Hannibal's Return 199
Jon's review, continued:
This could have been a great movie.Ridley Scott's Hannibal has all the elements of a classic -- a creepy story, gorgeous cinematography in beautiful locales, one of the world's greatest actors, a director hot off Gladiator (nominated for 12 Oscars last week) and a truly mythic monster, the cultured but cannibalistic Dr. Hannibal Lecter.
But Hannibal isn't great. Entertaining, sure, and worth seeing, providing you've got a strong enough stomach for some truly over-the-top gore. Somehow, Ridley Scott lost his footing in the making of this much- ballyhooed sequel. The movie wanders off into too many picturesque but dawdly sub-plots. And the violence is so extreme it becomes almost cartoonish.
WARNING: No outcomes are given away, but skip this next graf if you don't want to know any of the specific blood-and-brains details. I'm including them so that you can decide if you or your loved ones want to buy a ticket:
In this movie, you'll see a man's face get ripped off and fed to a dog, a woman's face gnawed off while she screams. You'll see humans fed to wild boars, a grotesquely-disfigured Lecter victim, a man disemboweled and hung, another garroted grotesquely. Then, one guy's skull is sawed open and the frontal lobe fried and served him for dinner.
It says a lot about the laughable MPAA ratings system that a couple making love can be grounds for an NC-17 rating, while the stuff above only draws an R. The theater where I saw the movie was crammed with little kids. Friends, we live in a loopy country.
Even some of the key people involved with the superior, very chilling Silence Of The Lambs decided to take a pass on this one. The producers had all sorts of trouble getting novelist Thomas Harris to finish his controversial sequel and when he did, both director Jonathan Demme and star Jody Foster gagged and bailed. So it took a decade for Dr. Lecter to make his way back on screen. Except for the ending, Hannibal is surprisingly faithful to the spirit of the book.
Anthony Hopkins is a brilliant choice to star in a contemporary horror film. He's gleeful, charismatic, powerful and truly unnerving. His performance is filled with great touches, like his habit of cheerfully saying "okey-dokey" before he does something horrendous. The big difference between Hannibal and Silence is that the latter was a story about a brilliant and dangerous mind imprisoned behind a mask and locked in a cell; about the very intense intellectual battle of the souls between this psychopath and a dutiful, smart FBI agent. Talk about having your mind messed with. Their conflict, and grudging mutual respect, even admiration, made the story a thriller but also a cold, powerful character study.
Scott seemed to have no patience for that kind of a contest, so he made Hannibal into a straight horror film, albeit one with some genuinely frightening moments, an eerie backdrop and soundtrack and dark and beautiful locations (including, oddly enough, the Virginia estate of the fourth president of the U.S., James Madison, who is somewhere -- maybe nearby -- spinning in his grave).
The movie opens in Washington, D.C., during a botched drug raid for which our heroine in unjustly blamed, and then moves onto Florence, which Scott uses to great affect. The doctor is in hibernation, pursuing a job as a curator of a medieval library, where he gives creepy lectures about unpleasant history. A local cop figures out who he is and decides to go after him for the reward (this guy is such deadmeat from the minute he shows up in the movie, he seems to know it).
The movie then -- after too long a delay -- flirts with the idea that Hannibal and his pursuer, played this round by Julianne Moore, are or might be attracted to one another. The other twist is that Moore has been humiliated by her slimy superiors in the FBI and Justice Department, a fate that draws Hannibal even closer to her. Gary Oldman plays the horrendously maimed Lecter-victim pulling strings behind-the-scenes to get vengeance on the good doc. This too seems to go over the top.
Too much of the action is over before Lecter and Agent Clarice Starling even get near each other, which takes some of the steam out of their confrontation. Besides, there's no real pursuit or chemistry between the two, intellectual or otherwise. In Silence, Clarisse was fighting for control of her psyche. Here, she's sometimes seems to be almost robotically battling out of reflex, maybe to keep her pension, or out of blind loyalty to the FBI field manual. She never says.
Mostly, Moore plays a variation of Agent Scully pursuing a meta-psychopath. She is so humorless, resolute, ethical and unwavering she becomes one-dimensional. It's fine to see a brave woman starring in an action movie, but does she have to have nerves of titanium? The guy is truly a horror show, and Superman would be creeped out around him. Clarisse could at least wince or blink. Contrast this role with Michelle Yeoh's in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Both women are tough, but Yeoh shows enormous vulnerability and pain, which makes her seem all the braver.
Dr. Lecter is, in many ways a riot, the movie's saving grace. The monsters in many classic horror films -- Dracula, Frankenstein, kill out of some uncontrollable instinct. Lecter just seems to hate vulgarity and rudeness, punishing both with unimaginable cruelty. Hopkins plays this character with relish and joy, one perfect note after another.
Unless you're queasy about the brains and intestines and people eaten alive (those scenes are bizarre, and now always brief) the movie has its moments. You will actually feel a chill go up your spine now and again, not a small accomplishment for any movie, even one that falls somewhat short of its great potential.
Besides, Hannibal is a bona fide mega-smash, racking up one of the top opening weekend grosses in Hollywood history. This idea strikes a deep chord with moviegoers -- the next film in the franchise is reportedly already in the works. So the culinary adventures of Dr. Lecter is likely to turn into a regular cinematic event, like the Bond films, Batman or Star Wars series. If you want to get in on it, might as well start at the beginning.
timothy's take:
"Guts in, or guts out?" First of all, please note: Hannibal is not for the squeamish, probably not to watch with your parents, almost certainly not a good first-date movie (though it takes all kinds), and not a good-guys-win-in-the-nick-of-time story. It's a ghoulish, macabre, perverse and disturbing film with the detective work, plot twists and horrifascinating feel of The Silence of the Lambs. That said, please note, if you've read the book, you may find a few corners cut.
As much of the Thomas Harris novel Hannibal as Ridley Scott, Thomas Harris and David Mamet could squeeze into 2 hours and 20 minutes, they did. Though the film would be comprehensible and probably just as horrifying to a viewer unfamiliar with "Silence," it makes much more sense to see Hannibal as a second act than a story in isolation. If you are one of the three people who have not seen the first film, Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter (M.D.) is a long-imprisoned serial murderer with a penchant for eating his victims; Lecter agrees to help capture another serial killer to aid new FBI ageny Clarice Starling, but when betrayed by Starling's superiors escapes and begins his culinary pursuits anew. Starling pursues Lecter, as one of the few people who in some sense understands his twisted sense of civility, and on more than one occasion finds that his victims weren't quite innocent either.
Besides that background, three converging plotlines launch the story of Hannibal. Briefly: Agent Starling becomes the scapegoat for a failed drug-raid which was supposed to be an example of interdepartmental cooperation between the FBI and D.C. police; as a result she is publicly humiliated by a jealous bureacrat named Paul Krendler (the well-chosen Ray Liotta); An Italian policeman named Pazzi, played by Giancarlo Giannini, has by luck fallen onto Hannibal's trail when he becomes suspicious of the cultured interim curator of Florence's Palazzo Vecchio, an art scholar named "Dr. Fell"; and finally, recluse millionaire Mason Verger, Lecter's first victim ("the rich one -- the only one who survived."), has devised a method of trapping and killing Lecter as gruesome if not as artful as one of the good doctor's own schemes. The special effects used to create Verger's face are truly disturbing, but apparently under that twisted visage is Gary Oldman, always good at being bad.
