Hannibal Reviews

I sympathise with Julianne Moore. It would be impossible to fill Jodie Foster's shoes as Clarice Starling but she did a credible job for any viewer that had either never seen Silence else could reset their view of who Clarice Starling originally was. It takes some effort and the ability to separate these as different works with different actresses. Jodie brought a lot of vulnerable determination to the role and Julianne subsequently delivered a lot of determined vulnerability. We remember most what we see first and of course Jodie will always be the definitive Starling. That means that Moore showed considerable courage because she redefined Starling and to purists that is sheer heresy. Yet these "transgressions" take place all the time as Hollywood proves again and again - through tired remakes - that its creativity is constrained by the backers who have only one aim; to make more money. Therefore a director who can push through something innovative and disguise it as a sure bet to the gnomes with the cash is a very rare animal indeed.

Yet to judge either work in terms of the other is, I believe, to miss the point. Moore was between a rock and a hard place but somehow she found a way through. Viewers who can abandon the disappointment that Jodie turned down the second role and simply reset and re-evaluate the character can enjoy this film.

Gary Oldman was incredible, not least for the six hours he had to spend in makeup for each shoot. It's true that Moore's Starling is vastly different from Foster's but if you can look beyond the differences between the two players you might be surprised.

The suspense element was, as always, beautifully poisonous, delivered in that gentle sinister way that Hopkins has made his own:

"... yes, thrown naked, with a noose around his neck, from a window. Writhing and kicking alongside the Archbishop, against the cold stone wall."

Delicious use of language.

In the context of so much beauty (the Opera) it textured well with the old conceptions of psychopathy (however misguided) that beauty and horror sit alongside one another.

At the very least, there are scenes in this film that cut to the root of horror; the dissolution of who we are, by scalpel, within reach of garlic and a crepe pan. Few could deny that will make the skin crawl.

Hannibal Lecter: People don't always tell you what they are thinking. They just see to it that you don't advance in life.

10 years have passed and Dr. Lecter is living under a disguise in Florence, Italy as an art scholar. Back in his home country of America agent Clarice Starling(Moore) is the center of a botched drug raid which resulted in one of the drug dealers being shot with a baby in her arms. Mason Verger (Oldman) who was the only one of Lecter’s victims to survive uses Clarice’s latest mishap as a way of getting her reassigned to the Lecter case, in hopes that this will draw Lecter out of hiding and he get exact revenge on Lecter for what happened to him.

When you think about classic movie villains you instantly think of Dr. Hannibal Lecter and his menacing appearance, you think about the riveting portrayal of Anthony Hopkins the way he sounds, the eeriness of his voice, the insanity that is 100 percent visible in his eyes. This is what you get after you watch Silence of the Lambs. Now when you think about Hannibal, you think it has his name all over it how can it be a bad film? When you think about what Silence of the Lambs did so well you can instantly see why Hannibal does not compare. Silence of the Lambs was perhaps the first truly mind numbing scary movie I have ever seen in my life, when I watched it for the first time people had to tell numerous times it was just the events of a film, I was young and I bought into that still. Now as I grow older, it becomes so real, there are people like Lecter in this world, and Anthony Hopkins just seems so poised and so ready to try and torture your mind. Silence of the Lambs was so brutal in showing us the harsh realities of Hannibal Lecter, the way he manically destroys and tortures his victims, whereas in Hannibal you could almost see how he existed normally not that he was deranged beyond belief. The timeline of 10 years is rather long if you want my opinion, a killer of this nature would not have been off the map for this long. Did they stop searching for him? What happened? Why did it take 10 years before they heard anything about him again?

The recasting of Clarice completely turned me off, Moore’s accent did nothing for me, and she seemed rather dull and flat but I didn’t expect her to match intensity with Hopkins the way Foster did in Silence of the Lambs. However Mason Verger was an interesting character, bed ridden due to injuries suffered at the hands of Lecter but not completely innocent in this whole story. Lecter was originally assigned to be Verger’s therapist because of his child molestation conviction, so the film never allows Verger to become the innocent victim. Perhaps taking Verger and making him an innocent victim of fate and circumstance would have been a much better story, how Lecter corrupted him to only want revenge, to seek torturous justice and to make Lecter feel pain as he felt it would have been a better story. But when you realize that two criminals are going to showdown you know which one is going to win, hell his name is plastered as the title of the movie.

