The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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.
The 1986 hit film, The Silence of the Lambs, which I really liked, was the predecessor of the latest release: Hannibal, of which I can only say, ‘It’s blood quenchingly brilliant’. The flaw in Hannibal that prevents it from ever taking off is the end of the movie, two hours in, it still feels like the beginning, the full plot of the story never kicks in. By becoming the lead character, Hannibal Lector loses his threatening nature. Sure, he's still a cannibal, and we see gore, which we’re all watching the movie for, which I can’t be compared to any other film I have seen for some time. There's more to the horror, however, in the fleshy ends, it's the meaning behind the horror that raises the hairs on the backs of our necks.
In Hannibal, gore is played for jokes, and is the spine in which the film’s body is moulded around, and almost, and in doing so, it has all of the shock value of the last few horror movies which I can think of.
This is to say that Hannibal Lector and his nemesis here, Mason Verger, feel like predictable "comic book" villains, old style gentlemen, old granddads with the strength to kill a man and drink his blood like a vampire!
The creative talent present here is certainly of a high order, but across the board, this is not among any of their finest works.
Steven Zaillian has done an admirable job of sticking to the gist of the original novel, except of course, that the novel (which I have not completely finished yet) was often ill-received by both critics and fans alike.
The problem I have with the story is that, in addition to shining too much light on Mr Lector. The story keeps Clarice Starling far enough apart until the very ending, there is none of the cat-and-mouse flirting and intimidation, which was shown in the original ‘The Silence of the Lambs’. Instead Clarice Starling is shown as an FBI agent increasingly frustrated by the organisation in which she works (a plot device introduced to lead to the novel's ending). In a way, Giancarlo Giannini as Inspector Pazzi serves as a Starling-like figure in the first half of the film, but he's also driven by greed, which doesn't make him the sort of honourable foil that is effective against Lector.
The performances all around are more or less the same with the last film, although Anthony Hopkins seems to have less freedom to be as creepy, and Julianne Moore isn't given much of a Clarice Starling to play, shes nearly reduced to a supporting character. This in mind it's not surprising that Jodie Foster decided to sit this one out.
Anthony Hopkins gets more screen time, but the film paints him as a nearly-heroic character, which doesn't mesh with the creepy stuff we saw in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’. Hannibal is supposed to be the chillingly cannibalistic killer, complete with darkest humour, that we love-to-hate. Instead, by injecting a villain worse than Lector with Mason Verger, complete with "you created me, so I must kill you" story line. The danger that made Hannibal Lector so scary now makes him a hero, or maybe even an Urban Legend. Lecter just wasn't built to be a hero.
If you're going to see Hannibal at the movies just for the gore, and special effects, you'll get some, but then again, if you're a fan of gore, you’ll probably have seen better done in a hundred direct-to-video titles you've already seen. If it's the psychological thrill you're looking for, I've already explained how it's diluted in this film. If you just want to see Anthony Hopkins playing his most popular role again, well... I'll grant you, there's no arguing with that, but I feel that it doesn't carry the film on it’s own. If you're a fan of Ridley Scott, this is not his best work. Coming so soon after ’Gladiator’, this film is hard to distinguish as his work. Scott has always been known for his visual flare, but even that is on the minimal side here. To make this a better film, they could have dropped the Italian scenes and made more of a role for Clarice to follow.
In Hannibal, gore is played for jokes, and is the spine in which the film’s body is moulded around, and almost, and in doing so, it has all of the shock value of the last few horror movies which I can think of.
This is to say that Hannibal Lector and his nemesis here, Mason Verger, feel like predictable "comic book" villains, old style gentlemen, old granddads with the strength to kill a man and drink his blood like a vampire!
The creative talent present here is certainly of a high order, but across the board, this is not among any of their finest works.
Steven Zaillian has done an admirable job of sticking to the gist of the original novel, except of course, that the novel (which I have not completely finished yet) was often ill-received by both critics and fans alike.
