Hannibal Review
by "Alex Ioshpe" (ioshpe AT online DOT no)March 16th, 2001
REVIEWED BY ALEX IOSHPE © 2001
RATING: 9/10
"Tense, dark, gothic and poetic in its visual wizardry"
This film is certainly pleasant news for every horror enthusiast. "Hannibal" is probably the most awaited film of this decade, standing proudly in the same line with "Star Wars: Episode 1" and "Lord of the Rings". Its financial success is therefore assured. When it comes to its artistic values, it is very speculative. You never know how the audiences are going to react, and this film has already suffered from a discouraging abscesses of Jodie Foster and basically all crew from its predecessor - the legendary "Silence of the Lambs". I say legendary, because it has been elevated to a cult-status, proclaimed a masterpiece by every critic (even by those who did not approve it when it first aired in 1991). I always believed that "Lambs" was slightly overrated. It was a great film, a virtually perfect detective story, but absolutely no masterpiece. It was simply a good film, nothing more and without Hopkins' legendary performance, it would have been much less. With this hype blinding your vision, it is hard to concentrate. Thomas Harris took his time and when his book was finished, it was received not too well. Jonathan Demme (the director), Ted Tally (screenwriter), Jodie Foster, and Scott Glenn - all rejected the book, labeling it too violent and grotesque. Finally a new cast and crew were assembled, with Anthony Hopkins in the lead.
10 years have passed and Clarice Starling is not what she used to be. Crawford, her guiding mentor is gone and so is her purpose. After a rather unsuccessful operation, she is humiliated and unfairly blamed by the media and her colleagues. Meanwhile, Hannibal Lecter peacefully lives his cultivated life as a respected art scholar in his beloved Florence, very much aware of the awkward situation that Starling is in. However his peaceful life is broken when Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) discovers him and the reward, provided by one of his old patients and his nemesis, the paralyzed Mason Verger (an uncredited and unrecognizable Gary Oldman). Mason is an insanely rich pedophile sadist, who lost his lips and one eye, when Dr. Lecter made him peal off his own face and feed it to his dogs ("It seemed like a good idea at the time", he chuckles). While Clarice inverstigates, Mason is preparing his ultimate revenge, a feast where Lecter will be eaten by giant man-eating hogs. Now everyone race against time and each other, in order to capture the famous doctor first. But when Hannibal finally appears in America, Clarice is split by her duty and her strange affections for her evil opponent, who is likewise drawn towards her..
Marquee screenwriters David Mamet (State and Main) and Steven Zailian (Schindler's List) are faithful to the source, but avoiding the very problems that made the book unsatisfying. Hannibal (as the most interesting character) is moved into the center, while a harder, more bitter Starling stands in the shadows. In fact, every positive element of "Lambs" is elevated here. The "supporting villain" is far more interesting and colorful than Buffolo-Bill, all the memorable characters (including Barney) reappear and the political intrigues in the FBI intensify.
Hopkins seems more at ease now, moving with a grace of a panther. He doesn't speak - he purrs in a seductive, devilish voice. His Hannibal is more interesting and edgy than ever before, a more complicated and less sympathetic character than in "Lambs", revealing himself in all his demonic monstrousity. Part of the films corrosive effect is the incredible sympathy that we develop for him in the beginning, and that so quickly turns agianst us, when we witness him enduldging to his darker side. Julianne Moore makes us forget about Jodie Foster completely, playing in a tougher vein with her interpretation as solid and honest as one could expect from an actress of her caliber. Giannini's inspector has the right aura of tarnished dignity and Gary Oldman is likewise spectacular and incredibly entertaining as Mason. Ray Liolita is sleazy as always and the rest of the cast do a decent job. Basically the acting is flawless.
