PDA

View Full Version : hannibal thoughts.... (SPOILERS)


nimereht
02-09-2001, 09:32 PM
pretty gory...great performances...neat subliminal images of hannibal's face...hated the ending(i liked the book ending better)...ridley scott sort of turned a bizarre love story into a "hollywood" movie with a safe ending...mmm, brains!

mutleyhyde
02-09-2001, 11:12 PM
*****SPOILER ALERT!!*****
Well, it's interesting that Scott leaves all the feminine connections completely out of the picture. No Ardelia Mapp; Clarice lives alone. No Margot Verger; Barney doesn't have anyone to get frisky with. And Scott didn't go into the deal with Lecter's sister at all. I know Scott didn't intend for this to be a cerebral movie, but it's just plain weird that there are no other women in the film, while they are a BIG part of Harris' book. Well, there's Evelda, but look what happens to her.

Other than that, I thought it was great! I thought Julianne Moore did a fine job of Clarice, yet didn't quite have that hunter instinct down. I tought she'd be a little more emotionally intense in going about bringing Lecter in. I didn't think Hopkins overplayed or trivialised Lecter at all, as I'd heard some reports say. I thought he was perfect, again. Pazzi's death was great. Like you said Nim, good gore. Not a whole bunch, just well done (heh, well done :rolleyes: ).

And yes, as for the ending. I fully believe this outcome over the books outcome. I never believed that Clarice would just throw her convictions to the wind like she did in the book. Both Harris and Foster portayed her as far too set in going by the book to do such a thing. Sure, she has a weakness, one that Lecter exploits very well, but at the end of the day she's still first and foremost an FBI agent. I could see her having a breakdown at the hands of Lecter (hmmm, does Will Graham come to mind?), but riding off into the sunset with her saveur savior? Give me a frickin' break! If anyone got "Hollywood Fever", it was Harris, who tried to give Lecter and Clarice a sweet, happy ending in the book. I was with him all the way up to that point. I even half-heartedly convinced myself that Clarice could be drugged enough to eat the brain. I'm glad that didn't make Scott's version either. Julianne was certainly wearing a nice dress though! Nope - to me, this is how it should've been. Either that, or Lecter ending up dead at Clarices hands. Hell, this still leaves room for more sequels, which I'm sure Hollywood doesn't mind. Anyway, that's just me. I thought it was a great thriller, with good flow and good acting on everyones' parts. I highly recommend it :D .

David666
02-09-2001, 11:51 PM
I am a huge fan of the novel... especially the illuminating ending. I think the idea of it being a 'riding off into the sunset' ending is, well... not to put anone down, rather superficial. There's far more to it then that, Harris' novels are not merely surface reads, there is much more lurking down in the murk and the mud. They can not be taken in shallow context at all, and taking the finale of Hannibal as 'romantic' is just that. There is nothing romantic about it... it is domination of beauty by beast. Not only does this fully support the two minds and their ways, but also runs the gauntlet of the Harris universe. Its a sado-masachistic relationship, and anyone who has gone into Harris' world knows that it is populated with this kind of sexual perversity. It was the perfect way to go. I can not wait to read teh further exploits of these two perfectly drawn characters. The movies are good, but the novels are masterpieces.

rhett
02-10-2001, 05:02 AM
Ahh, Ridley, you did not disappoint. Hannibal is a great film, and IMO much better than SOTL, (Manhunter is still shipping! :mad: ). While I thought Hopkins was great in SOTL, by giving him almost double the screen time this time around, I truely feel as if the film benefitted by being able to look deeper into the mind of the diabolical title character. Scott's direction should also not go unnoted, as he provides the film with style, be it his captivating use of camera effects or angles. Littered with irony and puns, Scott has also managed to masterfully pepper Hannibal with themes of suspense, action and black comedy to coincide with its main theme of Lector's lust and relationship with Ms. Starling. This film is a visual treat, but is much deeper in its script. I think Scott's choice of scrapping the other female characters covered in Harris' book was a wise choice, as I think they would have simply undermined Starling and her plight. The makeup was impeccable, far surpassing that of its predecessor, especially when it comes to Liotta's supper and Oldman's whole Verger character, who, for some reason he had uncredited. There isn't much to say, except that I went into this film with low expectations, seeing as I was such a fan of SOTL, but I was pleasantly suprized, and can't recommend this film more!

