what with the talent involved....sir ridley scott, imo one of the great directors...writers david mamet and steven zaillian...and anthony hopkns back as hannibal lecter as well as gary oldman...i dont know how it went wrong....
thats the most dissapointing thing about the movie, the amount of really talented people who worked on it but ended up producing something very average
I think it's because the film's quite different from the book, which was much better. If they had followed the book, the film would have been great but it seemed to me that they were... afraid? It's a shame. I think it would've been a very controversial movie too but sill... The Silence of the Lambs deserved a better sequel than this one.
shareI've read the book, and much prefer the film.
Hated Hannibal's backstory in the book and don't care for the ending. I also didn't find Mason's sister necessary and his death in the book was rather silly, and would've been even more silly onscreen.
I think this movie is on par with the greatness of Silence and much, much better than the others.
+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++
I think if I am totally honest you cannot really compare the two movies. SOTL is a stone cold classic while Hannibal turned out to be a watchable piece of schlock.
There were many factors that made it this way. Anyone who has read SOTL will know that it is a great book and therefore the filmmakers had a unique story to work from and delivered a brilliant, truly memorable film. I have not read Hannibal yet but I gather its nowhere near as good and that clearly tells its own story. Perhaps you can only work with the material you have.
In Hannibal the fact Lecter was out walking the streets etc weakened him as a character, he was so much more interesting and chilling when he was locked up in his cell trading blows with Starling. Another factor was that Hopkins and Foster did so well together, really canny casting and the blend in Lambs was just right.
I see people mentioning the big names in Hannibal but that will not always make a great film, actors like Scott Glenn, Anthony Heald and Ted Levine were not and are not big names but were right for their parts in Lambs. Take a bow Jonathan Demme.
Maybe most importantly the fact that Jodie Foster decided against appearing in Hannibal left it dead in the water. Her work in Lambs was so strong and I found it hard to accept another actress as Clarice Starling, it just didn't feel right.
Hopkins milked the Lecter role for all it was worth, probably unwisely, but his best portrayal will always be in SOTL.
ere were many factors that made it this way. Anyone who has read SOTL will know that it is a great book and therefore the filmmakers had a unique story to work from and delivered a brilliant, truly memorable film. I have not read Hannibal yet but I gather its nowhere near as good and that clearly tells its own story. Perhaps you can only work with the material you have.
I recently re-watched "Manhunter", "Silence of the Lambs", and "Hannibal".. and I absolutely loved the two first movies, but I have mixed feelings regarding "Hannibal".
Yeah, it was good, but it also somehow stumbled on its own clever ideas. The movie tried to be very psychological and intellectual, but it failed to deliver what it was promising and had some weird gaps in it. I haven't read the book, but I've been told it's great and that it really opens up the characters more... so, maybe I should read it.
I didn't have a problem with Julianne Moore playing Clarice (tho Jodie was better), but I somehow really didn't like Ray Liotta. Of course his character was supposed to be despicable, but I think he wasn't convincing at all.
Anyway, I think I won't re-watch "Red Dragon" or the absolutely ridiculous "Hannibal Rising".. I'm good with two excellent, and one mediocre, Dr. Lecter movie :)
I love this movie. Hannibal loose in the world. What more could you ask for. Julianne Moore is great as Clarice.
The brain-eating scene is spectacular.
Thought this was much better than SOTL, which I just finished watching again about an hour ago.
Short Cut, Draw Blood
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think you are being generous in describing this film as "average." I thought it bordered on being terrible. SotL was ok. Not great by any definition but above average. This film was not. It was yet another example of trying to go to the well, and make money, too many times.
Remember When Movies Didn't Have To Be Politically Correct?
totally agree. I had high hopes but ......
" Look, there's two women fuc*ing a polar bear "
I thought it was really good, myself. Silence was better, but this was definitely one of the stronger Lecter films in the series (I just thought Foster had better screen chemistry with Hopkins).
"Speak of the Devil, and He shall appear."
I love Julianne Moore but having her replace Foster didn't really work for me as a fan of the books and SOFL.
shareI never understood the hoopla over Jodi Foster in SOTL. I haven't watched all of Hannibal but I have read most of the book; the movie improved on 2,things done poorly in the book...the ending and Virgil's death. In the book the latter was just laughably stupid, in the movie it was terrifying.
I can only guess that Silence was received better because it was innovative and was influenced by recent events and influenced the countries reactions to serial killers. Apparently Harris didn't want to write a sequel and the results were divisive amongst readers.
I will say that while the book SOTL had more atmosphere Hannibal had such scary moments that I couldn't finish it.
Superman & Wonder Woman