Hannibal

Like most Silence of the Lambs fans, I waited eagerly for the sequel. What would wolf-like predator Hannibal Lecter do in a world full of sheep? What would happen to gutsy-but-vulnerable Clarice Starling?

When the novel, Hannibal was released, I bought it, read it?and hated it. The writing was pedestrian, the story gruesome but unimaginative, and the characters disappointing. Trees died for this, I thought, and disposed of the book via eBay as quickly as I possibly could. My sympathy to the unsuspecting buyer.

So why did I even bother to see the movie? Two reasons: One, I simply got outvoted among a group of friends who wanted to see it. Two, I suppose I had a morbid curiosity. If the book was bad, I thought, the movie was bound to be dreadful?perhaps even laughable. Maybe I could see the birth of a new cult classic?Plan 9 from Outer Space, move over!

The movie, Hannibal, however, was a surprise. Not only was it not bad, it was actually a decent suspense thriller, well worth watching as long as you have a strong stomach.

The Plot

It?s been ten years since FBI agent Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) captured ?Buffalo Bill? with the help of psychopathic serial killer Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins). Ten years since Hannibal Lecter escaped from prison and made one last, chilling phone call to Starling before disappearing into the unsuspecting world.

In that time, Starling?s career has progressed somewhat jerkily. She?s now on loan to a SWAT team to help with a drug bust. But the bust goes wrong, and Starling is forced to shoot a woman holding a child. The media jumps on the story and plays up Starling?s old connection to Lecter. As the FBI investigates her role in the failed mission, Starling catches the eye of another monster.

Mason Verger (played by an unrecognizable and uncredited Gary Oldman) was Hannibal Lecter?s fourth victim. Verger was a sex offender who tortured children. Lecter was his court-ordered psychiatrist. During their first session, Lecter gave his client hallucinogens and then convinced him to cut off parts of his face and feed them to a dog. He left Verger alive, but gruesomely deformed.

Starving for revenge, Verger is offering a vast reward for the capture of Hannibal Lecter. When Lecter falls into his clutches, he plans to feed him piece by piece to pigs that have been specially bred and trained for the occasion. Verger hopes Clarice will lead him to his target.

Lecter, meanwhile, is living in Florence where he masquerades as a professor, but longs to resume his old?er?hobbies. Learning of Clarice?s disgrace, he writes to her, setting off a game of cat and mouse with high stakes and not a single inch of room for missteps.

The Actors

The performances in this film range from adequate to excellent.

Anthony Hopkins is dead on target (excuse the pun) as the sociopathic Hannibal Lecter. He is intelligent, charming?and highly dangerous, because he lacks even the most basic empathy for other human beings. To him, they?re interesting animals, to pet or to slaughter at will. ?I?m giving serious thought to eating your wife,? he remarks to one character, in the same tone of voice another person might use to announce they were trying to decide whether to stay home and read a book or go out to a movie.

Julianne Moore plays Clarice Starling, the part that won Jodie Foster an Oscar in Silence of the Lambs. Moore, unfortunately, does not fill Foster?s shoes. Part of this is the fault of the writing. The book, Hannibal, downgraded Starling from intelligent agent to clueless pawn, and while the movie stays a little more faithful to the original character, one cannot help but notice that Starling?s part is smaller, and that the character reacts rather than acts. Script aside, though, the unique chemistry between Lecter and Starling, so compelling in Silence of the Lambs, is missing from Hannibal, as is the mixture of conflicting emotions conveyed so well by Foster.

Giancarlo Giannini turns in a moving performance as dried-up, down-on-his-luck Italian police officer Pazzi. While this character fell somewhat flat in the book, Giannini turns him into a well-rounded, capable character up against an evil he cannot fathom until too late.

Ray Liotta, normally a fine actor, barely goes through the motions as Clarice?s lecherous, obnoxious supervisor Paul Krendler. One gets the feeling that even before the final sequences, he?s only about half there. Gary Oldman, as always, is capable in his role of even-more-monstrous-than-Hannibal Mason Verger, but it?s the makeup more than the actor who turns in the performance on this one. Frankie Faison is under-used in his role as Lecter?s former nurse, Barney.

What Works

The book Hannibal sinks to the level of a standard slasher, slightly less interesting than Halloween because all the intended victims in Hannibal are unlikable. But the movie manages to keep itself elevated at least half-a-step above a standard splatter-fest. Some of this is due to the caliber of acting. The rest is due to director Ridley Scott?s interesting use of camera angle, lighting, symbolism, and contrast to add depth to a fairly standard horror story.

At one point, for instance, Lecter, who in this film is the second most evil character, stands in an Italian street with his face half in shadow and half in light. Verger, meanwhile, lives almost constantly in the dark.

There is also a nice contrast between the sterile basement of the FBI building where Starling searches through clues, and the darkly beautiful streets of Florence where Lecter and police officer Pazzi match wits. The camera also occasionally flashes to long shots of Verger?s home, a brooding, shadowed mansion which takes on the character of a spider waiting patiently for its prey to fall into its web.

Screenplay writers David Mamet and Steven Zaillian also deserve kudos for seeking out the kernels of good in the novel and abandoning the rest. In their hands, pointless flashbacks to Lecter?s childhood fall by the wayside, unnecessary, stereotyped characters vanish, and the ending takes on a different, and much more effective, shape.

What Doesn?t Work

In many ways, the movie runs into the same trouble as the book: a dearth of sympathetic characters. In Silence of the Lambs we worried about Buffalo Bill?s innocent victims, as well as the fate of the intelligent but emotionally naive Clarice Starling. In Hannibal we?re expected to worry about?well?Hannibal.

Why? Because his opponent is even more evil than he is. Whereas Hannibal for the most part confines his killings to the obnoxious (?free-range rude,? he calls them), Mason Verger speaks proudly of opening a summer camp for disadvantaged children who ?would do anything for a candy bar.? (In the book, Mason drinks the tears of frightened children, but Mamet and Zaillian have the good sense not to descend into this realm of comic book villainy.)

Unfortunately, when two unlikable creatures clash, a common response is not to care much what happens to either of them. And that was exactly my response to Hannibal. I was able to take an intellectual interest for the two hours it took to enjoy the movie, but whereas Silence of the Lambs haunted me for weeks after I saw it, I doubt Hannibal will stay with me much longer than it takes to complete this review.

Another flaw of Hannibal, as I mentioned earlier, lies in the missing-in-action chemistry between Lecter and Starling. This is unfortunate, because to make the new ending work, one must believe in this absent relationship.

The movie also has a few logical flaws and inconsistencies. For instance, Lecter?s eventual capture by Verger seems overly simplistic. It does not fit with the intelligence or deviousness of Lecter?s character. The writers need it to happen, so it does. Period.

Blood and Gore

Hannibal is a violent movie, with some scenes intended to shock and horrify. I?m not particularly upset by the sight of blood in a movie, as long as there?s a purpose to it, and I felt the bloodiness in Hannibal was consistent with character and plot?it wasn?t just thrown in randomly.

However, if you have a weak stomach, I?d suggest giving Hannibal a pass. I would also suggest keeping children away from this one. It got its ?R? rating for some very good reasons!

In Conclusion

Will Hannibal become one of my favorite-must-see-at-least-once-a-year movies? No. It simply isn?t that good.

Is it a capable suspense thriller? Yes. Is it worth seeing at least once on the big screen? Certainly.

I predict that if you like the genre at all, you?ll find some things to admire about Hannibal. And do be sure to give it plenty of credit for rising above its source.