SPOILER:

On a side note, did anyone else notice the obvious goof in the scene where Clarice is being removed from the FBI? A boom can clearly be seen in the top center of the film for about 5 seconds. I was shocked when I saw it, thinking I was seeing things, but after the show I went up to the projection room (I work at the theatre) and sure enough, it is a boom in the upper center of the film. Now perhaps it is just my print, but I found it hard to believe that if a company spends nearly 90 million on a film that they would at least catch something like that!

jeffschmidt
02-10-2001, 08:44 AM
I've said it before & I'll say it again: I'll definitely go see Hannibal, but I'll always have misgivings about changing the novel's ending.

I too found the original ending a little hard to swallow, but the more I think about it, the more I like it.

I need to re-read the ending of the book to confirm, but wasn't Lecter giving Starling drugs of some sort on top of his psychological tricks? This makes it a little more feasible (unless I'm mistaken...)

I think people, even us vile horror fans, are just unwilling to accept that such a good, pure character as Starling could be overcome by evil. It's just not very Hollywood; personally I dig it.

mutleyhyde
02-10-2001, 04:03 PM
Rhett - there were booms all over the movie. It was truly weird. I thought the projectionist had misframed the print (or however you projectionist types call it), but that just wasn't the case. There are at least two other scenes that have the boom clearly visible. Just weird. And I didn't think that the absence of the literary female roles lessened the movie necesarily, I just thought it was an interesting oddity. I'd like to hear Scott's motives, just out of curiosity. (You're right, it did help to keep the focus on Clarice.)

Jeff - Sure, both in the movie and the book, Clarice was heavily drugged. That makes it feasible that Clarice would eat the grey fondue, and maybe even jump Hannibals bones. But don't you think that once the drugs wore off, she would've come to her senses?

Now y'all don't take me wrong. I still think it's a great flick, and highly recommend it. I'll definitely be getting it on dvd. :)

rhett
02-10-2001, 06:53 PM
Mutleyhyde, I too will be picking it up on DVD, and I can't wait to see what kind of treatment it will get. But seeing as the film is a coalition between both MGM and Universal I hope the latter gets to handle it on DVD. Seeing MGM butcher this would be just too much. Does anyone know who owns the rights for the home presentation of Hannibal?

Ash
02-10-2001, 08:56 PM
I just got back from seeing Hannibal and let me tell you was it was awesome. It was very entertaining from a horror fan's point of view. It was horrific yet humorous at the same time. Anthony Hopkins was great as always. The ending was awesome. I nearly shit my pants laughing. I thought it was lot was a lot better than SOTL. My only gripe is with Ridley Scott's cinematograhy. Has anyone noticed that he likes to use fast motion a lot in his recent films? It kind of bugs but overall I really liked the film. Definitely horror film of 2001 so far.

fishhead
02-10-2001, 11:06 PM
Just got back from Hannibal....Mmmmm, how delicious. This is a great black comedy that a whole bunch of people are going to hate and others will love.

I must say I enjoyed this one more than SOTL (and I enjoyed that plenty - still waiting for netflix to send me Manhunter :rolleyes: ) mostly due to the increased presence of Hannibal himself.

The ending was great and I think most believable whereas the book's ending was not. Although I'll admit I haven't read the book, but just judging from what I've heard I would say that given the choice over that and having Starling remain true to herself, I prefer the latter.

As for the gore: I was pleasantly surprised by how well done (heh heh) it was and while there wasn't anywhere near the quantity that exists in genre fare, it was still pretty good for a mainstream film. The CGI at the end was very good, unlike the CGI I saw in The Mummy Returns trailer I saw before Hannibal. Man that sucked. :(

The only downside was, to echo Ash, Scott's rapid motion camera work. I hated it in Gladiator and I hated it here. I wish he would get over it already.

