always made a point to explain why his characters behave, and this is his most important character)
3. jack crawford was important. she was starling's mentor and a good version of hannibal.
well, since i actually just wrote a book, i will stop here. amazingly, i haven't read the boards yet, so these were just the many thoughts that have haunted me, since the movie! THIS MOVIE'S POTENTIAL IS MORE DISTURBING THAN ANY OF THE GRUESOME SCENES!
-
I was rereading the talkbacks and Harry's review. My God the more I think about this movie the more I am dissapointed. First off, you cannot compare this to a movie such as Fargo because it is NOT a sequel(and personally I thought both movies were sheer genious) and for the simple fact they had the SAME DIRECTOR. As for Alien, and Aliens we had Ridley Scott and then JAMES CAMERON. Thats Apples and Oranges Harry. One director was telling the same story a different way, and the problem with the Alien series is you cant tell it any other ways unless you make the Aliens pets and make Beethoven X with the Alien being all stupid. Now this is a CONTINUATION of the story, for example: The Empire Strikes Back, Ghostbusters II, The Godfather Part II, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. All of these movies kept the same FEEL, the same atmosphere. This movie should have done the same since it had mostly the same characters.
Now I can see the love thing to a SMALL degree but it seems like the director rushed and there is no build up until the end. Hannibal is simply just following her around....now if he would have stared longingly at her picture in the paper, or caressed the paper she was in, or if he would have smelled a rose thinking of her....THAT MIGHT HAVE GIVEN US THE INCLINATION THAT HE HAD A CRUSH. AM I NUTS? -
This movie was Dissapointing with a capital D! This is like Lion King II, Speed 2, Phantom Menace, and especially Godfather 3! They made Hannibal into Arnold Schwarzenneger as the Terminator throwing out one those one-liners. The gore wasn't really scary. The editing in this movie was the most atrocious thing in the world. Quick cuts and different scenic changes all too quick. Anthony Hopkins was great in florence and when he came back to America he was soo mediocre. Hannibal is becoming a minstrel show. The direction sucked as well. One minute we're in clarice's house then in Verger's then Hannibal comes to Clarice's house from florence then to a shopping mall then to verger's house back to clarice's house with no smooth segues. It seems that this movie was just intended to cash in on Silence's popularity. Good for Jonathan Demme. How much do you think they are paying Harry? And he still has not reviewed CROUCHING TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON even though its garnered 10 nominations for Oscar and became the biggest foreign box office movie ever with subtitles. Life is beautiful was dubbed in theatres.
-
I imagine that the people who asked have figured it out by now, just thought I'd add. Spike Jonze is NOT in the movie as Donnie Barber. That character doesn't appear in the movie. In the book, he's a white-trash hunting guy sterotype, whose rudeness is "corrected." It might have been an interesting visual in the movie, since Hannibal pulls his lungs out through his back to look like wings, but alas... Mason uses pigs because he's the heir to a meatpacking fortune, it's his family business. I can't remember if the movie ever actually said where his money came from. He had extensive knowledge in pig species and breeding, so he wanted to make the scariest, most aggressive, toothiest creature imaginable to eat Lecter. That's it I guess, I have my opinions, but I doubt I could express them as eloquently as some of the previous posters....
-
Where was all this gore at? The movie was 2:10 and out of that there was only one gory scene which lasted about 5 minutes tops. How is this movie a gorefest? Did you people watch it?
lethargic
http://www.whitetrashdevil.com -
I was incredibly excited for this movie because I happen to be a big fan of the book. As usual when attending a movie I went with a blank slate, ignored all critiques and prepared to form my opinion. Sadly I was bombarded by a movie with too little care to retain any class from the book or previous movie. This film was produced for the masses. I can just imagine the weasels sitting around trying to predict what a an audience ten years later would need to excite them. Instead of scaring them with suggestions of fright and gore let's just show it to them straight out. Let's not hint at anything because we need to dumb down these scenes for a less mature and sophisticated audience. They won't understand our subtle hints or tense moods ...we need to really pull all the old tricks out of the bag. Let's pull that old skeleton out of the closet and throw it right on them. Now I realize that all the gross parts were in the book ....but there is something much scarier in reading a horror scene where imagination goes wild with fright than being force fed it on the screen. I don't like my movie experience to feel dumbed downed on account of my generation's low IQ and that is exactly how I felt after Hannibal.
Hannibal is a great story made into a bad movie. I'm sad but what more could I expect of studios that don't respect their audience. -
I hate to see the man who directed Alien and Blade Runner come down to the likes of Gladiator and Hannibal. Scott is obviously not innovating anymore, he's collecting a paycheck. And that's sad.
-
I just reread my post. I was so passionate with anger that I forgot to omit the grammatical errors. Please look at the meat of the arguement rather than its skin. Thanks,
Violet -
This movie was riveting and creepy. And the sacrifice that Hannibal went through is unforgettable. I'm looking forward to the next sequel. Your review nailed it.
-
dazed ... i cannot believe how right you are ... a kiss on the forehead ... brilliant ... beautiful ... hannibal loves the human being in clarise ... a protective caring kiss ... nothing sexual whatsoever ... almost a brotherly kiss? NO to the kiss on the hand ... too distant ... a kiss on the forehead ... damn!
-
I agree with everything that Harry had to say about this film. I didn't go into it expecting it to be a crime thriller like Silence and was hoping that they would expound more on the relationship that was obviosly there between Starling and Lector in SOTL. Thats just what I got. As for the violence I didn't think it was to gratoutious but then again I have a high tolerance for such things. I do agree though that it probabally would have been creepier if more of it was off camera. Its like Seven, what made that movie scary was that you saw the after effects of the violence and had to use your imagination about how it was all done. But still this didn't detract much from my enjoyment of Hannibal.
And to those he keep saying that Julianne didn't act scared enough? HELLO, its 10 years later. She isn't going to be the same little scared FBI trainee. and she knew that Lector wouldn't hurt her. Example: In Silence she lied to him big time and he forgave her, anyone else would have ended up on his diner plate. Then he saves Starlings' life in Hannibal. He also risks everything by coming back to the US to help her. Those that say he went back because he HAD to don't make sense. The US is the last place he would have ran to. He did it for Clarice. -
dont know what you are talking about ... i saw life twice in different theaters and it wasnt dubbed anywhere ... PS ... CTHD was not that good ... i dont understand why people think it is worhy of best picture ... but then anything ANYTHING is better than gladiator winning!
-
...Must prove that Ridley Scott is some kind of genius - as he was able to convince so many viewers that a relatively restrained piece of work is a blood bath. The level of violence in Hannibal is nowhere near what so many people are claiming. In fact, it's hardly more graphic than Silence of the Lambs (a movie, which I guess many have forgotten was also slammed during its initial release in some quarters for its violence). In a movie that runs close to two and a half hours, there's only three main set-pieces of violence - the murder of Pazzi, which is shown in darkness and siloette; the devouring of the bounty hunters and Mason by the pigs which is shown in quick cuts for the most part; and the climatic dinner scene which is played as much for black comic effect as for chills. And in regards to that dinner scene - there's really no way to film that scene "suggestively" and still make it clear as to what's going on. It HAS to be shown. How do you "suggest" off-camera the idea that a man's cranium has been opened and he's now being fed his own brains? All told, there's about four minutes of graphic content in the entire film. If it's in bad taste to show the brain eating scene here, is it no better than the autopsy of Fredrika Bimmel in Silence of the Lambs in which we are privvy to the graphic and disturbing sight of a young girl's mutilated body in a scene that certainly could've been filmed more suggestively. And the sight of Lecter's guard (played by Charles Napier) disembowled, skinned and strung up on the cage in Silence is more graphic than Pazzi's death scene in Hannibal. So all the high-handed finger-pointing about Hannibal's levels of crass, artless violence are entirely groundless - especially if comparisons to Silence are made. Most people I know - particularly genre fans - like or love Hannibal. I think it will go on to have a long shelf life as one of the boldest mainstream genre releases of recent years.
-
you make a good point ... but about him coming back to the US ... what did it accomplish? ... she didnt catch him ... so she is at the same place she was in when he leaves without his arm ... the bad guy dies though! but her reputation is already ruined ..... as for the scared clarise ... yes it is 10 years later ... but even after 10 years she is still human and not some supergirl ... she is too sure of herself. I think my problem is that i just flat out dont like her new character.
-
Hi all! Haven't seen the movie yet (will go see it tonight) but I'm listening to the soundtrack right now which sometimes reminds me to the soundtrack of "Somewhere in time" starring Christopher Reeves (particularly the tracks 10 & 11 I think). That movie was a great love story. Can't wait to see if Hannibal is also some kind of impossible love too the way that movie was...
-
Frankly, I don't care if anyone likes this movie or not, but the hilarious thing about the negative critiques of this film is that, of the ones I've read above, there isn't one (of the posts that say anything beyond "it sucked") that doesn't get half the details of the film completely wrong. Fellows, if you're going to trash a film, at least watch the fucking thing with more than two brain cells functioning, or else you might miss something, not to mention making complete jackasses out of yourselves.
-
Your review was great. This film is so much more than so many people have given it credit for and you totally nailed an aspect of it that no one else has managed to articulate or note. Bravo! Bravo!
-
First they go to Ebert, now they have Harry too. What the fuck?! "Hannibal" was a good idea from a business standpoint, and it did prove it's b.o. muscle, but it is a festering piece of shit. And now, we've been promised a remake of "Manhunter", and another installment....oh yeah....Univ. & MGM need a tentpole, so let's just pick a good film and pimp out a bunch of crappy knockoffs until we can all afford that extra powder blue CLK this year! What the fuck?! Doesn't anyone care about reputation for quality to match their b.o. anymore besides the long run guys like Rudin, Kopelson, Kennedy/Marshall etc.?! Anyone who actually paid to see "Hannibal" is a mindless fool who should return to their trailer park and eat a bullet. BTW, kudos to Dino....you really know how to rake it in, even on shitty pics....you are an inspiration to all producers.
-
Was anyone else expecting Hannibal, while wresting the butter knife from Clarice, to say: "Oh, Officer Starling... do you think you can dissect me with this blunt little tool?"
It's references like that to the previous film which I thought were missing. Instead of coming up with excuses to simply repeat bits of SOTL, I would have preferred references that fit within the characters shared history. -
damn isp ... sorry ... anyway .. harry ... for all those monster movies with the misunderstood monster, the audience identifies with the monster ... who do you identify with in this movie Harry? For a movie about unrequited love you are supposed to identify with the person who is in love ... do they want us to identify with clarise or not?
-
Well, i dont have the same reaction. i think that by making the film so over the top and exaggerated they sucked all the tension out of the film and the Lecter character. There were no thrills to be had when he is so otherworldy evil and untouchable and his pursuers (Starling, the Italian det, and Vergers men) are so ill-equipped to catch him, it became a fucking Nightmare on Elm Street film. i just see the few raves, like Harry's, as overanylitical hogwash, searching for substance in a scattershot, pale, boring mess.
-
After all this time I finally got the feeling that's been expressed here many times. When I read this review I had to think "sellout!". I mean, I've followed this site for a long time, but any fanboy will have to say that this movie just wasn't up to par. I won't see it more than once, and I'm sure many of you won't too. Will I buy it on DVD (the best guage as to the coolness of the movie)? The answer is NO unless there are 5 director/actor commentaries. And even then I might not get it. I do agree that gore shouldn't have been an issue in this movie. There's much worse out there. I'm glad it made a ton of money for the studio, but I didn't like it. When I saw Anthony Hopkins in his first scene and noticed the chin waddle - I thought: man, this is not the movie I came here to see. Maybe it was Harry's...
-
But didn't Hannibal chop off one of Clarice's hands at the end? When the cops arrive she still has both hands.
-
not Lancster
-
This movie was very good. I enjoyed it and although I admit the pace was slower than I expected...it fit. The more I think about this film the more I love it. Harry is right on in his review and I really question the dorks who come on here and say its "crap." I truly believe you ppl are only trying to start "crap." By the way Ret...(Spoiler)in the end Hannibal chopped off his own hand. Now that is love.
-
Ret, I do believe that Hannibal either chopped his own hand off (i'm pretty sure he had it at teh end), or that he jsut cut through the handcuff chain. The latter being the most logical choice.
-
Harry, I think you're seeing something you want to see but isn't there at all. This was one of the worst films I've seen in the last ten years! It would take forever to list all the reasons why. ...EVERYTHING! I wasn't expecting it to be good but not this bad, from beginning to end. It takes everything good from Silence of the Lambs and does the opposite. Instead of creeping you out by what you don't see, it's a constant, adolescent shock-fest until it becomes a campy freak show with no imagination or purpose. It looked at the love story between Clarice and Hannibal and took it literally (!), and changed it's terrifying humor from psychological to garish, with no clue as to Hannibal Lector's motivations ("he kills rude people", they mistakenly supposed). Nothing makes logical sense. Hannibal is a quiet art curator in Italy where the Italians, even their payphones, speak english amongst themselves. The FBI never takes any precautions when Hannibal is discovered, telling Clarice to relinquish her weapon and go home, where in the first movie they sealed off a ten-block radius when an elevator went to the wrong floor. Hannibal never does anything consistent with his character or common sense. The supporting characters are comic book jerk-offs (especially Ray Liotta's cliched asshole boss) and thematically the film is all over the map. I couldn't figure out what it was supposed to be about whereas the first one was a beautiful story about being a woman in a man's world and coming to terms with the truth of one's own psychology. And the ending is so sick (in a dumb way) I had to laugh. Even Hopkins seemed like he wasn't in the mood, which is the one saving grace of the film. It wasn't Hannibal Lector. It had nothing to do with the graceful and deeply-felt Silence of the Lambs. At least that classic remains relatively untarnished as a result. It was beautifully shot which makes it even worse because it was the worst choice for this film, removing any hope of tension, mood or even a hint of the claustrophobia Jonathan Demme created so brilliantly in Silence of the Lambs. The only thing I got out of Hannibal (besides a headache) was more respect for Jodie Foster.
-
Hannibal is suppose to be showing his tender side and true feelings for Clarice. He utters "This is really going to hurt" and in that moment chooses to cut off his own hand. He does this not only because he truly feels for Clarice (as much as a monster can) but because Clarise believed he wouldn't harm her (she would never have handcuffe him to her if she thought he would mutilate her right there...she is moralistic but she isn't crazy...remember when she was willing to kill the mom holding her child to save her own skin) and Hannibal respects this understanding. He realizes that in her handcuffing him she proves two things; she follows the law and she trusts him. This reinforces his belief that she is refined, wise and above the crude commoners that he so despises. And he must show her the same amount of courtesy as she did to him by trusting him.
