|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Rice Thresher
Phone:
|
Robert Reichle thresher editorial staff
Director Ridley Scott (Gladiator, Blade Runner, Alien) has crafted a visually stimulating, psychologically engrossing film adaptation of Thomas Harris' book. In it, Anthony Hopkins reprises the role of suave, cannibalistic serial killer Hannibal Lecter (a role that won him the 1991 Academy Award for Best Actor). Ten years after he escaped from custody in Silence of the Lambs, he's living an increasingly boring life in hiding in Florence, Italy. Aside from fine art, clothes and cuisine, the one thing that profoundly moves him is his lasting affection for FBI Special Agent Clarice Starling, the then-student investigator whom he came to admire 10 years earlier. Inconspicuously filling the role of Starling is Julianne Moore (Magnolia, Short Cuts). She gives the role a different feel than Jodie Foster did in the original, but then again, Starling is a very different person after 10 years combating drug lords and serial killers. She's hardened, scarred and weary of the politics that come along with the territory. As the film opens, Starling takes the fall for an FBI debacle and her administrators punish her by reassigning her to the Lecter case. Her work on the case soon brings her across the immensely wealthy and hideously scarred Mason Verger (played under thick makeup by the ever-disturbing Gary Oldman). Verger, Lecter's only victim who actually survived an encounter, is obsessed with bringing his attacker to justice. Meanwhile, a Florentine detective is beginning to suspect that the mysterious new art historian in town is not who he claims to be. Once well-meaning cop Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) becomes involved in the mystery of Hannibal Lecter, it's clear that he's in over his head, and it's up to Starling to catch the cannibal once and for all. Saying anything more about the plot would spoil its suspense, but you can safely assume that there's plenty of gore and a handful of set pieces creepy enough to rival the now-classic final scene of The Silence of the Lambs. Although the original film was told from Starling's perspective, Hannibal is told from the killer's, and as a result, Hopkins has plenty of opportunities to get comfortable in Lecter's skin. His motives and twisted mentality come through clearly in a performance that might well might earn Hopkins another Oscar. It only takes about five seconds to become used to the idea of Moore as Starling - after that, you won't think twice about how well she fills Foster's shoes. Since the movie isn't as much about her as it is about Lecter, her character isn't quite as interesting as before. But Starling's transition from up-and-coming trainee to veteran badass makes up for the shift in focus away from Moore's character. Besides, when you get down to it, Hannibal is really about the relationship between Starling and Lecter. There's an obvious amount of mutual respect, but does he - dare we apply the word to such a vile monster - love her? And when Starling's moral code is compromised by an unusual situation, how will she feel about Lecter? Scott has outdone himself with this movie. I thought Gladiator was a visual work of art, but Hannibal is just as spectacular, albeit in different ways. Perfect use of slow- and fast-motion effects puts the audience in the shoes of whatever victim Hannibal is after next, and the results are nerve-racking. True, Jonathan Demme may have won an Oscar for directing The Silence of the Lambs, but Scott may have outdone him here - Hannibal is far more interesting to watch, and it never goes for cheap, flashy effects to elicit a scare. The single aspect of the movie that won me over was not the gruesome finale but the second act, which takes place almost entirely in Florence. Scott does an amazing job of capturing both the beautiful and the sinister sides of this storied city. Above all, seeing Lecter as a murderous Renaissance man in his high-class element evokes the right kind of atmosphere to remind the viewer that Hannibal is really a modern-day Dracula, stalking his prey while appearing to be a too-perfect gentleman. It is important to note that, although I found Hannibal slightly less gory overall than its predecessor, there are a couple of scenes at the end that might make some viewers gag. It's also a bit more humorous - the epilogue, despite its repulsive, inhuman flair, shows a sick sense of humor about everything. You needn't be a big fan of The Silence of the Lambs to enjoy Hannibal - I never was, and this movie blew me away with its visuals, acting and consuming atmosphere.
- back - |
|||
|
Search the Thresher pages:
This document may be distributed electronically, provided that it is distributed in its entirety and includes this notice. However, it cannot be reprinted without the express written permission of: The Rice Thresher, Rice University MS-524, PO Box 1892, Houston, TX 77251-1892, USA. The Thresher Online Project -- ethresh@listserv.rice.edu |
