Someone who's REALLY sorry for posting off-topic, but this was just TOO GOOD to pass up! Special movie review: H A N N I B A L

[ Reply ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]

Posted by frequent indy contributor who wishes to remain anonymous from spider-wk052.proxy.aol.com on February 01, 2001 at 00:33:57:

Surely the first "must see" movie of 2001 in terms of audience
anticipation, HANNIBAL is the long-awaited sequel to Jonathan Demme's
classic, SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. It is no freak accident that the film
is opening right before Valentine's Day -- the original opened almost
ten years (to the day) prior to HANNIBAL's upcoming release.

Based on Thomas Harris' very grisly book (which drew much attention
and as much criticism for its seemingly relentless gratuity, as well
as some far-fetched plot devices), screenwriter Steve Zaillian does an
admirable job of condensing the novel to screenplay form. (David
Mamet is credited as well, though his early draft -- more faithful to
the elaborate nature of the book, if indeed silly -- was rejected.)

Directed by visual auteur Ridley Scott, the film has a sleek,
colorful, gorgeous look to it, vastly contrasting the claustrophobic,
dark, subdued tones of the original film and replacing it with a
painterly canvas of Italian scenery.

Set ten years after SILENCE left off, Clarice Starling (Julianne
Moore) leads an ill-fated FBI drug raid, resulting in several deaths
and much bad publicity for the bureau. Unjustly forced into taking
the fall for the tragedy, even though it wasn't her fault, Clarice is
beckoned to the call of multi-millionaire Mason Verger (Gary Oldman).
Verger, a deranged lunatic and pedophile, was the only one of Hannibal
Lecter's victims to survive -- though severely disfigured, with
virtually all the loose flesh ripped from his face. (Oldman's makeup
job is perhaps the single most horrifying element to the film --
looking like a cross between Mr. Rogers and Fire Marshall Bill, and
speaking like a cross between Larry Flynt and Ross Perot, Oldman's
psycho actually manages to upstage Hopkins in a few small moments.)
Verger is hell-bent on finding and capturing the good Doctor for his
own vengeful purposes (as if Lecter wasn't bad enough), and hopes that
Clarice's recent public humiliation might be the key to luring the
lion from his den.

Thousands of miles away, Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins) has been
living incognito in Florence, Italy, assuming the position of curator
to a classic Florentine Art library. (The original curator
mysteriously disappeared...hmmm....how did that happen?) Learning of
Clarice's fall from Grace, he carries on a mail correspondence with
her. Meanwhile, a local Italian police investigator uncovers Lecter's
true identity, and schemes up a plan to capture him so that he may
collect Verger's $3 million reward.

From there, things get really complicated, as Lecter outwits (and
"out-does" -- literally) his opponents and returns to the US of A to
find Clarice once again. With Verger on Clarice's trail, Hannibal is
ultimately captured, and... well, the rest you'll have to see for
yourself.

SILENCE OF THE LAMBS was an extraordinary film, and while gruesome,
there was an underlining sensitivity to the characters, and resonated
with an incredible chemistry between Jodie Foster and Hopkins. One of
the most intense and miraculous pairings between any two actors in
film, Foster and Hopkins played off each other brilliantly. Demme
directed the film from Clarice's point of view, giving us the
picture's heart and soul, while Hopkins delivered its sinister yet
delectible menace. Though only onscreen for 20 to 30 minutes,
Hopkins' presence was felt throughout every moment.

Ridley Scott's approach is far more visceral and gothically visual, if
not quite as emotionally satisfying. Whereas SILENCE built relentless
tension through quiet, unnervingly calm moments, Scott fuses HANNIBAL
with pulsating, eye-dazzling freakshows. It is not Clarice's story,
and even if this tale isn't meant to be from her perspective, the
warmth and humanity that Demme and Foster had injected into the
hellish world around them is sorely missed. HANNIBAL is many things:
sadistically funny, clever, jaw-dropping, stomach-churning, thrilling,
intense, and -- yes -- scary. But it isn't nearly as emotionally
moving as the original.

Given the parameters of Harris' story, much of the excessiveness (even
to the point of caricature) has been wisely omitted. But what remains
is STILL REALLY OUT THERE. Even if the thrills and screams come just
as quickly as before, the emotional resonance seems empty by
comparison. It's easy to understand why Foster backed out from
reprising her role.

As her successor, Julianne Moore is up to the task, and acquits
herself well. With an accent that virtually mirrors Foster's West
Virginian twang for SILENCE, Moore is radiant and refreshing. The
nervous, vulnerable FBI student from the original has now matured into
a determined, strong -- though psychologically scarred -- woman who
manages to hold her ideals against the corrupt system she's supposed
to support. Though I must admit to preferring Foster in the role,
Moore's take is probably the best "second-best" out there, and we
should be thankful for it.

And, of course, Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter -- the virtual embodiment of
sophisticated evil -- remains perhaps the most charming and sinister
monster to grace the screen. No longer captive to prison glass walls,
Lecter spends his time roaming about ancient cities, drinking
expensive wines, and donning Armani suits. Hopkins is having the time
of his life, and if he was indeed paid the sum of $25 million for the
role (repudedly the largest up-front salary ever given to an actor),
he has earned it. HE is the heart of the story, as well as the center
of attention, this time '

Follow Ups:


Post a Followup:

Name:    
E-Mail:  
Subject: 
Comments:

Optional:

Link URL:   
Link Title: 
Image URL:

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ The Indyfan Forum ] [ FAQ ]