Eh, everyone has a different opinion and different taste. Did I enjoy this movie as much as the first? No. However, this is the type of movie that can be watched 3-4 times and you are still picking up newer, smaller things that you don't pick up on the first viewing.
This is a different style film, I agree with you on that. However, why would you follow such a reasonable comment with "lacking in terms of quality to the predecessors?" Unless you are counting the other film that did not have Hopkins as Lecter, Hannibal only had one movie before it and quality is a matter of opinion.
Some people should just stick to films that don't require an individual to enjoy philosophy, complexity, nuance, subtlety or metaphors.
reply
share
DycedargBeoulve
10 years ago
Some people should just stick to films that don't require an individual to enjoy philosophy, complexity, nuance, subtlety or metaphors.
I sincerely hope you're not suggesting that you believe Hannibal is such a film.
---
I once told a woman I was Kevin Costner, and it worked because I believed it!
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
DycedargBeoulve
10 years ago
I have certainly seen and even enjoyed films that have less depth than Hannibal, but the idea of someone making such broad character judgments about people who do not find this film to be all that impressive is a bit ridiculous to me for a number of reasons. Even if it were a film I felt to be worthy of being held in such a high regard, I would have found that user's very elitist statement off-putting. I was simply responding in the user's "language."
---
I once told a woman I was Kevin Costner, and it worked because I believed it!
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
DycedargBeoulve
10 years ago
Oh, I noticed the philosophical layers, and I appreciated them on some level. They were actually pretty hard not to notice, which is why AarOnHisBox's statement irritated me. Such a statement more or less declared Hannibal as some esoteric work of art, where the only answer as to why someone may not enjoy the film is due to a number of personal failings central to artistic observation. It was almost as if the user was oblivious to the notion that some people may have picked up on these things, but felt that the film was still lacking in some form or another.
I admit that in hindsight I should have focused my initial post on AarOnBox's unnecessarily elitist notion of "prerequisites" to critique (or even view) Hannibal, rather than "fighting fire with fire" and causing collateral damage by attacking a film that has plenty of fans who are most likely civil and free of pretension.
---
I once told a woman I was Kevin Costner, and it worked because I believed it!
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
DycedargBeoulve
10 years ago
Damn forum demons, haha.
It is interesting how reading someone's thoughts on a film can enhance it. There is a chance I could end up liking Hannibal more if I read an analysis written by someone who loved it (I was lukewarm on how I felt about the plot in Only God Forgives until I read an analysis).
After re-watching every Hannibal-related film after marathon-ing both seasons of the excellent TV series, I can say that The Silence of the Lambs still holds up as a complete classic, but yeah, I would agree that Hannibal (film) while not a classic, is a film I will probably end up watching a few more times throughout my life. It has some excellent scenes!
---
I once told a woman I was Kevin Costner, and it worked because I believed it!
reply
share
10 years ago
[deleted]
DycedargBeoulve
10 years ago
That was a pretty good thesis. I like how it expounded on some slightly unfinished thoughts I had regarding feminist themes in both of the Clarice films in the series. Also, reading this with the TV series fresh in my memory, it called to mind some major contrasts that I recognized between it and the films regarding Hannibal's victims. His murders in the show were often much less "altruistic," but I feel they did a fantastic job making Hannibal sympathetic in a completely different kind of way.
---
I once told a woman I was Kevin Costner, and it worked because I believed it!
reply
share
rsr26
10 years ago
At first I hated it, because it was so absurd. Now I love it because it is so absurd. This one doesn't have the aspirations the original had, which liberated the sequel a little. Every seen with Mason is perfect. Kessler is a perfect slime ball. And his dinner scene is disgusting and hilarious. Love it as much as the first. Maybe more sometimes.
reply
share