These threads converge more neatly than I'd feared they might; Ridley Scott does an excellent job of tying together the story elements with judicious transitions and just-enough background to make each character fall into plac. The directing and cinematography throughout, in fact, are remarkably restrained -- no scene sticks out like quite like the Pittsburgh-filmed cage scene in "Silence," or the apocalyptic Los Angeles cityscape of Bladerunner. Still, Scott knows how to do gore. It's true that there's less detail in the movie than I might like -- for instance, about how Lecter came to be in Florence, to speak Italian, or to be so learned in matters of Rennaissance history and symbolism -- but subtlety is perhaps preferably to overexplanation in this case; Lecter works in mysterious ways, and as scenes in both movies hint, is a multilingual world traveler who could probably obtain such an academic position in any city in the world.
Anyone who liked The Silence of the Lambs for Jodie Foster's portrayal of the up-from-nothing Agent Starling ("white trash made good") is in for a surprise: Julianne Moore stuns. [Note: it looks like I have a slight disagreement with Jon on this point. Oh, well -- or perhaps, "Okey Dokey." -- t.] I was perhaps set up for disappointment, but this is one of the most graceful casting transitions in film history. No one besides Foster herself could better evince a slightly more seasoned, less hesitant Agent Starling -- still dedicated to her job, still dedicated to changing Hannibal Lecter's meal plan. Right down the set of her jaw and painfully-tamed southern accent, Starling is Moore is Starling.
Anthony Hopkins as Lecter, though, probably could not have been replaced. Hopkins' cultured phrasing and limpid gaze make Lecter's sinister, maniacal calm all the spookier, twisting the viewer uncomfortably through the gates which separate civilized, humane behavior from ... well, from gutting and eating the census taker who asks a rude question, or taking an autopsy saw and -- never mind. Anthony Hopkins obliges with a performance every bit as magnetic and nerve-jarring as the Hannibal Lecter of 10 years ago. (I'm waiting for a parody sketch on Saturday Night Live to combine his roles as C.S. Lewis in Shadowlands with his two runs as Hannibal.)
There are some subtle (and unsubtle) differences between the book and the movie, mostly the exclusion of certain characters and subplots -- Clarisse's roommate is nowhere to be seen, for instance, and neither is Mason Verger's vengeful sister or her lover, nor yet the children brought to Verger for immoral purposes. (Even in a movie which ends the way this one does, there are some things you'd rather not even see on film -- I doubt many viewers will clamor for a Directors Cut DVD featuring the unseen child-abuse scenes.) The way that Verger expires in the book, and the issue of his issue, may have been too much for the studio to handle, never mind potentially nauseous theaterfulls of viewers.
Those ommissions, though, are all acceptable concessions to brevity; I wish Scott, Harris and Mamet had found room to squeeze in just a few of the cut scenes, though, like the book's flashbacks about Lecter's childhood, which provided at least some explanation for Lecter's decidely anti-social eating habits. Without them, Lecter comes off again as an anthrophagous Moriarty whose victim-eating is just an arbirary manifestation of evil, though in this movie as well as in the first his sense of propriety is remarked on and wondered about. At one point, Starling asks the sinister, aggressive Krendler whether he wonders why Lecter dines on his victims. Krendler at that point ought perhaps have screwed on his thinking cap a little tighter, because his ambition to punish Starling's hard work with humiliation triggers the ever-watchful Lecter's passion for just desserts.
Still, the machinations of surviving Lecter victim Mason Verger are perhaps the most important part of the story, as they tie together both Starling (whom Verger tries to make bait for Lecter with political manipulation) and the avaricious policeman Pazzi, who attempts to cash in on the reward that Verger has established for Lecter's live capture. Pazzi ends up cashing out rather than cashing in, in what is probably the film's second-most horrifying murder, and the only one which shows off the doctor at this thoughtful, didactic self rather than killing for mere expedience. Verger's elaborate plans to attract and capture Lecter are not so he can impress upon him the somewhat off-kilter lessons in applied Christianity he apparently picked up as a child from the religious camps his father founded; instead (to be direct), he plans to cast him before swine. Specifically, before a gang of large, specially-bred, man-eating swine from Sardinia. Verger has even prepared a special area of his vast estate just to watch the spectacle of Lecter being ripped apart from the feet up. Since the damage done to Verger -- self-inflicted, though under the hypnotic effects of the much-younger Dr. Lecter -- involved his face being eaten by dogs, there is a kind of symmetry to this plot.
Needless to say, Agent Starling, though dedicated to ending Hannibal Lecter's killing pattern, cannot countenance meeting evil with evil in the manner Verger intends, and despite being removed from the FBI while under investigation for alleged misconduct in the drug raid which opens the movie, arrives in time to influence the outcome of Verger's scheme, which is not to say the swine go hungry.
In fact, hunger is probably not the first thought of viewers shuffling out of the theater after Hannibal; the final scenes differ from the book's ending enough that speaking of them in any detail would give away more plot than I'm comfortable with. Suffice it to say that vegetarianism may just have a new posterboy, and Lecter himself prefers just about anything to being trapped in a prison cell, or even in handcuffs.
p.s. And though not listed on the Hannibal page on IMDB, isn't that Ajay Naidu (Samir from Office Space) making a quick appearance as a perfume expert?
p.p.s. Note how the ending of the movie
seems to be subliminally influenced by a vegetarian cookbook -- that can't have been accidental;)
I agree with the ratings issue. (Score:1)
What's wrong with him... (Score:3)
Hannibal has taste.
The book was a dissappointment too. (Score:2)
I will not go so far as to say that the first film wasn't commercially driven, however I will say that everyone involved has been overshadowed by what has went before. 'The Silence of the Lambs' was a great film.
It is amazing how often sequals are a dissappointment. They seem almost guarranteed to be worse than the first, but this is just the laws of averages.
--
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,
"Packed with little kids"? (Score:3)
First of all, I don't doubt that Katz is doing his usual exaggeration here.
But if there really was a little kid that went to see this movie, his parents should be put in jail for child abuse.
--
No more Timothy, ONLY KATZ (Score:1)
Jon Katz's review was marvelously helpful. I wasn't sure whether this movie would be right for me and once again Jon Katz has sheparded me on the right course. It was a clear and concise review that went into enough detail to allow me to decide whether or not to see it.
Timothy's review did not help.
In the future, Jon Katz, please refrain from the sharing the spotlight. You're brilliance so overpowers the rest of them that I can't bear to see their name on the same page as yours. Please try to fly solo from now on.
Thanks.
--
You can't imagine how much I really do love Jon Katz.
I actually liked the movie (Score:2)
I agree with the above when it comes to the part of Clarice. Se is a Scully rip-off, but at least she's good at that. Hannibal however ist a great character, and this is conveyed to the audience every minute of the movie. Each and every thing he does seems - as twisted as it might seem first - logical and fits into his character.
One of the best things about the whole thing is the use of special effects. There are no purple blood fountains like in other thrillers/shockers, they don't try to catch Mr. Lecter with some truly-amazing-state-of-the-art FBI supersecretweapon, but instead it's all about the story that inevitably draws towards a surprising (but not totally unpredictable) end.
About the rating: here in germany (yeah, I know that I most likely didn't get half of the depth due to the "localisation-layer"), the movie is actually rated 18+ because That Guy Is Eating Human Flesh!!! Not because of some rather cruel scenes, because of which it was originally meant to be given a 16+ rating.