-
Ok, this may be dumb, but since it has been brought up. First off, I didn't understand either why Hannibal didn't just cut through the chain, but since we're supposed to assume that he cut his hand off, I'll play that way. I'm wondering why, since they set the sequence up to make us think that he'd cut Clarice's hand off, what was she doing in the reaction shot? Where she's falling against the fridge looking like she's in pain. I'd guess it's supposed to be the shock of THINKING that her hand was going to come off, like flinching, or shock at the sight of Hannibal's hand coming off, but it sure looks like pain to me. Any thoughts??
-
I saw Hannibal Saturday night and it was great. I just loved seeing everyone's reaction to the brain eating scene. For some reason I remembered Christian Bale as Patrick Bateman in American Psycho when I watched Sir Anthony as Hannibal on screen. I mean, someone brilliant and utterly insane, they're both the same. Now that I think about it, I think I was watching the same movie. Try comparing the two.
-
I loved HANNIBAL . . . enjoyed every minute of it. Though I don't understand what people despise about mannered, deliberate pacing? Many people have criticized HANNIBAL and the recent UNBREAKABLE for being "boring." Does everybody in America have a short attention span on account of MTV? I didn't even notice the pacing; it didn't even cross my mind. People pay eight bucks for a movie and can't wait to get out.
For once I agree with Harry . . . HANNIBAL had some pretty awesome moments in it. The Ray Liotta dinner scene, the fridge moment, the opera encounter, and the opening drug bust (just to name a few).
People just don't seem to understand that Starling is not the main focal point of the picture. I mean, the name of the movie is HANNIBAL for god's sake. Oh, and Gary Oldman is the unquestionable god of the universe. Delicious entertaining.
-
SPOILER: Hannibal cut off his own hand in the end. That is why he was wearing a sling on the plane....its comments like those that make me wonder if the people who didn't like the film actually watched it:)
DAZEDDARIA: I loved your review of the film and am in total agreement. I don't think the love is quite 'unrequitted' either. Clarice has very strong feelings for Hannibal too but her sense of duty always over shadows that. But you can see that start to fall away in Hannibal.
I also agree with your comments on the book. I am in the middle of reading it right now, and there are several things in the book that I think NEEDED to be in the movie. I still loved the movie but the inclusion of these things would have made it even better.
1. The Mason Verger charector in the book is MUCH more despicable and your glad that Hannibal did what he did to him.
2. Clarice's feelings for Hannibal are much more clear.
3. The effect that Hannibal has on Clarice's mind, actions, personality etc is explored more in depth.
AND MOST IMPORANTLY:
4. You understand why Hannibal does what he does. If anyone had that happen to them there is no way I could imagine them turning out 'normal.' This creates sympathy and understanding for the charector. -
I agree with you 100%, perhaps even 110%. Leaving the movie I was reminded of 1992's "Bram Stoker's Dracula" which at the time no one seemed to get. It too was a dark love story, one of the greatest ever told. Here, we have yet another misunderstood love story that is absolutely magnificent. Along with Hans Zimmers incredible score (especially at the end "Vide Cor Meum" playing as the police are on their way) it all flowed together as if some grand scale opera. I loved it. It was...to die for.
-H -
Not that I want to go down Martin Amis's very funny demolishing of Hannibal since we're talking about the film here. Harry, only a few whiney-hand-down-the-pants-geeks actually found Hannibal the film dull because of it's lack of serial killer thrills. Most of us naysayers found the film shite because: Lecter's psychoanalytical babble at Clarice is undeveloped and therefore pointless. Throughout the film she appears neither rattled or moved by any of it. Since this was the basis of their attraction/fascination with each other it seems a pretty big narrative failure; Nor does she seem all that attracted to Lecter in either a girl/boy way or, as suggested in Silence of the Lambs, in a displaced father/daughter way; the script moves between crappy 'ooo-very-poetic' but really ponderous dialogue and the kind of one-liners that would have James Bond firing his script writer. All of which are saddo variations on the 'guess who I'm having to dinner' line; Clarice is a cardboard cutout - all frowns and none of that emotional, troubled resonance that Foster delivered. I know I ain't the first to point that out and I know there has been some suggestion that Clarice is supposed to be a cipher cos this is Hannibal's film. It doesn't work that way - for Lecter and his motivations to have any resonance Clarice needs to have more emotional range than just piddly bits of anger; and Hopkin's Lecter in this film is, if you take away the 'gory' bits, more like a Disney villain than a complex serial killing dilettante. What your left with is, as so many critics like to write (cos it looks like they speak a little French I suppose) a Grand Guignol entertainment, so named after the 19th century club that specialised in gruesome and over-the-top entertainments. Oh yes. And one that is mostly a lot of very obvious Gothic visual style that would have Sister Wendy going nuts. So Harris hung about with Eco huh? So what? If the book and this film are the results this certainly has little narrative pay-off. And that film end - how anti-climactic can you get? At least the book had an end writ large and nutty. Hannibal just ain't the sly exploration of unusual attractions, nor the dark jibe at crappy psychology and the morbidity of high art that some would like to believe. Rather, it's a load of old toss. Sorry.
-
Come on guys
-
That's all I could think about during that scene. That, and "I wonder if I could do that?" Truly, the similarities between this movie and Temple of Doom are myriad! Both are considered less-than-satisfactory sequels to multiple-Oscar-winning/nominated movies, when they are actually better in some areas, and certainly above average! Both have brain-eating, and both have annoying Korean kids. I can think of more, just not right now. Leave me be! I really liked this movie... the way it looked, the way it sounded... it was tense and very well made. Certainly better than most of the Crapola Crayons that comes out in the cinematic dead zone of January/February/March. I think Verger looked sorta like a Who in a horrifying fruitcake-cooking mishap, but he does indeed look and sound a lot more like Fire Marshall Bill. "Shay yer walkin' with yer shweetie, it'sh late, love ish in the air, and you shtumble upon a MEAT PROSHESHING PLANT!!! You decide to shneak on in for a quick slab of freebie meat inshtead of shelling out $50 for a lobshter, when BAM!! You're fashe to fashe with a man-eating animatronic boar! In your meat-shtealing frenzy, you find yershelf covered head to toe with HAMBURGER AND HALF-FROZEN COW INTESTINES!! LEMMESHOWYASUMTHIN!!" And as for Hannibal chopping off Clarice's hand... he didn't. He cut off his own. Didn't you notice he had a cast around his shoulder on the plane, and we only saw his right hand? Geez, folks, pay attention. This has been a Who's Clarice Moment w/User ID Indeed! So Ridley Scott is a hack... and he was nominated for a Best Direcor Oscar this morning? Sure! Makes perfect sense! Morons...
-
Another movie couple that might be added to Harry's unrequited love list is Clifton Webb & Gene Tierny in "Laura". Webb's Waldo Lydecker is even willing to kill rather than have his image of Tierny's Laura, the one beautiful creature in his otherwise omni-cynical world, be destroyed. Which is just how Hannibal sees Clarice, Except that she lives up to the image. This is where the movie's references to Dante and Beatrice apply. Dante was a man who, before he wrote The Divine Comedy, was at the lowest point of his life, a man who could return evil for good, who was described as being something of a monster. It was the memory of Beatrice, who, to him, embodied all that was Good in existence, that led him to redemption. Of course, Lecter is not a man looking for redemption, but his feeling about Clarice is the same. He knows that she didn't join the FBI for the power or the prestige. He knows that her true mission is to protect the innocent, the lambs. There are few of those to be found in this movie, which is why, I think, Scott lingers on the only one, the baby who survives the shootout. He shows Clarice carefully washing the blood off, to make it clear to us that no matter what may have happened in the last 10 years, Clarice is still the protector of the innocent. It is that steadfastness that Lecter admires. It reminds him of himself: After all, he's no hypocrite, no Judas, like his pursuers. If he's Satan, he's Satan the fallen angel (ergo, the alias Fell), the devil who's sent, not to tempt us into sin, but Job's devil, the one who tests us. He feels the need to test Clarice, to reassure himself that she is still the honest embodiment of Good. If she failed, giving in to him, to evil, he would be crushed, his ntire world view destroyed (if she had killed the baby at he beginning, this would have been a radically different movie. As a killer of the innocent, she might have been vunerable to evil, to the devil as tempter, and the use of the book's ending might have been preferable). But she passes the test by saying "not in a thousand years," and I hear and see satisfaction in Dr. Lecter's kiss and "That's my girl." He's taken over the spot left by her dead father. He's proud of her.
-
I hope to catch it this weekend.
-
Its great that we can agree to disagree, but simply put HANNIBAL was Scott's two plus hour bowel movement!
The last few minutes of the movie were a major letdown! I can't believe FIRST that they got away with an R rating, and that SECOND that Scott would go for such a blatantly gross ending. I mean, for Chrissakes, the gore was necessary for Gladiator-but that was the kind of movie it was. But Hannibal could have been handled with a little more CLASS. But then again, I don't think even HITCHCOCK could have saved this movie. Comments? Send em to me-whatchoowant@aol.com -
I havent seen the film yet but in the book Hannibal goes back to America to extract revenge on Verger. I dont believe Margot was left out of the film, very important character. Another thing, Verger wasnt just given Poppers by Lecter, he had quite a cocktail in those poppers. And all you people saying Krendler shouldnt have been killed, read the book. I read in another review he is nowhere near as scummy as he is in the book.. I hated the ending of the book when I first read it, but on rereading it , it made more sense. Besides its pure fucking black comedy and really shouldnt be taken that seriously. Harris was taking the piss out of all of us.
-
It's people like those talkbackers that have their heads buried up Harry's Unicronesque ass that need to be wiped out from the gene pool. This guy's a f***king hack webmaster for Christ's Sake! And of a constantly-scooped site to boot! Where the fuck do we see the love between Hannibal and Clarice play out? Unrequited love?! I'm only hoping you people are pandering to Harry and all of his pretentions and not sincerely formulating this opinion on your own. I can deal with one fat bloated bastard whose ego is as expansive as his girth, but not an entire legion. Stick to keeping the site up and running and CURRENT, Knowles, and not pimping your senseless, meandering diatribes.
-
Well this talkback is extremely long so I don't suppose anyone will see this post but here goes anyway.....
SPOILERS
I propose that Hannibal did not cut off his own hand in the end of the film. I propose that he cut through the chains of the hand cuffs instead.
1] If Lecter had chopped off his left hand to get away Clarice would have had some blood on her in the next scene(enough blood to atleast get some on her while in such close proimity to the Doctor when he supposedly chopped off his hand seems feasible if not a definite). She did not and she was also missing the hand cuffs or the other half of the handcuffs if one follows my theory. She would have had to unlock the other side of the handcuffs if Lecter had cut the chain or if Lecter had lobed his hand off. When Lecter said "this is going to hurt" perhaps he was saying it to frighten Clarice because he seems to enjoy this or he meant this will hurt being removed from you again/losing you for my freedom.
2] When Hannibal is shown on the plane he is shown with a SLING on his arm not a cast around it. Now if Lecter had cut off his own hand he would be able to tend to his own wound because of his medical background and because an unknown amount of time had passed since he had cut off his hand. I propose that he was wearing the sling as a way of hiding the half of the handcuffs that was still attached to his arm. This also gives the impression that if Hannibal was in such a hurry to get away and get on that flight that he did not have enough time to remove the other half of the handcuffs. He probably already had himself booked on a plane out of the US. If so that means when he was looking at the clock he was not only estimating the time he had to get away once Clarice had called the police but he also was paying attention to when he would have to leave to make his flight. This also implies that Lecter knew Clarice would not accept his advances and that he knew she would reject him which he seems to when she says "not in a thousand years" and he replies "That's my girl." He then proceeds to act as if he is going to bite her, perhaps he would have if he had more time but the police were already nearly there...He could even hear their sirens.
3] I also believe that Lecter would have realized that his chances of escaping and then hiding out would greatly decrease if he had a noticeable "marking" like a missing hand. I believe even the FBI could not mess up finding a cannibal with one hand, a recent wound, trying to board an airplane out of the US. Yes an unknown amount of time had passed from the scene at the lake to the scene on the airplane but even if the wound was dressed all properly they still would have been looking for a man with only one hand and if enough time had passed from the scene at the lake house to the airplane, including time enough for Lecter to buy himself some figs and caviar, than the FBI would have had more man power posted within airports looking for a one armed man trying to leave the US.
All in all I belive my argument is strong enough to consider. Perhaps this was Ridley Scott's way of replacing the Blade Runner/Harrison Ford/Synthoid argument that had raged in geekdom everywhere for so many years that Scott himself put to rest last year......
Any way if you read this far I hope you consider the possibilities of a two handed cannibal running around instead of a one handed doctor....
Chairman Kaga
tell me whatcha think e-mail
gigolo3000@hotmail.com
or agiglio2@home.com -
Point no 1. Harry - I've read all your reviews and I've got to tell you, that is most articulate and well written piece you've ever done. Have you got a ghost writer onboard? (Only joking)
Point no 2. Is a great movie one that everyone conceeds is a great movie and then goes away, or is a great movie one that provokes controversy, forms strong opinions and promotes discussion? If thats the case, then this talk-back is an indication that Hannibal is a GREAT movie! -
Lecter sees himself as godlike (primitives believed that by eating their enemies they gained their enemies powers). He punished the traitors (for money and against honor of the badge) and upholds the innocent (detective's wife and Starling). He even gives his blood (left hand) for Clarice but even this sacrifice is rejected. It was no accident that Lecter was wheeled into the barn as crucified and that the plot of Mason Verger (???) was much like that of the Pharisees to trap and execute.
No coincidence that early on in the flick that Verger (???) asks Starling if she is a Christian and it is this that she is most reticent to discuss. This IS the chick in her armor - her belief in God or lack of it and this is played out with Hannibal in, an albeit sick, near the movie's end.
