Hannibal Lecter: Les origines du mal

Truly disturbing and succeeds in making you understand why Hannibal Lecter turned out to be the person he became. Not justified, but understandable. Don't leave this out when revisiting the other movies.

Strange opus with a rather complex feedback: I really like certain aspects of the film while others bother me. First of all, I think it's a critical mistake to explain the origins of an imaginary evil character. Indeed, it's always better to confine a reader or a spectator to the darkness so that he's always able to imagine the worst. Moreover, in doing so, we find ourselves in a rather embarrassing situation of being in empathy with Hannibal Lecter: failing to be forgivable, a revenge is always understandable. Despite this rather negative introduction, the actors are excellent including the enigmatic Gaspard Ulliel and the gorgeous Gong Li, and the film enjoys a particularly neat photography.

I avoided this movie for years. After seeing "Hannibal" I had no interest in seeing how he became the monster he was. Alas, an Amazon Prime membership and down time at work drove me to "Hannibal Rising." I learned that I have a far greater affinity for young Hannibal than old Hannibal. Young Hannibal grew up in WW2 Europe. He went from affluence to fighting for his life due to the war. One particularly tragic event forever changed him.

The actor chosen for Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) was excellent. He even had a sinister looking face the way the corners of his mouth curve upward in a Joker-esque manner made him able to sneer with ease. His acting left a little to be desired as his accent (or simply his manner of speaking) seemed forced. Also there was the dialog between him and Lady Murasaki (Li Gong). They constantly spoke in hushed romantic tones as if every word they exchanged was secretive or passionate. It came off as pretentious and grandiose as though they were the two most important or two most passionate people in the world.

If we were to boil it all down, "Hannibal Rising" was a revenge story. Some people are fueled by love, some by hate, others by both. Hannibal was definitely fueled by both and it was his inability or unwillingness to not cross the line that made him Hannibal the cannibal.

As a fan of all the Hannibal Lector films, I was expecting another film I'd enjoy and thinking this would be a terrific character study of man who is one of the most famous fictional killers of all time. What I got instead was more of a simple revenge story than the character study. Oh, yeah, we do learn some background of the famous "Dr. Lector," but not enough of what really made him the weird combination of intellectual and cannibal. Although portraying and having someone in the film label the young adult as "monster," the filmmakers (actually, author Thomas Harris) really made him more of a sympathetic character instead. They took the easiest road, out, too, making an easy target the villains: the Nazis. How often has Hollywood done that, even today 60 years after the conclusion of WWII. What we get is a revenge story of how Lector went from a child captive of the Nazis for a short time, to a medical student in Paris and how he tracked down the Nazis who killed the rest of his family. Of particular incentive to him was the avenging of his sister's death. There is a neat little twist at the ending regarding that but I go into that for spoiler reasons. The best part of the film was the absolutely gorgeous cinematography. This is beautifully filmed, first frame to last. The story is much better in the second half than the first, which has a few parts in which it lags. I'm not quite sure about the credibility of having an Asian aunt raise him, but I also enjoy seeing actress Gong Li. Her relationship with young Hannibal is a strange one. Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal was okay but certainly not as riveting in the role as the mature Anthony Hopkins was in his three performances. Why a young French actor, who has all the accents that Hopkins doesn't have, would play the role, I don't know. Overall, I'm glad I saw it but, unlike the three other Hopkins' "Lector films," this is one I won't add to my movie collection. However, at least I learned what the most tasty part of the human anatomy is, not that I would ever put that information to use!

I've heard a lot of reviews saying this was a bad movie. I disagree! I don't know if any of these people have read any of the books, let alone Hannibal Rising, but I loved the movie. Given, it seemed like Thomas Harris wrote the book strictly for the movie, but I felt this movie was made to have people understand how Lecter, "the monster" was created.

Yes, Lecter is irrational and that's the point. Hannibal Lecter is suppose to be distant because he's a psychopath. He's suppose to be apathetic. Some people mistook that for bad acting.

Comparing the movie to the book...they were about 85% compatible. Minor changes were made, but nothing too critical.

I think some people are quick to make this movie out to be horrible because they really are milking the Hannibal Lecter story, but I felt it to be a decent movie.