The problem I have with the story is that, in addition to shining too much light on Mr Lector. The story keeps Clarice Starling far enough apart until the very ending, there is none of the cat-and-mouse flirting and intimidation, which was shown in the original ‘The Silence of the Lambs’. Instead Clarice Starling is shown as an FBI agent increasingly frustrated by the organisation in which she works (a plot device introduced to lead to the novel's ending). In a way, Giancarlo Giannini as Inspector Pazzi serves as a Starling-like figure in the first half of the film, but he's also driven by greed, which doesn't make him the sort of honourable foil that is effective against Lector.
The performances all around are more or less the same with the last film, although Anthony Hopkins seems to have less freedom to be as creepy, and Julianne Moore isn't given much of a Clarice Starling to play, shes nearly reduced to a supporting character. This in mind it's not surprising that Jodie Foster decided to sit this one out.
Anthony Hopkins gets more screen time, but the film paints him as a nearly-heroic character, which doesn't mesh with the creepy stuff we saw in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’. Hannibal is supposed to be the chillingly cannibalistic killer, complete with darkest humour, that we love-to-hate. Instead, by injecting a villain worse than Lector with Mason Verger, complete with "you created me, so I must kill you" story line. The danger that made Hannibal Lector so scary now makes him a hero, or maybe even an Urban Legend. Lecter just wasn't built to be a hero.
If you're going to see Hannibal at the movies just for the gore, and special effects, you'll get some, but then again, if you're a fan of gore, you’ll probably have seen better done in a hundred direct-to-video titles you've already seen. If it's the psychological thrill you're looking for, I've already explained how it's diluted in this film. If you just want to see Anthony Hopkins playing his most popular role again, well... I'll grant you, there's no arguing with that, but I feel that it doesn't carry the film on it’s own. If you're a fan of Ridley Scott, this is not his best work. Coming so soon after ’Gladiator’, this film is hard to distinguish as his work. Scott has always been known for his visual flare, but even that is on the minimal side here. To make this a better film, they could have dropped the Italian scenes and made more of a role for Clarice to follow.
If you have a theatrical site you would like added to my links page. Please post it here. I will consider all requests with priority being given to those who can add a link back. I will add details of how to add a reciprocal link to the links page.
The 1986 hit film, The Silence of the Lambs, which I really liked, was the predecessor of the latest release: Hannibal, of which I can only say, ‘It’s blood quenchingly brilliant’. The flaw in Hannibal that prevents it from ever taking off is the end of the movie, two hours in, it still feels like the beginning, the full plot of the story never kicks in. By becoming the lead character, Hannibal Lector loses his threatening nature. Sure, he's still a cannibal, and we see gore, which we’re all watching the movie for, which I can’t be compared to any other film I have seen for some time. There's more to the horror, however, in the fleshy ends, it's the meaning behind the horror that raises the hairs on the backs of our necks.
In Hannibal, gore is played for jokes, and is the spine in which the film’s body is moulded around, and almost, and in doing so, it has all of the shock value of the last few horror movies which I can think of.
This is to say that Hannibal Lector and his nemesis here, Mason Verger, feel like predictable "comic book" villains, old style gentlemen, old granddads with the strength to kill a man and drink his blood like a vampire!
The creative talent present here is certainly of a high order, but across the board, this is not among any of their finest works.
Steven Zaillian has done an admirable job of sticking to the gist of the original novel, except of course, that the novel (which I have not completely finished yet) was often ill-received by both critics and fans alike.
The problem I have with the story is that, in addition to shining too much light on Mr Lector. The story keeps Clarice Starling far enough apart until the very ending, there is none of the cat-and-mouse flirting and intimidation, which was shown in the original ‘The Silence of the Lambs’. Instead Clarice Starling is shown as an FBI agent increasingly frustrated by the organisation in which she works (a plot device introduced to lead to the novel's ending). In a way, Giancarlo Giannini as Inspector Pazzi serves as a Starling-like figure in the first half of the film, but he's also driven by greed, which doesn't make him the sort of honourable foil that is effective against Lector.
