Hannibal
Directed: Ridley Scott
Written: Thomas Harris (novel), David Mamet, Steven Zaillian
Before seeing this movie I had not seen or heard anything about it beyond a poster or two. So I went into the cinema very curious indeed as to how this film might turn out. Certainly I wanted to know what Ridley Scott’s latest exploit would be like and how it will compare to both Gladiator and his legendary earlier movies (specifically I talk of Alien and Blade Runner). Also Anthony Hopkins is … well … Anthony Hopkins. He is undeniably a very good actor. Given that The Silence of the Lambs is one of the better psychopath-thriller movies to have come out of Hollywood in recent times, I held high hopes that its sequel would also provide some good gasp-and-white-knuckle entertainment.
Hannibal picks up where The Silence of the Lambs left off. Doctor Hannibal Lector (Anthony Hopkins), having escaped from custody at the end of The Silence of the Lambs, is in Italy under an assumed identity. He sends a letter to Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore) which allows her to once again start tracking him down. At the same time an Italian detective Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) has recognised him and informed a wealthy man Mason Verger (Gary Oldman) who has offered a large reward for information leading to Lector. Mason Verger is in fact one of Lector’s early victims, the only one to have survived, and he now seeks Lector for the purpose of revenge.
I felt the best aspect of Hannibal was the script. It was taken from the novel by Thomas Harris, who is responsible for character of Doctor Lector; Hannibal and The Silence of the Lambs are his second and third book to feature Lector. The screenplay is credited to David Mamet and Stephen Zaillian, both of whom are accomplished writers. Mamet is perhaps best known for writing both the stage and screen play of Glengarry Glen Ross (in my opinion one of the best dramas ever), and has numerous others to his credit including Whistle (the sequel to The Thin Red Line), Wag The Dog, Hoffa, and The Untouchables. Zaillian has been responsible for A Civil Action, Schindler’s List, Awakenings as well as receiving secondary credits for Mission: Impossible (as in the 1996 Tom Cruise one.)
The directing was distinctly competent, but not brilliant. Ridley Scott has taken a very good story and told it very well. In particular the film was brilliantly paced; I never felt the story to be rushed at any point and only for a few brief moments did I feel the momentum of the story falter. Scott also did his job well directing the actors; Hopkins is in fine form and Moore is entirely adequate as a replacement for Jodie Foster (indeed I suspect Foster would have done no better). The secondary players (which include Ray Liotta as Starling’s FBI boss) also perform admirably.
I found the approach of the movie engrossing in the way it concentrated on the psychology behind the main characters and the way we perceive them. While often confrontingly gory, it was more squeamish gore rather then “in your face” splatter gore. Our focus is brought to bear on the many similarities between Starling and Lector; both have very strong convictions regarding right and wrong and both are feared, hated, and persecuted for the behaviour their strong motivations result in. Indeed, they seem to be the only two people on the planet who understand each other. Despite their similarities we identify (to some extent at least) with Starling yet not with Lector. While we can easily fear and despise Lector, we are almost sympathetic to Verger even though he seeks to do the same fearsome and loathsome things that Lector does.
Visually the movie is a treat — it has the same dark, somber, damp atmosphere that The Silence of the Lambs has. There were many cut-away shots involving slow-motion, close-ups, overlays, and digital video camera footage that could have been annoying and disruptive but were quite effective in setting the tone and pace. While the use of high contrast lighting and shadows was often good, I did find some aspects of the lighting in the movie annoying. The music has handled well and made an good, unobtrusive contribution the atmosphere.
The only aspect of the film I found truly detracting from its quality was the ending. I don’t want to give anything away, but I found it a distinct anticlimax. I found it was not overtly predictable but all too inevitable in its outcome.
In summary, a very good film and a must see for anyone who enjoys a good psychological psychopath killer thriller flick. I’m giving it four skulls.
Matt Lowry
