Everyone’s
favorite cannibal is back in ‘Hannibal’
By Brent McConkey
Old Gold and Black Reviewer
>
February 16, 2001
By “truly,”
of course, I’m referring to an entirely different category of crazy,
a distinction transcending the modest standard one might usually associate
with the word. For instance, dying your hair blue is crazy. Dying your
grandma blue, now that’s truly crazy. I personally think we all
have a little craziness in us, whether we choose to recognize it or
not. Oh we might try to hide it, suppressing these desires to the furthest
depths of the soul, but they’re there. For instance, you might
as well admit that you’ve at least thought about shaving your roommate’s
eyebrows while he sleeps. The way he just lays there, peaceful, oblivious
… sometimes I just sit there looking at him, clutching the razor
with trembling hands. But you know what I mean.
A crazy man is the focus of the newest thriller and box office hit,
Hannibal. Starring Sir Anthony Hopkins in the title role as the deranged
serial killer and proud cannibal, Hannibal Lecter, this sequel to 1991’s
Silence of the Lambs focuses on the ongoing manhunt for the escaped
villain. While the possible reemergence of Lecter remains at the back
of embattled FBI agent Clarice Starling’s (Julianne Moore) mind,
a more public dispute with her own department over her reputation following
a botched raid concerns her more. That is, until Italian detective Rinaldo
Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) uncovers the truth of Lecter’s whereabouts.
Motivated by a $3 million reward offered by the lone surviving Lecter
victim and grossly rich, grossly disfigured recluse Mason Verger (Gary
Oldman), Pazzi brings Lecter out of hiding and back into Starling’s
nightmares. When the vengeful plot of Verger comes to light, however,
Starling must take on not only the bitter billionaire but also Lecter,
and ultimately her own feelings, in order to secure true justice.
Directed by Ridley Scott, working from the novel by Thomas Harris, Hannibal
maintains an intelligent, deliberate and suspenseful pace throughout
its first two hours as it tells the story of these very troubled characters.
The film takes its time in drawing these characters as intense, sophisticated
people with highly different motivations. Clarice is repulsed by Lecter’s
killings, but somewhat drawn by his refined tastes and ability to see
the truth in people. Verger would rather live in isolation with his
horrific deformity than give up his dreams of retribution and die. Lecter
harbors a bizarre love for Clarice that makes it unclear whether he’d
rather continue teasing her with letters and messages or make her his
next victim. Scott develops these characters impeccably, producing genuine
thrills as we wait to see which calculated turn the film will take next.
Behind this measured plot is a stunning backdrop that Scott renders
with absolute visual mastery. Filmed in large part in Florence, Italy,
and also Asheville, the setting infuses Hannibal with the beauty necessary
to offset much of the film’s gruesome violence. The result is a
picture much like The Talented Mr. Ripley, which uses the splendor of
its scenery as a tool to relax the viewer just enough to make its more
frightening elements more effective. It’s a brilliant method of
increasing the film’s suspense while providing a measure of eye
candy.
Appreciate the eye candy while its there, folks, because in the end
Hannibal’s more sickening images will stay with you much longer.
Although this film is not as disturbing than the recent Requiem for
a Dream, it definitely gives that drug shocker a run for its money.
While Scott has thankfully excised a great deal of the novel’s
more ghastly scenes, enough gore exists to make viewers decidedly squirmy.
Unfortunately,
a great deal of this gore comes at the expense of the aforementioned
care the film takes to provide a smart, measured build-up. Particularly
in the final scenes, the film just feels rushed and all-too-eager to
demonstrate its shock capability. Although I won’t get into plot-spoiling
details, a herd of flesh-eating pigs (no, I’m not making that up)
seems like a particularly excessive addition. At this point, and in
a later scene reminiscent of The Texas Chainsaw Massacre that is sure
to leave you with a greater appreciation for your frontal lobe, the
film turns almost campy, losing much of its carefully-constructed intensity.
This change is extremely disappointing and weakens a previously strong
film.
The acting performance by Hopkins stands out, but unlike his previous
turn as Lecter, it is doubtful to garner him an Academy Award. The equal
levels of finesse and ferocity, however, that Hopkins brings to Lecter
makes the killer one of cinema’s most magnificent, and likely most
enduring, anti-heroes. Moore also gives a solid performance in the thankless
role of replacing Jodie Foster. In the end the talented actress proves
a solid replacement who skillfully conveys the tremendous inner strength
and weakness of Starling.
While Hannibal is undeniably well-made and well-acted, the compromise
it makes in its final act provides for an ultimately unsatisfying film.
With a little more care, this could have been a superb film. In the
end, it comes up just a little short of slaying this particular critic.