What I found a little disappointing is the failure of the movie to actually keep up the suspense over the whole two hours. It's definitely got its lengths during which a short nap doesn't mean you won't get the rest of it. But afterall, it's a far above average film for anyone who doesn't mind some fake blood and well-acted acts of violence.
(SPOILER) Hannibal's true motive (Score:2)
see Manhunter (with Hanibbal Leckeer) (Score:1)
ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US (Score:1)
Hannibal (Score:1)
Hard movie to review, but good point (Score:1)
on the other hand, Katz does have a good point with the rating system. If I was a parent, and had to choose between covering my kids eyes on this movie, or on a movie like StripTease -- it'd definitely be this movie. I'd rather have them see breasts than a man disembowled and hung. :)
Mike Roberto
- GAIM: MicroBerto
Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:1)
Is it any wonder our children are all growing up to be psychopaths and murderers when they are fed this daily diet of massacre ?
Its about time decent people took action against this. In the same way we need gun control, "Hannibal" is the best argument yet that we need more censorship in this country.
Sure people will whine about free speech, but I don't see anything in the constitution about the right to make and distribute corrupting pornographic filth.
I really have had enough. America used to be a safe and morally decent place to live. Recently our standing in the world has taken a nose-dive. Liberal interpretations of the constitution are to blame. Maybe George W will turn back the tide, but I am not holding my breath. What is needed is a grassroots rejection of all Hollywood values.
It´s a trilogy (Score:2)
Re:I agree with the ratings issue. (Score:2)
Re:I actually liked the movie (Score:1)
You might be interested to know that this is actually the third Lecter story - the first was the novel Red Dragon, made into the film Manhunter [imdb.com] by Michael Mann, the creator of Miami Vice in 1986. Lecter was played by Brian Cox ... although the production seems very eighties in style, it's still as good a film as Silence of the Lambs.
Too fake for me (Score:1)
Re:What's wrong with him... (Score:1)
Free Range Rude...
Non-Katzian spin... (Score:1)
Whoa. Jon Katz is pushing for a stronger rating system? He's telling other parents what he thinks their kids should be allowed to see? (I haven't seen the movie and wouldn't let _my_ kids see it, but I thought the above was worth mentioning.)
My Take on Hannibal (Score:2)
Hannibal was quite bad. In fact, it broke the laws of physics, proving that something can both suck AND blow at the same time.
Wait for it to come on PPV; it will only be like a month. And you won't get screwed out of $20 per person after food.
------------
CitizenC
Re:The book was a dissappointment too. (Score:1)
1) IIRC, the editor of Hannibal (the book) made virtually no changes to the manuscript (in fact, it may have been a condition that no changes be made). This is very unusual for any book.
2) The book took a lot longer to write than it was supposed to have.
Taking these two together, I'd say it'd be hard to say the book was "churned out" in the "commercial spin...of the first". I'm sure the publosher would have loved to have had the book come out a year or two after the first movie, but it was a lot longer than that.
Also, my impression of the book when I read it was that Harris was deliberately trying to make the book as unfilmable as possible - I mean, a person being eaten by trained pigs, someone having their brain carved up for dinner while still alive... I hate to agree with John, but I'm surprised they got away with an R rating.
Re:tip... (Score:1)
MPAA ratings... (Score:5)
Recently, when a fuss erupted over the US MPAA ratings board giving the British feelgood family film, Billy Elliot, an R rating, the head of the MPAA, Jack Valenti, said of his job that he gets way more letters about bad language than he gets about people getting shot in the face. Ergo, a film like Billy Elliot will be rated R because someone says the word 'fuck', while a film like Nutty Professor 2, complete with a grandmother giving implied oral sex (with teeth out) gets away with a PG-13. It's why Lost World, complete with people being ripped apart by dinosaurs for our amusement, is rated PG-13, while a film like Requiem For A Dream, with it's important message, is sent to unscreenable land when it gets an NC-17.
See, the real problem with censorship isn't that some board says 'this is bad', it's that a lot of decisions come from what that board says. A rating should be a guide, given so we don't accidentally stumble with mom into a porno film, but these days a rating dictates whether a film can be seen by the largest slice of the audience (kids, teens and by extension, families), which dictates how many screens it goes on (suburban cinemas don't want to have eight R rated films showing at once) and, in these days of video store monopolies, whether you can even rent one of these films in your local Blockbuster. It's not a question of seeing that one cut second of a guy getting a knife in the throat, it's a question of even seeing the movie.
Now filmmakers know this. And in fact, many filmmakers have to sign a contract guaranteeing that they'll deliver a cut of the film to receive a certain rating, before even a scene is shot. I know from experience, having worked on a film where scenes were changed on the day to avoid an NC-17 rating, that what is supposed to be a guide for the viewer is becoming a guide for the filmmaker.
And the worst thing is, these changes are completely arbitrary. We all know the stories of Orgazmo being hit with an NC-17 even though there was less frontal nudity than in Boogie Nights. We've heard the tales of the South Park movie being told to remove the word 'motherfucker', replacing it with 'unclefucker' and having no further problems. And then there's American Psycho, which after submitting a film full of chainsaw and sledgehammer murders was told to remove one shot from a sex scene.
It's ridiculous. And it doesn't save anyone from anything.
Censorship is bad. It doesn't work. Nobody shot up Columbine High School because Leonardo DiCaprio wore a trenchcoat once, they did it because they could drive downtown and pick up a small sack of heavy weapons for $29.95. Sure, Leo dictated their fashion choice, but he didn't load the cartridges for them.
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:2)
You're kidding, right? *sigh* Time to feed the trolls..
I think Chris Rock said it best: "Kids are killing kids and everyone's worrying about what movies they're watching, what video games they're playing, what music they're listening to. Whatever happened to CRAZY?" Not that Chris Rock is an authority in the field, but he doesn't have to be to make a point.
when you're the leader of the free world (Score:1)
For better or for worse, we are living in the Pax Americana (if you don't understand this allusion, ask a history major, there are other important things to learn than Linux). The world looks to America for leadership and sacrifice (no, not the whole world, but most of it). Whenever dirty work needs to be done, vital fluids protected, American troops are the first to respond and the first to die. Witness one of Dubya's first acts as President, placing American airmen at risk to destroy dangerous Iraqi air defences.
This is tough, though. People are afraid of death and don't like to face it, they have to be toughened up and trained. Hence, the need for gory films (like Hannibal) and gory games (like Quake) to train impressionable young men and women to not be afraid of death, blood and goree. Sparta had naked exercises in cold weather, we have LAN parties.
Now, it's all well and good for certain European countries to adopt an opposite philosophy of pleasure seeking; sex is good, promiscuity is good, guns and violence are bad. But don't push them on America, we need to be violent to save the world.
Ask yourself this, how would Hitler have been stopped in WWII if the only opposition he had was a demand for greater sex ed and free condoms for German youth?
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:1)
Hmmmm.
Flabdabb, you want to reassure the 5% of me that thinks you might possibly be serious? :)
Pete.
Informal survey (Score:2)
Re:when you're the leader of the free world (Score:2)
kahuna Burger
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:1)
I understand it will not affect everyone the same way, but over time it is like water on a rock. Would you want your 16-year old kid to watch this ? I certainly would not.
Re:Non-Katzian spin... (Score:1)
I don't think he's arguing for a stronger rating system so much, but if we must have a rating system, why not one that more accurately reflects what is actually likely to harm children, rather than one that reflects what offends the MPAA ratings board?