What does every one else think? -
Feb 13, 2001 8:42:48 PM CST
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, PEOPLE DO NOT GO TO A MOVIE TITLED AFTER H
by joebob
I loved Anthony Hopkin's (he is GRRRRREAT as Hannibal), but this movie was all over the place. Plus, do you really think that a bunch of fat guys working for Mason Verger (sp) could sneek up on Lecter in a uncrowded parking lot, and stun him, while a 'trained' pick pocket who is a native of florence could not catch him by suprise, among hundreds of people in a crowded street? Fuck it, I like Ray Liota (sp?) too, but not in this movie, however, the brain scene was the most shocking and suprising scene in the movie, so his character was not a complete waste. And how is Hannibal going to be half as clever with only one hand? Why didn't he just cut the chain inbetween the two halves of the hand cuffs? ALSO: I had a HELLA hard time even seeing Moore as Clarice, I just associate that part with Jody Foster, who might have been able to make this film a little better...
-
I like SOTL. I didn't expect much from this one, but I avoided the spoilers an gave it a chance. The movie was well acted and perhaps even well filmed. BUT, the story was not as much a story as it was a sequence of events. I've said this before, but THIS FILM IS JUST A SLASHER PIC on par with any Jason or Freddie installment. Sure, its a well done slasher pic, but it is just a slasher pic. There is no character development, there is no underlying theme, there is no intrigue. There is a series of contrived events that facilitate the portrayal of some horrific images. Now, please understand, these images are well crafted. I actually felt ill when I left, so horrified was I by the imagery (perhaps it has something to do with my Neuroscience degree). I can't think of any horror films that have induced such a reaction with me. I must give it credit on that respect. But, please don't make this movie in to anything other than that. It is just a slasher pic. Take away the European settings, and enlightened banter, and you would essentially be left with a guy in a hockey mask chasing teenagers through the woods. Of course the settings and language will protect the high brow set from realizing that they have just bought in to a slasher pic, but it is just a slasher pic nonetheless. Now, if you like Jason, you'll like this film. I didn't want to just see another SOTL, but I did want to see something that intrigued me like that one did. The only time that I had hope for this story, was when they developed the plot line where the 'victim' was going to turn the table on his attacker and make Hannibal the prey. Of course, being a slaher pic, this plotline was dropped quickly so that the star could kill a few more stupid teenagers. The story would have been much better if it played this type of idea up. Starling was totally unnecissary and only put in the film to sell tickets on the promise that this would be a true continuation of the story told in SOTL. The most interesting thing about this film was the audience;s reaction to it in the theater that I watched it in. They actually hooped, yelled and laughed at the brain scene. With an audience like that, it is no surprise that the author and studio decided to take the franchise in this direction. To protray the difference between this film and its predecessor as a bold artistic gamble, is to simply rationalize the fact that they just figured out a good way to cash in.
-
Considering the phenomenal success Miramax has had in getting its horrible films (Chocolat, anyone?) nominated for multiple Oscars, I hardly think we can use Scott's Oscar nomination for Gladiator as evidence that he is not a hack. Blade Runner, Alien, Thelma and Louise make him more interesting than a hack, and Hannibal is a minor mis-step compared to that horrible Tom Cruise in love with the unicorn movie he made. But I probably just didn't get that one either. Tom = Clarice, unicorn = Lecter, I suppose. Or vice versa. Whatever. Here's another thing that bugs me. In the book, Lecter gets plastic surgery, which explains why it takes a while for Pazzi to figger out who he is. In the movie, no plastic surgery. When Pazzi checks the FBI database against his photo of Fell aka Lecter, the photo shows Fell with a beard, at least. But Hopkins didn't have a beard in the movie. Am I still awake? Is this Napster? Am I at the wrong site?
-
If I remember right , in the book , Lector tried hanging Verger{ after the guy had fed his face to a dog} and broke his neck.The novels Verger is in an iron lung , so it sounds like he got off light in the film!.Talking of book referances , I seem to remember that in Silence of the Lambs it says that Starling looks back at lecter , just after the handing her the file back scene{when lecter is caged in the police armoury building}and it says something like *And that was the last time Clarice ,was ever to see Lecter*.Well Harris certainly sold out on that score!
-
well, i thought i was done rambling, but here's some more...
1) clarice is not supposed to be all that scared. and it's annoying that people wanted her to act frightened. even in "silence", we saw that she wasn't scared when hannibal was loose.
2) a great part of the book is at the end where hanniball walks right through the man-eating pigs and the suriving man tells the story, years later in italy!
3) also, in the book, the woman in italy sees him, when they are trying to get his print, and screams that she has seen the devil... why did they take out so many good parts?
4) a huge theme in harris' books is the sympathy with animals, hence, the lambs. but in this book, it was important that mason was wealthy from the slaughter of animals, and that is the irony of his demise in the movie. but that info is left out... so annoying! and clarice saves hannibal because he is being treated like an animal. she is a savior.
5) i think there is another discrepency with the mason character. in red dragon, hannibal was caught by an agent, but in this, mason is said to be the fourth victim, who survived hannibal? how is that possible when mason would have clearly known that dr. lecter did this to him...?
6) i hated the way they edited the end scene where he cuts his hand off... i would think that he just cut part of his hand off, but it's not clear. hopefully, they will rectify it in the sequel.
7) i also didn't love gary oldman's performance. i didn't feel like it mattered who was underneath all that makeup. i also think they showed it too much. they showed everything too much!
8) i never saw "bride of frankenstein", but surely there is a king kong sort of relationship between clarice and hannibal.
9) hannibal isn't stupid for getting caught. anthony hopkins describes his motivation as trying to hard to help clarice. he wants to taunt the fbi. and remember, he had been caught before. he's not immune; he's just tough.
10) for those of you who are calling it the worst movie, have you seen some of the movies currently out there? have you seen what hannibal replaced in the box office? it's not a perfect movie or a great movie, but definitely a good movie. it's huge flaw is not being as good as the first.
11) for the final movie, i would like to see clarice confer with the man who caught hannibal in red dragon. that would be interesting. they both know how hannibal thinks... maybe a romantic involvement?
12)the guy in hannibal was not important enough to take up so much time... they focused on him, instead of on the crucial plot points of all the people involved.
13)a good thing in the book was also that they made it a point to show that everyone in florence loved hannibal. even though his escape is gruesome, we sense in "silence" that when free, he wouldn't wreak too much havoc. he wants to enjoy fine things. he kills the curator, but that murder was probably painless.
14) some people talked about how he shouldn't have been so open in florence, but the truth is, i would never make the connection. he's a smart and charming curator and it's another country and it's ten years later. who would suspect him? not me. remember, before he went to jail, hannibal was a respected psychiatrist. he is not an outcast or a loner.
15) his killings at the end of "silence" are the result of being treated like a caged animal, again repeating the animal themes of these movies. hannibal is not a serial killer and that is said in "silence". he does not murder in order to torture people and that is why his pulse isn't raised.
16) a lot of important points and motives weren't explained well enough. mason's motives and paul's motives were underdeveloped. we knew the motives of pazzi, but no one else's.
17) his love for clarice is more than obsession. julianne moore describes clarice as the "light to hannibal's dark." he loves her integrity, but he also loves her grit. he wouldn't love her if she had just told a story about running away because of the sounds of lambs... he loves her because, even as a young child, she had the nerve to try and save one.
18)the fbi repsects her b/c she caught buffalo bill, but hannibal respects her for the lamb story. in many ways, the fbi is shown as worse than the fbi in these stories.
19) i don't think it was necessary to have hannibal steal paul's house on the lake.
20) i guess there were too many holes, quick edits, and undeveloped motives for me to love this movie. but i really liked it!
-
Harry, I am glad you decided to get out of whatever orbit you've been in for the past two years and prove that you could actually write a good review.
Now if we could just sweep your recent "Oh Brother" review under the rug, along with Godzilla.
Keep it up. -
Hey all you dumb mo-fos who just rip on Harry and others for liking movies get an f-ing clue. Have you facists heard of personal opinions. I mean self titled "smart" people just love to tell someone what is good and what is not but don't want to hear an opinion that is different then their own. All I have to say is accept that people enjoy different things. Quit trying to get people to agree only with you because it only makes you look stupid!
-
Feb 14, 2001 3:28:31 AM CST
I knew this movie would be the type people would reall y love or
by glen
Good review, Harry....I'm glad I wasn't the only one who saw this as a love story. I'm so bored with mainstream reviewers who, once you get the point that they don't like it, they proceed to tell you what the film makers should have done. (As you mentioned, Harry...it seems that most of them wanted a retread).
I'm glad that Ridley Scott and his superb cast took the Hannibal mythos in a different direction. Boring? No way! Every time Hopkins was on the screen, his every geasture spoke volumes.
Not only a good follow-up to the original, but a great film in it's own right. (And a special "hell yeah!" to Julienne Moore for her great interpretation of how Clarice would have been ten years later....she makes the role her own...great job! -
"Silence Of The Lambs" is a great movie, and "Hannibal" is a pretty good one. "Hannibal" is also the much funnier of the two. It's basically dark fun, the kind of thing we don't often get. I described it to my friends as a "funny, creepy, action movie", and that's what I think it is. If you haven't seen "Crouching Tiger", go see that first, but otherwise, sit down to the feast!
-
It seems to me Scott should have spent a little more time on characterizations and less time on painting pretty pictures in Florence.There was a more visceral connection with the characters in the first film.This film is entertaining,but it pales in comparison and leaves one a bit cold.
-
Ok, as kind of said before, Mason's neck was broken by the autoerotic noose thingie that he had, not really explained in the movie... the book also makes note of the fact that Mason dogs didn't eat all of his face.. Mason ate his own nose. Hannibal did NOT have plastic surgery in the book. He put a few collagen injections under his skin, but he wouldn't do plastic surgery because he didn't want to ruin his ability to smell. I'm pretty sure the line in SOTL about Clarice never seeing Hannibal again was closer to "it was the last time she saw him.." not "she never saw him again" which more reflected that at that point in 1988 when the book is set she didn't see him again. She couldn't see into the future. I could look again, but I think that's the way it went. I reread all three books before I went and saw Hannibal this weekend. Oh yeah, and Hannibal's predecessor in Florence didn't just die, Hannibal killed him and did something with the body involving two bags of cement.
-
I can't believe that no one understands Hannibal! Maybe some of these people should read the books. First off, Clarice is not an assertive heroine just another pawn of Lector's. That is why she doesn't have some commanding role in the film. With that said... Hannibal is the perfect evil - that is all he is and he has no other motive than evil - and he has the intellect to wreak havoc on the world. As he explains, the "rude" are his favorite victims - he loves to destroy their miserable existence and then create an ironic meal of them that has more value than their actual life. Hardy har har. Take for example the census taker whose liver was famous for being "fup-fup-fupppppppppp"ed up as expained in "Silence of the Lambs." The majority of the movie going audience is the sort that Hannibal would "fup-fup-fupppppppppp" up. As for his uncanny abilities of persuasion, Harris describes Hannibal as having a "mind palace" where he can stroll the aisle as though in a library and randomly pick a "book" (i.e., a smell, touch, taste, or even a feeling) and construct a person's psyche from that.
As for the film, I was pleased because it actually expanding on semi-explored ideas in the novel. While Scott's eye for atmosphere is extremely powerful and his use of multilayered colors is very effective, his zooms are about as subtle as Paul Reuben's stunt in that LA porno movie house. None the less, Mamet's screenplay is brilliant and survives some of the visual clumsiness (the talented Mr. Ridley still is able to treat us to some amazing visuals - mainly in the infamous boar sequence). I fully agree with the review though, THIS IS NOT "SILENCE OF THE LAMBS"!!! More or less it is a fable about an all consuming evil. Hannibal is a type of Evil Jesus with Mason Verger (bravo Mr. Oldman) as his disciple and other members figuring into the Christ analogy.
I have already taken up enough space so I will close. Oh yeah, for the gentleman who asked why the servent dropped poor Mr. Verger into the hog pit -as explained above, Hannibal with the help of his "library" is able to tap into our raw desires and hungers and then exploit them for his own good (irony is not intentional). Well, ta-ta. -
I have read all three Thomas Harris' novels in the serial killer trilogy and I loved the way the novel Hannibal ended. When I heard they had changed the ending in the movie I was worried they had really messed up the movie. I knew putting the original ending in the movie would have made many viewers who hadn't read the books angry. There just isn't enough screen time to get in all the thoughts and feelings that go on between Hannibal and Clarice and that eventually make her decide to run off with him. It the novel it makes perfect sense in the movie it might have seem far-fetched. What they did with the movie I thought was pure genius. They smoothed out all the small plot points and made it all flow togeather logically in a two hour time frame. I also thought what they did with the ending was one of the best adapted screen plays I have ever seen. It worked soo well for both movie characters and I am really happy they let Hannibal get away alive. I'm also glad they left the one theme that is soo strong through both films alone -- that Hannibal would never hurt her --
I think this movie is brilliant and I hope it doesn't get forgotten by next year's oscar time. -
I coulda' done without Ray Liottas brain..but..all in all a good flick. Didn't really miss Jodie at all..you almost wonder how many stalkers the poor girl has (between TAXI DRIVER and SILENCE).
-
i guess we can only go by what anthony hopkins and julianne moore had to say about their characters. and according to the both of them, the movie is very much about the bond between the two characters.
in "silence", hannibal is described as a monster, but not a serial killer. and clarice quickly learns why and when he will kill. she is young and inexperienced, but not naive and possibly smarter than those around her. in "hannibal", she is part of a cat and mouse game, where both she and hannibal are being used as pawns for verger and the fbi. and they are both aware of this... she is constantly aware that lecter may follow her, and get caught by verger's men. she's also aware that lecter may get caught in order to help her. in the movie, she says to lecter right before he gets caught, that she doesn't want his help. she knows that he would be willing to eat every fbi agent that ever gave her a problem.
there's not much in "hannibal" that isn't true to "silence" or the books. it's just that in the books we know more about the motives, than the movie gave us. but what is definite is that lecter is somewhat of an older brother and father figure to clarice. he also respects her for being everything he isn't. moore said that "she is the light to his dark."
-
i also hated that in the end, none of clarice's problems are solved. she didn't catch lecter and has to explain why she's dressed for a dinner party, and paul's dead, with his brain open. the fbi is going to assume that she is involved with hannibal, and somehow allowed him to escape. it was all unclear! -
Did anyone notice a similarity in the makeup? In a few scenes, he even seems to be doing the Fire Marshall Bill voice. By the way, Harry, thanks for a great, insightful review.
