Hannibal Rising (Peter Webber, 2007)

Discussions of specific films and franchises.
Post Reply
Message
Author
flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

Hannibal Rising (Peter Webber, 2007)

#1 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Jan 14, 2007 2:11 pm


User avatar
miless
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 9:45 pm

#2 Post by miless » Sun Jan 14, 2007 4:20 pm

the title almost made me think that this was going to be a new Kenneth Anger film... but alas it is another adventure into a (now) shitty franchise.

User avatar
lord_clyde
Joined: Thu Dec 23, 2004 4:22 am
Location: Ogden, UT

#3 Post by lord_clyde » Sun Jan 14, 2007 6:29 pm

Maybe they think they can give the series a successfuly reboot ala Batman or 007? In any case gotta hand it to Gaspard Ulliel, it takes balls to play an iconic character already defined by two great actors. And what's the deal with Gong Li? How come she keeps getting cast in shitty American franchise movies?

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#4 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Jan 14, 2007 7:27 pm

I'm going to hold my reservations until after I see it. It's interesting that the Hannibal is being portrayed (at least in the trailer) as an anti-hero.

User avatar
Darth Lavender
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:24 pm

#5 Post by Darth Lavender » Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:21 pm

Actually, Lecter was already something of an anti-hero in the novel and film 'Hannibal'

As for Hannibal Rising...

I'm reading the book first (borrowed it from the library, but haven't started yet) before I see the film and get stuck with the mental image of Ulliel.

Personally, one of the things I always loved about Hopkins' Hannibal Lecter is that he's such a physically unassuming guy, who comes across as an almost operatic monster (or deity) purely through the power and peculiarities of his intellect and personality.
(In the book, he is a little more physically noteworthy (so I think Hopkins' plain appearance was an improvement there); with maroon-colored eyes, and polydactyly (six fingers on one hand,) but he's still below-average height and never described as ever having been particularly 'pretty' (unlike Ulliel, at average or above average height and, if you've seen the special features on Very Long Engagement, in the hair and costume tests, etc. he's noticably prettier than even Audrey Tatou.)

For all I know, it may be a good performance, but they've already ruined one of my favourite characters by making him into another physically desirable pretty-boy (frankly, when I saw Silence of the Lambs at about 17, I loved it because it plain-looking, philosophical, well-read, friendless, Hannibal Lecter was someone that teenage Lavender could really related to (unlike just about every other fictional character))
Now I know how some people must have felt about the new Darth Vader (although, in Vader's case, I still maintain there was actually a good reason for casting a particularly 'beautiful' actor; Vader's hideously deformed face was always highly representative of his hideously deformed soul, so it made sense that 'good' Anakin should have a somewhat angelic face. (And, while I'm prattling on here, answering questions *nobody's asked, for those who think Anakin was too short in the original series; it would have been a heck of a lot more implausible if a 6'7" Anakin Skywalker had produced the 5'7" and 5'3" Luke and Leia.)

*Was trying to think of a Jim Jarmusch 'Dead Man' joke here. Any ideas?

Interesting little personal detail, which should shed light on while I'll never be pleased with the Hannibal Rising movie, no matter how good it is: when I first heard about it, years ago, I seriously thought of looking into the possibility of auditioning for the role; I pretty much dismissed it as a rather pathetic pipe-dream ('wanting to be a movie star') and never did anything about it (never even bothered to see about getting an agent, or recording a video-audition or anything.) But, now, I just can't help kicking myself for not even *trying* (sure, I doubt I would have even gotten as far as an audition, but the "what if" and the fact that *I* didn't try (rather than, just, trying and being rejected despite my best efforts) has kind of given me strong feelings about this movie (and, to boot, I actually look a heck of a lot more like Hopkins than Ulliel ever could, and do a darn good Hannibal Lecter impression.) One of life's little lessons, I suppose.

Incidentally, is there a thread already for Hannibal, Silence of the Lambs, etc.? Hannibal, especially, could do with some serious discussion (at least about the ways it could have been better.)

User avatar
colinr0380
Joined: Mon Nov 08, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: Chapel-en-le-Frith, Derbyshire, UK

#6 Post by colinr0380 » Sun Jan 14, 2007 10:31 pm

This is the Silence of the Lambs thread for discussion of that film.

I've started reading the book Hannibal Rising and it does seem so far that it will be the Batman Begins or Casino Royale of Lecter films - a prequel showing how Hannibal got the taste for cannibalism!

While I'm not excited about this film, I'm not sure how it could be more of a mess than Red Dragon was. While Hopkins was decent in that film (although I still prefer Brian Cox in Manhunter!), everything else was very badly handled (I still don't forgive Brett Ratner for the flash cuts of the mother of the family's blouse being torn open, exposing her breasts, as a scream screeches over the soundtrack - especially when compared to the much more subtle way the same scene was handled in Manhunter).

It just seems that if Hannibal Rising turns out to be a terrible film it will be relatively easy to remove it from my 'memory palace' compared to how Red Dragon has become tangled into my reaction to the films of Manhunter, Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal!

EDIT: It did seem inevitable that the next step in the series would be a prequel, since there was so much divergence between the conclusion of the Hannibal book and the Ridley Scott film that any follow up novel would have had to follow the 'love story' plotline it had started, making it useless for any film adaptation. I would be fascinated to read the 'continuing adventures of Hannibal and Clarice' in a future Thomas Harris novel. Would it be like the killer/accomplice relationship from the Saw films, and be full of manipulation and betrayal; or would they become the Bonnie and Clyde of high art and high cuisine?

I'm still reading through the novel of Hannibal Rising at the moment, and have come across an interesting throw away line where the young Hannibal Lecter is making extra money by selling paintings to art galleries, with some described as being in the style of Musashi Miyamoto. An interesting twist of the dichotomy between potential violence and an artistic temperment into psychotic territory. The Miyamoto reference is interesting to read as a throwaway line, and adds more the theory that Lecter could be seen as a sort of modern day twisted ronin that was already in evidence from the end of Silence of the Lambs and throughout Hannibal.
Last edited by colinr0380 on Thu Feb 08, 2007 10:54 am, edited 5 times in total.

flyonthewall2983
Joined: Mon Jun 27, 2005 3:31 pm
Location: Indiana
Contact:

#7 Post by flyonthewall2983 » Sun Jan 14, 2007 11:48 pm

Darth Lavender wrote:Actually, Lecter was already something of an anti-hero in the novel and film 'Hannibal'
I actually had that in mind when I posted, but in truth I've only seen Red Dragon and Manhunter all the way through. And when I did, they were on cable so I never really saw them uncut.

User avatar
Darth Lavender
Joined: Sun Aug 13, 2006 2:24 pm

#8 Post by Darth Lavender » Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:43 pm

Finally finished reading the novel and saw the film.

Succinctly; the film is spectacularly bad; enough to be pretty entertaining.
Being, basically, a slasher film, I think this is far enough removed from the rest of the series that it won't 'taint' Silence or Hannibal too badly.

A more in-depth review:

For about five - ten minutes, the film is actually pretty darn good. It starts during World War II, and we get some charming scenes of a very young Hannibal, before he becomes evil. There's no exploration of his fast-developing intellect (unlike the book) but I found those scenes perfectly convincing in their choice to depict pre-tragedy Hannibal as a happy kid, full of affection for his younger sister. Basically, in these scenes, one can actually believe that this person might grow up to be Anthony Hopkins in about 50 years (actually, if anyone ever creates one of those fan-edits of "Hannibal," the early scenes of "Hannibal Rising" could fit in there quite perfectly.

Already, though, we're beginning to see one of the films notable characteristics; it is very fast pace. Average shot-length is probably considerably less than any other Hannibal Lecter movie, and of course the timeline is compressed heavily. Actually, this kind of helps, dramatically, to sell the opening scenes (fleeing from the Nazis, hurriedly packing family-heirlooms, etc.) but were it really succeeds is in selling the comedy later on. It's almost the kind of giddy speed that one sees in Hong Kong comedies (A Chinese Ghost Story comes to mind)

Well, after a successful opening, we get introduced to Gaspar Ulliel. Now, in the book, Lecter is a mute for many years. Hopkins could stand perfectly still, not saying a word, and exude the most intense of intellect and cunning. Ulliel's mute Hannibal, however, comes across as slightly retarded.

But, the best is yet to come; The movie continues to skim through the book's plot (eg. Robert Lecter, Hannibal's Uncle, is already dead before Lecter arrives in France) and pretty soon Ulliel has started to speak. What we are treated to is possibly the worst accent in the history of cinema; no pseudo-British Robin Hood ever sounded quite so bad as Ulliel's over-inflected voice. At first, I assumed he was trying to show the effort Lecter needed to make simply to speak clearly (after so many years as a mute) but he continues talking that way for the whole movie (presumably spanning several further years.) I actually found myself kind of wondering why the director didn't reign him in, but my only explanation is that Webber must have realised what kind of movie he was making.

And, in a way, it's Ulliel's performance that saves this movie; a merely competant performance would have reduced this movie to nothing more than a big-budget slasher film with some nice name-recognition, a truly commanding performance, with the gravity of Cox or Hopkins, simply wasn't likely to happen. But, Ulliel brings us a performance so spectacularly bad that he hauls the whole film up onto his puny shoulders and carries it firmly into the "so bad it's good" category (thus saving the film from being simply mediocre.) That's just the voice; there's the constant smirking, too. I'm not just talking about a subtle wink here and there, an elegant expression of amusement; nope, Ulliel plays the whole darn film with a big ol' goofy grin on this face.

Then, there's Gong Li. A lot of people seem to argue that she was at least competant. Having read the book, I thought she was terrible (but not as entertainingly bad as Ulliel.) Took me a while to figure out why the character wasn't as compelling as the book's Lady Murasaki, then I realised that, for the character, Li seriously over-emotes. In another role, Li's performance would be fine and even good, but Harris spends so much time describing Murasaki's statue-esque qualities, her composure, etc. that Li's performance is, by comparison, the stereotypical whining girlfriend.

Not sure who's fault Li's performance is (just realised; is Li or Gong the family? I know the family name comes first in most Asian countries, but also a lot of Asian stars 'Westernise' their names,) anyway, I can see how Webber might have simply instructed to her dumb it down a little (we can't expect mainstream audiences to appreciate subtlety,) but, who-ever's fault, Li's performance falls far short of one of the books most compelling characters.

Dominic West, unfortunately, offers the kind of 'competant' performance that could have sunk the role of Hannibal. He looks the part, and he delivers all if his lines just fine. Unfortunately, he's not nearly as compelling as Giancarlo Giannini in 'Hannibal,' but he is perfectly competant. Somebody must have forgotten to tell him they were making a comedy.

Hmm... I've been typing for a while now, so I think I'll continue this review later....

Post Reply