I came away from "Hannibal" with the distinct feeling that something was missing. I knew I had not hated the film, and in fact, quite enjoyed the scenes in Italy. However, the rest came up short.
The blame no doubt falls on Thomas Harris, whose novel destroyed the wonderful, somewhat magical, characters he created in Silence. That predecessor remains a cultural milestone because Lecter and Starling embody evil and good and we can feel the tension of their struggle. In Hannibal, the lines are blurred. Lecter becomes a comical villain, your typical one-liner spouting Hollywood lovable bad guy. Granted, Hopkins does it better than most, but the menace he exuded in Silence is missing.
As for Clarice, Moore does a good job, as she does in everything she is in. However, it's the character that has changed. Sure, 10 years have passed, but that does not excuse the disloyalty Harris shows for Starling. Foster turned down the role for that very reason and it is obvious why. I cannot believe she has the record for most people killed in the line of duty. The precedence is just not there.
As for the much hyped gore-it was just another marketing tool. The exposed brain scene is played for comedic effect and a sense of terror is never felt. The fact that Lecter kills deplorable characters only lessens his own. The Lecter of Silence was a ruthless, maniacal savage, not subject to standard interpretations of morality. In Hannibal, Lecter is no longer a boogeyman, but an unorthodox, misunderstood hero.
As much as we all wanted it, this movie should not have been made. The ending of Silence was perfect, and should have left us hungry for more, forever.
The blame no doubt falls on Thomas Harris, whose novel destroyed the wonderful, somewhat magical, characters he created in Silence. That predecessor remains a cultural milestone because Lecter and Starling embody evil and good and we can feel the tension of their struggle. In Hannibal, the lines are blurred. Lecter becomes a comical villain, your typical one-liner spouting Hollywood lovable bad guy. Granted, Hopkins does it better than most, but the menace he exuded in Silence is missing.
As for Clarice, Moore does a good job, as she does in everything she is in. However, it's the character that has changed. Sure, 10 years have passed, but that does not excuse the disloyalty Harris shows for Starling. Foster turned down the role for that very reason and it is obvious why. I cannot believe she has the record for most people killed in the line of duty. The precedence is just not there.
As for the much hyped gore-it was just another marketing tool. The exposed brain scene is played for comedic effect and a sense of terror is never felt. The fact that Lecter kills deplorable characters only lessens his own. The Lecter of Silence was a ruthless, maniacal savage, not subject to standard interpretations of morality. In Hannibal, Lecter is no longer a boogeyman, but an unorthodox, misunderstood hero.
As much as we all wanted it, this movie should not have been made. The ending of Silence was perfect, and should have left us hungry for more, forever.