Hannibal

Pigsnie darling, we click on so many of your comments on this movie!

I actually felt Ridley overdid it on his opening - too extended and he was just playing around wasting time and he could have set the same mood more swiftly. But i did catch that interesting little Pigeon bit with the shape of Hannibal's face.

Soundtrack - yes, hans zimmer is one guy you can always count on for a great score

and yes indeedy, i agree that was a great bowel splat scene. i just love how you coined that term though - it should be written in the dictionary! or film texts, at least!

I disagree about Moore as Clarice; she's too soft. She played hard but she was still soft; there is something for the complexity in the character that she did not pull through but that Foster did. And, actually, Foster is all grown up and a very mature and sexy woman; you should see some of the photos out there on the web of her. I admire her far more than Moore when it comes to acting ability.

As for what she would have captured; they simplified things too much in the movie with Moore, plus with how she plays the character her inherent "victimization" turned me off. I know the movie wanted to play on how Hannibal needs a vulnerable woman to be attracted to her, but therein lies the delicious conflict - that she is strong, fierce, and at the same time, so vulnerable to him, yet FIGHTING herself and him. Jodie did this beautifully; he confused her, upset her, yet she connected him, and in the end grew to accept this connection while still feeling confused about it. There is a delicious sense of wrongness in liking Lecter that she is well aware of and does not want to give in to but may very well be aware she IS giving into, and horrified about this. Hence her nervousness and uncertainty in Silence of the Lambs.

But with Moore, there's no real sense of struggle; the whole time she remains unclaimed by Lecter and even though she sheds tears I got the sense it was more for her predicament and the knowledge of the situation she's in and a begging for mercy. My own sense of romance went ahead and gave her the "maybe she really is in love with him" hook but that was mainly me letting the story i know and the prequel do the work for her. I let her slide. Sure, she looks beautiful and like a fallen, proud doe, but I think Foster's performance would have been even more intense and exciting, more emotional and less black and white/angelic. You can always play with the dynamic of mentor/student but Moore was too regal and standoffish, so I totally didn't buy the letter writing sequence - I was peeved, because it was entirely lost on Moore's character, she was just doing a job. But with Foster, she would have been shaken because Lecter might actually be getting to her, rather than just aware of the danger of him.

That's what it is I guess; I really felt the film didn't do justice to the complexity of their relationship in general, which I feel would have been stellar had Foster played it and the film done that relationship justice. You never doubt that Moore is always going to do the right thing, even though you hope she doesn't and look for clues that she won't. With Foster, I doubted, and that's what was exciting. At the end with the handcuffs, I didn't even really have much emotion regarding what might/might not happen to Moore (don't want to spoil it) but if it were Foster I would have been freaking out and totally caught up what happened.

alrighty, that's enough!! thanks for listening.

Type Much?

__________________
Horror's Not Dead
Latest Movie Review(s): Too lazy to keep this up to date. New reviews every week.

why yes, i do! i'm a writer, i can't help it. but, i did apologize!

No you didn't! You thanked me for listening!

"Type much?"

OG, you are a master of Terse-ichory.

____________________________________________________

More Hannibal for Thmilin.

The opening scene showing Barney selling the famous mask to Verger. I agree; it was misplaced. And Ridley should not have shown us Mason's ruin of a face 5 minutes into the picture either. What wuz he thinking? [Lunch, perhaps?]

On Jodie Foster's performance in SOTL -- basically, I thought she was almost all business. Yes, she was vulnerable to Lecter's taunting, but she was pretty much the tough no-nonsense FBI novitiate for 80% of the picture. The nun with a gun. And Jodie Foster is not sexy, Thmilin, please. Yes, she did indeed have her Sharon Stone moment in THE ACCUSED, but we have been deprived ever since. She strikes no sexual sparks with any of her leading men (Mel Gibson! Richard Gere! Chow Yun Fat!) which means that she will never be easy casting. (Do you notice how rarely she works?)

As for Julianne Moore, the woman is a goddess (excuse the panting for a sec!) Her Clarice is fascinated and enthralled with the good Dottore, (Remember how she breathlessly asked Barney if Lecter ever mentioned her?) and it is clear as a bell that it is Hannibal she has been missing all these tedious back-seat FBI years.

Now let's put aside Julianne & Jodie for a moment, Thmilin, and Put yourself in Clarice's place. How would you feel if a man like Lecter loved you? Lecter, the most intelligent life form you will ever know, the man who will never lie to you, the man who will never let you lie to yourself? Would you love him back? Or would you slap his face? Think it over.