The performances all around are more or less the same with the last film, although Anthony Hopkins seems to have less freedom to be as creepy, and Julianne Moore isn't given much of a Clarice Starling to play, shes nearly reduced to a supporting character. This in mind it's not surprising that Jodie Foster decided to sit this one out.
Anthony Hopkins gets more screen time, but the film paints him as a nearly-heroic character, which doesn't mesh with the creepy stuff we saw in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’. Hannibal is supposed to be the chillingly cannibalistic killer, complete with darkest humour, that we love-to-hate. Instead, by injecting a villain worse than Lector with Mason Verger, complete with "you created me, so I must kill you" story line. The danger that made Hannibal Lector so scary now makes him a hero, or maybe even an Urban Legend. Lecter just wasn't built to be a hero.
If you're going to see Hannibal at the movies just for the gore, and special effects, you'll get some, but then again, if you're a fan of gore, you’ll probably have seen better done in a hundred direct-to-video titles you've already seen. If it's the psychological thrill you're looking for, I've already explained how it's diluted in this film. If you just want to see Anthony Hopkins playing his most popular role again, well... I'll grant you, there's no arguing with that, but I feel that it doesn't carry the film on it’s own. If you're a fan of Ridley Scott, this is not his best work. Coming so soon after ’Gladiator’, this film is hard to distinguish as his work. Scott has always been known for his visual flare, but even that is on the minimal side here. To make this a better film, they could have dropped the Italian scenes and made more of a role for Clarice to follow.
In Hannibal, gore is played for jokes, and is the spine in which the film’s body is moulded around, and almost, and in doing so, it has all of the shock value of the last few horror movies which I can think of.
This is to say that Hannibal Lector and his nemesis here, Mason Verger, feel like predictable "comic book" villains, old style gentlemen, old granddads with the strength to kill a man and drink his blood like a vampire!
The creative talent present here is certainly of a high order, but across the board, this is not among any of their finest works.
Steven Zaillian has done an admirable job of sticking to the gist of the original novel, except of course, that the novel (which I have not completely finished yet) was often ill-received by both critics and fans alike.
The problem I have with the story is that, in addition to shining too much light on Mr Lector. The story keeps Clarice Starling far enough apart until the very ending, there is none of the cat-and-mouse flirting and intimidation, which was shown in the original ‘The Silence of the Lambs’. Instead Clarice Starling is shown as an FBI agent increasingly frustrated by the organisation in which she works (a plot device introduced to lead to the novel's ending). In a way, Giancarlo Giannini as Inspector Pazzi serves as a Starling-like figure in the first half of the film, but he's also driven by greed, which doesn't make him the sort of honourable foil that is effective against Lector.
The performances all around are more or less the same with the last film, although Anthony Hopkins seems to have less freedom to be as creepy, and Julianne Moore isn't given much of a Clarice Starling to play, shes nearly reduced to a supporting character. This in mind it's not surprising that Jodie Foster decided to sit this one out.
Anthony Hopkins gets more screen time, but the film paints him as a nearly-heroic character, which doesn't mesh with the creepy stuff we saw in ‘The Silence of the Lambs’. Hannibal is supposed to be the chillingly cannibalistic killer, complete with darkest humour, that we love-to-hate. Instead, by injecting a villain worse than Lector with Mason Verger, complete with "you created me, so I must kill you" story line. The danger that made Hannibal Lector so scary now makes him a hero, or maybe even an Urban Legend. Lecter just wasn't built to be a hero.
If you're going to see Hannibal at the movies just for the gore, and special effects, you'll get some, but then again, if you're a fan of gore, you’ll probably have seen better done in a hundred direct-to-video titles you've already seen. If it's the psychological thrill you're looking for, I've already explained how it's diluted in this film. If you just want to see Anthony Hopkins playing his most popular role again, well... I'll grant you, there's no arguing with that, but I feel that it doesn't carry the film on it’s own. If you're a fan of Ridley Scott, this is not his best work. Coming so soon after ’Gladiator’, this film is hard to distinguish as his work. Scott has always been known for his visual flare, but even that is on the minimal side here. To make this a better film, they could have dropped the Italian scenes and made more of a role for Clarice to follow.