CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Hannibal IS good!
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Hannibal IS good!

post #1 of 17
Thread Starter 
A year after my first viewing I've finally seen Hannibal again.

The first time I thought it was good, but glaringly inferior to Silence Of The Lambs. This time I think it's very damn good. Still inferior, yes, but then SOTL is a perfect thriller. More importantly it's a very worthy sequel.

Think Alien3 after Aliens only not as much of a fuck-up. Hannibal is Ridley Scott's movie, and rightly not a retread of Demme's. It's not supposed to be. Hannibal is more arty, more operatic, more cultured -- reflective of its title character outside the confines of his cell. Sit down and watch this with the lights off, and the suspense really builds. The "bowels out" scene, and the leadup to it, are shatteringly suspenseful.

I spent the first viewing, in the cinema, asking myself all along the way did it measure up to SOTL. Ouch, Hopkins' accent slips there that didn't happen before. He's really put on weight. He looks older. I knew what to expect this time so I concentrated on the movie's good points, of which there are many. It's very skillfully made. Cinematography is stunning. The use of classical and opera music on the soundtrack is not often done and really works a treat. The script is carefully written. An ensemble of quality actors.

If I had to make one noteworthy criticism of this movie, it is this: It's a little unrealistic. I could really believe Silence Of The Lambs. It was a very real hunt for a serial killer, there were no grandiose disembowellings or man-eating pigs.

Still, a superbly crafted and suspenseful movie. Artistic, and made with plenty of... taste.

4 out of 5

post #2 of 17
I agree. I really liked it.
post #3 of 17
I agree as well. I've liked this one more and more with each viewing.
post #4 of 17
Me too. I think expectation hurt Hannibal more than anything else. Some day I think it will be appreciated much more than it is now.
post #5 of 17
Loved it from the get-go, and I still love it today. Awesome flick.
post #6 of 17
Hate to interrupt the Hannibal-love, but I thought it was one of the worst films of the year. Seriously. Not because it wasn't as good as Silence Of The Lambs, but because...well, let me break it down. After seeing it, I had a long e-mail discussion with a fellow movie-buff friend about what was wrong with it. To save time, I'll just copy what I sent to him.

Quote:
Story. I mean, aren’t films supposed to have one? This isn’t like MI2 where the story was just crap, there literally is no plot to this film. Silence of the Lambs was a police procedural thriller. We must catch Killer X. Clues, developments, we get to see the FBI working towards a conclusion, and we’re pulled along with them. In Hannibal, you get 2 hours of Anthony Hopkins creeping about while various people make pathetic attempts to catch him. The entire opening hour, set in Florence, has no bearing at all on the rest of the film. None. It’s discarded halfway through. The same thing happens with the Mason Verger revenge “plot”. And as a result, the film is arse-achingly dull. Because there’s no linear progression. In theory, this film could go on forever, because there’s no story, no conflict to bring to a conclusion.

Characters. Having seen it, I now understand why Jodie Foster wanted nothing to do with it. I’m surprised Julianne Moore did. In this film, Clarice Starling is reduced to a cameo for almost two thirds of the film. She is portrayed as the typical Tough Lady Cop. She holds the record for Most Kills By A Female Agent. Honestly. None of the vulnerability, subtlety or emotion of Silence of the Lambs. A cardboard cutout. Because of the change of actress, and the poorly written character, you never believe that this is the same Agent Starling who caught Buffalo Bill. Thus, the entire “relationship” between Lecter and Starling is pissed up the wall.

Anthony Hopkins. I mean, bless him. National Treasure and all. But this film sees him turn Hannibal Lecter from a genuinely unnerving human monster, into a well spoken, opera loving Freddy Kruger. They’ve broken the key rule of monster-making – keep them in the shadows. In Lambs, he was so scary because he didn’t move. He just stood there, and with his voice alone put the fear of God into poor Clarice. And when he did burst into action at the end, the contrast was shocking – like seeing a cobra strike out of nowhere. It was his potential for savagery that captivated you. In this film, Hannibal wanders around Italy, has coffee, he’s even got a nice job. And he kills loads of people. In a variety of gory ways. While making “Hannibal-esque” comments. The thinking seems to be that, as people loved Hopkins role in Silence of the Lambs, therefore they’ll really love a film that’s just two hours of his stand-up Lecter routine. Get rid of all that Oscar winning shite that made Lambs such a chore to watch, and turn it into The Hannibal Lecter Show. No mystery, no subtlety, no depth. This is nothing more than a crude slasher movie for posh people. Which leads us nicely on to...

