Hannibal Review
by Jerry Saravia (faust668 AT aol DOT com)October 11th, 2001
HANNIBAL (2001)
Reviewed by Jerry Saravia
October 10th, 2001
Ridley Scott's "Hannibal" has been criticized for its over-the-top gross out scenes and little else. There is a reason for this - there is little else to discuss and that is unfortunate. For all the character development that "The Silence of the Lambs" provided for Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling, "Hannibal" focuses on cartoonish types in a freak show designed to titillate, a far cry from what "Silence" accomplished.
"Hannibal" begins effectively as we observe Clarice (Julianne Moore, replacing Jodie Foster) on a drug raid with the help of several FBI agents. She kills a drug czar (Hazelle Goodman) by firing a bullet at her chest as she clutches her baby. The incident puts Clarice in a difficult position with the FBI as she has to turn over her gun and badge. She is on the Guiness Book of World Records for being the only FBI female agent to have the most kills. This Clarice, ten years after dealing with Hannibal Lecter face-to-face, is a changed woman, colder and less emotional. Probably a dose of good old Hannibal is just what she needs to get out of her slump. Still, another agent named Krendler (Ray Liotta) has it in for Clarice, and desires her sexually. As always, Clarice's interests in life exclude anything sexual. One funny scene shows Krendler looking at photos of Lecter unaware Clarice is watching him. She alerts him and he asks, "What are you doing in the dark?" Her response: "Thinking of cannibalism."
So far, so good. "Hannibal" then switches to Florence, Italy where the good doctor Lecter resides and is trying to find a job as a museum curator! A detective named Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) is investigating the disappearance of the former curator and discovers that the doctor is Hannibal and is on the FBI ten most wanted list (which also includes the terrorist Bin Laden)!
The film's pacing slackens, spending far too much time on the Italian detective and so little on Clarice who is still looking for Hannibal. Keeping the two most memorable characters in the history of movies apart amounts to awkwardly patched-together situations that have little to do with anything. In fact, as written by David Mamet and Steven Zaillian, the story is almost nonexistent. There is no tension, no surprise and a general lack of credibility. How can someone like Hannibal, who never wears a disguise, be able to move about Italy in a flowing cape and a hat and not be noticed? How can you not notice someone wiping the glasses of wine they drink from at a restaurant? Well, the detective notices but surely there must have some way of him communicating this information to the FBI if he wanted to.
Of course, Pazzi chooses not to as his primary motive is financial. You see a certain billionaire by the name of Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) wants Hannibal fed to his killer boars. It turns out that Verger was forced to slice off his own face and feed it to his dogs thanks to Hannibal. Now he is a faceless cipher with no eyelids and a horrifying expression that is sure to creep out the most jaded viewer. He is about as loony as Hannibal himself and provides a handsome reward to anyone who knows of Hannibal's whereabouts. Enter the desperate Pazzi, yet he doesn't realize he is being hounded by Hannibal.
But none of this matters in the least. There is no sense of urgency since Hannibal can escape and elude authorities so easily. The crux of the film is the Florence investigation but I missed the central relationship between Hannibal and Clarice - they so embodied "Silence of the Lambs" that here, they are mostly left on the sidelines. No character shadings or depth to either one of them leaves us out in the cold. A real shame since Julianne Moore is an excellent replacement for Jodie Foster, and a brief meeting between her and Hannibal sheds little light on either one of them.
Another factor is that Hannibal was imprisoned in "Silence" thus leaving plenty of time to understand his motives and desires, and his developing interest in Clarice. Letting him loose like a wild animal does little to raise our expectations - he is simply a madman with an insatiable appetite for flesh who has a host of sardonic comments to make about cannibalism. Where is the charm and elegance Hopkins brought to the original?
Moore is well-cast and strong and empathetic but she still remains as one-note as Hopkins does. It is not her fault, the script needed plenty of fine-tuning but what can you say about two top-of-the-class screenwriters hired to provide such a mediocre, rambling screenplay?
"Hannibal" looks and sounds terrific thanks to director Ridley Scott. It is glossy filmmaking but with no soul or human interest. A climactic dinner sequence remains as loathsome and gory a sequence as anything Hollywood has ever produced before (though Scott has directed it tastefully). But mean-spiritedness and gore are central to "Hannibal" - it is a bloodless freak show where the characters are all cartoons. "Silence of the Lambs" defied genre expectations by never quite fitting into a thriller mode or a horror movie scenario - it was, at its best, a psychological character study with a gripping hold on the audience through its sheer intensity and surefire direction by Jonathan Demme. This film is a pure slasher flick, unengaging and uneven. And all poor old Hannibal has left to say are such flat one-liners like "Goody-goody" and "Ta-da." How rude!
For more reviews, check out JERRY AT THE MOVIES at http://moviething.com/members/movies/faust/JATMindex.shtml
E-mail me with any questions, comments or general complaints at [email protected] or at [email protected]
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.
