Oh my God! How did this movie make the R-rating? I've seen plenty of movies that were NC-17 and Unrated, but they all pale in comparison to "Hannibal," a movie that somehow earned an R-rating, even though it has perhaps one of the most sick and demented scenes I've ever seen in a movie.
"Hannibal" was based on the book of the same name by Thomas Harris (which I never read), and most people and critics were disappointed with it. Also, I heard that the ending was awful, that it went completely against the character of "Clarice Starling." Jodie Foster felt the same way, so when they asked her to reprise the role, she said that she wouldn't unless the ending changed and was more in keeping with the character. Well, they changed the ending, but it was too little too late, and Jodie Foster was gone. Jonathan Demme didn't wanna return as director, because he thought the material was too gruesome. This coming from the guy who directed "The Silence of the Lambs"? How much more gruesome could it be?
Folks, believe me, it's more gruesome.
"The Silence of the Lambs" is one of my favorite movies of all time. It's got some bloody scenes, but most of what you see is the aftermath of the murders rather than the murders themselves. It's sorta like "Seven" that way. It's a very creepy, very intense movie, and it deservedly won the Oscar for Best Picture that year (it won quite a few other Oscars, as well). "Hannibal" is different. It's much more in your face, and it's so twisted, it's almost absurd. No, it's not as good as "The Silence of the Lambs," but I really liked it. Of course, I'm not one who gets all pissy when a movie has a lotta violence, but those who do will end up walking out.
The talent involved with the making of "Hannibal" is some of the best in the business. The book was adapted into a screenplay by David Mamet. Mamet is a playwright turned screenwriter and sometime director. He wrote "Glengarry Glen Ross," "We're No Angels,"The Untouchables," "The Verdict," "The Spanish Prisoner," "Oleanna," Homicide," and a whole bunch more. Supposedly, his script wasn't all that great since he was too busy prepping his movie "State & Main," so then Steve Zaillian was called in. Steve Zaillian is known for taking books and making great screenplays out of them. He wrote the screenplays for "A Civil Action," "Searching for Bobby Fischer," "Schindler's List," and "Awakenings." Like Mamet, he sometimes directs. From what I hear, the screenplay is very faithful to the book, up until the end. The director was none other than Ridley Scott, hot off the heels of "Gladiator." Ridley Scott has had his share of hits and misses. He also directed "G.I. Jane," "White Squall," "1492: Conquest of Paradise," "Thelma & Louise," "Black Rain," "Someone to Watch Over Me," "Legend," "Blade Runner," and "Alien." He's a great director, and he really knows his craft. "Hannibal" is yet another movie that proves it.
Anthony Hopkins returns as "Dr. Hannibal Lecter," and I don't think I need to tell you that he's fantastic. It's such a great role for him, and he's perfect. As for Julianne Moore (she was sensational in "Boogie Nights" and "Magnolia"), I love her as an actress, and I think she did an admirable job, but the chemistry wasn't the same. Of course, the two characters don't interact nearly as much as they did in "The Silence of the Lambs," but when they DID interact it wasn't as mesmerizing. Still, I think she was very good. Part of the problem is that the character of "Clarice Starling" is ten years older. She's no longer the innocent, naive, F.B.I. trainee. She's become a completely different person, and because of that, many may fault Julianne Moore, and that's a shame. Ray Liotta does a good job in the movie, especially towards the end, but the one who really kicks ass is the man who plays "Mason Verger." I'm not gonna say who he is because it's supposed to be a secret, but trust me, he's awesome.
A lotta people
are gonna hate this movie, and not just 'cause of how twisted it is. The
truth is, it's not as good as "The Silence of the Lambs," but
no one should expect it to be. On it's own, I think it's a very good, though
very twisted movie. Sure, it may rely a bit too heavily on shock value,
but I'm okay with that.
Scale of 1-10: 8