Gnaghi
02-11-2001, 02:44 AM
speaking of booms... did anyone see hamlet... it seemed like the boom was a character... it probably got more screen time than some of the actors. it was a laugh riot.

Dave
02-11-2001, 03:04 PM
Excellent movie.

I saw this one last night and enjoyed it very much. For a mainstream horror film, it's great to see a few hardcore gore scenes. For most of us here on this forum, seeing some brains being eaten is no big deal. I tell you though, everyone in the theater (except me) was like, "Ewww...he's eating his brains". Everyone was really grossed out by it. Cool! :)

Hopkins was terrific as always. I also don't think he overacted at all - he was perfect as Lecter and I'm so glad he got more screen time. I do wish him and Clarice had more screen time together, though. As for Clarice, Moore did a terrific job filling Jody's shoes. I'm not a big fan of Foster, so I ended up enjoying Moore's performace as Clarice more than Foster's.

I haven't read any of the books, but I have put them on my "to read" list. I can say now that I believe a movie should always be as faithful to the original novel as possible. It is, after all, the author's vision - it's his story; like it or lump it. Otherwise I'd be bitching a lot more about how Stephen King is always killing off characters that he gets you to care about. :)

TobalRox
02-11-2001, 06:01 PM
I saw it last night, and my friend next to me thought I was about to throw up, when in actuality, I was trying to prevent myself from laughing so hard because EVERYONE in the theater seemed to be reacting in unison, it was great! :-) Compared to other movies I had seen, this movie was nothing, but everyone else was jumping and turning all at the same time. My favorite part was seeing the guys that these girls were with, that were more sqeemish than the girls :-)

hojimoji
02-11-2001, 07:03 PM
I went to see Hannibal last night, and I though well of the movie.

After the usual age discrimintation (That story should be saved for the MPAA discussion), I sat in the middle of the theater to a sparsly dense 7:40 crowd. The number of toddlers in the audience gave me pause, but other than that the audience seemed to be above 35, a demographic I wouldn't have expected on opening weekend.

Besides the occasionaly gasp, I noticed no serious audience disgust at any of the scenes in the movie. I found that strange considering none of the audience looked like genre fans, and the gore was pretty intense for a studio film.

All in all a good movie, one I'm going to enjoy repeat DVD viewings of, especially with a Scott/Hopkins commentary.


G.

mutleyhyde
02-11-2001, 07:50 PM
You gotta remember Hoji, that all of us 35 year olds were 25 when we saw SOTL. Naturally, we've been waiting in anticipation for this event, so maybe that's why the big turnout on opening day of all us old foagies. I went to the first screening, 11:00 a.m. (that way I miss all the fun, wacky antics of the later crowds, like the pen-light lasers, phone conversations, and high school chat fests), and it was packed full. Heck, I thought I was going to beat the crowd. I mean, people just kept coming in. Soon, there was standing room only. But, all in all, like you say, the crowd was amazingly 99.9 percent old schoolers and well behaved. It was funny to see all the reactions. There was this one lady sitting a few chairs from me that kept going "Mmm... Uh... Uhh-uhh!" every now and then. Normally, I'd have been upset, but she really was trying to stay quiet, she just couln't handle her reactions, and it was pretty damn funny.

Mark Relford
02-11-2001, 10:09 PM
I enjoyed it. Hannibal is the perfect antidote to the usual bullshit that passes off as horror. Hopkins, Moore, Oldman, and Liotta (Mmmm... something smells good.) turn in good performances. As usual, Ridley delivers the goods. and surprisingly, the fast motion cinematography didn't bother me.