It’s pretentious. Incredibly, stupefyingly up it’s own flabby arse. It’s Ridley Scott, for fucks sake. Give him a tight script with a straight story and his visual flourishes can create something fantastic (Alien – a stylish but basic monster movie, Blade Runner – a stylish but basic noir detective story, Gladiator – a stylish but basic revenge story). But here, he drowns in lingering shots that are so obviously MEANINGFUL and CLEVER, without ever actually meaning anything. Lots of backlit statues. Close ups of old paintings. Latin phrases. Gosh, it must all mean something. It looks very nice, but all this fluff is there to make Joe Public munching his popcorn think he’s seeing something that’s too deep for him to really understand, but don’t worry – there’ll be another murder in a minute. Bollocks. It’s a smokescreen, with cod psychology and lurid, unneccesary details papering over the cracks. And it also bumps up the running time by another mind-numbing 30 minutes or so.

The FBI. In Lambs, the inner workings of the FBI were convincing. We rooted for Starling as she entered this male world. That shot of her in the lift, surrounded by men? That one split-second has more depth and character development than the whole of Hannibal. Instead of Jack Crawford (whose relationship with Starling mirrored Lecter’s – part mentor, part suitor, part surrogate father – stop me if I’m getting too Sight & Sound here…) we have some so obviously “nasty” bosses that they might as well wear capes and twirl their moustaches. They victimise Starling for no other reason than it creates the illusion of drama. You get no sense of the FBI itself, just Ray Liotta as a sleazy, misogynist who serves no purpose other than to be A BAD GUY – because, obviously, we can’t have Hannibal as a villain. We like Hannibal.

The whole Mason Verger bit. Firstly, man-eating pigs? WHAT? I mean, if there was ever a B-Movie plot device, then this is it. No matter how hard they try to make pigs look scary, it still just looks funny. They’re fucking PIGS! Yes, I know that real bad-ass pigs are dangerous. They just don’t look it. Secondly, the Mason Verger revenge plot is so ludicrous, so stupid and so obviously dropped in there to try and add some structure to this flaccid mess, that the film turns into a bizarre farce everytime this “sub plot” bubbles up to the surface, like a bath fart. For one, Mason Verger is yet another of Thomas Harris’ evil homosexual predators. He’s gay, therefore he’s a paedophile and is into degrading sex. Gay = Twisted and Dangerous. Very grown up. Secondly, despite being incredibly wealthy, Verger’s trap is sprung by his henchmen – a posse of Italian peasants, in shellsuits. They raise his pigs, they catch notorious serial killers for him. Why? Er…they just do. And, amazingly, they do catch Lecter. Despite 10 years of effort by the FBI, it takes the Italian peasants only a few days to find and catch him. Aha, you think, he’s let himself be caught and he’ll turn on them later. Nope. They got him. It’s like Dracula being caught by accidentally opening the curtains in the morning. And finally, this entire story thread is dropped abruptly to make way for the most bizarre and painfully stupid final act in the history of cinema.

The Violence. Now, I’m not a wallflower when it comes to on-screen splatter. I love Day of the Dead, I love Braindead. I love horror movies, and I love gore movies. But there are things in this film that, had Tarantino or Cronenberg for instance, put in a film – the Daily Mail would be up in arms, the film would be locked away at the BBFC while they argued over what to do about it. This film shows some of the vilest, most grisly torture and murder I’ve ever seen. In a way, I almost respect Ridley Scott for getting away with it. Intestines splatter on the floor, a man gets stabbed in the cock and pumps blood all over himself, Mason Verger’s half-face is horrifically real, and the final reel – which I won’t spoil, but I’m guessing you’ve read the book – features one of the characters having the top of his skull removed, his brain sliced up, cooked and fed back to him. Not implied, not done off camera. There it is, in widescreen, no cutaways – like Ready, Steady, Cook. I’m not a prude by any means, but it’s revolting – even more so because the whole film before it is so pointless. There’s no build up, no sense that this is the logical conclusion to any sort of story. The audience were shuffling, not in that “ooh, that’s horrible” horror movie way, but in a real “jesus, that’s fucking sick” way. Now, I don’t have a problem with the gore so much as I have a problem with why it was there. Compare the body count and splatter of Hannibal to the relatively bloodless Silence of the Lambs. One is a subtle, intelligent thriller that sticks in your mind because of great performances, and the unsettling questions it leaves you with. The other is a cheap horror show, that sticks in your mind as the film that showed you a man being fed his own brains, with the top of his skull removed. It’s a cheap stunt, and that just about sums up the whole sorry affair.