You too, OG. Hee hee.

__________________
Pigsnie, Vicar of Fries!

Ewwwwwwwwwww.

Anyway, I agree on one part about Moore: she does eminate a more lovely feeling than Foster...but that may be a bad thing. Foster is pretty in an ordinary, everyday sort of way - Moore is as well, but not to the same extent. You know what I mean: they don't look like supermodels, because no FBI agent would, either.

So yeah, Moore is much more attractive than Foster - no question about it, but I don't know that Starling should be highly attractive.

The thing is, Pigsnie, that we're all asking each other questions like yours ("What if the most intelligent person you've ever known loved you?" - although I'd say "is obsessed with you"), but the movie didn't go into those much...that's my beef with it.

Here's what we say: Hannibal killing people. That's mostly it. I wanted to see a lot more. I wanted to see even more how his one and only weakness was Clarice.

totally agree Chris, I wanted to see a lot more of the how and why of his relationship with Clarice. It was not properly developed in SOTL and that's what I expected to see in Hannibal.

disclaimer - the below is not an attack but a good-humored argument. just so ya know.

Pigsnie - Jodie Foster - oh yes she is!! Beauty is in everyone and doesn't have to come with a tall, pale frame and supermodel background. Sexuality either. And i'm amazed you write off the smaller number of roles to a supposed inability to cast her. That is so not it. That woman could have anything she wanted; do you know how smart and talented she is? Her background in movies has won her the respect, admiration and desire of the bigwigs in Hollywood. I actually found her interaction with Mel Gibson loaded with chemistry. I think she just plays the type of practical, tomboyish figure you don't find sexy at all; but that's a personal preference of yours, not a universal rule. I will give that Moore is beautiful, but so's Foster, in a different way. Come on, did you not see her entangled with Russell Crowe in one of her rare public appearances? As for casting - when asked about this very thing her reasons - she preferred directing (and is directing Flora Plum now) and intensely desires privacy and there were few roles up to her snuff. That woman went to Yale; she's got smarts and talent and knows what she wants. She was raised as a child in the acting business from the very start; she knows her stuff. That is much sexier than the good looks and everyday acting talent Moore has.

you just enjoy seeing a cream puff be tough! and yes, she can be tough, i won't argue that. but i'd much rather have the realism Chris mentions - are you so sure a cream puff fits the picture? That's what complicates it - that Clarice is/becomes sexy to Hannibal because of their complex relationship, and namely, her mind and how it tangles with his. He's a *psychiatrist*. Having Moore means less work and is a sellout; it lets her looks do the work for her - oh, she's beautiful, there's the reason for the sexual attraction. that is NOT it. It's much deeper, and if anything Hannibal may indeed be unmoved entirely by physical beauty and more moved by complexity.

As for Hannibal - if such a man loved/obssessed over me and he knew me better than myself and in fact challenged me to be BETTER than myself - i would slap him AND love him back. that's the complication, that's what I wanted to see, and that's why Moore didn't kick it for me. i wanted to see the intensity of the struggle, but she is not really capable of that, she was only capable of looking beautiful and martyred.

OG - I said "alrighty, that's enough!! thanks for listening. "

the first was my version of an apology telling myself to halt for your benefit and recognizing that i needed to halt. and the second implies that's what i meant. thank you for taking the time - ie, sorry to take your time. so there! i am a dissecter of words, buddy. mwahahah.

Well, I wouldn't go overboard concerning Foster's attractability (is that a word?), but I suppose to some people she has a special something about her - it depends on who you are.

Anyway, I will concede this: she's sickingly intelligent. Apparently she memorizes her scripts beforehand and doesn't really have to consult them throughout the movies. She also (again, apparently) learns the languages of the countries she films her movies in.

My guess is that both are exaggerations and that she memorizes large portions of scripts, and has learned several different languages for the sake of her movies.

Actually Moore slapped him and LET HIM GO, what do you think that means? Looks complicated.

Sorry, I still do not think Jodie Foster is sexy. (You seem to confuse sexiness with sexuality, which is like people confusing wit with humor.) And I do not dislike athletic tomboys -- my girlfriend actually raises horses and comes in to make dinner, smelling of muck. (Muck smells pretty good then, I must tell you.) And I am sorry, in spite of the universal respect she engenders, Jodie IS difficult to cast. This had nothing to do with her Yale degree or her smarts or her distinguished background as a child actor ; the fact is that most directors don't know what to do with her. Indeed, she might be too smart for Hollywood, I agree with you. Commish. (The Russell Crowe "affair" did make me laugh though ; what a stunt!)

As for Moore, she is a wonderfully supple & versatile actress, certainly not someone with "everyday acting talent," as you so ungenerously put it. BOOGIE NIGHTS, MAGNOLIA, AN IDEAL HUSBAND (my favorite movie of hers), SAFE, THE END OF THE AFFAIR, SURVIVING PICASSO, quite a substantial resume in a relatively short period of time!

So what is it about Clarice that attracted Hannibal? I will say it is not her mind or her beauty (even though Harris described her in SOTL as a "winter sunset of a girl"). It is her purity of spirit, her absolute sense of integrity, her shining goodness.

Agree quite heavily - especially on the last point. It is Clarice's incorruptibility that attracts Lecter to her. It's kind of ironic really - the thing he admires about her most is something she would lose if she were to be with him.

I think it's a challenge of sorts. Everyone else is dull, but he knows she recognizes his genius, and he knows that so far, he's been incapable of corrupting her.

You misspelled "dissector"!

Ssssh, you will make Thmilin mad, Original Gangster.

hahaha

look at you OG, that's all you could do was pick at my spelling? i wrote that with 2 hrs of sleep; leamme alone! *begins to pull gun out of handbag*

anyway ... back to sexuality/sexiness. everybody has sexuality. not everybody has sexiness. i think jodie has the latter. but that's fine if we disagree. i did not mean that foster's off-screen skills defined her as sexy on screen. what i meant was her on screen skills (as from her acting background and knowledge and screen presence) were indeed sexier to me than moore's. she has an intensity that feeds into the erotic, and while moore can be erotic, i do not see that same intensity from her. she's more passive, less wired (to me). i also think oliver platt is sexy as hell but some women might beg to differ. so to each his own. but i'm like - why is everybody so sure Foster isn't attractive and Moore is? i guess that's just mainstream establishment then.

and once again, why assume that the lack of the movies she's in is due to hollywood's inability to cast her? that assumes she's an object, not an agent. like i said, she's making her own films. and maybe she is too smart for hollywood, but that wasn't my argument.

as for moore's background ... she plays the same character over and over again with a different background (or a different accent). beautiful with a backbone of bendable steel. tightlipped but can be soft. uprightly moral and feminine. she's pretty and her angst seems genuine. that's every day acting to me. she's no judy dench.

complications - she let him go because the cops were coming, she had no weapon, and she was drugged. she was not in a state to apprehend him. he had also lost a vital part of himself and she was likely 1) shocked 2) lagging out of pity/druggedness. if she was true to her unflappable nature she would have done more; if she really loved him, the vital part would not be missing.

Pisnie: "So what is it about Clarice that attracted Hannibal? I will say it is not her mind or her beauty (even though Harris described her in SOTL as a "winter sunset of a girl"). It is her purity of spirit, her absolute sense of integrity, her shining goodness."

All those characteristics you describe are as much a part of her mind as her being. She cannot formulate that code of ethics without internal thought processes. And actually, from your description, I felt Moore only played the second, while Foster captured all three for me.

chris - on starling - i don't think that hannibal could ever corrupt her. she'd never kill or enjoy his activities. BUT - to love him is another thing. i don't think loving him would be a corruption of her. if anything it would challenge the very fabric of what she is and perhaps make it even purer. loving what you are born to hate is the purest love. but that's me waxing philosophical. so i'll say it right here -

SORRY, OG!!

So. Is this what is called an Impasse? The Confrontation at the Door of Hellmouth? (Pardon me, I like apocalyptic references, titter.) You are plainly a Jodie Foster admirer while I stand square on the side of the wondrous (repetitive, to you) Julianne. We shall never change each other's minds. By the way, I say Jodie is difficult to cast, mainly because that is what I was told by friends in the industry. Box office she will never be. But then, I have always thought of the movies as more of a business than a major cultural influence. Alas, alack, I think of money more than perhaps I ought.

OLIVER PLATT???? Hmmm, ok, if you say so.

Moore is hotter than Foster. Isn't that all that matters?

Yeth, I agree, Julianne is Most Hot & Shapely, rather like a silver Antimachos Tetradrachm, ca. 185-170 BC, 16.64 grams.

yeah yeah, an impasse. yet you keep reitering your point which makes me itch to reiterate mine ...

OG - "Moore is hotter than Foster. Isn't that all that matters?"

nuh-uh!! >(

Well thmillin, you spoke of how sexiness isn't just looks, its how the are inside etc. Sorry, but you don't know these people in real life, you only know the type of person they are paid to play. What kind of person they put on. They are actors! So, since you don't know what they are like inside because they arn't your friend, I feel you have to judge cases like this purely on appearance. In which Moore triumphs over Foster, even though many many triumph over Moore.

Doctor Hannibal Lector is an enigma. He is true evil personified in the unpredictable guise of a mature gentleman with an ability to evoke a sense of climatic fear. 'Hannibal' directed by Ridley Scott ('Gladiator', 'Blade Runner'), is the sequel to the 1991 film 'The Silence of the Lambs' directed by Jonathan Demme ('Philadelphia'). Although 'Hannibal' is reasonably entertaining, it is unfortunately an inferior sequel.

The film begins with the now seasoned FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore - 'Jurassic Park II', 'Boogie Nights') in a failed ambush operation turned bloody massacre. Clarice, having falling out of favour with the FBI, has truly hit rock bottom of her career, entering into the record books as "the female agent who has killed the most people in FBI history". Dr. Hannibal Lector (Anthony Hopkins - 'The Silence of the Lambs', 'The Remains of the Day'), now in criminal retirement, working as an art curator in picturesque Florence, decides to "help" Clarice by returning to the world of serial murderers. He is instantly elevated back to the top ten of the FBI's most wanted list and alerts the attention of Mason Verger (Gary Oldman - 'Leon', 'Dracula'), a disfigured paedophile who is the sole survivor of Hannibal's attacks. A millionaire with seemingly unlimited monetary resources for his revenge, the crippled and bitter Verger is religiously committed to hunt down Hannibal at all costs. The rest of the film is a typical "cat and mouse" chase scenario between the hero and villain with all of it ending a little too predictably.

The character of Dr. Hannibal Lector made 'The Silence of the Lambs' a screen classic but in 'Hannibal', it is this very same character who made the film a "run of the mill" picture. The film shatters all the pre-established images of Dr. Hannibal Lector, for he is no longer as mysterious or sinister as ten years before. What I believe made the character so much larger than life was that in 'The Silence of the Lambs', Hannibal was locked in a cell for most of the film and yet the aura of his evil persona was uncontainable. The audience was left to imagine and envisage the level of destruction Hannibal could cause if he was ever to be set free. In 'Hannibal', we actually get to see what happens when he is free to roam wherever he pleases and what a disappointment it is when this legendary character just develops into a crude sideshow attraction!

Hannibal is actually never seen to be eating anyone in the film, not for sustenance or recreation. The verbal "Hannibal the Cannibal" references were overstated and merely talking about cannibalism is like foreplay without ever reaching anywhere close to a climax. What remains worser still, we see Hannibal as a nice guy because he only eats rude people, "free range rude" as he charmingly puts it. Hannibal has become a moral crusader in this film, who sacrifices his sanctuary to entertain the dreary life of Clarice Starling. However, despite the immoral implications of eating rude people, I find the idea inspiringly righteous and extremely refreshing, particularly after numerous personal incidences with pushy cashiers at the supermarket checkout before returning home for dinner.

Anthony Hopkins is still mercurial in the title role despite the latest character development being never in his favour. Hopkins proves yet again he is still able to capture a character's essence with little assistance from dialogue. Julianne Moore is believable as agent Starling and makes Jodie Foster's previous portrayal of Starling only a distant memory. Ray Liotta, who has practically faded out since 'Goodfellas', plays Paul Krendler, Clarice's bureaucratic FBI supervisor. Giancarlo Giannini gives a memorable performance playing Pazzi, the opportunistic Italian police detective who tries to benefit financially from Hannibal's capture. It maybe a non-lead role but since 'Hannibal' wholly concentrates on the relationship between Starling and Lector, making the rest of the characters and subplots appear relatively unengaging and these short supplied sub roles are what is missing from the film.

I do find that there is something disturbingly necrophilic about resuscitating a classic film to spawn an otherwise unintended sequel. Only a handful of sequels in cinema history have managed to defy this notion but sadly, 'Hannibal' is not one of them.