This should have been really good
-
britten_mark — 10 years ago(November 06, 2015 02:58 PM)
Great sig.
And yes this was better than SOTL + the following films put togetherbeatifully paced, shot and scored. Hannibal Rising was just moronic.
"Well, let's not start suckin' each others dicks just yet" -
Geeky Randy — 13 years ago(May 27, 2012 03:17 PM)
by -
joke_ster36-2
on Sat May 26 2012 20:44:37
I agree it was just lacking something that SOTL had.
It was the Foster/Hopkins chemistry that was lost. Also, the ending with Hannibal feeding a little kid human brains? This would have worked if it was an adult, but a kid? Dr. Lector may be a cannibal, but he has turned from villain to anti-hero due to his intelligence, class and charisma. And that one last scene contradicts everything else we saw in
Hannibal
and even
Silence
. Hannibal feeding human brains to an adult is chilling, yet fitting with the character. Hannibal feeding human brains to a child is creepy in an uncontrolled sort of way.
Votes: 2061
Reviews: 129 (
http://www.imdb.com/user/ur0756238/comments
) -
joke_ster36-2 — 13 years ago(May 28, 2012 01:14 AM)
Not only that but Hopkins performance was best in SOTL. I guess people were right saying that he was like superman in this movie. I guess he's just more interesting and menacing in smaller doses like in SOTL than in this. He did seem more like a real person in SOTL rather than an anti hero. Also his performance in Red Dragon wasn't as good either probably because Anthony was much older. I think SOTL was perfect on it's own and didn't need a franchise.
-
starwolf — 12 years ago(April 15, 2013 08:22 AM)
I think it was because it wanted to concentrate too much on the gore and less on the character.
But I also agree Jodie Foster brought something to the role Julianne Moore didn't, and I also agree Dr. Lector was too much of a superman. -
tommy_rawhead — 13 years ago(July 07, 2012 01:35 AM)
In a way I sort of preferred this to SOTL, because I feel Hopkin's Lecter is truer to the character in the book. I love the novel Silence of the Lambs, and Lecter in the book is described as sleek and otter-like, seems subdued and almost ageless. . . Hopkin's portrayal was way too hammy and theatrical. I LIKE hammy and over the top, when it fits, but this didn't work right for me. Whereas Hannibal was a pretty silly book; enjoyable but kinda trashy, like a good Stephen King novel, and Hopkin's Lecter fit perfectly. Great reading, not great literature. Great movie, not great cinema. I read that Harris was forced into writing Hannibal when he didn't want to by his publishing company, and purposefully wrote what he considered to be a crappy book. I enjoyed it anyway, and I better appreciated Hopkin's acting as an older and far more unrealistic Lecter. Still I think SOTL was overall the better movie and Jodie Foster was a far better Starling. But I wouldn't expect a better movie based off that book, I'd have expected a better book based off its predecessor.
-
kryp44 — 12 years ago(April 15, 2013 08:13 AM)
Harris was obviously saying F-U to his publishers writing Hannibal. Lecter was at his best as a supporting character. A tremendous amount of work went into Red Dragon and SOL. Not so much with what Harris wrote after that. I enjoyed reading all of them, but I was pissed at the same time that Harris didn't care if his readers got crap. Enjoy your money dirtbag.
-
aasoloway — 13 years ago(October 08, 2012 01:44 PM)
I think Hannibal is far superior to SOTL - call me crazy. I thought SOTL was over-rated. I've watched Hannibal a dozen times and SOTL three or four times.
Hannibal has a better atmosphere, a better score, location and it was just crazy enough for me. Also, Giancarlo Giannini! I prefer Julianne Moore to Jody Foster
and the bizarre cameo by Osama Bin Laden. Ray Liotta eats his own brain. That's better than Buffalo Bill in my twisted book.