Mark Relford
02-11-2001, 10:11 PM
Oops! Sorry for the double post. My brain wasn't working properly. ;)

Surge92
02-12-2001, 02:23 AM
Was I the only one that was terribly disappointed with "Hannibal"? I haven't read the novel, but I thought the film was nowhere near as good as "SotL". The movie was too slow paced in my opinion. It didn't really get going until the last twenty minutes. There was also no suspense whatsoever. That was probably what I missed most from the first film. Instead it was replaced with in your face gore, which I didn't mind, but it's no substitute for edge of your seat suspense.
I also thought the character of Mason Verger was wasted. They build him up to the point where you think he's going to do something big in the film but then he gets killed off just like that, way before the climax. Lastly, I would have liked the have seen the much hyped wild boars get more screen time. I guess those last two faults would probably lie with the novel though. Either way, I simply did not leave the theater satisfied, much less wanting to see the film again.

Rock
02-12-2001, 02:49 PM
I agree with you Surge92 but I still liked the movie more than I thought I would. While it's easily the weakest in the Harris trilogy, it was still surprisingly involving, even if they did leave out some of the best things in the book, such as Mason's bodybuilding lesbian sister, Margot (she was just as evil as Lecter in my opinion), and the possible reason for Lecter's "condition" (a flashback to his youth & his relationship w/his sister Misha, who was cannibalized by starving WW2 refugees, would've been effective). The pigs were awesome but should've got more screen time. I saw this movie w/3 friends who knew nothing of the book(s) but still liked it, although many in the packed theater grew restless during the second hour...like a lot of movies these days, it was simply TOO LONG...

TobalRox
02-12-2001, 04:04 PM
LIke a lot of movies these days? I feel too many movies are too short. So many movies now seem to think that if you go over 90 minutes you're "too long" and they make cuts to keep it that length. I'm glad when people decide that they can make a movie longer, as long as it doesn't drag, and I feel that Hannibal did not drag. I am definitely a part of the "short attention span generation" being only 19 years old, but I still can sit through long movies as long as they are made well. Now, I never saw Silence or Manhunter, and I never read the novels, so I'm basing this on just seeing the movie and liking it. Everyone I went with also agreed with me that we were so engrossed in the movie, that when it ended, it seemed that only like a half an hour passed, and not 2 hours and 10 minutes. I feel that 2 hours and 10 minutes is actually kind of short when you compare it to some older movies from like the 60s, so I can't complain at all.

David666
02-12-2001, 06:10 PM
The short attetnion to the pigs and the finale of Mason's life are exclusively the fault of the script writers. The novel expanded the pigs to include backstory on breeding and the rearing as well as the conditioning it took to get them to eat from a carcuss. The death of Mason in the novel was much more graphic. Considering the film left out the character that offed him, then a new demise had to be created. I liked both, but (novel spoiler...) seeing his sister ram a saltwater eel down his throat would have been rather interesting. The cattle prod, even done tastefully still would have been too much for a mainstream film, however. (end novel spoiler) I would have liked to have seen a gorier Mason, however. I was eager to see how they would do his deformity on screen, and though it was disturbing and perverse it doesn't compare to the book's description.

All in all, I'd have to say that this is the best film so far this decade. It took some major risks, and in the hands of anyone else I fear it would have been Spielbergized. It was quite respectful to the novel. And who can resist the "Oky doky!"

A great film!

mutleyhyde
02-13-2001, 04:14 AM
So now we know...

This is from Gorezone -
"** RED DRAGON (MANHUNTER Remake): Caltanet Cinema attended the HANNIBAL press conference at the Berlin Film Festival and almost right from the start a question was asked to Producer Dino DeLaurentiis about doing the first Lecter novel RED DRAGON again (for those not in the know, Michael Mann adapted it in 1986 under the title MANHUNTER). DeLaurentiis indicated the movie will be "a remake of Manhunter, but there will also a ******sequel to HANNIBAL (ie. a fourth chapter)******. He explained his remake of MANHUNTER by saying the audience wants to know something more about the origins of the famous Doctor". Would Hopkins participate? Hopkins says he'll decide once he reads the script (currently being worked on by Ted Tally). De Laurentiis also indicated he was going to try and get a lot of the cast and crew who worked on HANNIBAL to come back and do RED DRAGON. (thanks to Dark Horizons)"

Well, no wonder Scott changed the ending. Maybe Clarice will get her sugar-daddy after all. Another story would certainly allow for more time for Clarice to become disillusioned with the bureau, especially with what happened to her in Hannibal. I could much more easily swallow her (heh) turning on the bureau after she's had some time to brood over it. It's still going to take some real good craftmanship to get me to accept her falling for Lecter. Another story would also allow DeLaurentiis to go into the back-story of Misha, which, more fully developed, would give much depth to the good doctor. The only thing to find out now is if Harris is planning on writing a new book. I thought it was his plan to be done with it with Hannibal.

