|  |
|
| |
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/12/01 6:18:02 AM
# Replies: 21
I saw it, and I have to say, I was disappointed.
There was nothing in this movie of the 2 previous.
This focused more on the sick love and obsession that Hannibal had for Agent Starling. There was nothing to the good guy trying to trick the bad guy. There was no trying to assemble pieces of the puzzle to catch the greater evil.
If you want to see Hannibal, go see this movie.
If you want to see a good suspense story, rent the 2 predecessors Manhunter and Silence of the Lambs
Response #1
By: sooz
Date: 2/13/01 8:14:10 AM
I saw it on opening night. I give it a B+.
No, it was nothing like the previous movie. I'm so glad, because then it would have lacked imagination. If you want to see sequels that are just like the originals, go see the Rocky movies. All of 'em.
The premise of "Hannibal" is that Dr. Lechter had one victim that lived, and that guy's out for revenge in a big way. Clarice Starling is out to beat the revenge guy at finding Dr. Lechter so that she can bring the cannibal to justice her way -- the FBI way.
This movie was less of a mental thriller (i.e., you're less freaked by Anthony Hopkin's wonderful portrayal of a sociopath), but more of a gross move. It's not gross in a Friday the 13th way, but it shows lots more gore than the first movie. But hey, it's creative gore, for the most part.
The film reaches absurdity in one point toward the end regarding a man's head... you'll know the part when you see it.
I don't miss Jodi Foster in the least. The new Agent Starling was just as fine, or better. The down side was the tired old "You're off the case, agent, turn in your gun and badge" routine -- almost reminded me of Miss Congeniality or the X Files.
Sir Anthony Hopkins is, well, his superb self. He has more freedom in this movie, as he's not imprisoned, like he was in the original. He's mostly wandering about Florence, and gets to use his physical self more.
The end, of course, leaves room for a sequel.
No, this didn't wig me out like the original did... but considering the original, that's alright. It was worth the $4.50 (we saw it at a very crowded matinee).
Response #2
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/13/01 11:47:06 AM
Sir Anthony Hopkins on Dave Letterman's show:
Dave holds up a picture of Hopkins, Mick Jagger, and Emilio Estevez in 'Freejack.'
Hopkins says, "Terrible movie."
Response #3
By: sooz
Date: 2/13/01 1:43:52 PM
...then Dave holds up another picture of some flick Sir Anthony was in. Dave ponders the meaning of the movie, asking Sir A. what this and that meant, philosophiaclly speaking.
Hopkins says, "I don't know, Dave. Hell, I just memorized my lines and showed up."
Response #4
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/14/01 5:03:18 AM
Sooz:
"No, it was nothing like the previous movie. I'm so glad, because then it would have lacked imagination. If you want to see sequels that are just like the originals, go see the Rocky movies. All of 'em."
I disagree. Worked well with Alien(s), and numerous other movies sequels. As a matter of fact, it worked well with the 2 predecessors of this series. Manhunter, and Silence of the Lambs both had basically the same premise, presented 2 different ways, and it worked quite well. In Manhunter (which was my personal favorite of the all 3), you saw more of the agent's side of the story from the angle of how he got into the mind of the villians. Agent Will Graham being a profiler for the FBI accomplished his results by really getting into the mind and methodology of the killer, to really understand how they are doing what they are doing, and the toll it takes on him, when he starts discovering similarities between himself and the perpetrators. In Silence of the Lambs, Agent Starling's hook into all of this was her naivate. She's a rookie, beging faced with a tough assignment even for a seasoned agent. The premise for both was about the same, the exection of the story line was very different. That's the appeal of the first 2 movies for me. There was just so very little that you DIDN'T know coming into this movie. Very early on, you knew who the "bad guy" as going to be (and MARVELOUSLY played by Gary Oldman no doubt), even the way in which he was going to do Hannibal in wasn't all that spectacular really. Not to mention that Lector, this crimminal "mastermind" gets taken down by what? A tazer! Gee, why didn't the cops and all the hospital people that had to deal with him over the years think of that! All the cops, all the FBI agents and the sort that tracked him through the years, and 2 thugs with a tazer take him out.
"No, this didn't wig me out like the original did"
Which "original"? Manhunter or Silence of the Lambs?
Response #5
By: sooz
Date: 2/15/01 1:34:22 PM
Uh, I didn't even KNOW about Manhunter.
Susan the Clueless.