What I disliked most however was how Lecter was always where he shouldn’t have been too long. Let me explain, he would stay at the scene of his crimes just until the cops showed up, then like the wind he was magically gone leaving Clarice and the other FBI agents wondering how he could have possibly managed an escape. Where in Silence of the lambs Lecter used disguises and pure brute force in this film he simply uses the art of timing, but there is no way we could get the timing just right every time.

Hannibal is not the sequel fans were hoping for, the 10 year gap in storyline could be to blame, perhaps it was just too difficult to duplicate the darkness of the first one, perhaps it was the change in director and the main female lead, perhaps it was a small combination of all of these things leading to what one can only describe a mediocre sequel. In the end though I think this film fails because of its inability to mess with your mind like Silence of the Lambs did; which is due in large part this film squarely focuses on Lecter as its big picture and forgets about all the tiny little background images that help make it a complete image.

"People don't always tell you what they are thinking. They just see to it that you don't advance in life."

The character of Dr. Hannibal Lector is one of the most brooding, foreboding screen villains in history. Michael Mann translated Lector from written literature to film with Manhunter. That film had Brian Cox portraying the title role.

But when Silence of the Lambs hit cinemas, Sir Anthony Hopkins made the role his own. Hopkins was unforgettable, and Silence of the Lambs was acclaimed by both critics and audiences.

About 10 years after its release this sequel was announced. Because of the quality of its predecessor, Hannibal had some seriously large boots to fill.

Hannibal finds the character of Dr. Hannibal Lector (Hopkins) still at large after reaching freedom ten years ago. Now Lector is living the good life in Italy as a museum curator under the guise of Dr. Fell. Special agent Clarice Starling (this time played by Moore as opposed to Jodie Foster) has reached a pitfall in her career after an unsuccessful FBI raid that seriously questions her judgement; what befalls is Clarice being relieved of active duty.

Over in Italy Lector's cover is blown when a sneaky inspector (Giannini) begins poking around; believing that he has found one of the FBI's ten most wanted fugitives. As Lector has now been exposed he initiates a game of cat-and-mouse between himself and Clarice when he heads back to American shores. On top of this a horribly disfigured millionaire (an unrecognizable Gary Oldman) wishes to exact revenge on Lector for what he did to his face several years earlier.

So was it worth the wait for Hannibal, this belated sequel? The answer to that question is seriously up for debate. The major downfall of this film was the little interaction between Clarice and Lector. Silence of the Lambs was brilliant for its frequent sequences that featured communication between the two central characters.

The taut direction of Jonathon Demme was replaced by the artistic, focused direction of Ridley Scott. This is not necessarily a bad thing. Ridley Scott is a highly talented director who will always be skilled behind the camera. Every shot during the film was eye-catching because Scott is always so focused on reaching perfection. The dialogue scenes in particular were filled with energy and engaging performances.

Jodie Foster chose not to reprise the role that won her an Oscar. She is replaced by Julianne Moore: a capable actor whose performance is top notch. Moore does justice to the character; falling just short of reaching the standard of Jodie Foster.

Anthony Hopkins will always be the essential embodiment of Hannibal Lector. Hopkins is unbeatable when you discuss this role. He is menacing and ominous; always remaining cool whenever something happens. The beauty of the character is that no matter how bad the situation is he will never alter his facial expression; instead always remaining brooding and nonchalant.

The production values are utterly sublime; the make-up in particular was outstanding. I could not recognise Gary Oldman underneath the astounding make-up he was caked in.

Hannibal contains some pretty graphic imagery; sometimes displaying a sickening degree of violence and gore. Where would a Hannibal movie be without the gore?

Hannibal was a much anticipated sequel that was marginally a disappointment. The film is very entertaining but builds to a highly unsatisfying anti-climax that is both confusing and betraying. On the whole, the film feels very incomplete albeit entertaining and stylish. A strong sequel to Silence of the Lambs. The film isn't fantastic, although it isn't terrible either.