The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hannibal is a great movie, if you havent seen it please come along to my website. It contains all the latest news on the movie, please sign my guest book.
I thought Breaking The Waves was an astonishing film.
But that's me.
But that's me.
Hanibal is undoubtedly the weakest film in a very strong trilogy. Whether or not you can blame this on Scott is debatable. Some would argue that he had the weakest novel to work from and had the problem of his villian being turned into a cudely old grandad by not only the author but the media. It is still a very watchable film, however the thought of it being better than the wonderful Silence of the Lambs never entered my head. However it did have Julianne Moore...
And whoever it was tried to name Lars Von Trier amoung the best directors ever... no no no no no. Have you ever actually seen his films? He tends to be the sort of well know yet apealingly obscure director people would chose when they don't really know what they are talking about. Oh, and he make really bad films.
And whoever it was tried to name Lars Von Trier amoung the best directors ever... no no no no no. Have you ever actually seen his films? He tends to be the sort of well know yet apealingly obscure director people would chose when they don't really know what they are talking about. Oh, and he make really bad films.
Bakey wrote:
> "Hannibal" and "Silence of..." simply can not be
> compared they are two *very* different films - with the viewpoints
> taken for each being from radically different angles.
They should
> be watched apart from each other - ie. not one after the other - and
> you *must* watch it with an open mind... they won't be appreciated
> if you have pre-conceived expectations.
(PS. Startroopers *was
> not awful* by any means - Total Recall on the other hand...
> yuk!!!!)
Sorry - I mean Starship Troopers (what a fool!!!)
> "Hannibal" and "Silence of..." simply can not be
> compared they are two *very* different films - with the viewpoints
> taken for each being from radically different angles.
They should
> be watched apart from each other - ie. not one after the other - and
> you *must* watch it with an open mind... they won't be appreciated
> if you have pre-conceived expectations.
(PS. Startroopers *was
> not awful* by any means - Total Recall on the other hand...
> yuk!!!!)
Sorry - I mean Starship Troopers (what a fool!!!)
"Hannibal" and "Silence of..." simply can not be compared they are two *very* different films - with the viewpoints taken for each being from radically different angles.
They should be watched apart from each other - ie. not one after the other - and you *must* watch it with an open mind... they won't be appreciated if you have pre-conceived expectations.
(PS. Startroopers *was not awful* by any means - Total Recall on the other hand... yuk!!!!)
They should be watched apart from each other - ie. not one after the other - and you *must* watch it with an open mind... they won't be appreciated if you have pre-conceived expectations.
(PS. Startroopers *was not awful* by any means - Total Recall on the other hand... yuk!!!!)
Bang on target again Vottanator. Personally, I believe that Hannibal is a good movie, enjoyable to watch, nice to talk about, but as a film it's nothing special.
I may get stoned and spat on for this but I think Mr Scott is a great director but no way near the best, who are allocated to the following, Scorsese, Kubrick, Godard, Lynch and Von Trier. Why because they blend the elements of art and watchablity so well. That's why Spielberg doesn't apply, same for James Cameron and even the beloved Tarrintino, although I think he just missed the elite status by a whisker.
Anyway, back to Hannibal, I thoughht Ridley Scott rushed the film, finishing it so soon after Gladiator which is a superior film itself.
What could make Hannibal better?
Well, by repeating the same essence that makes the audience like Dr Lecter. He's evil, sinister and cold but we like him. The problem with Hannibal is that we just like him, there's no chilling factor about him. the best seen in Hannibal is when agent Starling chases after Lecter. There we can sense Lecter's powerful mind working. The directing at this moment is also special the cinematography was just brill. This seen is even better that seeing Mr Oldman falling over and opening himself up for an all you can eat buffet tob the three little pigs.
Quiet clearly Lecter lost his charm along with his psychotic personality. Yes he fried Liotta's brain but that scene did nothing to me. It didn't shock nor scare. Lecter behind bars and his eerie silence is much more effective.
Maybe, just maybe, Hannibal Lecter has matured over the years in Florence, but then again... maybe... no.
I may get stoned and spat on for this but I think Mr Scott is a great director but no way near the best, who are allocated to the following, Scorsese, Kubrick, Godard, Lynch and Von Trier. Why because they blend the elements of art and watchablity so well. That's why Spielberg doesn't apply, same for James Cameron and even the beloved Tarrintino, although I think he just missed the elite status by a whisker.
Anyway, back to Hannibal, I thoughht Ridley Scott rushed the film, finishing it so soon after Gladiator which is a superior film itself.
What could make Hannibal better?