Response #6
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/15/01 4:07:56 PM
Manhunter came out in the 80s. It was directed by Michael Mann, of Miami Vice fame. It's really good, despite its Miami Vice-ish music video quality. Plus, it has a great scene with a tiger and a blind woman.
Response #7
By: sooz
Date: 2/15/01 8:51:14 PM
Do you spose I can get that at my local video store?
Response #8
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 2/16/01 12:23:46 AM
I have no doubt you can get it at your local video store. It was a fairly major release at the time. I'm surprised you don't remember it.
Response #9
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/16/01 5:46:46 AM
It's been re-released for Hannibal. All new spiffy packaging, with the deleted scene of Investigator Will Graham going to see the "next family" after catching the bad guy, restored. This scene was deleted from the orginal theatrical release, and restored for cable release.
There has even been a DVD version released with Micheal Mann's commentary on one of the audio tracks, and other interview cool stuff.
It really was a very good movie.
Response #10
By: Xtopher
Date: 2/26/01 12:00:40 PM
I enjoyed the movie tremendously, simply as a further exploration of the relationship between Clarise and Hannibal, and as a character study of the people involved. Unfortunately, it's not a very compelling story. Mind you, this wouldn't even show up if every other aspect of the film wasn't immaculate. I've come to really love Ridlley Scott as a director, the acting was impeccable, the dialoge was compelling and amusing...
There was perhaps one or two editing jumps that I didn't agree with, and there was only one line of dialog that just BUGGED me.
("On a related note, I'm seriously considering eating your wife." just DIDN'T fit there for me... Hannibal would not have made that weak of a pun... ::grumbles::)
I really like the fact that the movie did not pander to the stupid, did not repeat important points again and again just to make sure we got the message. I was constantly scanning the screen for additional points of detail, scanning the characters for the very complex set of reactions... on the whole, I loved the film because I had to keep my mind very active in order to keep up with every subtle detail... and there was alot.
BTW, for those of you that have seen it... what do you think happened to the body of the library curator that Hannibal replaced? Did anyone catch something I missed that would indicate what happened to the guy?
Response #11
By: Da Sissop
Date: 2/27/01 4:43:29 PM
Howdy and welcome, Xtopher!
(Haven't seen the movie but wanted to chime in with a hello nonetheless...)
Response #12
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 2/27/01 6:21:36 PM
Xtopher:
"I enjoyed the movie tremendously, simply as a further exploration of the relationship between Clarise and Hannibal, and as a character study of the people involved. Unfortunately, it's not a very compelling story. Mind you, this wouldn't even show up if every other aspect of the film wasn't immaculate. I've come to really love Ridlley Scott as a director, the acting was impeccable, the dialoge was compelling and amusing..."
Why not just call it something else then?
I know I surely would have enjoyed it more that way.
"BTW, for those of you that have seen it... what do you think happened to the body of the library curator that Hannibal replaced? Did anyone catch something I missed that would indicate what happened to the guy?"
Read the book.
:)
Response #13
By: Da Sissop
Date: 2/28/01 1:30:15 PM
Books? Do they still make those?
Response #14
By: Roxanne
Date: 3/1/01 8:45:32 AM
I hope so, Fang, since I'm starting library school this summer!
Response #15
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 3/1/01 9:28:06 AM
Fang
"Books? Do they still make those?"
Have you seen some of the Glasbooks off of Amazon?
Pretty cool actually
Response #16
By: Da Sissop
Date: 3/2/01 3:49:04 PM
No, but I *am* considering getting myself one of the new Sony Glasstrons.
Response #17
By: The Sorcerer
Date: 3/3/01 12:12:24 PM
Oooo! Ahhhh!
Sorc'(Rev)
Response #18
By: Da Sissop
Date: 3/3/01 2:31:42 PM
Okay, so I went ahead and impulse-bought an Olympus Eye-Trek FMD150W*. Heck, what's the use of having credit cards if you don't run up the debt every now and then, eh?
*FMD = "Face-Mounted Display". I'm hoping eventually they'll come out with additional face-mounted accessories.
Response #19
By: Homer The Brave
Date: 3/3/01 7:00:52 PM
I hope at least a dozen people buy those things so that they can recoup the cost and start developing *better* systems. 'Better,' in this case, would mean 'gadgets that don't make me look like a dork.'
Response #20
By: Da Sissop
Date: 3/4/01 6:37:29 AM
Ich bin ein dorke.
Response #21
By: Capt. Spastic
Date: 3/4/01 9:28:50 PM
Now THAT'S a toy!