: Being a sequel to `Silence of the Lambs' and the (very much) under-appreciated `Manhunter' was a tough act to follow. Could Ridley Scott, with a Mamet adaptation of Harris novel do it? No, he could not.
Clarice Starling has moved on ten years. For one she's body-morphed into Actress Juliane Moore. For another she's heading up a drugs bust, which goes pear-shaped. Disgraced, Starling is set to work on the case that gave her her fame - that of Hannibal Lecter and his purported reappearance. Is he back? Can she stop him? Are you hungry? Well the movie has a `two halves' feel here. There's a plot element of a detective trying to claim the reward for Lecter's capture while Starling hunts him down. to a plot element where one of Lecter's previous victims is desperate to hunt down Lecter to exact brutal revenge. Neither is all that engaging. Part of the problem is that the previous two movies worked so well because Lecter assisted the detective in hunting down another psychopath through psychological mind games. Here Lecter is the `bad guy' and, while the script has some interesting moments between himself and Starling, there's none of that great sense of the desperate hunt that the previous movies gave us. This creates a lack of tension and excitement. Yes, Lecter is meant to the villain but by now we would have expected him to transcend such an obvious role. The final resolution of the movie seems both familiar and irritatingly unsatisfying.
Hopkins has Lecter done to a tee. It is, after all, the role that made him famous. He's the quintessential gentlemen - only this one is a psychopath. He doesn't have to strain himself here and there's a feeling he's doing it by the numbers. Moore is no replacement for Foster - it's like she's trying to be hard to emulate Foster and not letting herself adopt the role. The charisma between her and Hopkins isn't as strong either as it was with Foster and Hopkins, a pity when the movie hinges on it so.
Scott is an accomplished director with some great skill and great movies (and turkeys) behind him. As usual with his films, this one is quite dark - lots of shadows, observed shots, etc. The score accompanying it is grand, if not startling (fairly unmemorable). There's a very pretty opening credit sequence, and the finale is quite well shot and framed, etc. but other than that. nothing that stuck in my head.
`Hannibal' is a grand little thriller/horror/drama in its own right - it's just that it can't compete with its legacy and so, as a result, suffers by comparison. It will be interesting to see how `Red Dragon' fares against this. 6/10.
Clarice Starling has moved on ten years. For one she's body-morphed into Actress Juliane Moore. For another she's heading up a drugs bust, which goes pear-shaped. Disgraced, Starling is set to work on the case that gave her her fame - that of Hannibal Lecter and his purported reappearance. Is he back? Can she stop him? Are you hungry? Well the movie has a `two halves' feel here. There's a plot element of a detective trying to claim the reward for Lecter's capture while Starling hunts him down. to a plot element where one of Lecter's previous victims is desperate to hunt down Lecter to exact brutal revenge. Neither is all that engaging. Part of the problem is that the previous two movies worked so well because Lecter assisted the detective in hunting down another psychopath through psychological mind games. Here Lecter is the `bad guy' and, while the script has some interesting moments between himself and Starling, there's none of that great sense of the desperate hunt that the previous movies gave us. This creates a lack of tension and excitement. Yes, Lecter is meant to the villain but by now we would have expected him to transcend such an obvious role. The final resolution of the movie seems both familiar and irritatingly unsatisfying.
Hopkins has Lecter done to a tee. It is, after all, the role that made him famous. He's the quintessential gentlemen - only this one is a psychopath. He doesn't have to strain himself here and there's a feeling he's doing it by the numbers. Moore is no replacement for Foster - it's like she's trying to be hard to emulate Foster and not letting herself adopt the role. The charisma between her and Hopkins isn't as strong either as it was with Foster and Hopkins, a pity when the movie hinges on it so.
Scott is an accomplished director with some great skill and great movies (and turkeys) behind him. As usual with his films, this one is quite dark - lots of shadows, observed shots, etc. The score accompanying it is grand, if not startling (fairly unmemorable). There's a very pretty opening credit sequence, and the finale is quite well shot and framed, etc. but other than that. nothing that stuck in my head.
`Hannibal' is a grand little thriller/horror/drama in its own right - it's just that it can't compete with its legacy and so, as a result, suffers by comparison. It will be interesting to see how `Red Dragon' fares against this. 6/10.