Hannibal
How many times have I got to say that style over substance is sacrilege?
Before his movie-making career, Ridley Scott directed TV commercials. His work, even then, was very characteristic, for Scott obviously had a keen eye for visuals. But that talent does not necessarily translate into good film making. This leads me to point out a common criticism of Scott's films: great visuals, but no character development. This certainly applies to Hannibal.
In all of its 131-minute running time, Hannibal seems unable to reveal anything of real value about Agent Starling and Dr. Lector, despite having a decade both in the film and in reality to put it there. The film is nothing but a pleasing menagerie of slow-motion shots, grand scenes, luscious music and costumes. Unforgivably absent are the mental foreplay and psychological terror of Silence of the Lambs. Instead, we're given filler.
Its predecessor, Silence of the Lambs, was essentially a stark, static film as far as the camera was concerned. The main emphasis there was on the characters Agent Starling and Dr. Lector. Hannibal, by contrast, works so diligently to globe trot and dazzle us with pretty pictures (sunsets, mist , slow-motion, staging, hue effects, etc.), that the story and characters seem hardly important.
The plotting and motivations of the characters are simplistic and formulaic compared to that earlier film. We basically get a sandwich structure of scenes slapped together that don't really make a coherent film. The first slice is the disgrace of Agent Starling and the reawakening of Lector. The meat is nothing but endless back and forth scenes, lightly reminiscent of that awful The Specialist. And the bottom slice is the inexplicable return of Hannibal to America just to "save" Starling, kill a few people, let an unrecognizable Gary Oldman exact his revenge, only, of course, to end with Lector getting away.
I'm tiring of writing about Scott's crappy film. The deal was simply slow, predictable, favoring the LCD, and not really worth the effort.
6/10
How many times have I got to say that style over substance is sacrilege?
Before his movie-making career, Ridley Scott directed TV commercials. His work, even then, was very characteristic, for Scott obviously had a keen eye for visuals. But that talent does not necessarily translate into good film making. This leads me to point out a common criticism of Scott's films: great visuals, but no character development. This certainly applies to Hannibal.
In all of its 131-minute running time, Hannibal seems unable to reveal anything of real value about Agent Starling and Dr. Lector, despite having a decade both in the film and in reality to put it there. The film is nothing but a pleasing menagerie of slow-motion shots, grand scenes, luscious music and costumes. Unforgivably absent are the mental foreplay and psychological terror of Silence of the Lambs. Instead, we're given filler.
Its predecessor, Silence of the Lambs, was essentially a stark, static film as far as the camera was concerned. The main emphasis there was on the characters Agent Starling and Dr. Lector. Hannibal, by contrast, works so diligently to globe trot and dazzle us with pretty pictures (sunsets, mist , slow-motion, staging, hue effects, etc.), that the story and characters seem hardly important.
The plotting and motivations of the characters are simplistic and formulaic compared to that earlier film. We basically get a sandwich structure of scenes slapped together that don't really make a coherent film. The first slice is the disgrace of Agent Starling and the reawakening of Lector. The meat is nothing but endless back and forth scenes, lightly reminiscent of that awful The Specialist. And the bottom slice is the inexplicable return of Hannibal to America just to "save" Starling, kill a few people, let an unrecognizable Gary Oldman exact his revenge, only, of course, to end with Lector getting away.
I'm tiring of writing about Scott's crappy film. The deal was simply slow, predictable, favoring the LCD, and not really worth the effort.
6/10