-
MISTER KNOWLES: Your review hit the fucking nail on the head. Ridley Scott and company managed to fix everything that was broken in the novel, and essentially give us an amalgamation of all the best attributes of BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN, THE HUNCHBACK OF NOTRE DAME, and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS...with a touch of Hitchcock and Clive Barker to taste. The image of Hannibal fearlessly holding Clarice in the piggy house was worth the 8 bucks to get in the theater. Fuck the critics that trash-talked this film! It's like comparing EMPIRE to STAR WARS...GODFATHER II to GODFATHER...TOY STORY 2 to TOY STORY, et - same characters, different feel, and in some ways, a better movie. As far as the ending is concerned, absolutely fucking perfect too. I would suggest that we eat the critics that shit-mouthed HANNIBAL, but their brains would be about as filling as a Slim Jim. Furthermore, ROGER EBERT can eat my big fat cock...oh, and if I were to eat Michelle Yeoh, would I be hungry in an hour? TAKE IT HOME HARRY! PEACE AND WORD TO YOUR MOTHERS!!!
-
Harry, I think you've flipped with this review. I see the intentional humour but, God, it also fell into the 'so-bad-it-was-funny' category. Please don't compare this shit to the brilliance of Bride of Frankenstein! Everything you've pointed out as a subtlety in Hannibal is actually really obvious and totally unbelievable. Sorry. This film sucked.
-
MAN! I havent seen so many posts for a movie since the Bryan Singer X-Men talkback. Of which I recieved no replies from Fox on my brilliant X-men two story pitch. Anyway. I quite enjoyed the film dare I say it. Compared to SOTL it is a different movie. It seems to lose its psycological drama. But that is not to say that it isnt brilliant. Hannibal isnt so bad this time around but for me Mason Verger almost stole the show again. It is good to see that two of the best British actors around are both present in this film and doing a brilliant job. You know a friend of mine pointed out a mistake in the film to me. I am not sure if is listed above or not. We see Clarice open a seal at one point. But earlier in the film we see that Hannibal licks the envelope. OPPES. If you want to read my full review of Hannibal (Very Long) then visit the site www.thakksy.co.uk See you around people. Time to have some Liver and Amarose.
-
Remember those seminars Hannibal did in his library? Well parts of it are included in two different songs on the soundtrack. In the 10th song Burning Heart Hannibal says this, "He woke he then. Trembling and obedient she ate that burning heart eliquently. Weeping I saw her then depart from me. Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for her and find nourishment in the very sight of her? I think so. Would she see through the bars of his plight and ache for him?" If that's not proof than what is. That completely explains Hannibal and Clarice's relationship. There is so much suspense building up to that final kiss where Hannibal finally finds out if her heart aches for him, and that of course was the ultimate rejection. Hannibal was an awesome experience. I just wish more would realize how great Hannibal is. I know other's opinion's don't really matter if I enjoyed and understood the film and every now and then I like being one of the only few to truly like or understand a film but with a movie this well known I would have liked to see it appreciated. I just hope this doesn't end up being another year where people won't shutup about how the year was one of the worst years for films ever. I personally loved 2000. I'll stop ranting now because I hate when people get off subject in
-
Batman Returns was the second and best in the franchise, as was silence of the lambs. now we have a change in casting for the hero(ine), a change in director and a definite change in tone. HANNIBAL was ruined for me when the good doctor, before opening the windows leading to the balcony with Pazzi strapped up, uttered "okey dokey".this is not the same character in SOTL.
funny that it rhymes with "Hokey". -
DAMN! I JUST CAN'T STOP THINKING ABOUT THIS MOVIE! HERE ARE SOME OTHER INSERTS I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO SEE... humor me!
1. clarice dreaming of hannibal saying, "have the lambs stopped screaming?" (or whatever that quote is)
2. need mason's sister in the movie! she had the perfect reason to throw mason to the pigs!
3. hannibal fantasizes about taking clarice to the opera.
4. take out the merry-go-round scene and hannibal breaking into clarice's house.
5. the escape from the pigs needed more dialogue between clarice and hannibal. there needed to be a whole lot more correspondence between them (more letters, etc.)
6. it was better when clarice couldn't see that paul's head was open... it was like the audience's secret, shared with hannibal.
7. i thought there would some redemption with the fbi. we really don't know what they thought happened or how they would reward/punish clarice.
8. longer conversation with barney.
9. where was jack crawford?
10. the whole kitchen/brain scene needed revisions! -
hmmmm I think not. I didn't read the book, but if this movie was supposed to be comical I wonder why no one in the theater laughed, not even once. This movie was nothing like Fargo. I see it as a failed attempt at crime drama/ horror. If you watch the way the scenes are put together it's obvious where Scott was trying to build tension, but it just didn't work. I fealt almost no emotion for this film, up until the end, that is, when I merely fealt nauseous. Not a good experience.
-
i don't think he was the right choice for director. it's not that i wanted the film to be exactly like "silence," but it should have understood where that movie's strenghts were. "silence" wasn't great because of the "buffalo bill" stuff, even though that made it scarier. the greatness was that it was more than a horror film or movie about catching a killer. it was more than "the bone collector" and other crap. how many movies actually examines a character and why they are really in the fbi? how many movies capture the feeling of being a woman in a man's world? very few. i thought one of the strengths in the book "hannibal" was that we learned a little of what made hannibal the way he is and why clarice appeals to him. in the movie, some of the weakness was that they reduced hannibal and clarice's relationship to stalking. the fact that the acting was so good saved it from just being "cat and mouse" stuff. that's why ridley was a poor choice. he cared more about what florence looked like than anything else. -
Feb 16, 2001 7:25:59 AM CST
Hannibal always was a Crime Fighter, enough of this Batman crap!
by dr. dooom
About the Crime Fighter Scenario that everyone says the movie takes on. If you remember in SOTL, Lector had a sense of being a hand of justice, but most probably didn -
Hallelujia Harry
-
While it's an interesting take on the movie, and quite possibly accurate (You had me thinking "yeah, I can see that") it doesn't excuse the overall bad story telling exhibited in the movie.
If Hannibal is, indeed, an unrequited love story, I shouldn't have to infer that. If love is the motivation for all that goes on in the movie, this shouldn't be a footnote at the end of the movie. "Oh, by the way, he's in love with her. See? He chopped his own hand off."
And, for an unrequited love story, it is necessary that we feel some pain on the part of both of the lovers over being separated from their heart's desire. All we get from Lecter is glib commentary on his crimes and an overall sense of self-satisfaction.
The "love" angle may well have been Scott and co's 'justification' for the excesses and plot turns of the movie, but a film should have motivation, not justification. We have to feel early on that there is something driving this character, that there is a genuine conflict between what he is and what he desires. NEver, for one moment, do we get a sense that Hannibal would rescind his ways for Clarice, or that he is genuinely sad that they are apart. Rather, he merely seems to use her as a witness to his own puissance. That's not unrequited love- that's a love story that doesn't make sense.
And while reviewers have no right to expect the same movie, they do have a right to expect the same character, especially if you're selling the whole movie on a closer focus of the greatest movie spook since Christopher Lee. Hannibal has changed in this movie. No longer is her merely a hyper intelligent serial killer with a flair for a well turned phrase- he's now a supernatural monster, a creature whose power of will allows him to make curators vanish, outpace younger men who are running while maintaing a walking speed, silence animals with a glance and command humans with a word. When he commands Verger's lackey to push him into the hog pit, was this the Hannibal from Silence of the Lambs who only hinted at his power, or Dracula ordering Renfield about?
The Hannibal of Silence of the LAmbs had to slowly, quietly, talk and eat his way out of his cell. Here, he can wlak through walls, he's lighter than air, he's everywhere. he's nowhere. Same character? Almost, but the Hannibal of Lambs is super-smart, whereas the Hannibal of Hannibal is supernatural.
The only story that made any sense, and had any dramatic power, only lasts for a third of the film. Pazzi, the Italian detective, has a true conflict. And his conflict inspires a conflict in HAnnibal. Is Hannibal ocntent behind a quiet curator? Would he have quitened down where it not for the detective's intrusion and lust for money? Who is this cop? What would he do with the 3 million bucks? One of the best, most subtle touches in the movie is when we establish Pazzi as being a poor schlub living beyond his means when he simply asks for opera tickets, and it is clear that, even if he gets some, they will be bad. HE is a dedicated public servant who works for what he has, while Lecter merely takes. But Lecter's the one with opera seats.
All far more interesting than a half-baked love story that doesn't make sense. Clarice Starling is a woman who will gladly gun down a drug dealer who is holding a baby, but who is seriously considering settling down with Lecter if he could just stop eating people? No, doesn't make sense.
And Lecter, who goes through great pains early in the movie not to leave so much as a fingerprint on anything in Florence, ends the movie by LEAVING HIS F**KING HAND on the kitchen table. (Alright he could have taken it with him, but it would have been a bugger explaining it at customs.)
The film, while enjoyable if only for the Florence sequence. simply doesn't make sense, or rather, it doens't make sense in te way it wants to. Any idea that the relationship between Starling and Lecter is the driving force behind this movie is tacked on, superficial, and can be removed as easily as, apparently, certain parts of the brain. -
How is leaving Clarice in her bosses house- with her boss's slightly chewed corpse, and her, not only miraculouly unscathed but in a nice frock, "saving her"?
-
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! Goddamn you crack me up, Har!!! Way to ironically show up all those complainers that you have a tendency to gush over the silliest things!!! AHAHAHAHAHA --
wait, you were joking, right? -
i think the safe bet is to combine the book and the movie. it is not a conventional story where two people want to be together. it is far more complex. how can i explain it?
i'm sure some of you are familiar with the godfather. well, in the book, the character Luca Brasi is described as a horrible monster. he even threw his own baby into a furnace (i don't think hannibal would do that, but anyway). but for some reason, luca has undying respect and loyalty towards the godfather. the book mentions that everyone has at least one person like this, even the most horrible.
hannibal has chosen clarice for many reasons, to be the object of his undying loyalty and protection. there are some basic things you must understand about hannibal. even in "silence", the stories of hannibal weren't all that horrible, compared with say, Buffalo Bill. both movies and books seem to hint at the difference between animals and people. in "silence", hannibal is a caged animal, and like caged animals, he is out-of-control upon escaping. in the book "hannibal", it is pointed out that mason's family money comes from slaughtering animals.
many people complain that lecter has become refined and some sort of superhero. but as mentioned, he had displayed much of this behavior before. almost immediately after clarice's first visit, he kills the guy in the next cell. when clarice puts her hand through the cell, he doesn't harm her, even though she betrayed him. but her betrayal was in order to save someone, so he forgives her. she also risked her own life by putting her hand through the cell, just to save buffalo bill. and let's not forget that lecter was a brilliant man who loved classical music and florence...
so, with all this, he chooses to protect clarice, who is a replacement for his sister. and lecter is a father-replacement to clarice. she seemed, in hannibal, to be in touch with the fact that he has had a major influence over her. she doesn't want to run away with lecter, but she doesn't want to see him harmed. yet, she doesn't want him to harm others. hannibal and clarice are both saviors and killers, and there is a huge bond. hannibal admires clarice's guts, but also the fact that she wants to ease suffering. clarice respects the fact that hannibal humiliates those who often deserve it. and if clarice didn't have hannibal's loyalty in "silence", the fact that she saved him from mason makes it pretty indellible!
-
i still think that although hannibal's fantasy may be to brainwash clarice and make her demons go away, i don't think he'd actually do it. to do that, would take away all the reasons he loves her. he wants to watch her life from afar and every now and then harm the people that get in her way. but she doesn't want help (as she says), and that's another reason he cares for her. veyr complicated! -
all the stuff i have inferred came from both the movie and the book, which shouldn't have to be done. in "silence", there's hardly any important plot point that is skipped over or rushed through. almost every scene in "hannibal" was rushed through, leaving out something key to the character's motivations. and for the person that described hannibal as a "serial killer" is entirely wrong. in both the book and the movie, jack crawford specifically says that he is not a serial killer and that there is no word for hannibal lecter. -
i didn't the ending was done that well, but there are things to be said about what lecter's motivations were. he is not willing to be caught by clarice, not only for his selfish reasons, but because it will do not good for clarice anyway. he respects her, but not the fbi, so although he will kill anyone that bothers her, he will not be caught by her. i think clarice knows that lecter will not let himself be caught, but will still give her the chance... almost out of common courtesy. it's a sacrifice on his part. she saves his life, and he saves hers, but still, he will not make her fbi career easier. i wish they would have had something about her being questioned and having to try and explain what happened to her. as i said, i would have liked for her to lie about the whole thing. but either way, i'm sure lecter found it amusing. -
I must disagree with your book interpretation. You say that part of Hannibals'love for Clarice is that she's a replacement for Mischa. Up until the almost end of the book, Hannibal views Clarice as a "place" for Mischa. He's totally willing to kill her to bring his sister back. It isn't until Clarice points out that Hannibal's "place" would be just as good for Mischa, that he abandons the idea. Even then, he still thinks about it... breaking the cups and all....
-
Hannibal is a decent piece of entertainment if you're not squeamish. It gives us a fiendishly clever monster who does horrible things to people who arguably deserve it. That sort of thing will always have have some entertainment value. So will the underlying Beauty and the Beast tale. We like seeing the Beast softened by Beauty, and we want Beauty to discover that the Beast is not all that bad. We want to revel a bit in Hannibal's horrific (yet somewhat justifiable) deeds, while secure in the knowledge that there's something good underneath. But Hannibal could have been much better if (1) Hannibal had killed someone who didn't seem to deserve it, and (2) if, at the same time, his ability to love Clarice had been made even more clear. Such a jarring contrast would have deepened the film. We would have been more unsettled, but more impressed, and the talent involved in this film would not have been squandered on what is little more than good, spooky fluff.
-
If you go back to the Silence of the Lambs, just before Hannibal meets the Senator to tell her about Buffalo Bill, someone over the phone tells Crawford that Hannibal is being transered to Memphis and Paul Krendler is taking over. He even has some lines. Of course, it's not Ray Liotta.
-
I'm glad to know that someone else out there gets it. I recommended this film (and book) to numerous friends and they absolutely hated it. To those of you who prefer sequels to be clones of the original... stay tuned for Lethal Weapon VI. Oh yeah-- Ridley Scott is God!
-
I bet if he had sex with a skull and ate the brains of a dog, harry would explain how it represented hannibal "mindfucking" is situation too much, thinking to much, so much, that he wishes he could resort to being an animal, who only has to eat, not think.
See, it's genius. And takes 2 seconds. That's why I liked that scene where he jackhammered the skull and ate the dog's brains. I just told you why it's symbolic.
Or the scene were the intestines fall out and the victim slips on them and he laughs. Isn't that great? hahaha
Or when the 3 kids get eaten by wolves and hitleresque men come and shoot a woman in the ass, it's great.
If jesus were in it giving you the finger, he'd love it.
Why?
The 'ol might $
Aintitbs...it sure is. -
I enjoyed the movie. Why I did I won't bother to discuss...
But the people panning the movie in this talkback make me realize that some people need to learn the value of lurking.
"Why pigs?",
"Why is he in a wheelchair?"
"Why wasn't it more like Silence?"
You want to be spoonfed, I'll toss you a jar of my nephew's strained beets...
-
"Are the fans still bitching, Clarice?" While I concede that Hannibal isn't for everyone, I'm amazed at the streches some will go to find fault with this movie. Personally I thought it was a bold movie on both Harris' part as well as Scott and co.. There's elements of the book that I wish could've found a place in the film - especially Mason's sister Margot - but I thought the film managed to keep as much as I could've expected. In several ways it actually improves on the book - such as the first exchange between Lecter and Clarice on Pazzi's cell-phone, an excellent scene that wasn't present in the novel. Check out my own review at www.undertakerslounge.com
-
interesting book interpretation.. but how would killing clarice replace his sister. i don't see where in the book he thought that, or why it would make any sense. do you think he would have kidnapped her, even if he was in no real danger? he gave her all those presents in the book, and seemed to want to help her with the fbi... i think he intended on helping her from the vere beginning. and i think he knew someone's brains were going to get eaten from the very beginning. and i think the book's ending is about more than replacing his sister; he also has a fondness for clarice, as an individual. -
The two omitions from Harris' novel that i felt important were the absence of the female pickpocket and the absence of Margot. I don't care about the former but surely Vergers sister should have been included? Mason Verger was an evil, evil man in the book, whereas the big screen version just saw him as a bastard out for revenge. We learnt most about Verger through his cruel mocking of Margot's sexuality and the fact that he is very dependant of her regardless. Maybe we didn't need the masturbation discussion but she still should have been included.
-
The only thing that would've made the ending better is if Liotta pulled the napkin off his face, broke the fourth wall and said "Now I have to go through the rest of my life like a schnook."
-
I finally went to see Hannibal today and read the review. I agree that it is a love story. The comment made earlier that by someone who said that they wish he would have killed someone who didn't deserve it did not pay attention to either movie or any of the books. Lector did not kill just to kill. He killed people who he felt deserved it. To do other wise would be rude. He never had any intention of killing the italians wife. He used that as a threat to get information. She was a decent, cultured, beautiful woman and for lector to harm her would have been a waste. I thought some of the scenes could have been better thought out. It seemed the whole pig scene was rushed through. They could have explained the history between clarice and ray liotta's character a bit more. but through it all, this was a story of a man protecting the woman he loves. the only part of the movie that REALLY bothered me had nothing to do with the movie. I don't know about any of you, but there were A LOT of children at the showing I was at. I don't mean teenage children, i mean 3-10 year old children. and we wonder what's wrong with society. but at any rate, the movie was not as bad as the critics make it out to be, but it wasn't nearly as good as the original.
-
I'm fairly confident in my interpretation of the book, and I found a few quotes from it.. The page numbers are the hard back edition.
p 476 "..and I came to think, Clarice, that the best place in the world (for Mischa) was yours"..... and later "If a prime place in the world is required for Mischa, and I'm not saying it isn't, what's the matter with YOUR place?"
p 436 "He want Mischa's baby teeth back out of the stool pit. Behind his fevered calculations is the desperate wish to make a place for Mischa in the world, perhaps the place now occupied by Starling."
and the most damning
p 364 "The worthiest place that Dr. lecter knew: Starling's place. Mischa could have Starling's place in the world. If it came to that, if that time came round again, Starling's demise would leave a place for Mischa...." -
I hate to say it, because I loved the books and the movie, but I don't like the interpretation that Hannibal only kills people who "deserve" it. I think that this only appears in Hannibal, and was a pc cop-out by Harris. What did the census taker, the nurse, or Graham do to "deserve" their fate?? He's a much scarier character if his killing has no sense to it, because anyone could be a victim, but by giving him a background and a thing for rude people, it takes away from the randomness.
-
As it happens I don't generally read Ain't-it-Cool News for opinions, but for NEWS, rumours and facts. The reason for this is that I have been tired of negativity from fans (as in the case of Lucas/Star Wars) and critics alike. I am really not interested in heatedly arguing with readers who hated Hannibal and how SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is so much better, etc.
Well, that is their opinion and they are allowed to have it, but I am breaking my own "silence" to say that, Harry, I am with you on this one!
I loved the book and I feel this movie lives up to it and to THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
THE UNGOD HAS SPOKEN. -
those were great quotes from the book, but i still say that they were more about "replacing" mischa. i see what you mean about the last quote, but it seems it could mean many things. it seems that he may think that if clarice died, she would be further connected to mischa in his mind. but he doesn't want to act on that. i think he also expresses fear about whether clarice is strong enough to be in the middle of all this. i think that's his concerns about whether she's a "deep bird" or whatever that metaphor was. i don't see how killing clarice would make up for mischa's death... wouldn't he want to keep her alive, to undo what happened to his sister? -
they did clean hannibal up a bit in the sequel, but it didn't bother me too much. the hannibal in "silence" is caged and will kill anyone in his way. but he had not harmed clarice when she put her hand through the cell, and he also made it clear he wouldn't go after her. he also never harmed crawford or barney. so i think that in ten years, in florence, he would blend in well and all in all, be quite refined and charming. that's how he wanted it. -
this movie makes me fear,with regard to the movies "harry potter" and "lord of the rings".you can`t read a book and then be enthusiastic for the film.it`s always the same,no film can bring the real feelings for a book on screen.how will chris columbus and peter jackson take me this dissapointment.great directors(only the second),but they can`t satisfied the feelings of all readers.
i hate the end of the movie,this is the reason,why the movie is in germany only for people,who are older then 18 years.i hope there will be no more to be continued! -
first let me say that hannibal was excellent, not perfect though as the issues some talkbackers mentioned that are in the book but not in the film (should have been though) sound very interesting and important. Now to my question: has anybody thought about how where the brain slices in the plane come from? It didn't look like Hannibal took some from Liotta's brain with him when he left so I suggest that there must have been another murder during the time between the lake house scene and the plane scene. Well... Harry, you had some good points in your reviwew!
-
i think book adaptations usually work when the book itself is great, and the movie doesn't change too much. that's the big trick! "the godfather" was word-for-word, very loyal to novel, as was "silence of the lambs". however, since i thought the "hannibal" book ending was horrible, i didn't mind the change too much. -
oops, hit return a bit too soon. Harry, I'm so glad you liked this movie! I loved it and I'm taking a beating from my friends who didn't.
Anyway, upon second viewing of the movie, I don't think Clarice is indifferent to Hannibal's...overtures. A tear runs down her face during that scene at the fridge. And she gets an awful lot of satisfaction out of that scene with Krendler where she scares him to death with Lecter's voice and discusses the reason behind the cannibalism. I think Clarice KNOWS she can't just ask Lecter to stop. She's a trained agent and all studies of serial killers seem to indicate that they can't stop.
She certainly didn't have to come after him, risking her own life. I think Clarice is definitely drawn to him but understands that for them to be together would involve such changes on both their parts that they simply couldn't be the same people.
Personally, I think one of the most romantic parts is when he recites the Dante sonnet and discusses it with Allegra. -
clarice is definitely not indifferent to anything, especially lecter. they have such an odd relationship (to say the least). everything they are to each other was established brilliantly in "silence of the lambs." it's not about romance or sex, even though we love when lecter says, "people will say we're in love." hannibal and clarice have an understanding not to harm each other, and they both take it seriously. and knowing this, makes clarice's job very difficult. she is being used by mason and the fbi, and her and hannibal are aware of this. and he welcomes the challenge and the game. he is willing to lose to clarice, and by the end we see that he won't harm her in order to escape. hannibal is a killer, but not a serial killer, and the nuances in that definition cause much of the confusion. -
HE THOUGHT BLAIR WITCH 2 AND VIVA ROCK VEGAS WERE GOOD FILMS ... BOTH ARE NOMINATED FOR RAZZIES THIS YEAR!
-
I don't think Hannibal loves Clarice, but he is intrigued by her. She showed him respect, and he likes that. But the only person Hannibal Lecter really loves is Hannibal Lecter. His life on the run in Italy has become dull, and he's thinking of going "back into business" again. Then, out of the blue, up crops the name of Clarice Starling, and he sees a way of making himself the centre of attention again, by toying with Starling just as he toyed with her all those years before. The problems with Hannibal the movie are many, but among the largest are the great leaps of logic it makes within the plot, without explaining how they happen - for example, Verger's contact with the pig breeders was set up years before, waiting for the time HL would resurface, but you would never know from this film - and the liberties taken with the characters. The kitchen scene is just desperate and utterly unbelievable. (SPOILER AHEAD) It's strongly suggested that Hannibal chops off his own hand to remove the handcuffs. Rubbish! He cares nothing for anyone else, including Clarice, and cares totally for himself. He's a great pianist, too, so he would value his hands even more than most people. Also, chopping off his hand would have left him bleeding to death, not the best condition to be in to escape the cops who are only moments away.
As for the actual ending, on the aircraft, all that was missing was a "to be continued" caption. This movie didn't reach a conclusion, it just stopped.
Hannibal the movie told us nothing new about the character of Hannibal, and contradicted lots of things we already knew. It insults the intelligence of the filmgoer. It doesn't make sense. It has some bad performances (Ray Liotta especially), and the direction of scenes away from Florance is uninspired and flaccid. -
what you've said is very true... especially about the plot jumps. in the book, all the explanations are there, so it doesn't seem like these things popped up at the last minute. as i've said, hannibal's relationship is more complicated than "love". what's important is that they will not hurt each other, out of respect, compassion, and trust. wierd, huh? as for hannibal leaving florence only to toy with clarice... not really true. he "comes out of retirement" because he has been caught by pazzi. the comes to the united states because he knows she is being hounded by the fbi. he knows she is on the case, and he likes playing the game with her. if she wasn't on the case anymore, i believe he would have stayed somewhere in europe. i also liked that he cut his hand, but i would assume it was only part of his hand (maybe a finger). that's the kind of information that shouldn't have been editted out! -
Was anyone else reminded of Anthony Hopkins' role as a butler in "Remains of the Day" during the 'dinner party' scene? Found that quite amusing.
-
I just saw "Hannibal" in a small Wisconsin town this weekend and I noticed a LOT of shots where the boom mike dipped into the frame. It became a serious distraction after it happened for what must have been the 20th time, and I was very surprised that someone like Ridley Scott would have let this detail slip -- especially on a movie of this size. Has anyone else noticed this? Is it possible that this theater somehow got an early release print with mistakes in it? Another thing I noticed in the final credits was that Gary Oldman was indeed listed, although most reviews have mentioned him in an "uncredited" performance. Was he listed in the version that you saw?
WS
-
and now i am more disappointed about the movie. they took out all the great concepts and so many parts of the book that i completely relished... they reduced it to the disembowlment of pazzi and krendler's brains... what about the letter lecter writes to mason, why not include that? the book was written almost exactly as a screenplay... there were parts that had to be skimmed, but not taken! even in the brain scene, clarice's retorts to krendler are priceless... and the way lecter sets up the dinner so clarice can't see the open brain! and did they take out the part where he says to krendler, "you must have an open mind"... i swear to god, i could have adapted this screenplay better! except i would have had lecter release clarice. -
I read the book last summer and was extremely dissappointed. Having read The Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs, I had come to enjoy the cerebral journey through the minds of killers and profilers. The mental chess matches, the character development, and the history of the characters. In "Hannibal" the call of Hollywood is even worse than the effect it had on Michael Chricton's work. Where the first two novels were brilliant journeys into peoples psyches, Hannibal is a VISUAL journey taken to the detriment of the characters. It is a story more interested in shocking imagery (Verger's face, the hanging, Lector's "Palace of the Mind", the last supper, etc.") than in the developement of the characters. So, going into the movie I wasn't expecting much. I was pleasently suprised. The creators of this film removed almost everything about the book I didn't like and changed the ending just enough to make it more beleivable. The elimination of Starling's roommate and the lesbian body building sister were good choices. Considering the source material, I think they did an excellent job. I just hope Harris has gotten the Hollywood bug out of his system when he writes his next novel. For the movie fans, he will have an almost impossible time writing a sequel that can follow BOTH the movie and book. While a sequel could be done, and done well, there are two stories I would rather see. First is a faithful adaption of The Red Dragon ("Manhunter" sucked". Anthony Hopkins COULD be made to look young enough for the part, but a new actor should be chosen as an intro for what I would REALLY like to see. THE CAPTURE OF HANNIBAL LECTER. The FIRST chapter in the story. How Lecter went from respected psychologist, to fugitive, to captive. Harris has only hinted at it in the Red Dragon. (Look at the "Wound Man" photo on the board in Starling's office in Hannibal.) Let's hope Harris returns to his senses and can write the TRUE follow up to Hannibal and the prequel we have all been dieing for.
-
For different views regarding hannibal, check out http://www.empyrelounge.com. One guy seems to agree with this reviewer but the other one kinda pans the movie. I would post links directly to their articles but I cant remember it. Sorry
-
I just read a scathing review by Ian Nathan of Empire magazine (at empire.co.uk) who said that the problem with the film is that there is no character to worry about in the film. This is true (and maybe there is a little too much emphasis on Pazzi and not enough of the love story between Hannibal and Clarice that's in the book) but Hannibal still is a Ridley Scott film, and very enyoyable at that. Not in the same league as Silence of the Lambs but worth seeing all the same
-
I don't know how many of you frequent Dark Horizon's website, but they reported that the rumors of more than one ending being filmed for 'Hannibal' are, in fact, true. The film's Cinematographer, John Mathieson, confirmed that three endings were filmed: one for Ridley Scott, one for Producer Dino De Laurentiis, and one for author Thomas Harris. Undoubtedly, it is Scott's version that appears in the film (the guy's not egotistical or anything). I, for one, thought the movie was pretty good up until the ending, after the "dinner" scene. As a fan of the novel's ending, I was disappointed, even though I knew beforehand that the ending would be changed. But I don't think anyone expected that ending to change as much as it did in the final cut. One can only hope that these alternate endings will make it onto the 'Hannibal' DVD in the near future... and that Anthony Hopkins will fix this film error with the sequel he has in mind. After all, he has always preferred Harris' original ending... And bravo, Harry, for your wonderfully written review of 'Hannibal.' You don't see many reviews like this out there, on the 'net or otherwise.
