Hannibal

Many people were disappointed or flat-out disgusted by Ridley Scott's follow-up to "The Silence of the Lambs." I can certainly understand their disgust, but I preferred this to its Oscar winning predecessor. It had been a long, long time since a movie made me turn from the screen in genuine horror, and I didn't believe it was even possible. "Hannibal"'s deservedly controversial climax took me by surprise. It may have been revolting (okay, it was very definitely revolting) but so few movies these days have any lasting impact and I appreciate that this one did. And it is, after all, about a cannibal, is it not? At some point in a series of films about a man of Lector's inclinations, we should see him at work.

Of course, the horror of the climax is effective because the rest of the film is so good. Hopkins, a little chunkier than the last time we saw him in this role, positively exudes menace especially in his final confrontation with Pazzi (an excellent Giancarlo Giannini whose sad eyes make him the most sympathetic character in the film). Then there's Gary Oldman's Mason Verger who is so contemptible that he never elicits sympathy no matter how he suffered at the hands of Lector. And Julianne Moore is an improvement over Jodie Foster who I have always believed was overrated.

But the best thing about "Hannibal" is the atmosphere in which Scott and his team envelop the story. A cloud of dread hangs over this film, and beautiful Florence, Italy, though still beautiful, appears haunted by Lector's very presence in the city.

Anthony Hopkins gave an impeccable performance. However, the material he was given to work with was not as good as Silence of the Lambs. In fairness, perhaps there was no way it could be. In SOTL, he was somehow more foreboding, more of a sort of superhuman monster; in Hannibal, he's more accessible, a guy you meet on the street. Maybe it was impossible to maintain the mystery of Lecter that we saw in SOTL because of the risk of doing a rehash. I'd give the overall Dr Lecter character a 9 of 10 in this film, vs. a 10 of 10 in the last one. Not quite as good, but still very good.

Starling's character, on the other hand, fell flat in this film. In SOTL, Foster perfectly portrayed Starling's flat surface with a turbulent depth; in Hannibal, there was nothing under her surface. Foster's Clarice evoked feelings of sympathetic grief, Moore's Clarice evoked nothing. I do not necessarily blame Moore, this could be due to writing and/or directing. Obviously, though SOTL focused mainly on Starling's character, Hannibal focuses on, well, Hannibal. Still, that's no excuse for what was done to Starling. Her character gets a 3 of 10.

The story was much weaker in Hannibal than in SOTL. It almost seemed like an excuse to present us with the characters, rather than a story in and of itself. Still, it had no other major flaws, so it gets a 6 of 10.

Now, there's another category I'll call the shock factor. It's different than ordinary gore, it's... creative gore. The sick, disgusting depravity we expect to see and like to see in this type of film. I can't go into detail without spoiling it, but I'll have to say it goes even beyond what I expected. Do not watch this film if you are squeamish or dislike gore. There isn't a lot of gore in the film, but what there was, was... concentrated. Shock Factor, 10 of 10.

Overall I give the film an 8 of 10. Very well done with a few weaknesses, well worth watching.

Wistful thinking is fun. So if I ran my own studio and this was brought to me, forget that it's a sequel to a lucrative property, so carries expectations, I would have the whole writing team fired and off the lot by lunch. I would especially have Mamet fired, because he's not a dumb guy. Actually, the problem is they have to work from a terrible novel by a hack author, so everyone including Ridley and the actors seem jaded by the choices they have to make.

"But, hey it's a movie about a guy who chews off victims' faces, quit being a dunce". Not quite, my friends.

These films are about twin worlds, the cop world of reason and the killer's world of urges, hidden self and powerful intuition. Clarice straddles both, is damaged herself, that is the main thrust, so is able to solve the case in a way that both unfolds and redeems her darkness. The guy eating liver with a nice Chianti doesn't have to be the center.

Manhunter exemplified this can be done as evocative introspection; our anchor was in the second world, and it was spending time in this world that deepened our perspective for humanity and reason (and also conveyed the protagonist's soul, since the actor couldn't). The urge was for a normal touch that stirs deep.

Silence placed the anchor in the first and turned the second into a lurid caricature that verged on camp and b-horror. Because the film was not rooted in the world of images and intuition, it had to rely on Foster having good dramatic presence. She did it just barely, but the film was much less cinematic. Her urge was powerful but never conveyed with the camera. The killer's was about 'transformation' but squarely rooted in the sexual. He was reduced from the center of a rich world in Manhunter to a human camera ().

So here comes Ridley in the third installment. The poor guy is working by far from the worst script, even worse he's building on Demme's template instead of Mann's - had to by that point, the novel after all was written with Demme and Foster in mind.

