The last movie that received this much hype and promotion was Star Wars Episode I. And was it worth the hype? Not really. It wasn't a terrible movie by any standards but the hype actually raised expectations beyond what was realistic and I felt a little bit disappointed afterwards. Hannibal suffers from a similar fate. It's not a bad movie but the hype raised expectations a bit too high. For this particular viewer, I actually had read the book before seeing it so already knew what the hype was all about and after it was all said and done, didn't understand what the hype was about.
Hannibal takes place several years after `Silence of the Lambs'. He has spent some time in Florence living a `normal' life and has been able to hide from the public by becoming a temporary curator for a local museum. Mean while back in the United States, Clarice Starling has resumed her life as an FBI agent and while never really rising to the promising career that she was heading for after her brush with the infamous Hannibal Lector, she has been able to carve out a relatively successful career with the Bureau. However, her life takes a dramatic turn when an operation she leads turns into a disaster. Although not her fault, she has become the scapegoat for the FBI and it is her name that is splashed all over the news and media. This unfortunate event begins to unravel a series of events that lead to the `re-emergence' of Hannibal Lector as his infatuation with her draws him out.
To be quite honest, the book wasn't that good and they based the movie on the book so there was bound to be some problems with it. The book was slow and plodding the movie was the same. The movie was aptly named as it does focus around the character of Hannibal and we see much of him. The audience is given a better view into Hannibal Lector's personality and idiosyncrasies but the storyline was so slow that there wasn't any real suspense built up and in the end, the ending kind of fizzled out. The main problem with this movie was that it seemed like two stories jammed into one. It starts out with the Starling character and sets up the scenario around her and then abruptly drops it and jumps to Florence. A large portion of the movie then revolves around Hannibal and his time in Florence and then the movie brings it back together towards the end with the Starling character meeting up with Hannibal. The movie just didn't have a good flow to it.
Much of the hype the movie received revolved around the gore and there was some of it. The majority of it came at the end with the dinner scene but the rest of the movie was pretty standard stuff. It wasn't anything that we probably haven't scene on a Schwarzenegger movie and compared to the book, it was pretty watered down.
Although the story was a bit weak, Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance was quite captivating. He seems to genuinely enjoy playing the role of Hannibal Lector and the role fits him quite well. Another really good performance was by Gary Oldman. He played the character of Mason Verger, the obsessed, deformed and only surviving victim of Hannibal looking for revenge. I found his character the most enjoyable to watch as he truly gives the impression of a sick, twisted man consumed by his desire to capture Hannibal and tortured him to death. Juliana Moore as Clarice Starling I wasn't so impressed. Jodie Foster created the character in SOTL and gave her character a quiet, strong and yet vulnerable character. Juliana wasn't quite able to bring that across in this movie. Rather the Starling character came across as a bit rigid.
Overall, this movie wasn't worth the hype and the final dinner scene while shocking and a bit gratuitous could have been better. I actually found myself bored at some points and if I had a remote, probably would have just fast forwarded it to the gore stuff just to see what it was all about. My suggestion? See it as a matinee, or wait for it to come out on video but don't pay full price for it.
Hannibal takes place several years after `Silence of the Lambs'. He has spent some time in Florence living a `normal' life and has been able to hide from the public by becoming a temporary curator for a local museum. Mean while back in the United States, Clarice Starling has resumed her life as an FBI agent and while never really rising to the promising career that she was heading for after her brush with the infamous Hannibal Lector, she has been able to carve out a relatively successful career with the Bureau. However, her life takes a dramatic turn when an operation she leads turns into a disaster. Although not her fault, she has become the scapegoat for the FBI and it is her name that is splashed all over the news and media. This unfortunate event begins to unravel a series of events that lead to the `re-emergence' of Hannibal Lector as his infatuation with her draws him out.
To be quite honest, the book wasn't that good and they based the movie on the book so there was bound to be some problems with it. The book was slow and plodding the movie was the same. The movie was aptly named as it does focus around the character of Hannibal and we see much of him. The audience is given a better view into Hannibal Lector's personality and idiosyncrasies but the storyline was so slow that there wasn't any real suspense built up and in the end, the ending kind of fizzled out. The main problem with this movie was that it seemed like two stories jammed into one. It starts out with the Starling character and sets up the scenario around her and then abruptly drops it and jumps to Florence. A large portion of the movie then revolves around Hannibal and his time in Florence and then the movie brings it back together towards the end with the Starling character meeting up with Hannibal. The movie just didn't have a good flow to it.
Much of the hype the movie received revolved around the gore and there was some of it. The majority of it came at the end with the dinner scene but the rest of the movie was pretty standard stuff. It wasn't anything that we probably haven't scene on a Schwarzenegger movie and compared to the book, it was pretty watered down.
Although the story was a bit weak, Sir Anthony Hopkins' performance was quite captivating. He seems to genuinely enjoy playing the role of Hannibal Lector and the role fits him quite well. Another really good performance was by Gary Oldman. He played the character of Mason Verger, the obsessed, deformed and only surviving victim of Hannibal looking for revenge. I found his character the most enjoyable to watch as he truly gives the impression of a sick, twisted man consumed by his desire to capture Hannibal and tortured him to death. Juliana Moore as Clarice Starling I wasn't so impressed. Jodie Foster created the character in SOTL and gave her character a quiet, strong and yet vulnerable character. Juliana wasn't quite able to bring that across in this movie. Rather the Starling character came across as a bit rigid.
Overall, this movie wasn't worth the hype and the final dinner scene while shocking and a bit gratuitous could have been better. I actually found myself bored at some points and if I had a remote, probably would have just fast forwarded it to the gore stuff just to see what it was all about. My suggestion? See it as a matinee, or wait for it to come out on video but don't pay full price for it.