El Cosmico here with a review of a film I was sorely disappointed with, HANNIBAL. Oh, and by the way, SAVING SILVERMAN completely fell flat and was a total waste of time except for R. Lee Ermey and the super-cute Amanda Detmer. Utter crap.
That almost says it all, but I'll go into a bit more detail. When considering this film, I remembered all of the things that I loved about SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The focus, the atmosphere, the writing, the performances, the real, strongly felt dramatic tension that pervaded the entire film.
Well, if I were Jodie Foster, I would have taken one look at the script of this film and opted out too. It is just so extremely lacking in all of the things that I enjoyed in SOTL. For the first hour and a half, almost nothing happened. No tense moments, NO MYSTERY, no new information or twists, nothing.
More than that, there was no focus. Sure, the film is called HANNIBAL, but for a good deal of this film, you're wondering who the heck it's really about. The character of Clarice Starling is practically relegated to being an extra. The writing for what screen time she has is terribly conventional, predictable, and uninteresting. It's just going through the motions. Personally, I didn't care for Julianne Moore in the Starling role, but I don't think Ms. Moore was the problem, at least not most of it. Jodie might have been better, but this would still be an unworthy sequel.
Hopkins for his part is excellent, but the material he's given to work with is similarly a terrible waste. Again, think of everything you loved about his character in SOTL...why was that all thrown away in HANNIBAL? No dramatic entrances, no sense of mystery about the man, and replacement of complex psychology with simplistic psycho-babble. Hopkins does the best he can with it, but for some reason those making this film felt the need to take what rare moments of dramatic tension there were, and just as they were building up, the filmmakers punctuate them with hopelessly bland humor, not only failing in their attempts at clever wit, but instantly throwing away what little good material they might have been setting up.
I thought Giancarlo Giannini's character was the best, which isn't really saying much, but again, as much as the material allowed, Giancarlo impressed me. I think he deserves better roles. To be sure, what few worthwhile scenes there are in this film are those focused squarely on Giancarlo. Ray Liotta, for his part, was simply a big turn-off for me, but again, I think this was a bad choice on the part of the filmmakers. If you make the mistake of seeing this film, you'll see what I mean. Of all of the characters, the worst choices are made with his. Especially, to say it in spoiler-free fashion, the choice made near the end of this film, which I thought had enormous, pointlessly wasted potential.
Finally, there is Gary Oldman. To be quite honest, when the film opened with his character, and I heard his voice, I thought they'd cast Larry Flint. The makeup was well-done on this horribly disfigured man. The problem I have with this character though, is that the accent, in my opinion was comical. Not the choice I would have made for such a supposedly frightening character. More than that, the writing behind this character, and the total portrayal just came off as, uninspiring. I don't want to give too much away, but suffice it to say that this character clearly doesn't live up to its intent.
That's really most of the problem here. Of all of the characters, only one succeeds on any level, and that's Giannini's. The film is called HANNIBAL, but you'll spend the whole duration wondering who this film is actually about. Who is the antagonist? Who's the protagonist? What is the real conflict in this film? Why do we care? Is there a message? Do we learn anything new about any of the characters? What is the point of this film?
Well, there aren't any good answers to any of those questions. More than that, there's no real atmosphere, nothing even approaching the atmosphere of SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. The film constantly jumps back and forth, ultimately going nowhere. There is no sense of fear. None. No sense of an unfolding mystery. None. No reason to see this film. None.
I watched HANNIBAL with a group of other local reviewers, and of the bunch, whose opinions vary widely, not one said that they loved it. One of them indicated that he liked it, although I felt a somewhat reluctant tone in his voice. Most of the others had notably lukewarm reactions, and the most commonly spoken remark was that the film really dragged. A lot.
Is it fair to compare this film to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS? Well, everyone else going into this film will be doing exactly that. SOTL is, after all, the sole reason people want to see HANNIBAL. It's what people expect. More than that, it's what they want.
So, there you have it. Others may be mystified (suckered) simply by being shown Anthony Hopkins in moving pictures. Some may think that occasional use of disgusting makeup means that a film is being artfully and skillfully done. That's what the studios are counting on, that's how they make most of their money, simply by putting a random star up on the screen, quality of the movie be damned. To be sure, Anthony Hopkins is about as sure a bet as they come, but sadly, HANNIBAL is a film that even he couldn't save. It's just mediocre, through and through. Decidedly not worth seeing.