David666
02-13-2001, 10:29 PM
I certainly hope that Harris is not done with the series. The novel left me drooling for more, and I don't think I'm the only one. From the novel's conclusion I can't see Harris actually calling this the finale of the story. Quite the contrary, I think it was as open for a sequel as was "Back to the Future." Hannibal did everything but say... "To Be Continued..."

hojimoji
02-15-2001, 06:08 PM
Originally posted by Paff:
(BTW, did anyone else read that Anthony Hopkins went to a showing on opening night, quietly sat down in the back, and then midway through tapped someone on the shoulder and said "Are you enjoying the film?" in his Lecter voice?

I heard that that happened during a Thursday night showing for SOTL a couple of weeks after it opened.


G.

Paff
02-16-2001, 05:32 AM
I just saw Hannibal and enjoyed it quite a bit.

But I'm really surprised that a few of you have called this "better than SOTL". What what what?? I'm not going to get into a scene-by-scene comparison, but just the idea that a man so safely locked away can still be so frightening. Lecter was 10X more menacing behind that glass than he was out in the open. 2 scenes in SOTL always send chills down my spine: Where Clarice first meets him, and he's standing in the dead center of his cell at perfect attention, and where she comes in to see him while it's raining and totally dark, and he passes the towel to her.

On top of that, I saw zero chemistry between Lecter and Starling. Whether or not that was scripting or Julianne Moore instead of Jodie Foster is an interesting question.

Finally, one of the best things about SOTL was the LACK of screen time given to Anthony Hopkins. I've even seen it commented that he won Best Actor with 18 minutes of screen time (I'm not sure about that number, DON'T quote me on it). Every line uttered by him was pure gold. That's one reason I prefer the MOVIE to the book, since the movie omitted a lot of Lecter's dialogue, and I feel that the less he says, the more menacing he is.
In Hannibal, he goes on and on more than a few times, and while I love to hear Anthony Hopkins recite that dialogue, there's always something REAL scary about a man who has so much to say, but won't tell you anything simply because he doesn't think you're worthy enough to hear it. Instead he'd rather eat you. Brrrrrr

Two things really impressed me about Hannibal though:
One was the makeup job on Gary Oldman. It's a departure from the book, but the only way to create Thomas Harris' Mason Verger would be CGI or puppetronics, easily done today. Glad to see they went "old school" with prosthetics.

Second was what was also my favorite segment of the novel: The Italy sequence. Here we see Hannibal in his element, fine art and culture. But just under that brilliant surface is a sick serial killer. I thought that part of the film was right in line with SOTL. Remember in Silence when the FBI guy says "Above all, never forget who he is". It's clear that Pazzi does just that, and pays the ultimate price.

That sequence alone is worth the price of admission. But overall, beginning to end, Silence of the Lambs is by far the best of the three films.

(BTW, did anyone else read that Anthony Hopkins went to a showing on opening night, quietly sat down in the back, and then midway through tapped someone on the shoulder and said "Are you enjoying the film?" in his Lecter voice? I'm a longtime horror fan and I've pretty much seen it all, but I think I'd ruin a good pair of underwear if he did that to me....)

DVD Connoisseur
02-18-2001, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by Surge92:
Was I the only one that was terribly disappointed with "Hannibal"? I haven't read the novel, but I thought the film was nowhere near as good as "SotL".

