The film lacks what made “The Silence of the Lambs”
so great, for quite a list of reasons. The main reason is that it completely
misplaces why we loved Hannibal Lecter so much in that film. In “The Silence of
the Lambs,” he was a good man because he was allowed to with Clarice. Of
course, like a computer chip, he was programmed as a cannibal and a murderer,
but that wasn’t his fault, and with Clarice, he was kind and helpful. Anthony
Hopkins reprises the role of Hannibal Lecter, but Jodie Foster is replaced with
Julianne Moore. You think that you will miss Jodie in this film? No, you’ll
actually miss the Clarice from “The Silence of the Lambs.” Clarice in “Hannibal”
is drier, more sarcastic, more closed off than the one we knew a decade ago. I
blame the fact that it was the law that must have sucked out all likeability
from her. According to the Guinness Book of World Records, Clarice holds the
record of killing more people than any FBI Agent ever. Like all cops in movies,
she has no response when her boss demands her to turn in her badge and gun. Her
boss is Justice Department official Paul Krendler, played by one of the scariest
looking but great in action thrillers actor, Ray Liotta. I bet he regrets being
in this awful movie. Now she has the typical, boring desk job, but leaves on
her own basis to look for Lecter again. He writes to Clarice from Florence,
Italy, where he is now an art curator. Also on the hunt for Lecter is a
millionaire, Mason Verger, played by Gary Oldman, who is out for revenge.
Verger was a child molester who was told to go to Lecter for therapy, which
Lecter drugged Verger and said to cut his face off and feed it to the dogs. Now
since he looks horrific, he says, “It seemed like a good idea at the time.”
Really, what kind of a sick twisted mind would say that? A Florence detective,
Pazzi, played by Giancarlo Giannini, assumes that the curator is none other
than Lecter, and agrees to bring Lecter to Verger for $3 million. Want to know
what happens? He confesses to Lecter everything. What a wimp!
Would you like to see Lecter out on the loose? The
idea behind “The Silence of the Lambs” was that he couldn’t escape. Clarice
climbed down seven flights of stairs and walked through seven doors before
arriving at his cell. The only part of Lecter that was allowed outside his cell
was his imagination, since he could think of himself out.
In this one, Lecter is out of his cell and that
loses what made the first one so great. By letting him walk around outdoors,
the movie changes him into a monster. He is able to escape from any trap, and
isn’t as sympathetic compared to when he is strapped to a cruciform brace and
about to be fed to pigs, one limb at a time. At that point, he sounds like he
pities his tormentors, which makes us remember the previous Lecter, the one we
love.
Roger Ebert, who read the Thomas Harris novel this
film is based off of, had this to say: “I agreed with earlier reviewers who
doubted it could be filmed in its original form. What is amazing is that Ridley
Scott and screenwriters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian have kept most of the
parts I thought would have to go. Verger's muscle-bound lesbian dominatrix
sister is missing, along with her electric eel, and the very ending of the
novel is gone, perhaps to spare Clarice irreversible humiliation in case there
is a sequel. But the face-eating and voracious boars are still here, along with
the man whose skull is popped open so that nonessential parts of his brain can
be sliced off and sautéed for his dinner.” The man who has his brain eaten by
Lecter is Krendler.
Many people would say this film cannot be considered,
even filmed and released. Our complexity is up there that we would laugh at the
earlier generations when they vomit. I know the part where Lecter eats Krendler’s
brain is special effects; the face-eating part is shot in the shadows and its
cut so quick that you can’t even see the dogs munching away, and Julianne Moore
has said in interviews that the story is a tale of good and evil. Although she
admits to have talked to her shrink about it.
Ebert himself admits, “I cannot approve of the
movie, not because of its violence, which belongs to the Grand Guignol
tradition, but because the underlying story lacks the fascination of
"Silence of the Lambs."” The reasons why is because Lecter loses all
of his power with him being free, Clarice isn’t likeable, the story does a
horrible job of joining its evil with the police procedural details, and the
movie is too daring in wanting to scare us. “The Silence of the Lambs” was strangely
able to do that however.
Despite all of these flaws, Ebert says, “Still, I'm
left with admiration for Scott's craft in pulling this off at all, and making
it watchable and (for some, I'm sure) entertaining.” The Mason Verger villain
does a great job of combining skill and demonic imagination, Julianne Moore’s
portrayal of Clarice probably is spot on in how she would change in a decade,
and Anthony Hopkins made sure that Lecter was still a joy to watch whenever he
was on screen. Even Lecter’s former jailer, Barney, played by the one of the
coolest guys, Frankie R. Faison, says, “He said that whenever possible, he
preferred to eat the rude--the free-range rude.” Lecter still shows his taste
in humans when he would eat them.
So if you are a Hannibal Lecter fan and are looking
for an entertaining film to watch that goes overboard in time for Halloween,
than do check out “Hannibal.”
Now with “The Silence of the Lambs” and “Hannibal”
set in stone, what is next for Hannibal Lecter? Will they make another sequel,
or go backwards? Find out tomorrow in the “Lecter-a-thon.”
No comments:
Post a Comment