Not as good as the first (Hannibal - Thomas Harris)

Member Name: jamesjnr

Product:	Hannibal - Thomas Harris
Date:	09/07/01 (23 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: Ive read it you havent

Disadvantages: Its a shamee it wasnt better

My disappointment in 'Hannibal' is profound. I was among those who had some, perhaps unrealistic, high expectations of this sequel to the seminal 'Silence of the Lambs', and I was saddened by the pulp nonsense that was presented to me on screen.

In short, 'Hannibal' picks up ten years on from 'Silence of the Lambs', with lunatic killer Hannibal Lector living in Florence and posing as a museum curator. Back in the States, Clarice Starling, played this time by Julianne Moore rather than Jodie Foster, is in a career slump. After a disastrous drugs bust, she's given the job of tracking Lector down again (he still features on the FBI's ten most wanted list). Her reassignment is being manipulated somewhat by the hideously disfigured millionaire Mason Verger, the only previous victim of Hannibal's to have survived, who has placed a tremendous price on his assailant's head.

Thus the scene is set for a weak plot, in which Clarice Starling does little other than mope about the FBI basement listening to old recordings of Lector, and an Italian detective tracks Hannibal down on Mason's behalf, only to meet with a messy end. Lector comes to America, ostensibly to deal with Starling's superiors (including a predictably lunatic Ray Liotta), and test Starling's faith in justice. And that last paragraph makes the plot sound much more interesting than it is.

'Hannibal' is nonsense, and it's dangerous, immoral nonsense. In 'The Silence of the Lambs', Lector was a terrifying animal, all the more disturbing because of his obvious reserves of charm and intelligence. Whenever we began to like him though, we caught a glimpse of how twisted and dangerous the character was. It was a fine line, and the main reason for that film's success is the careful way in which both director and cast walked it. We could be fascinated by Hannibal yes. But we never liked him, and being close to
him was the stuff of nightmares. In short, it was a piece of genius.

Now look at 'Hannibal'. The charm's still there, for sure. Anthony Hopkins remains one of the finer actors on this planet, and when he goes for the charm jugular, he hits the spot every time. Further, Hannibal's actually funny. He kills to the tune of entertaining one-liners, delivered with masterful timing. In short, you can't help but like Hannibal Lector. He even runs the risk of becoming a cult figure.

Hence my outrage. Yes, we see Lector kill in this film, but only those who deserve it. The detective, who tracks him down, despite the warnings of others, deserves it. He had those warnings, but risked all for Verger's reward. Verger himself was a paedophile, a danger in and of him, and deserved both Lector's original disfiguring attack, and the new assault he suffers in this film. Clarice's superiors are corrupt and smug, so obviously deserve what they get. Hannibal isn't a dangerous lunatic at all - he's our moral conscience, by God!

A dangerous, dangerous conceit, and one that could have been avoided by keeping the audience at arm's length from Lector. Terrify us don't charm us. Better yet, as with 'Silence', do both. Hannibal Lector should not be admired, and this film tricks us into doing just that.

Having said that, this film has some redeeming features. Hopkins is superbly watchable as ever. Gary Oldman, buried under very convincing make up, is similarly good fun (again though - should these characters be good fun?) Moving on from that point, we have Ray Liotta doing… well, exactly what he always does, but it works fine here too.

As for Julianne Moore, I think her performance has been unfairly judged. When I saw this film, the character I saw on screen was to a fault the same individual who once wore Jodie Fosters face. The difference, one which I think is causing people to mali
gn the actress, is actually the material. Jodie Fosters Clarice Starling had a whole journey to make in her film, confronting her own fears, Lector himself, a second lunatic at large, and more. Moore's Starling has nothing to do but be victimised, and then meet up with Lector again because of his apparent obsession. In the first film, she was central, where in this one she's on the sidelines. There is a vague attempt to suggest a twisted connection between Lector and Starling, but it barely gets off the ground, then is forgotten about.

More than the acting though, the thing that turns what might have been a nasty, pulpy excuse to delight in a sick man's mayhem into a watchable film is Ridley Scott. The direction of the movie, the visual construction of images and mood, is simply beautiful. It's almost art house, in fact, which is where a film this gorgeously painted would normally have ended up. Truly something to behold, and the thing that made the time float dreamily by me. Scott is, now more than ever, a master of cinematography, and always worth he price of a ticket.

On the whole though, the direction and performances aside, this is a brutish reconsideration of a fine character. Where 'The Silence of the Lambs' disturbed us intensely through a subtle psychoanalysis of extreme cases, 'Hannibal' is nothing but a freakshow where the freaks wink into the camera and joke as they maim and mutilate. I wish I could tell you not to see it, and I would if I didn't think that the director's work had such merit. Go and see it, but feel free to plug your ears with cotton wool. How's that?

In summary, everyone else involved in the film buoys up a weak script, and it doesn't deserve to be. There's nothing here to disturb you (though some scenes go for the gross-out, not ineffectively). It's a watered down, ill-conceived piece of rubbish, and they really shouldn't have bothered.

Summary: