As someone who did not cherish "The Silence of the Lambs" as much as the rest of the world (it's a good and important movie, but not a great one), I was nevertheless very much looking forward to "Hannibal". After "Silence", Anthony Hopkins had become one of THE actors of the 90's (along with Kevin Spacey); with "Gladiator", Ridley Scott had finally risen to the heights of "Blade Runner" again; and the prospect of seeing Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling filled my heart with joy.
Therefore the result was all the more shocking - and really not because of the grossness of some scenes. As with so many horror movies, the gorier the scenes the less shocking the effect. Blood feasts like "Dawn of the Dead" and "Man Eater" are still hard to top, and "Silence" had certainly proven that you do not need blood and guts to drive the audience crazy.
Therefore, what is really disturbing about "Hannibal" is the fact, that it is so surprisingly boring. Part of it certainly has to do with the fact that there is almost nothing new to the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice. And although I'm convinced that Julianne Moore is the better actress in comparison to Jodie Foster, she didn't bring anything interesting to her role. She's almost sleepwalking through the movie, sometimes with a gun in her hand, but psychologically there's almost nothing going on. (Compare that to the intensity of her pharmacy-scene in "Magnolia", and you know what I was hoping for.) I'm sad to say that Jodie Foster was right in her decision not to come back.
Even sadder is the development of Dr. Lecter: He's become the hero, but does it make sense to have the audience root for a psychopath? In that respect, "Silence" was really brilliant, because you were terrified of Lecter, but you were also fascinated by him. It was a bizarre thing: You hoped to see him again in order to be terrified of him. You just never knew what to expect from him. In "Hannibal", Lecter has been degraded to a conventional horror figure, just short of Freddy Krueger, tossing out oneliners as if he was reborn as the evil brother of James Bond or the hyper-intelligent uncle of Arnold Schwarzenegger, a circus manager in charge of a freak show.
Only therefore it's fitting that his counterpart is Mason Verger, the mousy-looking cripple who never becomes a real character. You don't feel his pain or his anguish, just think about the grueling make-up sessions Gary Oldman certainly had to endure. (All the more puzzling is the clearness of his voice - shouldn't we have more trouble understanding him?) Scott & Co. have made the horrible mistake of leaving out Verger's sister - one of the more involving subplots of the novel. This way, the Verger storyline is totally one-dimensional and you can't wait for someone to feed this creature to the pigs.
Now any hope that the film might at least be great to look at (like almost every other Ridley-Scott-movie) is destroyed early on, during the first shoot-out, which mutilates the action into bits and pieces, and you don't get a sense of the scenery. Just as every action scene in "Gladiator" was masterfully choreographed with a sense for visual poetry, the action in "Hannibal" looks murky and uninspired. (And there's definitely too much music throughout the movie.)
About the only good things in this film are the scenes in Florence, but maybe that's because Inspector Pazzi (the touching Giancarlo Giannini) is the only real character of the movie, the only person that conveys hints of thoughts and feelings. The rest is a disaster, including the all too obvious casting choice of Ray Liotta as Starling's simply slimy nemesis Paul Krendler. And last but not least: Where the hell was Scott Glenn? His small role in "Silence", where he played Starling's superior, was so vital to the balance of the story. And he was even more important in "Hannibal", the novel. Well, I guess that's what makeing "Hannibal", the movie, so bad: They left out all the good things - and dwelled on the bad stuff.
Therefore the result was all the more shocking - and really not because of the grossness of some scenes. As with so many horror movies, the gorier the scenes the less shocking the effect. Blood feasts like "Dawn of the Dead" and "Man Eater" are still hard to top, and "Silence" had certainly proven that you do not need blood and guts to drive the audience crazy.
Therefore, what is really disturbing about "Hannibal" is the fact, that it is so surprisingly boring. Part of it certainly has to do with the fact that there is almost nothing new to the relationship between Hannibal and Clarice. And although I'm convinced that Julianne Moore is the better actress in comparison to Jodie Foster, she didn't bring anything interesting to her role. She's almost sleepwalking through the movie, sometimes with a gun in her hand, but psychologically there's almost nothing going on. (Compare that to the intensity of her pharmacy-scene in "Magnolia", and you know what I was hoping for.) I'm sad to say that Jodie Foster was right in her decision not to come back.
Even sadder is the development of Dr. Lecter: He's become the hero, but does it make sense to have the audience root for a psychopath? In that respect, "Silence" was really brilliant, because you were terrified of Lecter, but you were also fascinated by him. It was a bizarre thing: You hoped to see him again in order to be terrified of him. You just never knew what to expect from him. In "Hannibal", Lecter has been degraded to a conventional horror figure, just short of Freddy Krueger, tossing out oneliners as if he was reborn as the evil brother of James Bond or the hyper-intelligent uncle of Arnold Schwarzenegger, a circus manager in charge of a freak show.
Only therefore it's fitting that his counterpart is Mason Verger, the mousy-looking cripple who never becomes a real character. You don't feel his pain or his anguish, just think about the grueling make-up sessions Gary Oldman certainly had to endure. (All the more puzzling is the clearness of his voice - shouldn't we have more trouble understanding him?) Scott & Co. have made the horrible mistake of leaving out Verger's sister - one of the more involving subplots of the novel. This way, the Verger storyline is totally one-dimensional and you can't wait for someone to feed this creature to the pigs.
Now any hope that the film might at least be great to look at (like almost every other Ridley-Scott-movie) is destroyed early on, during the first shoot-out, which mutilates the action into bits and pieces, and you don't get a sense of the scenery. Just as every action scene in "Gladiator" was masterfully choreographed with a sense for visual poetry, the action in "Hannibal" looks murky and uninspired. (And there's definitely too much music throughout the movie.)
About the only good things in this film are the scenes in Florence, but maybe that's because Inspector Pazzi (the touching Giancarlo Giannini) is the only real character of the movie, the only person that conveys hints of thoughts and feelings. The rest is a disaster, including the all too obvious casting choice of Ray Liotta as Starling's simply slimy nemesis Paul Krendler. And last but not least: Where the hell was Scott Glenn? His small role in "Silence", where he played Starling's superior, was so vital to the balance of the story. And he was even more important in "Hannibal", the novel. Well, I guess that's what makeing "Hannibal", the movie, so bad: They left out all the good things - and dwelled on the bad stuff.