Well, by repeating the same essence that makes the audience like Dr Lecter. He's evil, sinister and cold but we like him. The problem with Hannibal is that we just like him, there's no chilling factor about him. the best seen in Hannibal is when agent Starling chases after Lecter. There we can sense Lecter's powerful mind working. The directing at this moment is also special the cinematography was just brill. This seen is even better that seeing Mr Oldman falling over and opening himself up for an all you can eat buffet tob the three little pigs.
Quiet clearly Lecter lost his charm along with his psychotic personality. Yes he fried Liotta's brain but that scene did nothing to me. It didn't shock nor scare. Lecter behind bars and his eerie silence is much more effective.
Maybe, just maybe, Hannibal Lecter has matured over the years in Florence, but then again... maybe... no.
Just because Hannibal was directed by Ridley Scott, it doesn't mean that it is automatically a great film and better than another film directed by some unknown guy (in this case Jonathan Demme). Silence of the Lambs was a fantastic film yet I have never seen another film directed by Demme. Ridley Scott is a great director but he could quite easily ruin a film so that it wasn't very good.
If you take Michael Mann for example. He is a brilliant director (one of my favourites). He has made some stunning films such as Last of the Mohicans and Heat but even he has made some disappointing films. I was extremely disappointed with The Insider. It wasn't a bad film, it's just that it wasn't great by his standards.
A better example would be Paul Verhoven. He directed Total Recall which was a really good film and very entertaining. He also, however, directed Starship troopers which, lets face it, was pretty awful.
Great directors don't always make great films. Sometimes, unknown directors will make a film better than a very well known director. The film just probably won't sell as well because certain directors can sell a film. Steven Spielberg for example. Anything directed by him, is expected to be good.
I've never seen Hannibal but I've seen Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs. Michael Mann directed Manhunter and is a much better known director than Jonathan Demme who directed Lambs. Demme's film however, was much better than Mann's. If Demme hadn't made Silence of the Lambs as good as it was or if Anthony Hopkins wasn't chosen for the role of Lector then Hannibal wouldn't have been half as popular. It was Jonathan Demme that secured success for Hannibal, not Ridley Scott or Michael Mann.
Not a lot of people have seen or even heard of Manhunter and this is because it was overshadowed by its obviously superior sequel. It wasn't that it was a bad film because it was actually pretty good. If Silence of the Lambs was released before it, then Manhunter would have been a huge success because everybody would know that it was a follow up to a great film.
If you take Michael Mann for example. He is a brilliant director (one of my favourites). He has made some stunning films such as Last of the Mohicans and Heat but even he has made some disappointing films. I was extremely disappointed with The Insider. It wasn't a bad film, it's just that it wasn't great by his standards.
A better example would be Paul Verhoven. He directed Total Recall which was a really good film and very entertaining. He also, however, directed Starship troopers which, lets face it, was pretty awful.
Great directors don't always make great films. Sometimes, unknown directors will make a film better than a very well known director. The film just probably won't sell as well because certain directors can sell a film. Steven Spielberg for example. Anything directed by him, is expected to be good.
I've never seen Hannibal but I've seen Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs. Michael Mann directed Manhunter and is a much better known director than Jonathan Demme who directed Lambs. Demme's film however, was much better than Mann's. If Demme hadn't made Silence of the Lambs as good as it was or if Anthony Hopkins wasn't chosen for the role of Lector then Hannibal wouldn't have been half as popular. It was Jonathan Demme that secured success for Hannibal, not Ridley Scott or Michael Mann.
Not a lot of people have seen or even heard of Manhunter and this is because it was overshadowed by its obviously superior sequel. It wasn't that it was a bad film because it was actually pretty good. If Silence of the Lambs was released before it, then Manhunter would have been a huge success because everybody would know that it was a follow up to a great film.
The_Vottanator wrote:
> It's out on DVD on 20th August isn't it. I can't wait. 7th August
> for Silence of the Lambs. I don't think Hannibal will be as good as
> Silence of the Lambs.
WHAT! Hannibal was directed by Ridley Scott it is 10* better than Silence of the Lambs.
Go to www.breakthesilence.homestead.com, and sing the guestbook at the bottotm of the homepage.
> It's out on DVD on 20th August isn't it. I can't wait. 7th August
> for Silence of the Lambs. I don't think Hannibal will be as good as
> Silence of the Lambs.
WHAT! Hannibal was directed by Ridley Scott it is 10* better than Silence of the Lambs.
Go to www.breakthesilence.homestead.com, and sing the guestbook at the bottotm of the homepage.
It's out on DVD on 20th August isn't it. I can't wait. 7th August for Silence of the Lambs. I don't think Hannibal will be as good as Silence of the Lambs.