Personally, I've always thought they should use a multiple 1-10 ratings scale, e.g.:
Hannibal
Language: 6/10
Violence: 10/10
Sexual Content: 7/10
Product Placement: 2/10
Recycled Content: 5/10
Summary Rating: 30/50
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:5)
At one time (and for all I know they are) there was a big name organization that rated websites (RASCi or something like that). I remember this was just after MS Frontpage was announced, but before it came out... IE 3.0 was still new, iirc. I was running a Rocky Horror fan website (and still am), and figured I'd rate it with the origanization.
I had assumed that I'd get the equivelent of a PG-13 rating (the movie was rated R in the mid 70s) for profanity and simulated sex (no intentional nudity). Wow was I wrong... I got the harshest, worst, absolutely abysmal rating possible. Way beyond hard core porn.
So, like any hacker, I started playing with the system... punching in different values, I could not get the really bad rating. Graphic penetration movie clips with sound of gay sexual torture was the only thing that approached the horrible rating that I got.
Then I realized it - in the movie, the alien mad scientist kills Eddie, a biker (played by Meat Loaf), and later serves dinner - which is revealed to everyone's horror to be Eddie (alien culture clash, or revenge? Motive is unclear).
A depiction of cannibalism, even in a high camp musical, instantly garnered the worst possible rating with no mitigating factors allowed. A movie that is viewed in the theater weekly by tens of thousands of people (and that the MPAA has admitted would not get a R if released today) is judged to be far too obscene for the internet. Interesting, eh? That's the kind of thinking of the people that want to control the content of the internet - don't forget it. I won't.
--
Evan
Re:"Packed with little kids"? (Score:2)
Product placement (Score:4)
Anyhow, what I really want to talk about is product placement. What are these directors thinking nowadays? It seems like ever since 1994 or so, that product placement has become so blatant that it actually distracts you from the movie.
Did anyone notice the computer screen near the beginning of "Hannibal" that said "NetZERO" on it in like 4 different places? I mean, what the fuck? Is Ridley Scott not making enough money, that he has to take payments from NetZERO to slap their logo all over a computer screen??? That was so distracting.
And to a lesser extent, the mention of GUCCI everywhere. That is so ridiculous.
This is almost as bad as the films that incorporate current pop culture. Like using slogans or catch phrases, or making fun of current advertisements (I see this a lot)... don't they realize that not only is this distracting, but it also immediately dates the film? What happens 5 years from now when everyone forgets why some black guy saying "Whazzzuuuuuuup!" is so funny?
Another thing I have noticed is now they are running advertisements at the beginning of movies. Before Hannibal there were commercials for antacids and soft drinks. (I haven't been to the movies in probably 8 months so I don't know when this started).
WHAT?!?!??!???
Let's see... product placements in movies that are already going to make millions (do they really need the extra money to put in blatant product placements? PLEASE!). And ads before movies, while ticket prices still go up? I mean, I wouldn't mind sitting through a Sprite commercial, if it meant my ticket was only $5, but if I'm paying $8 why do I need to sit through commercials?
Movie going used to be such a pleasurable experience. Now I realize, once again, why I only go once every several months. Hey movie studios, I'm not your fucking advertisement consumer bitch, so stop trying to make me bend over!
Ben
Re:My Take on Hannibal (Score:1)
Re:Non-Katzian spin... (Score:2)
My advice to you is to let go of your Katz hatred. Take some deep breaths. Maybe go out and get some exercise. Do some work around the house. Being bitter and consumed by hate is no way to go through life.
I HATED the book. (Score:1)
Red Dragon was pretty good.
Silence of the Lambs was fantastic.
Hannibal started promising and ended as a dog.
A real shame.
And this is on Slashdot because ... (Score:1)
Re:when you're the leader of the free world (Score:2)
As for "American dying for the good of the world", you are forgetting that all US military intervention involves sending so called "smart bombs", having all the boys safe in a bunker or high away in a stealth plane. Of course the smart bombs are not smart at all and kill soldiers, women and kids with the same efficacity... all these deads only serve to keep oil prices low and the average American familly (2 kids and a big polluting SUV) happy with cheap gas. Seing how the last elections went, this won't be really necessary anymore as the Man doesn't even need American's votes anymore to put his puppet in the White House.
Ask yourself this, how would Hitler have been stopped in WWII if the only opposition he had was a demand for greater sex ed and free condoms for German youth?
If Hitler had had a steady and healthy sexual life in his life, maybe he would have been less frustrated and had spend his time in the bedroom instead of engaging in this terrible political career we know... a guy that fucks twice a day is as non-violent as you can be
Re:Non-Katzian spin... (Score:1)
More like, films like Eyes Wide Shut have to cut scenes of people having sex to avoid an NC-17, but a gore-fest of cannibalism, mutilation, and disembowelment only gets an R rating. That is a fucked up value system.
Judge Hannibal on Its Own Merit (Score:1)
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:1)
Hannibal as Hollow Man (Score:1)
<slight spoilers>
Two cases come to mind; first, after murdering the italian cop, Hannibal is able to sneak up behind the hired killer and kill him with a knife. One, the guy's got a gun, two, he's trained to kill people, three, hannibal is an old man. And then he's able to silently escape in the two seconds it takes for the other guy to enter the room.
Next, the part back in the states where Hannibal is having a phone-off with Clarice at the fare. He always evades her view, even going so far as to touch her and still not get seen. Again, One, Clarice is an FBI agent, Two, she's a very good agent, Three, Hannibal is an old man.
</slight sploilers>
The reason Hannibal was so dangerous was not because he was invisible, but because he was so much more intelligent than you. Man, Ridley Scott really should have done this right.
This movie lacks a lot... (Score:1)
Anthony Hopkins, on the other hand, lived up to the previous movie. He contiuned to uphold the the character that strikes fear and apprehension within us all. He's a remarkable actor and he did a wonderful job.
The plot contained little structure. I found it hard to follow and to understand. The movie was long and by the time it was finished, I felt completely mentally drained because I was trying so hard to put the pieces together.
I have read that Anthony Hopkins is looking forward to doing yet another one. My advice to him, is to find another actress for Clarice, or get Jodie Foster back. Although I think his plans for dropping Moore are already in his mind. "I don't think the people that see this film need to see a psychiatrist." Julianne Moore had to see a psychiatrist after making the movie. Could this comment have been made about her?
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:1)
And as far as your gun control statement... I'm a card carrying life member of the NRA, and damn fucking proud of it too. Get a clue, and then maybe your point will be valid.
Madisons Virginia Home? (Score:1)
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:2)
You sound like one of those bozos who only goes to see one film a year. The truth is far more complex than you imagine. The "Hollywood" you blithely tar produces many films, some repulsive, some uplifting. Sadly, uplifting films that enoble the human spirit, films that ask important questions, films that frighten without appealing to visceral...do shit at the box office. Did you go see "You Can Count On Me", "The Iron Giant", "In The Company of Men"?
Clod. Read some history, ok? These are actually some of the least violent times in human history. We don't currently have public executions. That was considered a family outing a couple of hundred years ago. Perhaps you would prefer the soft of family values embodied by the folks in Salem MA and burn people alive?
Crawl back under your bridge, Troll.
Read Nadine Strossen's "Defending Pornography".