-
You've expressed very well the reasons this is a good movie, and why it's doing such good business in spite of the preponderance of bad reviews. I'm curious how you feel about the way the ending was changed from the book. Personally, I prefer the ending of the movie because it supports the theme of unrequited love. Hannibal goes off alone, having made a major sacrifice in order to come back and save Clarice. Plus, it preserves the integrity of the Starling character.
-
when i reread the book recently, i was mostly shocked about the great scenes that were omitted, where the violent scenes had huge priority. there's a great scene in the book where mason, barney, and one of lecter's old psychiatrist's discuss lecter's obsession with clarice. it was great and even brought up the "beauty and the beast" thing. yes, "hannibal" was less cerebral, but the book could have had a much better adaptation. all the motives were so clear in the book, whereas in the movie, it doesn't let you know anything. it would be like making "silence of the lambs" and forgetting to put the "lamb metaphor" in. it was so annoying. the ending was a little too over-the-top, but there were good things in there to keep! -
Just got back from seeing the movie, and offer the following comments. Yes it is a love story, as is the book. Where it differs from the book, is that Lecters' love is unrequited, in the book, fulfilled - Hannibal gets a sister, Clarice a father, thus bringing closure. But so what? I enjoyed every well crafted minute of this Ridley Scott Movie. The obvious ploy at the end of; 1. Clarice not leaving with Hannibal, 2. not showing a lefty stump leaves open the possibility of a sequel where Hannibal and Clarice may finally be united.
I don't have a problem with this - I was more concerned, having heard the "oh they have changed the ending", that the brain-eating was no longer on the menu - fortunately it was. 10 out of 10. -
Firstly, the opening credit sequence apparently reveals the pattern of
pigeons to show Hannibals face, which therefore could be seen as a metaphor
for Hannibal as the kind of almost banal, charming evil that is everyone, as
well as showing a link between Mother Nature and Lecter as predators. This
is why the credits are important, as well as to show that everyone
everywhere is being watched, all the time, by CCTV, and that these are his
downfall... it was as if Hannibal knew by going to that one place, he would
be discovered. He chose instead to reveal himself to those who may have
chosen to look. Hiding in Plain Sight of sorts.
I do not see the film as Clarice's fall from grace, but more a tale of
Hannibals quest for redemption. He returns to the US, even though he knows
he is still one of the FBI Ten Most Wanted, and that he is almost definitely
going to place himself in danger by contacting Clarice, yet does so, in
order to clear her name from the smudging she has recieved at the hands of
the corrupt FBI.
Hannibal made the suggestion to Cordell I believe for two reasons 1) for
Cordell to be freed of the master-servant relationship to such a hideously
disfigured spiritually/mentally person who was corrupting his servant.
Remember that Cordell wanted not to be present? This is why he is spared.
and 2) so that Verger can understand that killing for revenge is self
defeating as it solves nothing, but also so that he is put out of his misery
: remember that Verger himself commited the crime (and is alleged to be a
paedophile in the film), not Hannibal, and only at Hannibal's insistence, as
well as 3) self-defence. Hannibal is aware of virtue, and respects it, as
well as of his own image, why is why he informs Cordell to tell others that
"Hannibal did it".
Even then, when he comes back to the US, to possibly make peace. He accepts
that since he has been discovered, he can no longer enjoy the benefit of
anonymity and therefore wishes to return to obtain closure with Verger and
also to clear Clarice. What you will notice is that he seems - in some
respects - to be motivated by purer things. In this respect, therefore,
those that he despatches in the cruellest of fashions - not naming any
names - all seem to be characters motivated by money to bring about
Hannibal's downfall or incaraceration. Those that recieved the harshest
treatment - hmm, tastes good - are those that are truly corrupt and seek to
discredit the virtious (Clarice) in return for financial reward. This is
clearly indicated by the fact that when Hannibals visits that persons home
he removes a vital piece of paper revealing such information. The fact that
he can subdue the dog, and that his eyes are red tinted in the poster, could
also indicate that he is the personification of the Devil. Charming,
articulate, ruthless, and unpredictable. One who mixes the truth with lies
in such a fashion as that the truth can no longer be discovered.
Clarice is spared because she herself is working for the good and is morally
pure. She is not attempting to bring about Hannibal's downfall for monetary
reasons.
The fact that Clarice tries to resist and recapture him shows his admiration
for her. She cannot be corrupted. And so, in the final act, in order to
preserve himself, he has to disfigure himself, instead of corrupting the
purity of Clarice.
And there's my reading why the film is better than the book. Because
Hannibal returns to redeem himself, claim what is owed to him, and to defend
the honour of the pure, as well as to remove and desecrate those who are
motivated by avarice and greed instead of beauty and purity.
-
Yo Harry,
Finally! Someone who gets it!
I have to say I loved the movie.
A totally savory romp.
Now, I'll be the first to admit
I was disappointed in the book, the gore,the ending etc. But some
one explained it to me much like
you reviewed the movie.
It's Harris' explanation of the
man that is Hannibal, yes, but even more so, it's a shot at us..
the public, and our gluttenous
appetite for more Hannibal, more
gore, more horror. We are the wild
pigs! Feasting on the slaughter!
Watching the killer behind the velvet rope (Hannibal in the museum's torture display)
We begged Harris for another book so Hollywood could throw together another smorgasbord of death for us! So he did! And we bitched about him Sailing away with our darling Clarice! Well, tough shit!
Hannibal is his creation! He knows him best! He knows Clarice. I did however love the rewritten ending better. One thing though..
2 seconds after Hannibal jumps in the boat, minus his hand..Clarice is standing on the hillside minus her manacles! She actually bothered to find the key and take them off while chasing a serial killer?
Oh well.. no biggie..Scott did an
awesome job.
Sully -
You have my pity, Harry
-
Hannibal is the type of movie that both excites and scares me in this day in age. Not for the content of the movie, but for the reactions that people have been giving this work of art. Ridley Scott is the type of director who understands the essence of Hannibal and decided to craft a movie that reflected upon that. The result is a picture that strays from SotL(which was also a piece of art in its own right) in a good way and accomplishes the essence of this follow-up into the mind of a serial killer. Firstly, Hannibal is a movie that comes together through exquisite pacing and centers upon the love/hate relationship between Lector and Clarise. Although not as developed as I had hoped, the effect is still quite positive. Hannibal is a movie that is more concerned with the development of Hannibal and Clarise' twisted relationship than it is with constantly suprising and exciting the audience. Because of this well paced "love" story, most have destroyed the core of the film due to its lack of constant action and scares. The gore factor present isn't nearly as dark as many have decribed and they are used to simply reflect upon the decedance of society as a whole. Through and through, I also feel that many disliked the movie because we come to see just how calmly grusome Lector can really be. In SotL, Hannibal is a caged animal who needs to be set free. In Hannibal, he is free, thus eliminating some of the compassion many had felt for him in the first film. Hannibal at its core is a love tale between Lector and Clarise. Because of this, the movie is purely centered around it. R. Scott took a chance with this and came out with flying colors. Yet, society would rather have a rehash of SotL instead of a new, fresh perspective on the story. It will be a sad day when such creative minds such as Scott have to direct and write movies in the cookie cutter fashion just to turn a worthwhile profit. We live in a very impatient society which often does not appreciate true art and poetic storytelling. Hannibal is a well paced, beautiful(yet grusome) dive into the sophisticated mind of a frustrated man in love. Ridle y explores this with success and ultimately receives nothing but grief for his talents. I know, let's make another sequel, bring Jodie back, and have her chase a killer while Hannibal is behind bars. Then Lector can excape again and tear the face off of two cops! It will be original, action packed, with tons of cool explosions and boobies... It's time to grow up society and appreciate art when it sits right in front of you.
-
The Big Lebowski was far more entertaining than Fargo...call me whacky,
-
I was disappointed. There I said it! Whew!
I did like the movie. And there were some VERY powerful scenes! The thing with the pigs...wow...
Here are things I was disappointed in:
Clarice! Julianne Moore did a great job. I was pleased about that, considering I don't really like her. But I just didn't feel she was Clarice. I couldn't get past Jodi Foster not being there. I've heard some people say that Julianne actually does a BETTER job, but that's not really it.There was such a BOND between Hannibal and her in the first movie and I just couldn't feel it in this movie.
The whole thing about her being in so much trouble. Why was that necessary?? Granted, the scene with the baby was cool, but movies ALWAYS do that...so in so is in trouble..."your off the case" blah blah blah...so an so gets themselves involved ANYWAY and turns into hero...blah blah blah...They could have just went with the copper pursuing him for the $$$ and getting Clarice back on the case after finding Hannibal killing him...or something! Plus the stupid reference to WACO. Sigh.....always gotta throw in a real life reference to make it all REALISTIC. How shallow.
The guy in the mask...well, kinda dumb, actually. I realize how necessary he was. And if it wasn't for him we wouldn't have the piggies.( And he did look pretty hot after getting all duded up for "dinner" that night.) And how about that scene where he smacked his lips because he wanted a drink. Creepy!! But can't say that his character "sucked me in" or anything. He just looked like a guy in a mask.
The ending. What?! She didn't like the ending...that was the best part. Well, it was cool. Shows how important their bond was. But I guess I just can't stop myself from nitpicking. Why not chop her ponytail out of the fridge and run with her?? (How did she get out to get down by the water by the way??) Did I miss something somewhere? It was all of a sudden just over!
OK OK OK. Let's talk about what I did like about this movie!
The music! It went sooo well with everything. Really enhanced the mood!
Every word and action by Anthony Hopkins! What a genius.
The gory scenes, of course. The way they were done. Each one was so powerful, like I said.
The Opera scene....beautiful.
Julianne Moore. I did like her in this. More than I've liked her in anything. She just wasn't...you know....sniff sniff.
I liked the whole story line itself. It really was it's own seperate entity. Meaning, I don't consider this move a "sequel". It really totally stands on it's own. In fact, I think people who haven't seen "Silence of the Lambs" will enjoy it more than those who did.
So there you have it. I guess based on you guys' rating system I would give it (* * * *) 4 stars. It was a great movie, I enjoyed it, I'll buy it. But with all the hype and talk about it, I thought I would be totally blown away. And I wasn't.
Aimster -
This is the second movie I have seen in which Anthony Hopkins gets his hand cut off. (Titus being the other)
-
I don't think any of us can blame Harry for liking the movie as he did. Reviewing can never be a truly objective craft, and Harry certainly will be affected by his current personal situation. Accepting this as a given, though, I still think Harry was far too kind. For me, the only good things about "Hannibal" are two changes made from the novel: they don't try to explain away Hannibal's crimes and cannibalism because of his sister's murder during WWII, and Hannibal and Clarice don't run off to Brazil together in the end. Other than those two strong points, I found the film rather weak. The elimination of those supporting characters who gave Clarice, Lecter, and Verger some shades of humanity -- and the elimination of almost the entire backstory for the film -- made the trio of leading characters dull in the extreme. I dearly missed Margot Verger, Ardelia Mapp, and Jack Crawford -- without them, the stars had no one to relate to, no lives to live, and thus no way to truly share their conflicts with us. Oh, and one more thing -- if Ridley Scott doesn't learn to knock off the bullshit he pulls from his bag of visual tricks, he'll go down in history as a derivative hack rather than as any sort of significant artiste -- him and Brian DePalma.
-
I thought Hannibal was a moderate thrill at best. It was not the thriller it is being portrayed as in commercials, but also it was not as bad as some people have said it was. The thing though that really pissed me off about about this movie was not Ridley Scott using fancy camera tricks to astound some simpletons, or Hannibal having really shitty one liners and trying to act all friendly and shit it was the fucking ending. I don't care what you people say about Harris betraying Starling's characther in the book; it was his characther he created if he wants to make her a cannibal, it is his choice. Also, the ending in the book made some sense if you didn't give a fuck about Starling's original characther. The corruption around her and seeing that none of her fellow FBI agents had the "goodness" in her go a little crazy (with the help of some drugs). The fucking shitass rushed ending in the movie is so fucking worhtless. Not only did it sever ties with the author leaving the sequel to be written by some fuckhead writer who just wrote some trashy teen movie, but it makes Hannibal Lecter a godamn cliche villian -SPOLIER now that he has one hand he can have some prostetic device as a hand making it all the more "scary"- Fucking bullshit. the book was good, but all the good charatchters got cut out for time and shit. plus the story was dummed down to make all the shithead viewers feel smart when they figured some predictable plot twist out (just like that shit of a film the sixth sense). Anyway bullshit made a good and graphic story some flashy dumbass piece of shit. -Milkman
-
I've not seen Silence of the lambs. When I went into this film, all I knew was that Hanible was a canible serial killer on the loose. I have no other film to judge this one by, maybe silence was better, but for me i really enjoyed this flick. It explained all that I needed to know and I was never EVER at a loss to what was going on. And I'll agree on the unrequinted love. The film flowed nicely, it was a good script, and it went for 2 hours. That's all i ever ask of a movie. Any bitching and moaning is just personal taste.
-
Two technical errors in the film:
(1) The Lecter chest x-ray on the light box in the FBI file room was reversed (assuming normal human anatomy)
(2) When Starling is about to enter the mall she has an ear-piece for her phone in her right ear. It squeals and she hold her left ear as if it was in pain. I think I subconsciously noticed these things because this movie was so terrible I had to maintain interest in some way. -
It's not often that I go to see a movie these days, as selective as I am, and come away feeling like I've just flushed my ticket money down the commode.
What a preposterous hodgepodge of junk this movie was. Terrible pacing, no tension, characters I could care less about and an ending that teetered between ludicrous and a letdown.
In spite of those who would say that one should not compare this movie to its predecessors, one absolutely must. It is a sequel, after all.
In both Manhunter and Silence, Lecter was the spice to the stew. On screen for much less time than it actually seemed, in both cases he represented the only remaining option the police could turn to in order to hunt down a serial killer. They had to turn to a mind more twisted than the one they were hunting to bring the killer to justice.
