Review of Hannibal (2001) by Harry W — 22 Nov 2014

With no expectation that Hannibal could actually live up to the standard set by The Silence of the Lambs and lacking the presence of Jodie Foster, the only thing making me think Hannibal was worth a shot was the fact that Ridley Scott directed it.

One of the most memorable sources of entertainment that came from The Silence of the Lambs was the intense interaction between Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter due to how it gave twisted insight into both characters at the same time. In Hannibal, that element has to be omitted as the story follows the hunt for Hannibal Lecter who has since gone missing. The intense interactions that Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter encounter are with different characters as they are on opposing sides of the story. While The Silence of the Lambs had the clever investigation of notorious killer Buffallo Bill at the heart of its story mixed with the relationship between the aforementioned two characters, Hannibal presents a relationship between Clarice Starling and Mason Verger, a paralysed and deformed child molester. While the latter sounds interesting, the focus on the film is about Clarice Starling finding Hannibal Lecter whose characterisation is reduced to that of a simple everyman. Anthony Hopkins continues to amaze with his acting charisma, but the film really buries him with thin characterizations and a dull story.

When Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter interact over the gone, there is no tension. The cast do what they can with the script, but it is distinctively lacking in atmosphere because there is never a real feeling of any kind of impending threat. Hannibal ends up a shallow film because not only is there little characterisation of any of the characters, but the relationship between Clarice Starling and Hannibal Lecter is not explored well at all. If you saw Hannibal without awareness of the existence of The Silence of the Lambs, you would think that the two of them have little history together beyond the generic crime movie element that is depicted to occur between every criminal and investigator. Frankly, Hannibal should really be a lot more interesting than it was because it had a high concept plot which was reduced to a by-the-numbers criminal investigation film with a sporadic amount of unpredictable moments.

There is a distinct lack of characterization in Hannibal, for any of the characters. While The Silence of the Lambs was deep into the minds of all its key characters, Hannibal has many of them and fails to go into a complex exploration of any of them because it is too busy focused on the bigger picture which is frankly not interesting enough. The story in Hannibal has its moments, but the interest rests more on the characters. Unfortunately, the plot is not interesting and the characters are which means that the focus is well off. The problem in Hannibal all comes down to its story in one way or another which is a shame because the dialogue is pretty intense even if it has some moments which are not complex or intense enough.

The one thing that was really impressive was the directorial work of Ridley Scott. While he fails to illuminate the level of success that Jonathan Demme reached on The Silence of the Lambs, he does give the film a greatly stylish. The scenery for the film is very versatile and convincing while the cinematography is perfectly atmospheric, capturing everything with brilliant style. There is a lot of powerful imagery crafted by Ridley Scott in Hannibal which gives it some pretty shocking scenes, such as the exterior makeup for Mason Verger and the scenes depicting the actions of the boars. They lay down a pretty shocking effect and are benefitted by the intense musical score of the film, ensuring that even if it is just in parts, a lot of Hannibal comes off as intense.

And in all fairness, the cast of Hannibal do their part firmly well.

Anthony Hopkins does an impressive job once again in his most iconic role. While the film fails to characterize him too well, Anthony Hopkins' acting charisma is once again excellent in the role. The emphasis put on the character Hannibal Lecter is not as effective this time around, but Anthony Hopkins continues to make an exceptionally intense antagonist for the film. His manipulative line delivery is incredibly intense in an overtly antagonistic manner simply because of the way you can tell he has a lot to hide and an unflinching level of absolute evil in him. Anthony Hopkins is once again creepy as hell with a performance that comes up effectively powerful once again. It isn't nearly as deep as the character should be or really deserves to be, but Anthony Hopkins does an excellent job paying credibility to the legacy of the great Hollywood villain once again which and you could really expect nothing less from him. Anthony Hopkins makes a powerful lead in Hannibal once again with the sophisticated wisdom and twisted sense of relentless evil which made him such a perfect casting decision when it won him the Academy Award for Best Actor in 1991.

Although I had no expectation that anyone could play Clarice Starling as well as Jodie Foster did when she won the Academy Award for Best Actress in the part, I figured that if anyone could follow in her footsteps well with a level of skill which is even the slightest bit comparable, it would be Julianne Moore. Her tone of voice is inconsistent and lacks the iconic accent that Jodie Foster gave to the part, but beyond that she does a decent job in the role. She is limited because the material is not rich enough to give her a strong character and so what she brings to the role is largely just a by the numbers criminal investigator without much depth at all. But she does have a natural dramatic talent which she brings to the role. It isn't amazing, but the role of Clarice Starling does benefit mildly from Julianne Moore's instinctive acting charisma and ability to take the complex situations of the film head on.

Gary Oldman is hardly recognizable in his role. It would have to be so challenging to act underneath such heavy and striking makeup, and in all honesty his makeup makes a more of an impact than his performance since the role ensures that he is unable to use any of his iconic acting assets in the part. Still, his internal torture is reflected through his facial disfigurement and the way he speaks reveals a true sense of damage in the character. Gary Oldman does a good job going against type and playing a distraught criminal with a twisted mind, making himself an entertaining presence whenever on screen.

And Ray Liotta is always a welcome presence, even if his character in Hannibal is reduced to being a generic figure.

So Hannibal is a well-acted and incredibly stylish thriller which benefits strongly from the presence of Ridley Scott as director, but its story is not interesting and the script comes up very short on characterizations.