Surge92, I echo your sentiments. Having literally just returned from the cinema, I have yet to really reflect on the film but my first reaction was one of disappointment. The film was too predictable - it lacked completely the suspense of SOTL. The film started as very promising but I thought it ran out of steam towards the end.

The last few seconds were like Hannibal doing a bad 007 closing line. Painfully bad.

Taking Manhunter into the equation, this ties-in with my pet theory about the third movie in any series. I always find that by the third film, writers and directors feel they have to try something different. With Hannibal, I felt that the movie turned away from what made the first 2 movies great - analytical, painstaking detective work - and became instead a rather half-heated, "gross out the audience" flick. Don't misunderstand me, I love Scott and the acting in the movie was excellent but I thought the script somehow lacked the essence of the first 2 films (and books). I haven't read Hannibal so I'm unable to comment on the source material but, for me, the movie was the anti-climax of the year.

One day, I may come 'round to really liking this film. But not today.

Ash
02-18-2001, 04:09 AM
Too slow paced? For me Hannibal was a wild ride. Why would you want to sit through another film where Hannibal the Cannibal is behind a glass wall? Where's the fun in that? After seeing SOTL I wanted to see more of Hannibal and how he survives in the real world. Ran out of steam? I thought the ending was awesome. The fact that the film didn't have the usual hollywood happy ending had me applauding. Mmmm...brains....

-Ash

DVD Connoisseur
02-18-2001, 03:27 PM
I too wanted to see Hannibal running riot outside but the problem with the film, in my opinion, is that whilst SOTL had Hannibal and Clarice face-to-face (albeit divided by glass / bars), the sequel spent most of the time with the characters communicating by post or 'phone - hardly gripping stuff.

After the build up, I felt that the ending was rushed and just not shocking enough. From all the hype, I was expecting something "big" to happen. (This was also my criticism of Se7en so I guess it has something to do with anticipation and the fact that films never seem to deliver the promised shocks. Hannibal and Se7en both had weak endings for me in that I'd guessed what was going to happen before it was revealed on screen.) I didn't like the fact either that Hannibal would "not be 100% himself" if there was a next film. He made a predictable and safe for Hollywood decision. A braver ending would have been more appealing.

I really wanted to like this film but I presently feel disappointed. However, this may be one sequel which will grow on me with repeated viewings. There are some great moments in Hannibal but I felt that it didn't add up, in the end, to the sum of its parts. :confused:

Ash
02-18-2001, 08:00 PM
What do you mean by gripping? Hannibal and Clarice were mutal friends in an intellectual kind of way. Besides the phone conversation only happened during the latter half of the film while Hannibal is eluding Mason's men and the FBI. The ending was not shocking enough? What else would you expect to happen? Hannibal getting caught? Mason torturing Hannibal? Hannibal torturing Clarice? What do you think would make the ending more shocking? :)

DVD Connoisseur
02-18-2001, 08:28 PM
Good question, Ash. I'll try to explain why the ending was a disappointment to me. I hate spoilers but, unfortunately, before I saw the movie, a colleague told me that at the end of the film, Hannibal and Clarice will have dinner and the result would be "Hollywood history." Another source had told me that the ending was very, very gruesome. With an overactive imagination, the possibilities I had come up with were extreme and, in the end, I thought the finale was just very black humour. It certainly didn't push the envelope for me.

It's just my own opinion but I felt the film really didn't go anywhere in the last part. Clarice and Lector met but we didn't really see any development in their relationship or understand any better their mutual fascination. I just felt that in a movie that is largely character driven, the relationship between the central characters was largely unexplored. I felt that the movie had not progressed our understanding of Lector and Clarice since the SOTL.

Yes, I'm difficult to please but after 10 years of waiting, I wanted more. 3 hours running time would have been about the right length to explore the possibilities of the movie fully - an unlikely occurrence but one I would have enjoyed.

Am I alone in feeling the ending was rushed? There just wasn't enough time for Lector and Clarice to explore their relationship. Seeing Clarice in a drugged state meant she was only partly aware of what was going on. I really missed Clarice's searching questions and their gripping conversations. Just my opinion but that's the way I feel. :eek:

jeffschmidt
02-20-2001, 12:31 AM
Well, I finally saw this the other night. I've always been wary of Scott's changing the ending, but I found the movie's ending to be acceptable, though I really don't think H would've done that with his own hand.

This is just favoritist whining, since I like the books so much, but to anyone who has problems with elements of the movie story-wise: you need to read the book! Everything in the movie is explored in much more detail in the novel.

napalm68
02-21-2001, 10:27 PM
Hannibal is the first movie I have just been sitting waiting to catch the cigarette burns at the top right corner signalling a reel change... "It's coming.... coming.... coming... NOW!!!". I was starting to get really excited. I'm not kidding.

But on a more analytical note, I feel Harris' trilogy has gone downhill since the first book, and I feel the same about the movies. Silence of the Lambs was a great book but Red Dragon better IMHO. And from reading some articles about Thomas Harris trying to write Hannibal, it was pretty obvious he didn't want to do it, and was just forcing himself to write it for the HUGE advance he was paid, and no doubt spent a great chunk of. Hannibal was a pretty ordinary book by Harris standards. If I'd give Red Dragon a 10, I'd give Silence of the Lambs a 9, and Hannibal a 6. And to quantify what I'm talking about with SotL book being inferior to Red Dragon - well, Clarice was basically given the killer by Hannibal, and she still only found him by accident... Red Dragon was good all serial killer hunting from start to end.

And movie-wise, what I really liked about SotL was basically removed from the film, for example the psychological aspect of how Hannibal told her how to find the killer (coveteousness).

And the Hannibal book - I am sure the ending was just one that Harris wrote to stick it to hollywood, as he knew the'd never release the film with that ending. And the movie? It was Ridley Scott for god's sake. I wasn't expecting much with the story, but I was expecting it to be visually impressive. It didn't even seem like a Scott film - it could have been directed by anyone.

Paff
02-21-2001, 11:22 PM
You had me then ya lost me.

Seriously, I do agree about Red Dragon. It's by far the best of the 3 novels. Manhunter was an acceptable adaptation, but Red Dragon remains one of my favorite books of all time.

I disagree on the SOTL part. Sure, the book went into great detail with some long-winded explanations by Dr. Lecter, but the movie really cut down to the basic essence of it all, which was the interplay with Starling and Lecter. It's one of those rare occasions where I prefer the movie to the book.

Hannibal misses on both the book and the movie. Like I mentioned last week, the only part of the book that really worked was the Italy sequence, and the movie did a great job with that part as well. Well worth my $5.50, and will probably be one of the best movies of 2001, but Silence is one of the best of ALL-TIME. Hard act to follow. I admire the attempt, but it misses by a bit

napalm68
02-22-2001, 12:11 AM
Paff - I'm more a fan of psychological horror, and SotL(Book) was a great psychological horror, but SotL(Movie) sort of missed the psychological horror completely IMHO. The whole trail from the head in the car, to finding Gumb by applying the coveting idea was obscured beyond recognition in the movie, and that's why it lost it for me. I do appreciate that a lot of people like it as a film, but I was first a fan of the book, and the movie didn't do it justice for me. Not to mention Hopkins as Hannibal, it was just to much of a shakespearean actor (and unfortunately the hannibal the third film was written for).

I had free tickets I used to see Hannibal, and I felt ripped off. I wish I'd gone to see Bring It On - at I'd have gotten my money's worth watching scantily clad nubile young chicks bouncing about for two hours. :)

mutleyhyde
02-22-2001, 01:21 AM
Napalm, I thought they did pretty good with the ideas from the book in the movie SOTL with the time allowed. The movie would've had to been at least another hour long to really pin everything down perfectly, but then again, I could easily sit through a three hour, hell, even a four hour version of Silence :D. Hell, even Hannibal could've benefitted from another hour, given the chance to do more with the character development and interaction that took place in the book. Alas, this is the age old gripe that we booklovers have always had with movies. Oh well :rolleyes: .