In this film, both author Thomas Harris and Director Ridley Scott seem to have lost that key ingredient. By giving Lecter the keys to their castle, what made the two previous movies riveting and compelling is completely washed away. Furthermore, because of the poorly formulated plot, the gore in this movie ends up being simply gratuitous and not integral to the story in any real way.
In Silence's famous escape scene, Lecter removes the face of one of his guards and uses the skin to cover his own. Sure it was gross. But it was a necessary plot device to enable him to escape. When found the police think he's the guard that Lecter attacked and rush him to the hospital, allowing him to make his big break.
In Hannibal what do we have for a climax? Lecter feeding Ray Liotta his own fried brain - as if that alone wasn't totally preposterous. It served no purpose, plot wise, other than to push the envelope on grossness.
Just a terrible movie. I wouldn't even recommend seeing it on video. If you must see another movie featuring Hannibal Lecter, other than Silence of the Lambs, go rent Manhunter. It's leagues better than this junk.
-
What a terrible cheese-out Hannibal is, I'm afraid.
Not since Terminator 2 have we seen a fantastic villain transformed into the hero and even romantic lead.
The story plays like Dracula, not like an FBI agent tracking someone who kills without a second thought.
I thought it was awful - and what kind of film is it?
Most implausible is the fact that Hannibal was kept around in the first place. In reality, he would have been fried years ago. -
this movie was very well done i felt, except for the ending. i don't mind the change of pace, it's a different movie after all. it's the ending of this film that revolts me. they should have ended the movie 15 minutes early. the scene at the end with ray liotta was only put in for shock value. it was an ugly, obscene scene thats only purpose is to make us grossed out.
before the ending 8/10
whole film with ending 1/10 -
Two technical flaws with Hannibal:
(1)The chest x-ray of Lecter on the light box with all of the FBI evidence is reversed (assuming normal human thoracic anatomy).
(2) When Starling is about to enter the mall with cell phone earpiece in her right ear it squeals with interference and she holds her left ear as if it was in pain. I subconsciously noticed these things to maintain interest in this terrible excuse for a movie. -
Look man, I respect you, I really do, but you are so bass ackwards on this as to make me doubt that you took any time at all to consider this film, and it's accompanying novel.
First, Hannibal is not in love with Starling. To say that is such an incredible misread. Love is beneath him. Love is something he is contemptuous of. He is incapable of love. What moves Lecter is corruption. He has substituted the typical need for love with the need to corrupt. He takes pleasure in artfully corrupting his victims before he kills them. Why is he so 'attracted' to Starling? Because she is so damn incorruptible. He is fascinated by the fact that he just can't seem to crack her, to corrupt her and thus prove all of the lies he has built his life on to be true. He returns to America not to consummate their love (please!) but to fully and totally ruin her. He wants to take advantage of the fact that she is vulnerable. He wants to bring all her self-doubt to bear on the two things that have kept her going, her father's memory and her employ at the FBI. If he can ruin those two things, he can destroy the core of who she is and corrupt her ultimately. Better than sex for him.
Second, I can tell by your adulation that you didn't get the ultimate point of this story. Lecter is not the misunderstood monster. Yes, he is painted that way, but every time we start to feel that way about him ("Well, I guess he was really doing good by having that child molester tear up his own face") he does something so repugnant and abhorrent (feeding brain to a child comes to mind) as to remind us that we are cheering on a man who might just as well pluck out our eyeballs and saut -
God almighty Harry - you cant like this film
good points :
julianne moore (excellent)
mason verger's makeup (superb)
the bloke playing Pazzi (great)
the pigeon bit at the start (cool)
bad points:
the script (too shit)
the pacing (too slow)
Anthony Hopkins (too hammy)
the gore (too little)
serial killing (too little)
the direction (too bland)
the 'love' story (too bollocks)
the ending (too shit)
the story (too shit)
the film (too shit)
The verdict: Bolllloccckkkkssss!
(p.s i though silence of th elambs was over rated as well)
-
Saying this movie is gory and unromantic is like saying the Teletubbies is an intelligent show! I recently spoke with me ex boyfriend, yes, we are still friends, about this movie. I commented on how romantic it was, and his response was "You've seen too many horror movies...". True. I was raised on them. But seriously, any child can find the romance in a Disney movie, can they not? WHy is it that hardly anyone can see this movie for what it really is? A beautiful love story. Sure, maybe the guy didn't get the girl, but even at the end of the movie, you can see how she feels for Dr. Lecter. When Hannibal kissed Clarice, and she slapped the cuffs on him, you saw the tear fall down her cheek. She regretted having to do such a thing, and it so obviously hurt her. But, it was her duty. Dr. Lecter shows his love for Clarice in subtle ways..the custom perfume he knows she can use to track him, how he plays with her so teasingly when he speaks, even when he slams the refridgerator door on her ponytail. He did it so he wouldn't have to hurt her, not because he wanted to trap her. Even in his most agressive moments, the good Doctor shows his love for Clarice. If he didn't feel romantically about her, why did he save her from the pigs? And from the bulletwound in her shoulder he could have left to fester? He bought her the perfect clothing, nursed her pain. And you cannot deny that in the SIlence of the Lambs, your heart didn't skip a beat when Dr. Lecter ran his finger oh-so-lovingly over Clarice's. It is what it is. A simple romance story. I saw the movie through unclouded eyes. Instead of cringing at the so called "gory" parts (which were not at all gory in comparison to SO many other movies...), like the brain scene...I was in awe of Dr. Lecter's love for Clarice...when he kissed her, I burst into tears. Well, I cried. ALl I know is, this is a movie I'm going to see again and again, as long as it is in theaters.
Oh, PS...I'm 16 -
Feb 28, 2001 2:39:59 PM CST
Texas Chaisaw Massacre 2 was a better unrequited love story
by shmishmoe
What about Texas chanisaw 2? That was a fantastic story about unrequited love, which included a more realistic, horrific and affecting serial killer cannibals (leatherface and his bro's)?
Come on...that scene where Leatherface rubs the chainsaw on Stretch's leg, or the scene where he peels off LG's face with an electric knife to present his 'love' mask is truly seat squirming horror. The fact that a bunch of conceited, 'pro's have gone for a similar thing in the ultra-Borgeouis, mainstream and cynical form of entertainment that is 'Hannibal' is truly the most horrific thing of all, since those motherfuckers are laughing all the way to the bank, while 'brown-nosing' psychophants like yourself laud this - what will be - forgettable, overrated drivel - much like the movie 2010 was to 2001, and the career of Quentin Taratino since Pulp Fiction.
I rest my case, and please remember to pay me COD.
Shmoe -
I'm sorry, but that had to be one of the worst sequels to any movie I have ever seen, right up there with Exorcist 2, (which at several times it reminded me of,) with the overwhelming odor of faux-intellectual pretentious posturing seeping from it, the complete lack of anything remotely resembling, looking like, or smelling like a plot, and of course the complete absence of suspense. The movie seemed comprised of several quasi-interesting vignettes, cobbled together by Hollywood hacks, paid by the fucking word it would seem, (judging from the mind-numbingly boring oration about Judas Iscariot Lecter gives at the library that HE CURATES AT!!! One of the FBI's ten most wanted, a cannibalistic serial killer, curating a beautiful,prestigious Florence library!!!....only in Hollywood....) that when put together, amount to absolute zilch. And while I would be the first to say that Julianne Moore is a talented actress (all the evidence one needs to that effect is contained in Boogie Nights, for starters) she is no Jodie Foster. She does not make the character her own. I don't know how Ridley Scott managed to divorce the character of Starling of anything like a personality, but he succeeded marvelously, and Ms. Moore does not help matters much attempting to imitate Jodie Fosters southern drawl from the first movie, which must have distracted her from emoting convincingly. Unrequited love ? Perhaps. But this theme is completely underdeveloped in this movie. And as usual, even under heaps of latex, Gary Oldman manages to chew evry bit of scenery in site and also to grate with every word that he utters ( a technique he perfected in The Fifth Element.) What a waste. A retread of the first movie would at least have had the virtue of being mildly entertaining. I killed time during this movie by going to the bathroom, rolling and unrolling my ticket stub, and trying to eavesdrop on the apparently captivating conversation the couple on the row above me were having. (Apparently they forgot to feed the cats.) Oh and the man next to me took breaths at precisely 2 second intervals. I know. I timed him. It was thrilling. To all of you who haven't seen this uninspired dreck, avoid it at all costs. No matter whAt your friends tell you, it is THAT bad.. It's worse....Much much worse.
-
I just have to throw in a comment. Why does everyone piss and moan about what other people think of a movie? Just because someone doesn't agree with our opinion of this movie do we have to attack them in ways just short of beating them over the head with a fucking rock? We all feel differently about movies like HANNIBAL. But telling others oh its a piece of crap don't see it. or it's a great film fuck those who dislike it, what are you fucking Nazis. If you went and seen the movie and didn't like it . . . oh well, youre not going to like everything junior. Big deal 2 hours out of your lives, so what. You probably would have spent the 9 bucks buying cigarettes or porno mags. And to those of you who praise the film as a masterpiece . . . newsflash one mans masterpiece is another mans monkeybone. we all have our prefrences lets not try to force them on other people, okay children. Are movies that important that we are pissed if someone disagrees with our own views about the film. If there was a perfect film that appealed to all facets of society there would not be 10 films at your local theater. . . there would be one and it would probably be Triumph of the Will (look it up) If you don't like dum dums theres tootsie pops, if you dont like tootsie pops theres blow pops if you dont like blow pops . . . what the fuck is wrong with you (kidding, for those of you who don't have a sense of humor). Right now in Afghanistan the Taliban are destroying statues and artifacts from ancient times because it does not coincide with what they like or believe in. If you had your way would you burn and destroy any copies of Hannibal or SOTL becuase of a little things like plot holes or whatever your problem is with the films. Yeah I know I'm sounding redundant, and hypocrtical because of forcing my belief we should not force our beliefs on each other but hey I can do that because I my friend am a huge fucking hypocrite. And on a lighter note - I liked HANNIBAL it was a good movie not great would have been better if it was a mini series on HBO and followed all the details of the book to allow for better character development and the likes. but thats me. And to compare SOTL with Hannibal is unfair to everyone who worked on the respective films - different people different vision my fellow film buffs.
Looking forward to a new Hannibal Lector movie, a Hannibal DVD with extra scences and alternate endings, and to being bad mouthed on these talk backs,
DM -
Just as much as it is your right to think what you want to think, it is my right to speak my mind in a public forum. I totally agree with you, Tbong, and while I do indeed feel that I wasted six fifty (student discount!) and two hours of my life, perhaps it was a bit harsh to tell people to avoid this movie as if it were an Ebola- infected human virus bomb. It had it's moments. Many of my friends did indeed enjoy it. This is one of the reasons I went to see it in the first place. However, the creators of this film knew perfectly well what they were getting into, consequently, comparisons to SOTL are inevitable and warranted. I understand that Ridley Scott was obviously attempting to distance his movie from its predecessor, but when it's predecessor was a Best Picture winner, a critical and box-office success, as well as having entered the collective popular consciousness as an iconic piece of filmmaking, he, or anyone for that matter would already be way in over their heads. It's the whole Phantom Menace syndrome on a smaller scale. Anyway, my point is, Tbong, I agree with you. By all means, see this movie, make up your own minds. I was merely voicing my opinion.
-
I know I probably sounded a bit harsh. BUt thats all I'm saying, have your own opinions but just let people make up there own minds. Because people do go on word of mouth and listen to movie reviews(the lowest of the low in my opinion), the easily led sheep take peoples word for things. When ever someone asks me is this movie good, I say see it for yourself don't take my word for it you might think differently than i do. good call to you darthjarjar. And just a side note one of my friends was saying that hannibal was awful but then proceeded to say that down to earth looked really good. I just thought that was funny.
-
I know I probably sounded a bit harsh. BUt thats all I'm saying, have your own opinions but just let people make up there own minds. Because people do go on word of mouth and listen to movie reviews(the lowest of the low in my opinion), the easily led sheep take peoples word for things. When ever someone asks me is this movie good, I say see it for yourself don't take my word for it you might think differently than i do. good call to you darthjarjar. And just a side note one of my friends was saying that hannibal was awful but then proceeded to say that down to earth looked really good. I just thought that was funny.
-
some questions/cpmments..
1. how is hannibal like a pigeon? i don't quite get it; thought it was just a cool visual
2. i don't entirely agree with your reasons for hannibal going to florence. i don't think it was to in order to be caught. i just think that hannibal, in general, doesn't want to live like a criminal. he's not a hunter, like other killers. he kills out of a twisted idealism about how the world should be, but all-in-all isn't a monster, until he's trapped. harris makes a point of making animal references throughout the book. hannibal is like an animal, that cannot be responsible for what he does once he is threatened or breaks loose. he's in florence, cause it's easily one of the more beautiful places in the world to be. and most people would not associate the refined curator for a killer. most people don't know the faces of the 10 most wanted, 8 years later. and in the book, it says that after lecter escaped, he had subtle plastic surgery.
3. the whole codell thing wasn't well-developed or explained. cordell would have to explain to the police what happened and what mason was planning. or maybe it would be easy to cover it up by blaming lecter for everything. i think the sister would have been great, because she had a great motive. i don't think the motive had to be exactly the way it was in the book (wanting a child, etc.)
4. i don't think hannibal is at all like the Devil, and isn't supposed to be. there are many other people in harris' novels that are more representative of the devil. i think the "red eye" was just a gimmick. i think he subdues the dog, out of pure psychological power. and i think that again there is the recurring animal themes... hannibal has a bond with animals, having been treated like one. he probably treats them no differently than humans, probably even better. in the book, it's the same things with the pigs.
5. the book was clearly better than the movie, at least until the very end... i would have liked to see the book ending as some sort of dream sequence of hannibal's. i think he should have put her under some sort of hypnosis to deal with krendler, and then set her free. i don't think hannibal would have taken clarice in the end; he enjoys observing her too much and knows that it is her instinct to protect the innocent, just as it is his instinct to kill the guilty.