Words that sprang to mind while watching Hannibal: tedious, meandering, pointless, grotesque, cartoon-like, sick, dull, melodramatic, silly, what time is it? I wonder what’s on Sky Movies tonight? Can I still sneak in and see Almost Famous? Is anything going to happen soon? Why has it turned into a comedy, or is that just me? And so on…

Everything else about it. It’s just a mess. Slow, boring, with no characters to root for. There’s zero story, just a series of events. It’s unconvincing – despite being on the FBI’s 10 Most Wanted list, Hannibal quite happily hops on planes around the world – even when the FBI are right on his tail, people leave their front door unlocked, cops who are terrified that Lecter is after them forget their guns before going to meet him and so on…
I'm sorry, but it's just one of those movies that I absolutely cannot see the appeal of. It's a sloppy movie based on an even sloppier book. I'm sure there'll be rebuttals and disagreements, but I really don't like it.

And the first person to use the phrase "Grand Guignol" as an explanation gets their liver ripped out
post #7 of 17
I think that some people see the film as a "love story," and that the film works in a sort of love from afar way. I felt that it wasn't a satisfactory stand alone piece, and wasn't a satisfactory sequel, and I wish they had gone with the book's original ending, because then it makes sense of all the ugliness surrounding Clairice.
post #8 of 17
I've just found my follow-up e-mail which, if possible, is even more vitriolic and insane (while still making valid points, of course)...

Quote:
I think the blame must fall largely on the shoulders of yet another Hollywood Whore author, Mr Harris. It's his bloated and ridiculous novel that spawned this piece of dogshit. Obviously, he knew he'd be able to retire on the profits and the movie rights, so why bother actually thinking about it? Just take the lowest common denominator elements from previous work, chuck it in a blender and fuck the results. Also, take a bow Messrs Crichton and Grisham.

The filmmakers seemed tied to the book, and I can't believe that after passing through the hands of Hollywood's finest writers, they all agreed that, yes, the brain eating and carnivorous pigs really do add to the story. Harris must have put a clause in there somewhere to stop them dumping the book and just writing their own sequel - much as Spielberg did to Michael Crichton on The Lost World (a passable slice of blockbuster cheese, but we've come to expect that little bit more from Spielberg). Ridley Scott would direct an old ladies bowel movements if they told him he could wank off with his camera tricks - and just wait and see what happens if they give him an Oscar for Gladiator. And as for Hopkins, is this the same actor who swore off violent movies after Silence of the Lambs, and who even said he was retiring, before deciding that - actually, Hannibal is a movie that really demands to be made. Did he read the script, or the paycheque? Apparently, Sir Anthony has got an idea for a third sequel. I'm guessing it's 120 minutes of him, misquoting 15th Century Latin verse, while rubbing his naked genitals with fresh organs ripped from the bodies of third world prostitutes. They're even talking about remaking "Manhunter". If I were Michael Mann, I'd drop a bomb on the lot of them. They obviously don't like the fact that people still talk about his Lecter movie as an unsung classic, while people will talk about this one as an unsung sack of decaying semen. Best to erase all memory of Manhunter's existence.

Everyone involved in Hannibal should feel ashamed and dirty. It's a grubby little film, mistaking video nasty splatter for some kind of daring transgression, the sort of thing that spews out from cult Italian horror directors, so beloved by the cinema literati. Just because you can throw words like "baroque" and "Grand Guignol" around doesn't make it intellectual, you fuckers. It just makes you the same as the horny 15 year olds watching a scratchy pirate copy of "Cannibal Holocaust". You're both getting off on the illicit thrill of breaking taboos. They're just being honest about it.

I must now try to force this cinematic turd from my brain, so I can still enjoy Silence of the Lambs. But the sad thing is, this film was so utterly, completely without redeeming features that the idea of watching Anthony Hopkins "do" Lecter just annoys me. Ultimately, this film will tarnish Silence of the Lambs, by taking a classic thriller and turning it into a cheap franchise. God, 24 hours on and I'm still fucking annoyed...what's Ridley Scott's phone number?
There's tons more of this shite, but you get the point.
post #9 of 17
Quote:
Russell Lucas:
To me, the most disgusting thing about the brain-eating sequence is the irrelevance of it. Krendler's just a desk jockey, a pitiful bureaucrat. Seeing this guy get his comeuppance means nothing because he is nothing. He hasn't earned a death like this. Now, watching Hopkins in Titus feed the Queen's sons to her-- that's dramatic irony, and cannibalism with real meaning and purpose in the context of the story. Here, it's just a cheap thrill, an exploitative special effect.
If you sift through my scary rambling, that's exactly my point. Krendler acts like a complete shit for no other reason than justifying his own death at the end of the film. If he was in anyway a nice guy, the audience would see him as a victim at the end, rather than the deserving recipient of Lecter's revenge.

Lambs ends with Clarice as a hero, and Hannibal starts with her as a gun-toting pariah and the FBI re-staffed with woman-hating nazis, purely to justify later "plot" developments. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
post #10 of 17
This all stems from the misguided belief that Hannibal should, in a weird way, be the "hero". Audiences liked him in Lambs, so therefore we should put him center stage and have the audience root for him.

