 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
Just saw this movie.For the record, I am probably the only person out there that did not like "Silence of the Lambs". I read the books years before the picture and thought the movie did not do justice to what Thomas Harris wrote.
Also for the record I did not particularly care for TH's Hannibal book, too much detail on HL where previously suspicion alone produced a more intimidating menace. The book also overshot most of the unwashed masses ability to see the more subtle colorings that TH wove around HL.
But, the new movie is directed by Ridley Scott (who is Aces in my book) and so off I went.
Anyone looking for a "sequel" to SOTL is going to be disappointed. Of course, Jodie Foster is not there, but in my opinion Julianne Moore is closer to my idea of Clarice Starling. Anthony Hopkins has never been, and still is not, my idea of Hannibal Lecter.
But I digress.
The movie, though long, leaves out much of the book. In a way this is a good thing, except for the ending. Ridley (and/or his screenwriters') captured the essense of the book, although some of my favorite parts were missing.
The movie is well acted, despite my casting reservations, and has excellent transitions, lighting variations, and staging.
There is a wonderful scene at an opera, which would have given perfect scene for my fav line "If I had the Hope diamond I would give it to you so you would wear that fragrance" -- although I paraphrase, the book is only a memory now and not available for reference.
There was talk in critics columns about the excessive violence. Yes, there is violence, but "excessive" is a strong word. There are fewer than a handful of scenes of violence, and except for the pig scene going on a bit longer than absolutely necessary I did not feel that it was gratuitous. Surely young children should not see this movie, but then, that's why it is rated as it is.
All in all, I would (and will) see it again. I would also recommend it to anyone wanting to see a good cat and dog movie, where you are never quite sure who's the cat and who's the dog.
Follow Ups:
***For the record, I am probably the only person out there that did not like "Silence of the Lambs".No, you are not. That makes it two of us?
***But, the new movie is directed by Ridley Scott (who is Aces in my book)I guess here we part our ways... oh well...
Three. I didn't like SOTL either.
I think highly of Alien, Bladerunner, even Gladiator.Ah well, no one is perfect...
I actually think that Scott *used* to be a better director. Don't get me wrong, I did like Hannibal (in this thread, obviously not a popular thing). However, that said, I think Scott seems to be rushing through some movies. I for one did not think much of Gladiator.In the past he did some real knockouts, the most memorable for me being Alien and Legend.
Doug Schneider
n
In the past he did some real knockouts, the most memorable for me being Alien and Legend.How about Blade Runner? Wonderful movie, I thought.
I haven't seen 'Hannibal' (and I probably won't), but I'm still going to offer my two cents here, even though I'm only guessing. If 'Hannibal' is a bad movie, one of the problems may be that it was made from a lousy book. Even while I was reading it, it struck me that Harris may not have wanted to write the book at all. And at the end, I felt that Harris had nothing but contempt for his publisher and his readers. For reference, though, I should say that I liked both 'Red Dragon' and 'Silence Of The Lambs' (the books, that is -- I didn't like the movie made from 'Red Dragon').
I don't think Hannibal is bad at all -- I quite liked it. However, I *can* see why others might not feel like me.Doug Schneider
...one of the most incompetently-written tomes I've ever run across. Couldn't make it through more than forty pages, despite two solid recommendations from friends. Ah, well.Haven't seen the film yet, but shall. Here at any rate are some of the local (Boston) critical headlines:
"Leftover Lamb"
"Hannibal plays it close to the bone"
"One hack of a sequel"
clark
A clarification please. Would you provide the title of the second book you are referring to, the one you couldn't get past the first forty pages or so? Thanks, Jim.
...was not the plotting but the shoddy writing. I'd almost rather read a Stephen King!clark
I too found the first forty pages (for me the first 100 pages) of Hannibal, frankly, disappointing. But, I would say the Florence section (starting on page 111 in the hard bound edition) which follows was superb, perhaps Harris at his finest. Then it, IMO, devolves again when it comes back to the USA. Just a bit too surreal for my taste. But I just might read it again-a diferent time and place. I would recommend the Florence section if you still have the book and inclination. Regards, Jim.
and after only how long? Twenty years? Or was it ten.Humph. Long enough surely to get it right.
Truly a dissapointment, but I did not stop after 40 pages. I went the distance.
Hope springs eternal.
while it wasn't as good as SOTL, neither was Red Dragon, and that isn't a put down. I refer to the book. The film stands on it's own, despite what the critics might say.The book fell short on many aspects but after reading it I came to see the twist TH put on Hannibal's character. From vestigal monster to monster at the door to CS's savior, all in the space of three books.
I would have trimmed many pages and scenes from the book but then armchair quarterbacking the book is easy. Writing is hard.
I found myself enjoying the movie more than I thought I would, and certainly more than the critics. I too liked the opera scene: What is that opera anyway? I identified the protagonist in Manhunter/Red Dragon (out on DVD now) as Will and in SOTL as Clarice, but in "Hannibal" the protagonist is Hannibal. An important element in the book are the scenes of Hannibal's childhood and the horrors of his sister at the hands of the Nazi occupiers, which are not in the movie. I hold the position that Hannibal's younger sister is the equivalent of Clarice's Lambs and the source of psychic power for both Hannibal and Clarice, respectively. Hannibal won't injure Clarice because she represents his sister; he will injure those that would injure her and does: Krendler is just another form of a Nazi beast. Well, that's Jim's $0.02. Thanks for bringing up the topic.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