-
HANNIBAL is terribly underrated. SOTL was much better, but H is not bad. And anyone who thinks differently can fuck right off. Fuck you. Ass holes.
ps. Shop at Publix -
Great acting? Absolutely. Great cinematography? Absolutely! Directing? Editing? Music? YES! So with all these things going for it, why did it suck? In my opinion... only an opinion... it sucked because there was no compelling plot underlying everything that happened on the screen! If you disagree, tell me what it was because I completely missed it, and DON'T say that it was unrequited love, because that is BS... though I can absolutely forgive you for somehow thinking that was the case if you are in the throes of love yourself ;) The fact that David Mamet's name was attached to it makes me sad, and I can only hope he is somewhere feeling bad for having tried to make that script worthwhile. I'm sure it wasn't his fault, as he is one of the best writers around IMHO. If Lecter said "okeedokee" one more time, I would have walked out, and the gore was completely gratuitous and irrelevant to the impact of whatever story MIGHT have been floating around underneath. I think they made it SHOCk gory because they knew they were light on plot.
-
I definitely agree that the unrequited love premise worked and that Hannibal was yet another beautiful film by Ridley Scott. I loved that it wasn't what I expected at all. And I don't understand all the critics (and Jodie Foster) yammering about what the characters would or wouldn't do as if they exist in real life (or as if THEY developed the original characters). I do believe that Hannibal easily could've developed a sort of "hostage-kidnapper" attachment to the character of Clarice.
But, on the violence/gore issue I have to disagree. The "brain" scene and also the "entrails" scene were graphic to the point of being gratuitous. We really don't need to see the intestine hit the plaza floor to get the point do we? Was there an artistic point to keeping the camera focused on Ray Liotta's open skull like we were watching the surgery channel? I think it was the studio's effort at being "edgy." Didn't anyone alive and working in Hollywood today learn anything from Hitchcock (other than DePalma)? I Guess not. The mere thought or implication of these acts is much more terrifying than showing them in excruciating superfluous detail.
As far as the pacing goes, I agree that it was not an issue...or shouldn't be. Not every film or entertainment vehicle has to be paced like some crapola on MTV does it? Do we really have to have constant quick cuts, grainy shots and explosions to please the general public? Wait...I've answered my own question. -
i don't agree that the gore was because it was light on plot. the plot in the book was well-developed and had many underlying and interesting layers. it was funnier and more lighthearted than silence, but definitely not light. ridley just chose to make it about beautiful florence and two gory scenes. -
i think when people complain about the pace, they are not hoping for MTV-type quick cuts. there is just a sense that in this movie, it's weightier at the wrong parts (especially when you read the book). the sixth sense and unbreakable were under 2 hours, but felt longer. but they felt longer in a good way. then there are movies that ache for an extra half-hour to explain things better. and then movies like "the godfather" could be 8 hours long and still great. this movie was editted wrong and it was obvious. was the florence stuff an hour long? (it felt like it) -
Very rarely do Hollywood get to do a follow-up to a successful movie and NOT making it into a reharsh of the previous film. "Hannibal" is a movie that had to make people forget about its predecessor, which scored a number of Oscars including Best Actress, Best Director, and Best Picture, all the while LOSING its actress and director from the first film. Considering all the obsticles in its way, I'm surprised that I found "Hannibal" to be a far superior film than the first ("Manhunter" doesn't count in my book). Without writing a thesis on what I like and dislike about "Hannibal", I'm most fascinated by the total departure of this film, which allows it to stand by its two legs and now restaging the whole sterling-visiting-hannibal-in-the-prison-to-find-another-serial-killer plot device. As brilliant as TSOTL was, it was just a crime thriller that succeed mainly due to its two exceptional actors and the pacing of the film. In "Hannibal", it has all 3 elements, but adding a smart script plus amazing direction from Ridley Scott that pushed this film beyond what it was originally capable of. Like Harry, I'm struck at how the audience were infatuated with this cannibalistic protagonist, and his unrequited love for the one woman he could never have, even though he almost sacrificed everything for her. It's a powerful story, and an ending that left me both drained and satisfied. I just hope next year's Oscar will not overlook this brilliant piece of motion picture, even though it'd be more than a year away. If it received less Oscar than TSOTL, I'd cry injustice for sure.
-
Firstly, I want to say that although I'm fascinated by Hopkin's depiction of Dr. Lecter, never once did I felt like I really root for the character. I find it interesting that audience could be so engrossed toward a character who mutilates his victims and eats their flesh. "Hannibal", unlike SOTL, really shows the devilish side of Lecter, with him cunningly dispatching his enemies without a thought. In SOTL, he only killed two officers so the audience, maybe unconsciously, didn't think he was such an evil man. In "Hannibal", Ridley Scott make sure that we understand the brutality of Lecter's character. Secondly, I knew that the ending was changed in advance, but I prefer the movie ending much more. Although Lecter loves Sterling and went at a great length to "remove" her enemies, at a great cost to himself (whether it was effective is debatable), I like the fact that Sterling rejected his affection and stay true to her character and her duty, which is to catch this serial murderer. That makes the movie much more believable for me. The scene on the plane, where Lecter fed cooked brain to a young kid, is to show that at his heart he hasn't changed one bit, although he won't hurt the child like a killer would. Lastly, I thought Julianne Moore outperformed Jodie Foster. Moore played her character with intelligence and dignity that Foster had done, but I found her interpretation to be much more inspirating. Sterling went through alot more in this movie than Foster's Sterling did, and I'm amazed at the depth of Moore's acting. Oldman also did a bang-up job, having more acting onscreen than most actors do, with his face covered most of the time. Wow, I guess I *did* wrote a thesis about Hannibal after all :)
-
You're defending the plot of the book, I'm talking about the movie.
Zaillian's script stunk, and I hear that Mamet's version was worse. (I'm a huge Mamet fan.) -
i think hannbial was much more evil in the "silence" than hannibal.. i'm not sure why. i guess in "silence" his killing of the two officers (and someone in the ambulence?) is more brutal. his murders in "hannibal" are almost thoughtful and mostly deserved on some level. in "hannibal" he may be cooking someone's brains, but in "silence" he actually peeled the face off someone and put it on his own... ugh! in the beginning of the "hannibal book", somewhere there is a point made that in 8 years, hannibal has had almost know acts of violence. left alone, he is really not a predator. it romanticized him, and an american audience will forgive many things in the name of romance. -
my mistake. you are right. the movie plot was definitely weak. it's amazing how nicely intricate the book was. it would be hard explaining the book to someone in less than 20 minutes, but the whole movie could be explained in less than a minute. -
Firstly, why do people complain that this movie is overly-gory? Is sensitivity in again? Cronenbourg's "The Fly", or the first couple of Elm Streets, were far more gruesome. In fact so is any random episode of "er". The final scene with Liotta's brain is more Itchy n' Scratchy than Mr. Blonde with a razorblade. Apart from a brief 'ow' when the skullcap is removed, any sense of horror is dissembled as we know that Lecter has done something sick, it is just a matter of finding out what. After that the scene becomes entirely comic.
I don't want to get into the he loves her/loves her not jazz, but one other thing strikes me about the ending. Whatever about his emotions, there can be no doubt that Lecter respects Starling and that he craves her reactions to his behaviour and her responses to his comments. Why then, would he set up such an elaborate 'meal', but drug her senseless, therefore denying himself one of the exchanges which he so obviously enjoys?
Finally, for those who write that Lecter is over the top, wake up. Lecter was always flamboyant, but strategically that was of no use to him when stuck in a cage. Too often he is viewed as a subdued killer with a mission, like Spacey's character in "Seven", but he is not. Lecter is not disgusted with the world around him but enraptured by it. That is what I love about this movie. The would-be good guys (apart from Starling) are shown as corrupt, cynical and stunted individuals. Lecter, the flesh-eating fiend, is incorruptible and cheerful with a youthful sense of wonder. Thus it is that only a psychopath that can appreciate Starling's many qualities. The world is an ugly place not because of Lecter's occasional, abnormal brutality, but because of the more common day-to-day monsters, such as Liotta.
-
Personally, I don't think "Hannibal" was too gory at_all. Sure, the part where Ray Liotta's brain was removed was very gross, even I cringed a bit :P But, most of the gory scenes were either covered in shadows, or handled in a way that it is not distasteful. Of course, in those slasher films, you'd never hear people talking about the blood and gore because it is a genre where those things are the norm. What "Hannibal" have, the scenes aren't that disguising, and they were used to move the story along, not just to sell tickets.
-
I'm getting so sick and tired of reading pans of Hannibal. Sure, y'all are entitled to your own opinions, but christ. These are my reasons by this movie is one of the best i've seen this year (although that's really not saying too much so far). 1. The cinematography is fucking amazing. Really gorgeous artistic shots, very Grand Guignol. 2. Costuming is superb. Particularly loved Hannibal's wide brimmed hat and cape in the bracelet scene. 3. One of the best love stories I've ever seen. Right up there with Harold and Maude. The bride of Frankenstein parallel is very apt. 4. You gotta love it when a movie goes as far as they can go, then goes one step further, and does it all with such aesthetic taste. Really food for thought. Ha, also loved the Dean and Deluca product placement.
5. Take hannibal. Put it next to Mission from Mars. Then slide it over towards Body Shots (but for goddess's sake, don't let them touch) Then place it near *insert bullshit hollywood formula eiusdem generis crap here*. Use them as a comparison. Defense rests its case. :) -
Actually, Hannibal BELONGS next to Mission to Mars.
If great cinematography and costumes were enough to make a movie great, then Hannibal would be a contender for best picture (Mission to Mars might get an honorable mention). Throw in the score, and everything BUT the story added up to one of the most incredible films I've seen. Freaking beautiful. However, if the story is lame, then it is a waste of film, because if it is not a storytelling device, it is nothing.
Yeah.. I referred to the gore as gratuitous. Frankly, it would have been scarier FOR ME if those parts were left to the imagination, but that's just me. Anyway, the brain part was actually the least offensive to me, from a disgust POV, because it was nothing short of comical, and I think the music from that scene tells you that it was probably SDPPOSED to be funny... or ironic or some other thing that it fell short of.
I'm going out on a limb here, but have any of you seen jeremy Podesw'a "The Five Sense"? You want a combination of great cinematography, music and story... check that out. of course, that's a totally objective opinion ;)
Aside from the occasionally horrendous acting of Daniel McIvor, it was a masterpiece.
Okay, you can all kick my butt now. -
I thought Hannibal was very good. The pace was just right and the tone was perfect. The movie is not about suspense it's about a monster cannibal and the sad, back-stabbing, infighting monsters that are out to catch him. No one else in Starling's world acts with any honor, not the DC police, the feds, Krendler, Verger, Barney - none of them. The one pillar Starling had in the first film, Scott Glenn's character, is conspicuously absent in the film and impotent in the book. Lecter sees the monsters swirling around himself and Starling and sets them straight, one by one. If anything, the way these characters approach Lecter only highlights the correctness of Starling's approach in SOTL. I thought the movie was excellent, beautifully filmed and the new conclusion worked very well.
-
This is my first time on your site, and it is indeed very cool. However, after reading your best of 2000 list, I'm surprised to find that you enjoyed Hannibal so much. Bluntly speaking, Hannibal is low brow audience pandering when compared to its predecessor. It actually reminds me a little of the Nightmare on Elm Street series. In the first movie Freddy is a mostly terrifying and truly nightmarish figure. In the second installment and all that followed, Freddy is more of a comic figure delivering one-liners and taking on a variety of ridiculous forms (a shark!). He is no longer scary. Hannibal as portrayed by Anthony Hopkins is still scary,- the brutal flashback scenes were great. However, I was ultimately dissappointed with this great character's treatment in both Harris' novel and in the movie. Basically, once the story leaves Italy and heads to the U.S. things go pretty much downhill. Lecter is his great calculating and crafty self in Italy culminating in the inspector's murder. How it all ties in with Lecter's lecture about Judas and avarice leading to destruction, and the inspector's own ancestor suffering the same fate was really cool. But once we get to the U.S., (especially in the movie) things really go astray. Lecter is flat out careless in his pursuit of Clarice and is certainly less than his usual self (or his self in Italy) when captured by the pig guy and his cronies. I guess it's all out of love - sort of like Phantom of the Opera or something - but I didn't buy it in the book or the film. Also, the use of a carousel in those scenes was totally cheesy and merely providing the audience with a familiar cineamatic device - maybe Michael Bay should've directed this! By the movie's final scene Lecter has truly been transformed into something he was never meant to be as he feeds brains to a cute little kid on an airplane. He is a comic and disgusting figure and the audience eats it up just like that sweet cute little kid does. There is no artistic merit to this scene. The audience has been duped and merely been given what they want to see. Maybe there could've been a cute little dog on the plane with the child -perhaps even injured with a bandage on its poor little paw. Everyone loves dogs.
-
I applaud Harry for his review..I think when word gets out by a percentage of people that a movie sucks then people in general tend to believe this opinion ahead of seeing the film and already have an opinion established because most people are too feeble minded to go against the majority and admit they like a film. whew! it isn't fair to compare this to SILENCE of THE LAMBS because that movie is so incredible...Hannibal held its own...beautiful scenery and absorbing soundtrack gave this a few good points...I knew Julianne Moore would be compared to Jodie Foster and I knew she would lose..that isn't fair, she did very well in this film..However, I did like this film and its bold approach, but found some cheesy qualities in it as well...when the camera froze on Mason Verger's face as the hogs decend on him was stupid...when Ray liotta is talking to Lecter as Lecter slices his brain,well,it sounded overdubbed, cheap, and stupid, GEE THAT SMELLS GOOD, almost sounded comical,I don't know, the dubbing and voice editing was really BAD during this scene...and I read the book long before seeing the film..so I followed the story line..however I think if I had not read the book I would have been lost during the movie,it seemed to have too much going on,I had to explain several key points to my partner in the cinema..storyline too muddled..and I thought Mason Verger's makeup was cheesy...The film was good for the scenery,music,Anthony Hopkins,and Julianne Moore held her own...but it was a let down in a way after I had waited almost 10 years for this..
-
I just saw this on DVD. I was influenced by the ad on TV saying an "Alternate ending" was available. I hoped, in vain, that this ending would be truer to Harris's novel. The ending of that novel made Jodie Foster say no way to being in the movie--and it was never even touched! Scott should have gone ahead and filmed that: Clarice being "brainwashed" (ha ha) into becoming Lecter's dinner companion, and giving up good for evil. To see her cradling the skull of her father in her hands... Damn, I shoulda known Scott wouldn't touch it.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 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!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 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 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts