Hannibal (2001) ***1/2
The last time I watched Hannibal (2001), four years ago (review), I was fresh off of re-reading Thomas Harris' 1999 novel (review). I wrote that I hadn't seen the film in over 10 years and that I didn't find it as good as I had remembered. On this viewing, detached from a recent reading of the novel and enjoying the film on its own merits, I enjoyed it more, but I still can't bring myself to award it a higher star rating.
I do think that the film is great, it's just that certain elements and omissions leave it shy of true greatness, like its predecessor The Silence Of The Lambs (1991) (review). Gary Oldman is, as always, a scene stealer, but Mason Verger's demise is much more interesting in the novel. Margot Verger being left out was a poor choice. The climax of the film is but a shadow of the novel. In general, everything just feels truncated. Julianne Moore isn't as good as Jodi Foster but she does a commendable job of inhabiting an iconic role made famous by the latter actor.
There is a lot to appreciate about Hannibal though. Ridley Scott's direction is mostly excellent (despite a few choices I dislike such as the oft used sped-up slo-mo sequences). John Mathieson's cinematography (looking its best ever on the UHD released earlier this year) is also frequently quite striking. David Mamet and Steve Zaillian's script is on the whole one of the film's strong points. Hans Zimmer's score adds a beauty to a overall macabre affair.
Speaking of, the Grand Guignol aspects seem to put off a lot of viewers, but I think anyone who appreciates gialli can find plenty of things to love about Hannibal. Given that the first half of the film is set in Florence and that Giancarlo Giannini—who acted in a great giallo, The Black Belly Of The Tarantula (1971) (a podcast which I co-hosted featuring a discussion of that film here)—stars in Hannibal only reenforces that connection. There is a definite Dario Argento vibe going on in the Italian-set scenes.
As alluded to earlier, I don't love Hannibal, but I do find it terribly entertaining. Most of its shortcomings for me stem more from comparisons I can't help but make to its source novel than from comparing it to Lambs. But it's a decidedly different beast than either and for that I can't help but admire it.
You can find my Ridley Scott Feature Films Ranked list here.
I do think that the film is great, it's just that certain elements and omissions leave it shy of true greatness, like its predecessor The Silence Of The Lambs (1991) (review). Gary Oldman is, as always, a scene stealer, but Mason Verger's demise is much more interesting in the novel. Margot Verger being left out was a poor choice. The climax of the film is but a shadow of the novel. In general, everything just feels truncated. Julianne Moore isn't as good as Jodi Foster but she does a commendable job of inhabiting an iconic role made famous by the latter actor.
There is a lot to appreciate about Hannibal though. Ridley Scott's direction is mostly excellent (despite a few choices I dislike such as the oft used sped-up slo-mo sequences). John Mathieson's cinematography (looking its best ever on the UHD released earlier this year) is also frequently quite striking. David Mamet and Steve Zaillian's script is on the whole one of the film's strong points. Hans Zimmer's score adds a beauty to a overall macabre affair.
Speaking of, the Grand Guignol aspects seem to put off a lot of viewers, but I think anyone who appreciates gialli can find plenty of things to love about Hannibal. Given that the first half of the film is set in Florence and that Giancarlo Giannini—who acted in a great giallo, The Black Belly Of The Tarantula (1971) (a podcast which I co-hosted featuring a discussion of that film here)—stars in Hannibal only reenforces that connection. There is a definite Dario Argento vibe going on in the Italian-set scenes.
As alluded to earlier, I don't love Hannibal, but I do find it terribly entertaining. Most of its shortcomings for me stem more from comparisons I can't help but make to its source novel than from comparing it to Lambs. But it's a decidedly different beast than either and for that I can't help but admire it.
You can find my Ridley Scott Feature Films Ranked list here.
Comments
Post a Comment