The whole thing is lurid and cheap this go round. The urges are all base outside Lecter (sex - money - power - revenge). You will know it by how sloppy is the scene of Mason Verger's hallucinated memory (and really everything about this man).

So three sinners, all three righteously punished in increasingly hellish ways and Lecter has turned into a melancholy avenging angel slash fatherly mentor figure slash aged but suave lover. He's everything stereotypical about having a cultured taste. He's filmed around Florence to have lots of attractive scenery counterpointing the vileness, another lazy effect.

The Christ symbolism is just the tackiest thing. They might have had something with Lecter as Dante's Satan gnawing at the three traitors, but the portrayal doesn't match, and besides, Inferno is naturally the most crude portion of the text. There's nothing worthwhile to build from it anyway.

Well, the deal is done. Saw it. Liked it. However.....not nearly as good as Silence. Very different effect is achieved by this film. It does almost play like an elite form of slasher movie. Like Jason with class and an education. I like Jodie and I see why she really didn't want this role. There's not a hell of a lot for Starling to do. Let's just say this- I liked it for what it is. As a stand alone film. It works on some levels. I think 2 1/2 is a good rating. I can recommend it. I even liked it. It just pales in comparison. And one can't help but compare. The characters all seem a bit shallow. Even Lecter. Some parts of this film are sooo over the top, I have to accept them as dark humor. The main thing I remember about Silence is the overwhelming feeling of dread, of sadness about the events in the film. "What does he do, this man you seek?" "He kills women." "NO, that is INCIDENTAL." Now that exchange instilled horror in me. There's just nothing like that in this film.

After being held accountable for a botched drug arrest that left 6 dead and great media coverage, FBI Agent Clarice Starling is sent away to follow up on new information regarding Dr Lecter from one of his past victims – the disfigured Mason Verger. As Starling works under the demeaning supervision of Agent Krendler, Lecter begins to taunt her with letters from an unknown location. Meanwhile in Florence, Inspector Pazzi begins to suspect the identity of the new curator, while Verger places a $3million reward for anyone who will bring him information leading to Lecter.

The sequel that everyone wanted to see and that got lots of headlines for it's gory content was not something I was very bothered about seeing. Although I think Silence was a good film I was a bit surprised by the sheer volume and degree of praise that was heaped upon it. However I decided I would give it a go when it finally came on television and I pretty much got what I expected – a gory film that trades on blood and it's title character without a great deal else of real value put in with it. The story is very condensed from the book (so I'm told anyway) and is basically boiled down to a handful of events that will deliver the shock and gore if that's all you want – but that's not all I wanted. I needed a lot more in fact and I have a better appreciation of what made the first film a much better one than this.

For one thing the whole film lacks suspense – by which I mean real suspense and tension, not just the suspense as we await the imminent arrive of the next gory scene. The plot is a little bit daffy at points and this may be done to it's slimmed down nature – certainly I was not drawn in so much as merely standing by watching it. The film also asks a lot of us; it asks us to understand the relationship dynamic between Lecter and Starling even though it shows us very little here – almost like it is expecting us just to take it on face value and remember Silence without it carrying anything through. Also it asked us to like, even support, Lecter – an idea that I found wholly unappealing. There is nothing wrong with having a monster as your 'hero' character or of focusing on the dark side of humanity but here the film practically revels in the gore, almost forgetting all else. It has made Lecter such a comical character ('okay-dokay'?) that it doesn't really know what to do with itself when he is off screen. The fact that it doesn't do anything with this dark beast other than stare lovingly at him is a problem for me and just supported the idea that the film was out for gore.

Even the cast seem to realize that this film is nowhere near the caliber of Silence and they all seem to have their tongue in their cheeks with their performances. Hopkins seems to relish the chance to overplay in a big payday for him (the film could happen without Foster but not without him). His character is so much more played for fun than in Silence and this damages the tension, but Hopkins seems to be enjoying himself nonetheless. Moore plays it totally straight and doesn't have much fun – she is good but she doesn't stand out even if she does replace Foster well. An unrecognisable Oldman also hams it up but keeps his character just this side of silly –Ivanek supports Oldman well but is obviously eclipsed by the latter's showy role. Giannini is good in his minor role and is lucky to escape the script's excesses; sadly Liotta is not free and his performance towards the end matches the absurdity of the plot in his regard.

Overall this is a big fancy horror movie but it is far from the standard of Silence. It lacks real bite (sorry) in terms of tension and excitement and it replaces it with a series of increasingly gory set pieces. If all you want is superficial delivery then this is worth seeing as it is enjoyable as a gory horror but it is no more than that and fans of the mood and atmosphere of Silence Of The Lambs will feel a little cheated.