Unfortunately, this means that you now have to create villains who are even worse - hence the sudden Clarice-bashing at the FBI, and the pantomime villainy of Mason Verger, who couldn't simply be a Lecter victim. No, he's got to be a pervert, a child molester, a monster.

From there, it's a slow gruesome slide into incoherence because none of the characters have their own story arc - each one exists purely to lose out to Lecter and get us to the stupid finale.

If any other filmmaker, or any other actor, had made this film it would be laughed off the screen.
post #11 of 17
Thread Starter 
Wow! Guess I should have expected this. I liked it anyway!
post #12 of 17
Quote:
Dog Soldier:
Wow! Guess I should have expected this. I liked it anyway!
And that's cool. I'm glad you enjoyed it. I'd never begrudge someone finding enjoyment in a movie, and I'd never say that you're opinion of "Hannibal" is wrong. You see, there are things that I hate in Hannibal that I'm happy to ignore in other films. I don't know why. Watching a film isn't a science where you can predict your reaction. It relies too much on who you are, what you've seen before, what you had for breakfast and about a million other variables. I've seen films and loved them, then watched them again years later and been amazed at what a piece of shit it is. I'll overlook gaping plotholes in Attack Of The Clones, but be violently annoyed by the same thing in Godzilla.

In fact, the best film conversations are the ones where two people have radically opposing views but can argue them intelligently.
post #13 of 17
I really despise the movie but I thought that the book was rather great, if only for the fact that I admired what lenghts Harris went to. It's admittedly rather cynical to accept the check for writing a book that you en up writing as a prank on your readers, but I think it takes balls, especially turning your heroine into the very same monster she is after.
post #14 of 17
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Dan Whitehead:
Watching a film isn't a science where you can predict your reaction. It relies too much on who you are, what you've seen before, what you had for breakfast and about a million other variables.
That's a terrific way of putting it. I don't know why I embraced Hannibal, or Hook, or The Grinch, why I hate Memento, John Cusack and Matthew Broderick, when the general consensus suggests I shouldn't. But that's the way it is.

post #15 of 17
I enjoyed the movie, but the Harris novel was just amazing. I wish they had kept the sister and the eel and the original ending in.
post #16 of 17
The following is the opening post in a thread I started on this exact same topic about a year ago:

For me, when I try to assess how I really felt about the film, I think of a few moments. Hopkins as Lecter is great at all times, but in a few scenes he is just brilliant.

The opera. First off, Hans Zimmer is the most interesting composer working today. he scores films back to back to back, yet each one (Gladiator, M;I-2, Hannibal) can sound COMPLETELY DIFFERENT! The style for this one is perfect, but this opera piece is beyond even that.

I love the way Hannibal watches, then is obviously alluding to Clarice and he when asked about how one of the poem's characters could fall so deeply in love with such little interaction.

"Could he, daily feel a stab of hunger for her, and find nourishment in the very sight of her? I think so. But could she see through the bars of his plight, and love him in return?"

This brilliantly sums up Lecter's attraction for her. And Hopkins plays it beautifully. Zaillian's dialogue there is perfect, poetic, but the clever cannibal theme with "stab of hunger".

The other is the final scene in which Clarice chains herself to Hannibal, resigning herself to whatever happens to get her man. The dialogue again, is perfect.
"Would you ever say to me, 'Stop. If you love me you'll stop'?"
"Not in a thousand years."
"Not in a thousand years. That's my girl."

Lecter loves her because of her conviction, the goodness and drive inside of her. But its the very reason they can never be together. They are enemies, and he beats her, but he loves her every minute of it. A whole new angle on it comes with the tear rolling down her cheek as he kisses her. Some might dismiss it as terror at him being with her, but I'd offer another possibility.

Here is Clarice Starling, alone and disgraced. An orphan, with no family, and no one who loves her. Except for Hannibal Lecter, the world's worst serial killer. But he does love her, he cares for her more than anyone else. And yet no matter what, they could never be together. There is a man who loves her more than anything on earth, and she can never have him.

The way he cuts off his own hand is a very powerful gesture. He does it without hesitation, effortlessly, without thinking. How many moral people would just cut off their own hand like that for the one they love? I don't know.

Plus the fact that Ridley Scott's direction is stylish and visually amazing. I love films with a big operatic style, though I know some find it hard to take. Like the underrated "The Godfather Part III", "Hannibal" is played on a grand level, with sweeping music and events, and broad and poetic characters. I like it more with each viewing.


I know that those of you with genuine and understandable gripes aren't going to be swayed or anything, but this is why I love "Hannibal".
post #17 of 17
I thought it was pretty good. I was actually surprised by how tame it was. Considering everyone was saying that it was overly violent, etc, like the book.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Films in Release or On Video
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › Films in Release or On Video › Hannibal IS good!