It's not Hollywood's values. Hollywood offers a wide range of film embodying every sort of moral viewpoint. Look at the movie listings. There are all sorts of films playing, and only ONE features canibalism.
Let's see:
From that list from IMDB, only two are "horror" films, and only one features cannibalism (to my knowledge. Who told you that you had to see "Hanibal" anyway? See "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" instead. Or "Traffic". Or "Cast Away". Or "O Brother, Where Art Thou?". Or just piss off.
Re:"Packed with little kids"? (Score:1)
-antipop
Character motivations and other stuff (Score:3)
As mentioned by another poster, there were many elements of the book that were left out of the movie that I feel were essential to fleshing out (if you'll pardon the expression) the plot and character motivations. Most greivous was the omission of Lecter's childhood experiences with his sister. In the book, this helped me to understand Lecter's twisted motives.
Sure, there was gore, but other than the brain scene, it was all more low-key and less graphic than many other movies I have seen. The gore wasn't even particularly well done in most scenes. Maybe I'm jaded by having read the book first and letting my imagination work away. There was more close up, gut-spilling action in Starship Troopers, for example. BTW, Starship troopers sucked the big green donkey dong in my opinion.
In the book, Mason Verger was confined to his bed, his body "wasted away" and his face far more deformed than Gary Oldman's makeup indicated. And where was that funky eye cup/lens that kept his one remaining eye lubricated? Verger's mobility also bothered me. In the book, he had far more motivation for his hatred for Lecter.
Verger's sister and her circumstances were a really interesting plot element. I understand the necessity for keeping the whole thing within the two hour time-frame, but I would much rather have seen her story and a little less of the stuff in Italy.
When I read the book, I was shocked at the ending, but the more I thought about how it had been accomplished, it fit right into Lecter's motivation and skill set, and made a good statement about the pliability of the human mind (if you'll pardon the Ray Liotta pun); especially if one (Clarice) already had the love/hate-attractiveness/repulsion thing going for Lecter (which was not developed clearly, if at all in the movie.)
Changing the ending so drastically from the book just soured my totally on the movie. It appears that this was a blatant ploy to leave things open for the easy sequel or two or three. Once again, commercialism won out over staying true to the author's story.
On the whole, I wouldn't reccommend seeing it, especially if you read the book first and liked it. My experience might have been better had I seen the movie first and then read the book.
I really liked this review [salon.com] at Salon, except for Charles Taylor's (reviewer) criticism of Harris.
If you haven't already seen it, do rent and see "Manhunter". This was based on Harris' first book Red Dragon. I liked Manhunter much better than Hannibal. I also liked the Lecter character better in Manhunter.
Just my completely unsolicited opinion.
Good movie, but drug on a bit (Score:1)
On the ratings issue, I think they're too fucked up to be any use. I'd much rather my daughter see a couple making love or hear the word 'motherfucker' than see the scenes in Hannibal. None are appropriate (she's 2) but I doubt she's have nightmares from seeing the first two.
Re:when you're the leader of the free world (Score:1)
The Pax Brittannica of the 19th century was successful because the British were very straight laced at the time, and had stern Victorian values. They managed to conquer 25% of the worlds surface thanks to their moral superiority. It was the decadence of the 1920's and onwards that brought this era in history to a close, and after WWII America picked up the baton.
Under the Pax Romana, the Italiansa were very morally upright. It was not until the moral decadence of the Empire, when the caesars came to power, that the long decline started.
Is this happening to America now? Perhaps. I fear that it will be up to the moral backbone of America, the Mormons and Christians, both born again and otherwise, who will have to stop this decline.
Hannibal is an entertaining film, I am sure, and to some extent can be considered a stopcock to let of steam.
But let us remember that it is only fiction, and is only one possible viewpoint.
--
Clarity does not require the absence of impurities,
Re:when you're the leader of the free world (Score:1)
when you're the leader of the free world...The world looks to America for leadership and sacrifice (no, not the whole world, but most of it).
Appointed leader by whom? Accountable to whom? This strange delusion that America has a divine mission to 'save the world' and that every other nation in the world recognizes this is precisely the reason the rest of the world classes Americans as arrogant. World War II is a particularly bad example of American troops being the 'first to respond' - the USA refused to become involved in the war until it's own interests were threatened (the bombing of Pearl Harbour) - Hitler was primarily stopped by the Soviet Union.
Re:when you're the leader of the free world (Score:1)
Re:I LOVED the book. (Score:1)
-antipop
X rating (Score:1)
I don't know about elsewhere but Germany gave Hannibal an X rating (18 or older) because of the violence.
Re:"Packed with little kids"? (Score:1)
tetrad
Re:Too fake for me (Score:1)
I largely agree, although I can grimace my way through them a lot of the time. Also, I don't give sci-fi, etc. a free pass on this - they still have to stay internally consistent, even if they can be shown to not always follow the "rules" of our world (and if they don't, they should make some effort to justify why not :).
Actually, while I found all that a little dicey, I still thought it was reasonably plausible. According to the book, Hannibal was six in 1944, so born in 1938, so would be just over sixty if we presume the story is set in around 1998/1999 (I don't know how old Anthony Hopkins is, but I wouldn't think too far off sixty). Which means he would have been about fifty in Silence of the Llamas, where he pulled off the stunts you refer to above. Fifty is hardly "old", especially if you're in good physical condition.
Just while I'm thinking about it, I don't think there's really anything that he does in Hannibal that is really all that physically challenging... okay, he demonstrates some speed with a knife on a couple of occasions, but it's not like he ever squares up for a boxing match with Lewis or Holyfield or anything. He relies primarily on 1. catching people by surprise and/or 2. coming at them from behind - one well-placed blow with a knife or mace/pepper spray or truncheon or an ether sponge as with Pazzi) and your proverbial grandma could handle them from there. Both the incidents you mention above qualify under these conditions.
It's not so much that he's physically tough - more that his mind is extraordinarily good at handling combat (if you can call them that) situations quickly and effectively. He is also able to largely "switch off" pain, so when he is injured, it doesn't bother him as much as it would a normal person. He can move unusually quickly, and he is supposed to be unusually strong for his size, but not to a ridiculous degree. Mentally, this guy is waaaay off the bell curve - it's not too difficult to believe he possesses some moderate physical gifts as well.
Anyway, hope that provides some food for thought.
Pete.
Re:And this is on Slashdot because ... (Score:1)
The Good Reverend
Stuff from the book I'm glad they left out (Score:2)
I wish Scott, Harris and Mamet had found room to squeeze in just a few of the cut scenes, though, like the book's flashbacks about Lecter's childhood ... Lecter comes off again as an anthrophagous Moriarty whose victim-eating is just an arbirary manifestation of evil.
No! It's a good thing they left that out. I was very happy Lecter's poor-little-me childhood did not make it to the screen. It would have destroyed his character!
I still can't believe Harris ever wrote that in the first place. What the hell was he thinking? He did a complete 180 from his previous characterizations of Hannibal. In the first two books (Red Dragon and The Silence of the Lambs), he emphasized the idea that Lecter simply was evil, not because somebody mistreated him as a child. He even has Lecter tell someone at one point that "our personalities are handed to us" along with our height, hair color, etc. He also tells Clarice that he "happened" -- that he wasn't made, he simply is. Harris ruined everything by trying to pass Lecter's behavior off on some childhood trauma in typical pop-psychology fashion. The only explanation I can come up with is that Harris decided to write the third Lecter book wildly out of character, just to see if anyone would care. After reading "Hannibal", my first thought was, "I have been trolled -- at hardcover prices, too!"
