Page 1 of 1

Hannibal Rising.

Posted: 10 Mar 2007, 02:33
by Eviltoastman
Patronising script, horrible casting for the lead. Mumbles like a cunt for the most part. Rhys Ifan was pretty good as heel to be honest. In fact Ifan's performance was the only likeable thing about the film.

After watching this and reflecting upon Silence of the Lambs it's sequel Hannibal and it's prequel Red Dragon it's easy to conclude that there has been a steady downward trend.

The most notable issue is the contempt apparent towards the intellect of the viewer with each new episode in the saga. Now unnecessary narration is patronising enough but when narration is poorly hidden in the script instead it becomes an even greater insult.

One of the orphanage prefects drums a message home which felt far from natural and was most unnecessary. Some example below are from the period after the second world war when his house is taken by the soviet regime and used as an orphanage.
Prefect: "It must be hard for you living in your old house." (then) "This isn't your house any more, it's a state orphanage." Guh! Prefect/Orphanage manager: "You can't keep hurting the bullies. It must be hard living in your old house now that you have no family." (quickly followed by) - "This was your mother's room, no? It must be hard for you"

Okay I fucking get it. Jesus. It would have been far less painful for me as a viewer if they had someone do this instead:

Narrater: "Eight cold and lonely years passed. Hannibal was assumed to be a mute, his family home was not under soviet state ownership and Hannibal lived there under the brutal watch of the orphanage prefects. His mother's bedroom is now the Orphanage office".

That said, a decent director/writing team would have been able to do all of this within one short scene using iconography, images of the familiar under new motifs and NO DIALECT whatsoever. :(

I loved Silence of the Lambs, but these other three films can only be considered easy cash ins. Certainly not good films.

Posted: 10 Mar 2007, 12:17
by Don Eduardo
A film that was in production before the book on which it was based was even published was bad?

Posted: 10 Mar 2007, 12:24
by Eviltoastman
Publishing was held back in a deal with the studio in order for the film to get fist dibs on the story. It was an agreement Harris made with the studio. I don't think it being unpublished was the issue. It probably isn't a bad story if the storyteller isn't a shit movie director.

Posted: 10 Mar 2007, 21:54
by The Rambam
Hannibal was a piece of shit novel too, wasn't it?

Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 01:46
by Eviltoastman
No idea. Don't read too much popular fiction.

Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 02:07
by Mobiesque
I'll disagree on Hannibal being shit. I liked it the most of the books (not that I'll be reading 'rising'), sure it's easy pop fiction, but it was pretty well done and just sad to see that every one of the main points was ignored or contradicted in the film, let alone the ending, which is the opposite to the book.

Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 03:53
by Grotocult
I do not approve of films that glorify serial killers as dark, romantic insightful geniuses. Serial killers are social, emotional, physical failures...not figures to look up to.

Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 05:59
by Eviltoastman
This is why they call it fiction. :roll:

Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 06:17
by Mobiesque
Gangster novels wouldn't be fun at all without the glorification and romanticizing.

Posted: 11 Mar 2007, 06:49
by Eviltoastman
And films. I love me Goodfellas.