Posted From: 126.96.36.199
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 02:48 pm: |
I watched this movie last night. Hmm. Well, what's to say about it? It certainly has high production values, and nicely and somewhat glossily reproduced its time periods rather well. Not at all the sort of thing you'd expect from the underlying stalk and slash revenge movie it secretly turned out to be.
At times it was somewhat laughable, with the moody teenage Hannibal Lecter coming across like the teenage Kevin or Perry Harry Enfield character. At times he did look like a mini Dracula, teeth a-flashing and eyes gory with blood. Which was rather silly. The other members of the cast felt sadly underused in it though. The development of the relationship between the French detective and Hannibal's aunt was particularly under played, I thought, and I'd've liked ot have seen more, as was in the book.
But it wasn't as bad an attempt as it could have been, was my thought.
And just to be controversial, I think the book HANNIBAL RISING is better than its predecessor HANNIBAL.
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 04:00 pm: |
I succumbed to the reviews, Mark, on the book, and avoided reading HANNIBAL RISING - though I've read all of Harris' other Hannibal books, and enjoyed them greatly. I saw the movie too, and expectations were so low, I remember enjoying the movie! I'm fast learning, it's the only way to see (read too?) anything, anymore....
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 04:18 pm: |
Craig - I'm with you guys. It wasn't as bad as I expected.
Mark - the young lad isn't as bad with his glowering and scowling as it appears, because he's basically aping Hopkins from Silence of the Lambs. In fact his impersonation of a young Hopkins playing Lecter is spot on in that respect.
Craig/Mark - hated Ridley Scott's version of the book. Not that I thought it was a bad adaptation, just that it felt somehow askew, out of shape with Silence as its predecessor. One of Scott's worst movies. Though I'm not a Scott fan most of the time.
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 04:21 pm: |
Last part of thread I was referring to Hannibal, not Hannibal Rising.
Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 05:55 pm: |
Yeah, Fran, the Hannibal movie didn't work for me either. I figured the young actor was aping Hopkins, but thought it actually detracted from his performance. Without that still point Hopkins had in the centre of his performance, which a young lad would always struggle to bring out, it just turned it to slasher pantomime.
Posted From: 22.214.171.124
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 06:16 pm: |
I always thought Hopkins played lector as a completely unbelievable pantomime villain. He wasn't in the least scary just because he was so OTT in his performance. If anyone saw him in the BBC's version of Great Expectations he played Abel Magwich EXACTLY the same way.
Brian Cox in Manhunter played him as a very intelligent and believable character with a murderous streak. You could believe that Cox had been a successful psychiatrist.
Hopkins played it so maniacally that you couldn't believe for one second that he would have been able to keep any patients.
He were rubbish.
Posted From: 126.96.36.199
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 06:49 pm: |
Weber - I didn't think he was bad, I thought Hopkins played the role according to the mood of the movie, which was melodramatic, yes, but it suited the movie. I think the movie is a fine example of intelligent film-making for the period. Finer, more detailed, and believable movies have followed for sure, but it's aged well. It's not a patch on Seven, though.
I agree with you about Cox's performance. His accent trawled the lines out with chilling authenticity (hang on, not that I've met any genius serial killers), and his Lecter is the more believable of the two. I think Red Dragon is far superior film anyway, and I've always thought William Petersen's 'Will Graham' was seriously overlooked.
Look at SOFL and you'll see it's a pantomime from the start. A great and chilling one, but nevertheless a pantomime. Jodie Foster plays Clarice Starling the same way, and seems to have played a number of roles since with that annoying constipated look. She's a great actress, just wish she stopped looking like she was looking for the nearest toilet. (She was excellent in Inside Man...more of those roles for Miss Foster, please).
Steve Jensen (Stevej)
Posted From: 188.8.131.52
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 07:05 pm: |
It's quite disconcerting to read Youtube comments about Hannibal Rising...
'OMGZ HANNIBAL IS SO HOT!'
'I'D SO DO HANNIBAL!!1!!'
'DAT JAPANESE BIRD IS FIT'
Posted From: 184.108.40.206
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 07:51 pm: |
One of Scott's worst movies. Though I'm not a Scott fan most of the time.
Oh, I absloutely love Ridley Scott's Hannibal. Hopkins is much better in it than in Silence of the Lambs.
Posted From: 220.127.116.11
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 09:07 pm: |
Another under-appreciated, highly-touted-beforehand-till-they-saw-it film?... much much better than it's generally assumed to be?... the sequel to BASIC INSTINCT. Seriously.
Posted From: 18.104.22.168
|Posted on Friday, September 18, 2009 - 09:27 pm: |
Yeah? I can believe that, actually. What'shisface Morrisey's in it, isn't he? I'll watch it sometime.
Yeah, I enjoyed Manhunter. Red Dragon's the best book, and Mann did a great job of filming it. Does anyone remember his first stab at it? It was an episode of Miami Vice, with Crockett taking on the Will Graham type role. One of Vice's best episodes.