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:1)
Re:Product placement (Score:1)
-antipop
Re:Informal survey (Score:1)
Estate (Score:1)
Re:Character motivations and other stuff (Score:1)
Decent review, but let me take exception with this point. Ummmm... so "only" being horribly disfigured and unable to speak and eat properly and being confined to a wheelchair forever isn't motivating enough for that guy?! I understand Verger's situation might be less horrible than in the book you read, but geez, but I really think what the movie showed happened to Verger would motivate him to do at least as much as hid did to pursue Hannibal.
Re:"Packed with little kids"? (Score:1)
Hannibal is not the 2nd, it's the 3rd. (Score:2)
A lot of people seem to think that "Hannibal" is the second movie in the series started by "Silence of the Lambs." This is not true.
The first movie in the series was "Manhunter" starring William Petersen (late of "C.S.I." on CBS) with Brian Cox playing Dr. Hannibal Lecter
Just a minor point that I thought needed to be brought up.
Mason Verger's face "disturbing"? (Score:2)
Actually, to me he looked like a slimlined version of Morn from Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. Whatever you think he looked like, it certainly paled in comparison to the mental images the book conjured.. iirc on paper Verger was almost completely bedridden (no hooning around on that wheelchair), had a face that resembled a rare steak and had something set up to constantly drip, to keep his eyes moist.
My movie review (Score:1)
Great dinner theater.
What else do you need to know?
Re:The book was a dissappointment too. (Score:1)
Re:Non-Katzian spin... (Score:2)
Just remember what Kyle's Mom, Sheila Broflovski said:
That movie gave me an idea (Score:1)
Re:And this is on Slashdot because ... (Score:2)
And a good idea too. Ebert is a total clod about technology, opposing digital projection trying to push the idea of a larger, even more problematic film format. Talk about unclear on the concept.
By the way, never believe him if he says a film has a confusing plot. I've seen him at showings here in Chicago, and he usually waits until the film has started to visit the snack bar, so he can miss important plot points.
Re:see Manhunter (with Hanibbal Leckeer) (Score:1)
The movie wanked on the ending. (Score:3)
Why did it take Harris 10 years to write a sequel to Lambs, do you suppose? Let me take a guess: He doesn't like to be predictable or do the same thing twice. He writes dark, twisted, malevolent morality plays, and he likes to surprise and horrify you while he makes you think of things that strike you as new.
Red Dragon (from whence the movie Manhunter) was about becoming what you hunt. Silence was about finding what you hunt is already within you. Where to go from there? Hannibal is about being seduced by what you hunt.
In the book, the final triumph of Lecter is his seduction of Starling and her active participation in the brain-eating ritual (with a more appropriate victim, too, the boss whose boot had been atop her head since the ending of Silence). The movie was ruined because it makes no sense without this final twist, the revelation that Lecter and Starling are literally the only human and likeable characters in the story.
We also lost some of my favorite lines (oddly, the movie takes lines uttered by different people in different scenes and throws them together in a kind of hodge podge). Starling: "Ask me if I sound like Oliver Twist when I ask for MORE !" Lecter: "Listen to the sound of this stringed instrument. Its sound is the sound of your freedom..." The instrument being the crossbow which administers the coup de grace to Starling's brain-depleted boss. Starling, in reply: "Yes, the D below middle C, isn't it?"
The movie was pretty good, a faithful rendition of the story with forgivable nips and tucks to the plot (though I missed Verger's sister, who kills him in the book), right up to the final pulled punch. Starling was seduced by Hannibal, because only Hannibal was straight with her, only Hannibal could be trusted, and every force in her life pushed her into Hannibal's arms. Hannibal himself had believable reasons in the book (nipped from the movie) for taking her under his wing rather than making her into dinner. This could have been a great movie, but instead it sold out to squeamishness.
Re:Hannibal is not the 2nd, it's the 3rd. (Score:1)
I called a local radio station to correct thier announcement that part 2 of the silence of the lambs was out, and they had no idea what I was talking about.
boring (Score:3)
But most of the movie was boring. It was like you just kept waiting for Hannibal to do something, and he just kept keeping his cool. Every so often, he'd say something soaked in irony and the audience would give an appreciative laugh because hey, when Hannibal Lechter says "I'd love to have you over for dinner", heh heh heh, he doesn't mean what most people mean!!! Get it? Have you over for dinner? Ha Ha! He's a cannibal! You'd be the dinner!! Get it? Boy, that guy is creepy!
This movie had almost none of what made Silence of the Lambs so good - the phychological component. In that, Hannibal was scary because he seemed to gain an advantage over people even when he was locked in a straightjacket in a maximum security cell. He'd take small cues from people and sense their weakness with an alarming swiftness and move in to exploit it.
Last Ten Minutes of Movie (Score:1)
I have a question about the last ten minutes of the film when Clarice is in the house with the doctor. After she handcuffs them together, Hannibal seems to cut his own hand off to free himself. This is cemented when we see him with a sling, and only using his left arm on the airplane.
But my question is why wasn't Clarice wearing the handcuffs when she chased him out onto the water? Am I missing something, or is this an error in the movie?
Re:Good movie, but drug on a bit (Score:1)
Re:Madisons Virginia Home? (Score:1)
Re:Hannibal as Hollow Man (Score:1)
On the other hand, movies today are horrible due to their formulistic style, and the habit of breaking several laws of physics in action movies. Bad guys need only one hit to the head to go down, heroes can be blown up, shot several times, and have the crap kicked out of them before even passing out (usually to awaken alive and well in a hospital, with some rugged wounds to *prove* they are a hero). Just once do I want to see an evil henchmen shot/hit once, go down, then when the hero walks past, pull out a gun and shoot him in the back. Oh, and a car not to explode as if detroit packs them full of TNT. Simple things like that. A bit of realism would be nice.
just a note (Score:1)
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT. (Score:1)
Everyone complains about violent content or sexual content yet do nothing about it. If you don't want your kids to see these things don't let them view R rated films. Still not good enough maybe you should restrict their viewing of PG-13 films.
Want to let them see the R films that you think are ok? screen the movies your kids can watch.
If parents would be parents they could stop complaining about the content of various media outlets and do something worthwile. Maybe explain things to your kids so they can handle this content and not be warped by it.
BTW I don't think good movies need violence or sex to make a good film. Most of it is pointless but it does at time make a point.
Re:Informal survey (Score:1)
Re:Last Ten Minutes of Movie (Score:1)
This is a truly horrible film (Score:2)
Once Hannibal's character was removed from the confines of prison, he really isn't interesting. The thing that made this character alluring in Manhunter and SOTL was that he was controlling everything and everyone while being locked away, which in itself is frightening - you cannot control this man by confining him.
Once Hannibal's cahracter is on the loose, who cares? He is not physically threatening, and none of his frightening attributes are enhanced by having him move around freely.
This movie had zilch suspense - ZILCH. Not once was I really on the edge of my seat wondering what would happen next - you always knew what where the movie would be in five minutes.
Sure, Gary Oldman played a neat freak, but once you've seen him once, its not that shocking. This movie is just a polished slasher film - thats it, nothing more, nothing less. None of the talents involved in this production could save a script based on a book that should have never been written.
Gratuitous and ridicuous product placement (Score:3)
The number of product shots in this movie is astounding and shameful for Scott.
