CNN.com - Entertainment - Bloody 'Hannibal' lacks bite of 'Lambs'
William Harris Break out the Chianti: The ghoulish doctor is back
By Paul Clinton
CNN.com Reviewer
(CNN) -- Get ready. Hannibal's back.
The last time we heard Hannibal the Cannibal's wet whisper was 10 years ago when, at the end of "The Silence Of The Lambs," he told FBI Agent Clarice Starling, "I do wish we could chat longer, but I'm having an old friend for dinner."
He then hung up the phone and walked off into the sunset, but he didn't walk out of the minds of millions of moviegoers hoping to gobble up an immediate sequel.
Ultimately, their wait was a long one, but now it's over. Hannibal is back for a second serving.
A decade ago, "The Silence of the Lambs" scared the bejesus out of film audiences around the world. The thrilling adaptation of Thomas Harris' novel about a psychopathic psychologist with a taste for human flesh swept the Academy Awards, winning best picture, best actor for Anthony Hopkins, best director for Jonathan Demme and best adapted screenplay.
The question, clearly, was not if there would be a sequel, but when?
Disputed conclusion
Everyone involved, including Jodie Foster (who originally had the role of Starling, to great acclaim), was poised to jump on board for the next course, but their enthusiasm waned. "Hannibal," Harris' long-awaited follow-up, sold millions of copies, but disappointed many fans with a hard-to-swallow conclusion that depicted the agent falling under the evil doctor's spell.
But after director Ridley Scott signed on, and after David Mamet took a swing at the script (he left the project to work on his film, "State And Main"), the screenplay was turned over to writer Steven Zaillian, and the ending was changed. There are also a few other nips and tucks to the storyline, but for the most part, the film is fairly true to the novel.
Then Julianne Moore got the coveted role of Starling after Foster bowed out, and sizeable talents Ray Liotta and Gary Oldman also came on board -- good names, all. Still, the sequel still doesn't equal the original.
We meet Starling again, now world-weary, a victim of the bureau's good ol' boy network. She works out of a basement office -- shades of Mulder and Scully in "X- Files" -- and is not as sympathetic as the rookie Agent Starling viewers met when Foster portrayed the character back in 1991.
| ||||||||
Liotta, while very good with what he's given, still isn't terribly compelling as Starling's villainous boss, who serves her up as a tidbit to entice Hannibal out into the open. Never mind that, though: Liotta's final scene in the film is worth the price of admission, and then some.
Oldman, as usual, is fantastic, playing Mason Verger, a reclusive multimillionaire who is Lector's only living victim. Verger, who is hideously disfigured from the attack -- his face looks like a half-digested meal -- has offered a $3 million reward for Lecter's capture, and has a nice little dinner party planned for his twisted guest of honor. Despite his acting skills, Oldman's Verger ultimately comes off as a cartoonish villain, someone more befitting a Batman movie.
Hopkins = Hannibal
Then there's the lip-smacking main character of Hannibal. Sir Anthony Hopkins has been an actor for 35 years, and has played it all, from Lear to Lecter, and it was the latter role that made him an international star. He embraces the character in this sequel, and again he is brilliant.
But this Lecter is front and center in the film's storyline. In the previous two movies featuring this scheming carnivore (including "Manhunter," 1986), Lecter was mainly kept off to the side, while other characters provided the thrust that moved the storyline. In fact, Hopkins had only 20 minutes of screen time in "Lambs."
In "Hannibal," the Cannibal moves the plot along, but the character doesn't work as well when he's become the main course.
"Hannibal" is more ghoulish than truly frightening, and there is a high gross-out factor in many bloody scenes. Scott's direction is crisp, and Han Zimmer's score is complex and compelling adding wonderful touches to many of the most dramatic moment.
Ultimately, the film lacks innate tension, and there is little emotional involvement an audience should feel for some characters. Nevertheless, this film will be enough for millions of fans eager for another Lecter fix.
But if it hadn't been the sequel to one of the best films of its kind, "Hannibal" probably wouldn't rate a blue-plate special for America's cinematic appetite.
"Hannibal" opens Friday. Rated R.
RELATED SITES:
'Hannibal' official siteNote: Pages will open in a new browser window
External sites are not endorsed by CNN Interactive.
