My Rating: *** out of ****.
Since it was released in theaters, Hannibal really hasn't been looked at favorably. It opened to mixed reviews from critics and much less audience approval. Well that was bound to happen since it was the follow up to the modern classic, Silence of the Lambs.
Regardless of popular opinion, I liked Hannibal. Yes, it's a small step below the slightly overrated Silence of the Lambs but it stands as a solid thriller. It has its flaws and there are areas in which it is vastly inferior to Silence but Hannibal stands effectively on its own.
Hannibal can be seen as the "dark and tragic romantic tale" that director Ridley Scott sees it as. I did sense a connection in Silence between the two characters and that connection was even more present here. But the romance can never happen since it's not a mutual thing. Clarice doesn't want anything to do with Lecter, but it's ironic in a way, because he understands her better than any other character in the film. The ending in a way shows what he would sacrifice for her.
Ridley Scott films are always notable for their visuals and Hannibal is no exception. Scott and Cinematographer John Mathieson have crafted a strikingly beautiful film. Hannibal is drenced with a dark atmosphere in nearly every frame. Also, the shots around Florence and North Carolina(Verger's Mansion) are gorgeous-looking.
The style and Ridley Scott's direction remain the biggest strengths in the film. They keep the weakest parts of Hannibal interesting. The weakest part of the film is an Italian detective named Pazzi's pursuit of Lecter. The problem here is that Pazzi really isn't an interesting character. He's a paper-thin character and the performance of Giancarlo Giannini is pretty uninspired.
Anthony Hopkins returns to arguably his greatest role ever. Once again he proves why he really is that great. His performance here is almost as brilliant as the one in Silence. Hannibal is still a creepy individual but he's a little more likable here. Hopkins should be given a lot of credit for making this happen.
Seeing Anthony Hopkins in his role makes it a little odd not seeing Jodie Foster in the role of Clarice Starling. No matter though. Julianne Moore is an effective replacement. Ten Years after the events in Silence, Clarice is more stressed out by her job. You can sense how tired she is in the movie. While Moore's performance isn't nearly as brilliant as Foster's was, she does a respectable job nonetheless.
There are a couple of meritable supporting performances. Gary Oldman gives an inspired performance as a man who wants to get revenge on Hannibal Lecter. There's a lot of make-up for the role (I had no clue it was him) but its Oldman's acting that allows him to disappear into the character. Ray Liotta is always good at playing unpleasant individuals so theres no surprise that he plays the part like an expert.
The most controversial scene in Hannibal is easily the ending. Most hate it and a lot of people think it ruined the film. I am conflicted about it myself. In a way, its a memorable ending (how could that not be memorable in some way) but it feels a little awkward. It's gross but it's also unique. I don't really know what it is, I am not even sure if it damages the film in anyway.
Like I said, Hannibal does have its flaws but it's an absorbing film. There were moments in the film where I was so riveted that I thought about rewarding the film a ***1/2. However, Hannibal fell just a little short but that doesn't change the fact that Hannibal is an entertaining, thrilling film.
Since it was released in theaters, Hannibal really hasn't been looked at favorably. It opened to mixed reviews from critics and much less audience approval. Well that was bound to happen since it was the follow up to the modern classic, Silence of the Lambs.
Regardless of popular opinion, I liked Hannibal. Yes, it's a small step below the slightly overrated Silence of the Lambs but it stands as a solid thriller. It has its flaws and there are areas in which it is vastly inferior to Silence but Hannibal stands effectively on its own.
Hannibal can be seen as the "dark and tragic romantic tale" that director Ridley Scott sees it as. I did sense a connection in Silence between the two characters and that connection was even more present here. But the romance can never happen since it's not a mutual thing. Clarice doesn't want anything to do with Lecter, but it's ironic in a way, because he understands her better than any other character in the film. The ending in a way shows what he would sacrifice for her.
Ridley Scott films are always notable for their visuals and Hannibal is no exception. Scott and Cinematographer John Mathieson have crafted a strikingly beautiful film. Hannibal is drenced with a dark atmosphere in nearly every frame. Also, the shots around Florence and North Carolina(Verger's Mansion) are gorgeous-looking.
The style and Ridley Scott's direction remain the biggest strengths in the film. They keep the weakest parts of Hannibal interesting. The weakest part of the film is an Italian detective named Pazzi's pursuit of Lecter. The problem here is that Pazzi really isn't an interesting character. He's a paper-thin character and the performance of Giancarlo Giannini is pretty uninspired.
Anthony Hopkins returns to arguably his greatest role ever. Once again he proves why he really is that great. His performance here is almost as brilliant as the one in Silence. Hannibal is still a creepy individual but he's a little more likable here. Hopkins should be given a lot of credit for making this happen.
Seeing Anthony Hopkins in his role makes it a little odd not seeing Jodie Foster in the role of Clarice Starling. No matter though. Julianne Moore is an effective replacement. Ten Years after the events in Silence, Clarice is more stressed out by her job. You can sense how tired she is in the movie. While Moore's performance isn't nearly as brilliant as Foster's was, she does a respectable job nonetheless.
There are a couple of meritable supporting performances. Gary Oldman gives an inspired performance as a man who wants to get revenge on Hannibal Lecter. There's a lot of make-up for the role (I had no clue it was him) but its Oldman's acting that allows him to disappear into the character. Ray Liotta is always good at playing unpleasant individuals so theres no surprise that he plays the part like an expert.
The most controversial scene in Hannibal is easily the ending. Most hate it and a lot of people think it ruined the film. I am conflicted about it myself. In a way, its a memorable ending (how could that not be memorable in some way) but it feels a little awkward. It's gross but it's also unique. I don't really know what it is, I am not even sure if it damages the film in anyway.
Like I said, Hannibal does have its flaws but it's an absorbing film. There were moments in the film where I was so riveted that I thought about rewarding the film a ***1/2. However, Hannibal fell just a little short but that doesn't change the fact that Hannibal is an entertaining, thrilling film.