Re:Character motivations and other stuff (Score:2)
Ok, point taken. I just felt that the additional disabilities and pain that Verger experienced in the book gave a more *intense* motivation to his character. In the movie, other than being disfigured, the wheelchair and having the memories of the experience with Lecter, it seemed that Mason wasn't much impaired from functioning in daily life. He was clear headed and continued to carry on his business activities. Ok, maybe he had no social life and there were those that were turned off or disgusted by his appearance, but that didn't much seem to matter to him except to shock people.
When I read the book, I thought of the quadraplegic Lincoln Rhyme character from Bone Collector, but with hideous disfigurement as well. If I remember correctly from the book, Verger controlled all his equipment with breath and voice control and he used a respirator to even survive. At least Rhyme had some use of his index finger and didn't frighten people who looked at him.
I do accept your point and I'm not trying to pick it apart, I just think that my observation was about the *intense* degree of hatred caused by his *intense* disfigurment and impairment. Of course that's just how I interpreted the book.
Thanks for your observations.
Re:And this is on Slashdot because ... (Score:2)
Yes, I've seen virtually every digital projector on the market, from the first time TI debuted DLP at CES and NAB to the most recent versions. No way in hell does it look like a pixel is "a foot across". I've seen JVC/Hughes' 12000 projector at a special showing at NAB and was closer to the screen than anyone else, and while I could spot the 3 burned on red pixels, the 1 burned on green pixel and the 2 burned off blue pixels (this was a prototype), I was not able to see any distinction between the pixels in the course of the reguler film. This was an HD showing of "Shakespere In Love" on a 40' wide screen, and I was less than 15' from the actual screen. I could see details on the lace being worn by Gweneth Paltrow. I attended the HD Film Festival, I do IT work for the Chicago International Film Festival and I dearly love movies. And I wait anxiously for the demise of every single 35mm film projector, with their weave and flicker, scratches, dust, breaks and all the rest of the crap that goes along with a 100 year old technology.
quite the tasty movie. (Score:2)
it is, after all, a love story.
will clarice be tempted by the flesh in hannibal III? after the FBI truly humiliates her?
we can all hope.
Re:The movie wanked on the ending. (Score:5)
1. Starling catches Lecter.
2. Starling fails to catch Lecter (movie version).
3. Lecter catches starling, eats her.
4. Lecter catches starling (book version).
#1 and #2 are what everyone expected (the question after the book was released was "do they catch him?"). For this very reason Harris wouldn't have done either. People would have hated #3 even more than what he actually did. Really, given Harris' history the book ends in just about the only way possible.
Harris does not write about nice people. The "tooth fairy" in Red Dragon chose his victims because they were happy, well-adjusted families and he wanted to end their happiness as horrifically as possible (and Harris describes his methods in great detail). The villain of silence is building himself a girl suit out of real girls. Mason Verger was a pervert and psycho before he ever met Hannibal Lecter.
In Dragon and Silence Lecter was like a force of nature, the higher power of which the other villains could only be a subset. In Hannibal Harris had to make Lecter human. This was bound to be a disappointment, but without a background and a vulnerability Harris would have had no story. What he did was actually very clever, and not nearly so unbelievable as people seem to think.
Ultimately, Hannibal is no more about Lecter than the other two books; it is about Clarice Starling. She has gone beyond not hearing the lambs, through a cauldron of betrayal that has enabled her to become the butcher. Lecter merely gives her a well-timed push to complete the process. It's really similar to his role in the other two stories, and one of the few ways Harris could have surprised us at all.
Re:when you're the leader of the free world (Score:2)
when you're the leader of the free world your cultural standards are little bit different than if your some past-your-prime fiefdom in an aging continent.
Yes...a troll. A pretty good one. So my counter troll is: "When you are the enlightened birthplace of democracy and leader of the free world (since we don't let corporations screw our citizens), our cultural standards are a little bit different than if we were some past-their-prime colony populated by the descendants of religious fanatics." ;-)
And BTW, the continents are *exactly* the same age. And at the moment I think the culture of Europe is looking more younger and dynamic. We don't need no stinking old declaration of independence to bog us down...
The world looks to America for leadership and sacrifice (no, not the whole world, but most of it).
I know you like to believe that.
Whenever dirty work needs to be done, vital fluids protected, American troops are the first to respond and the first to die.
That is such utter bullshit. Ever since the catastrophic incidents in Somalia, the American governement have become utter cowards when it comes to putting their soldier's life on the line. It may now be once of the first armies that refuses to put its soldiers in any danger. For instance, the US vetoed all its NATO allies plan to use ground troops in Yugoslavia and went ahead and bombed the whole country from a safe distance. Fine, I can understand that they are afraid to have the media getting hold of images of dead soldiers, and America is fearful of repeating the mistakes of the Vietnam War. But what really gets my blood boiling is when American conservatives act like we should be grateful for this since "America paid for the war". We in Europe have had to deal with hundreds of thousands of refugees, and the cost of rebuilding the infrastructure of a country that got bombed back to the middle ages.
Witness one of Dubya's first acts as President, placing American airmen at risk to destroy dangerous Iraqi air defences.
Wag the Dog
Stanley Motss: "The President will be a hero. He brought peace."
Conrad 'Connie' Brean: "But there was never a war."
Stanley Motss: "All the greater accomplishment."
Now, it's all well and good for certain European countries to adopt an opposite philosophy of pleasure seeking; sex is good, promiscuity is good, guns and violence are bad.
Well, yes, that is my basic philosophy. Especially if you take responsibility for your procreation by using condoms. My life has been much better since I discovered promiscuity. And I am scared about the American attitudes Katz point out in his review.
But don't push them on America, we need to be violent to save the world.
But who will save us from America? That's what I want to know. Any takers?
************************************************ ** *
Hannibal isn't a sequel; it's third in a series (Score:4)
Manhunter is the story of Will Graham, a retired FBI behavioral-science expert. (What caused him to retire? Well, he was the only man both sane and crazy enough to be able to crawl inside Hannibal Lecter's mind. He almost didn't come out again.) After a new serial killer murders two families, Jack Crawford (played by Dennis Farina here) pulls Will out of retirement. But lo and behold, this new serial killer is patterning himself after Lecter.
If you can forgive the mid-80s fashions and soundtrack, this is my personal favorite of all the three films.
Sir Anthony Hopkins takes over the role of Hannibal Lecter from Scottish actor Brian Cox. Hopkins and Cox take totally different approaches to The Bad Doctor; I prefer Cox, but Hopkins' performance is far from slouching.
... If you haven't seen Manhunter yet, give it a try. It's a "nobody's-ever-seen-it" film, and provided you can understand that in the mid-80s people actually dressed that way and listened to that sort of music, there's a heck of a lot to appreciate in it.
Valenti, the MPAA, and Distribution (Score:2)
Doesn't anyone see anything just a little bit wrong with that?
quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur -- that which is said in Latin sounds profound
Re:MPAA ratings... (Score:2)
Ergo, a film like Billy Elliot will be rated R because someone says the word 'fuck', while a film like Nutty Professor 2, complete with a grandmother giving implied oral sex (with teeth out) gets away with a PG-13. It's why Lost World, complete with people being ripped apart by dinosaurs for our amusement, is rated PG-13, while a film like Requiem For A Dream, with it's important message, is sent to unscreenable land when it gets an NC-17.
Actually, I always assumed that Lost World got a low rating because it was a guaranteed money-maker, especially when all the kids want the dino toys. Would the movie be half as profitable without the money made on merchandise sold to kids?
Re:Product placement (Score:3)
My god.
Look, last time I went to a Famous Players, a fire alarm sounded halfway through. When the staff stopped the film and suggested that it was time to leave, we all trooped out. Twenty minutes later, the fire department determined it was all a mistake, and let us back in.
So far, acceptable. But then some fucknut up in the projector booth decided that they'd start the film five minutes before where it was stopped. Except, of course, that you can't rewind a fucking 70mm film. And they had no idea how to thread it back into the projector, without rewinding the entire film and using the auto-loader.
After a half-hour of this bullshit, I went out to the front counter to suggest that they'd best give us some free popcorn, keep the rowdy masses quiet.
I was told that there was no way in hell they'd do that. I calmly told them that perhaps they should put customer satisfaction before twenty-five cents of popcorn kernals, but was again told that there was no bloody way they were giving it over.
I *WILL* *NOT* *EVER* *GO* *BACK*
The only way to enact change in business practices is to punish those businesses that mistreat their customers, and reward those that treat them well.
For the past six months, I've waited three extra weeks, and watched the movies in our local reporatory, at half the price, with half the crowd.
So do the same thing. Quit buying the movie food, for starters. And if you've got a classy little filmhouse that shows alternative movies, start going there instead.
You got choices, man. If you *choose* to keep supporting a theatre that runs advertisements, then quitcher whining.
--
Re:MPAA ratings... (Score:3)
Help out a non-American not versed in US laws.
Is there some legal reason why a film must be rated, or why the MPAA must do it? Or is it just that the film distributors are MPAA members? I would think that there is scope here for someone else to break the monopoly on film ratings.
BTW, here in Australia, while our system is by no means perfect (in fact, there are serious problems with it) one feature that I like is that ratings are much more finely grained. In addition to the main categories (G, PG, M, MA, R, X, RC; see the guidelines [oflc.gov.au] if you want to know what they mean) there is always a list of what the OFLC calls "consumer advice", which is basically a list of reasons explaining why it attracted that rating. That way, if you don't mind sex but are squeamish at violence, you can easily tell if this is a film for you.
Consumer advice may include sex (e.g. "sexual references" or "sex scenes"), nudity (which is, naturally, treated differently from sex), drugs ("drug use"), "violence" (with some indication of how severe, such as "low-level violence"), "coarse language" (again with an indication of how severe), "horror", or what the OFLC calls "adult themes." "Adult themes", for those who are wondering, means that the film deals with things like mental illness, the supernatural or mild horror. All the things that children might not understand. This list of reasons is on all video boxes and movie posters, as well as read out by an announcer before most films or TV programmes which are rated above G. TV guides also put a summary in short form (for example, the repeat of South Park tonight is rated MA (A) where the (A) means it has adult themes). Some TV channels go even further, using their own consumer advice labels. For example, I remember one of Julian Clary's shows was rated M, with the consumer advice "strong innuendo".
The US could do with a more fine-grained system like this one, so we don't have to rely on spoiler reviews to decide whether or not we want to watch it.
strange but true... (Score:2)
in short, i wasn't surprised. well, that's not complerely true; i wasn't surprised that it sucked, but the ways that it sucked were quite surprising.
for example, how they didn't explain how the x-rays that starling got from verger were related to lecter at all. i'd imagine that the audience would be pretty confused if they didn't read the book.
the most interesting thing was the boom and lighting gear that was in several of the shots. towards the end, when starling and lecter are in paul's kitchen, the boom with the microphone on the end was clearly visible. so were some of their lights, and a big piece of tinfoil to diffuse the light.
sounds strange, but i swear it's true. the theater gave everyone who saw it refunds.
the manager said it was their fault. and i'm sure that if something like that got in the final release of the movie, it would have been mentioned in the review, so i guess it was just me.
can someone with more of a clue than the manager explain just what went wrong with that?
--
Re:The movie wanked on the ending. (Score:2)
5. Lecter fails to catch Starling.
No, just as negative zero = zero, this is the same as "Starling fails to catch Lecter."
Re: (Score:2)
Hanibal: 90 minutes of talking is scary (Score:2)
A book that Thomas Harris didn't want to write. A movie that Jodie Foster flat-out refused to participate in. A sluggish plot more reminiscent of a costume drama. I almost wet myself with fear.
can you hear the cash, Clarise? [ridiculopathy.com]
Re:And this is on Slashdot because ... (Score:2)
70mm is a perfectly fine thing, except that they haven't actually shot a film in it, other than the VistaVision effects shots, in decades. 70mm prints are optical blow-ups from 35mm.
Yes, Mr. Coward, I seek out 70mm prints. The local Imax (Chicago's Navy Pier) will soon be showing a 70mm roadshow print of "2001", and yeah, I'll be right there the first night.
Bite me. I'm 40 years old and have been observing technology for years. I've see 70mm roadshow prints in their original release.
The only space available was right down at front, which was fine by me as I specifically was there to see how well the image held up very close to the screen. And it did. The original film grain of the 35mm negative was visible. How the hell was I supposed to judge it? From the SMPTE approved distance? You were the clod who suggested that the pixels were "a foot across". I suspect that you have never actually see this technology and are just arguing.
You weren't. No theater, other than special test showings at Kodak's test theaters and maybe at the Museum of the Moving Image, uses wet-gate projection. That is exclusively for telecine - for instance the telecine done while making an HDTV transfer.
The sad fact is that theater chains do not employ trained film professionals. They employ 16 year olds. And those 16 year olds are less likely to screw up putting in a pair of DVDs than to properly assemble a bunch of reels in the right order without making a hash of it. I can't imagine how much worse the situation would be if they were to try to handle a wet-gate as well.
The guy who never actually built anything? Yeah, I'm composing this on a giant, clattering difference engine, brass wheels spinning...
Babbage's "basic design" wasn't built until a few years ago.
The day of chemical photography has passed. I do not mourn it.
Forget the "Walkman", here we have the "Strawman".
I sign my name, which puts me at least half a hill ahead of you.
No need. The fast is that you've seen films that have been transferred to HDTV and re-output to film for effects work and haven't even noticed it. "Pleasantville" was done in that way. Actual filmmakers do not object to the HDTV standard. Besides, most of them are actually using 1080p/24 (a mistake, in my opinion 24 fps should go they way of the dinosaur) instead of 1080i/30.
By playing 25mm film at 48fps, it doubles the number of film cans shipped to theaters, doubles the number of splices needed to be performed, doubles the number of opportunities for things to go wrong. Yes, it reduces the film grain and the visibility of scratches, but only by making all the other hassles and headaches of film projection worse. Besides, if this was the solution, why didn't theater owners start demanding the 60-fps projection of Doug Trumball's ShowScan system from years ago? (Yes, I've seen ShowScan, at the theater at Niagra Falls). Because ShowScan would have tripled the amount of film that would have to be handled.
BTW, Maxivision.com [maxivision.com] is an eye care specialist. Perhaps you should have a talk with them.
Re:Product placement (Score:2)
I'm glad to hear you've chosen to stay away from the cineplexes, and from Hollydumb films on the whole. If enough of us did that, perhaps we'd see some changes. Though I fear Bill's probably right: the great Dumbing Down of America is ensuring that the masses will be fed pap.
--