|
With "Hannibal," the long awaited, decade-in-the-works sequel
to "The Silence of the Lambs," director Ridley Scott and writers
Steve Zaillian ("Schindler's List") and David Mamet ("Wag
the Dog") may have bitten off more than they can chew.
Not implying that "Hannibal" is a bad film. It's been furnished
with terrific performances and crafted with technical efficiency.
Even at non-matinee prices, 
it's worth seeing. But it's a far cry from its scary predecessor.
Grim and grimmer, "Hannibal's" tale begins with FBI agent
Clarice Starling (not Jodie Foster), this time played by Julianne
Moore. It's not long into the movie when Clarice receives
a letter from the infamous Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins)
who now lives in Florence and works as a curator of an art
museum.
In Florence, detective Pazzi, played by Giancarlo Giannini,
suspects that the wanted Hannibal Lecter is living there.
To satiate his interest and bank account (the reward upon
the capture of Lecter is $3 million), he aligns himself with
Mason Verger.
Verger is a now-wealthy, former patient of Lecter's seeking
revenge after surviving an attempt at having his face cut
off and fed to dogs by Lecter. Now, with a visage where the
skin looks like silly putty set out in the sun too long, he
wants to silence the cannibal once and for all.
Much has been written and said about the movie's violence
before and after its release. This makes sense being that
"Hannibal" is rated as one of the most violent films released
from a major studio of all-time. I mentioned the face being
fed to the dogs, but there's also a nasty subplot involving
voracious man-eating boars and a climactic kitchen showdown,
where Hannibal makes and bakes. His choice for dinner conversation
is a bit one-sided, but when it comes to his guests, he can
certainly pick their brains.
One could make the criticism that the movie's gore level detracts
from the class of the picture, which is supremely well acted
and made. For me, it wasn't the violence that seemed so out
of place as the plotting.
The best scenes in "The Silence of the Lambs" were the ones
where Lecter and Clarice squared off in mind games. So, it's
a disappointment to see that in the sequel these two characters
get little time on screen together to match wits.
And as good as Julianne Moore is in this film, she only comes
off with a great acting performance. Moore did not successfully
awaken the character of Clarice that Jodie Foster made so
indelible in the original movie.
For what it's worth, "Hannibal" is a respectable follow-up,
but anyone looking for a second helping that was as good as
the original, will no doubt be disappointed.
|