"Hannibal"'s biggest problem is dealing with expectations, with people who have already created a picture in their heads about how the film should be - people who expect to see "Silence of the Lambs 2". These people will be very disappointed, because "Hannibal" is luckily not that. A new director is steering, with a new crew behind him. Since Lector has now moved into the center of events, the atmosphere had to be adjusted - in other words it had not to offend Lector's taste. That is why Ridley Scott (Alien, Blade Runner, Gladiator) could not be a better choice, and with director of photography John Mathison (Blade Runner, Gladiator), the talented editor Pietro Scalia (Gladiator) and sensational composer Hans Zimmer (The Thin Red Line, Gladiator) you simply can not loose. The result is something completely different. From the opening credits, when the word "Hannibal" is written elegantly in blood across the black screen, you sense a change of atmosphere. It's fresh, beautiful, dreamy -- all the things that "Lambs" wasn't. And while its predecessor was very gritty, shot in a naturalistic, almost photographic way, "Hannibal" sparkles with visual splendor, looking like a beautifully decorated christmas tree. The claustrophobic atmosphere of "Lambs" is replaced with a free, unconstrained sense of freshness, like a morning breeze. The sense of uneasiness is captured alternately by deep, sustained notes and the rapid attack of a full-throttle orchestra, whose intent to horrify never waivers. Scott has always been a wizard of visual imagery and he employs his talents here, creating a world of Lecter's morbid mind. Every frame is a painting, composed from rich contrasts of shadows and light. He intoxicates us with this visual poetry and dark symbolism, creating a creepy, gothic feeling around the whole picture. And it is this style that is the very element that makes "Hannibal" terrifying. We see Lecter lecturing the arts in the library, swapped into the beauty of the night, we see him in perfume shops, we watch him enjoying the opera. And then we see him killing his pray, spilling out the intestates and cooking them at home, using Dumas' recipes. Here lies the incredible horror of "Hannibal" - the taste, culture, intellect and the morbid violence shown in the same beautiful style, in the very same person. Scott succeeds where most have failed -- in creating this extreme polarity of the human soul, which is shown incredibly elegantly and without any sense of effort. The violence is shown in a different key than we are usually used to. It is as if we are looking with Lecter's eyes on the world around us, and everthing is therefore wrapped into a magical veil of taste and style, even the bodies. This violence is more grotesque than in "Lambs", but it is also more motivated, because it underlines the movie's theme.
Several critics have pointed out that the first installment was more clever and sophisticated. I slightly disagree with that statement. The story development in "Lambs" was its clever part, with the many bizarre events and characters, following one after another, but here its cleverness stopped. "Hannibal" is more clever in its theme, rather than in the twists and turns of the story (which by the way are quite remarkable as well). It is therefore darker, deeper and creepier than "Lambs", going under the skin of the two main characters, portraying their previously unknown sides. "Hannibal" should therefore not be viewed as a sequel, but instead accepted as a unique and completely different movie, acting on its own terms. Clarise is not the same honest, hard working idealist that she was in "Lambs". In the very beginning we see her being betrayed by her fellow agents, stabbed in the back, so to speak. These disappointments in her work, and her life in general, lead her onto a different path. In the end it is her fall from grace that is one of the central stories of the movie. Lecter is likewise different - more relaxed, calmer and in his natural environment. He no longer pushes for the extravagant, like in "Lambs". His evil is hidden behind the mask of charm and taste, making him more dangerous, unpredictable and calculating than ever before. And this also underlines one major difference between the two (now competing films) - while "Lambs" was completely straight, "Hannibal" is more dreamy, elegant and symbolic in its every element, in every scene. While Demme constructed a great story about nothing, Scott is actually painting a picture about the duality of human nature. This duality exists everywhere in his world, it can be found in the beauty of Florence, in the darkness of the woods, in Lecter and Starling. The connection between them is magical and creepy, as well as poetic. It is like beauty and the beast - the attraction of the poles, the fascination of the opposite. Scott has thus successfully created one of the most interesting psychological thrillers to date. In a way, it is a beautiful walz about the ways of evil, with its illusions, seductions and the incredible horror that lies beneath. To me this is far more interesting than a carefully woven detective story. This does not mean that "Hannibal" is entirely flawless. It is episodic in the end, as if the director was rushing towards the finish line. Forgetting that, it is a perfect psychological thriller. However I do not intend to make the same mistake as many did with "Lambs". I am not saying that this is a masterpiece, but in my opinion, this is certainly a more interesting and refreshing picture than its predecessor. It is richer, creepier and far more tasteful.
--
Originally posted in the rec.arts.movies.reviews newsgroup. Copyright belongs to original author unless otherwise stated. We take no responsibilities nor do we endorse the contents of this review.
