I was pleasantly surprised by Ridley Scott's "Hannibal" given that the movie is based on the horrible book which I more than dislike. I see a writer as a God - he creates by the power of his imagination the new worlds and populates them with his creatures. Once, he created the world, he should give his characters free will; they should act by the logic of their personalities not by their creator's sheer caprice. What Harris did in "Hannibal" is unspeakable - he just showed his fans how much he despised them. Actually, he did two things wrong - the ending and his attempt to explain Hannibal, to look behind the mask. The film comparing to the book has several redeeming values: visually, it is a stunning work of a great director. I am yet to see Florence, the celebrated City of Flowers as dark, dangerous, and anti-tourist as in "Hannibal". Second, the movie did not try to "explain" Hannibal, to get inside his head and understand him. Harris attempted in the book to give us the reasons why Hannibal was what he was - it was weak and laughable. If he chose to present Hannibal as some sort of supernatural creature with almost animals' instincts, he should've left him as an eternal mystery. The best description of Hannibal belongs to Clarice. When asked, "Is it true what they're sayin', he's some kinda vampire?" - she replied, "They don't have a name for what he is". And finally, the film avoided the literally vomit-inducing, absurd, irrational, obnoxious slap in face book's ending - for this alone I think "Hannibal" is a very decent movie and a lot of fun.
7.5/10
7.5/10