Comparing the movie to the book. This is the horrific tale of justice and honor, a young man's growing pains that will have the guilty paying with more than just flesh and bone. There is a neat little twist at the ending regarding that but I go into that for spoiler reasons. It can stand repeating: the more we know about the monster, the less scary he becomes. Hey, Hollywood, you want youngsters to admire serial killers and try to be like them? You get the brush strokes and the gist of things but a lot of the minutiae seems glossed over. This is his warped, twisted bildungsroman, his revenge story, and his background history. All in All this movie is a delectable revenge type movie with scary, dark bad guys and many gruesome deaths.
Now call me petty if you will, but wouldn't it bug the hell out of you if when Vader spoke his first words in Revenge Of The Sith, he was voiced by Hayden Christensen? It has absolutely no self-distance, the kind of spark in the eye of Anthony Hopkins, or any form of a sense of humour. I asked them when they felt sympathy for Hannibal was lost in the film -- and make no mistake, the events in the opening act are very much designed to put you behind Hannibal. Lesser acts of evil, might be used to purify and cleanse greater acts of evil, but are still evil in themselves when the motivation and the cost are the substitution of salvation and justice for corruption and revenge. The story is much better in the second half than the first, which has a few parts in which it lags. Toward the end you almost feel a bit 'meh' about the whole story, and the not-hero-but-not-villain slot inhabited by Hannibal causes a stance of indifference toward his action, however outlandish they are. Film nerds world wide don't need to be told how amazing Silence Of The Lambs is.
Their companionship is forever binding, until, with their family, while hiding from the Nazi war machine a twisted set of circumstance sets the pace for a most vicious attack on the future of one Hannibal Lecter for the sworn vengeance for the brutal killing of his baby sister. Ulliel's finest moment is when Lecter unleashes his unhinged wrath in the climatic scene aboard the river barge; it was thoroughly disturbing. It is a film shot in 16 mm and black and white that lasts just an hour m? The love story of Hannibal also fits here. There are only faint, dimmed traces of horror or genuine suspense, often washed away by pedestrian set-ups that make fans of the genre nod with tired recognition. Avoid like the plague, particularly if you're a fan of the first four films.
I would not go as far as to say the story victimizes Hannibal, but here he inhabits the protagonist slot and elicits sympathy of sorts accordingly. Crime Drama Thriller This terrifying prequel attempts to trace the murderous roots of the cannibalistic killer. It is a violent film -- no kidding, right?. I turned it off, and if I hadn't hired it, I would have burnt the disc. Rhys Ifans, a charming Welshman usually relegated to good-guy characters, gets his freak on in unnecessarily sinister ways. This is the up and rising tale of the young Hannibal,.
This chance arrives, and soon we are to learn that for a pound of flesh lost a pound of flesh must be repaid. This is beautifully filmed, first frame to last. However, Ulliel's gaze isn't the piercing, wise, twisted trademark look of Hopkins as Lector, but rather the sleazy eye of a teenage boy ogling a girl on the street. It was the Batman and Robin of the Hannibal series. And trying to humanize him by showing his first kill as being motivated by some sort of loyalist chivalry towards his adopted aunt. I've heard a lot of reviews saying this was a bad movie. Great locations, great acting--especially by Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal.
Minor changes were made, but nothing too critical. This is the up and rising tale of the young Hannibal, prey you do not meet him, for meat you shall be to him. I swear his acting was so good that it was scary and near perfect as the demented Hannibal Lechter. The story of the early, murderous roots of the cannibalistic killer, Hannibal Lecter — from his hard-scrabble Lithuanian childhood, where he witnesses the repulsive lengths to which hungry soldiers will go to satiate themselves, through his sojourn in France, where as a med student he hones his appetite for the kill. Some people mistook that for bad acting. To sum it up - a well done movie for teenagers, who want to see some cool action, some maniacs, some blood and killin' and don't pay attention to the actors performance unless it is really bad and the ideas of the film.
To give an idea of my opinion so you know where I'm coming from, I think Anthony Hopkins is one of the greatest actors of our time and he was brilliant as Hannibal. And having just finished the book beforehand it met all my expectations no problem. To add insult to injury, he is confident in a way that is much too cocky for Lector, who should rely on a sort of inherent calm and confidence that is only displayed subtly through his eyes. They took the easiest road, out, too, making an easy target the villains: the Nazis. You're not Dali, so stop trying.
It didn't strike me as a stand out film but I was satisfied with it overall and do think that it has more value than just to enthusiasts of the Thomas Harris books. Disfigured and confined to a life-support system, he plans to draw Lecter out of his hiding place, using the one thing he truly cares for: Clarice Starling. It took a great franchise and butchered it beyond the point of recognition, to a point that made Mason Verger look like a pretty boy. As a fan of all the Hannibal Lector films, I was expecting another film I'd enjoy and thinking this would be a terrific character study of man who is one of the most famous fictional killers of all time. Well, no Anthony Hopkins so I didn't expect greatness, but was pleasantly surprised. Yes, Lecter is irrational and that's the point.