Hannibal (March 6/00)

When I read the book Hannibal in 1999, I didn't really know what to expect. I knew from the title and the hoopla that it would deal more with Hannibal Lecter than its predecessor Silence of the Lambs, but that was about it. It was a very suspenseful and exciting read. And except for the wacky ending, it was terse and believable throughout.

So, watching the movie wasn't much of a shocking experience. I've heard from others that a certain scene towards the end came from left field. But since I knew it was coming, it wasn't a surprise at all. In fact, I suppose that's why I didn't care for the film as much as I did the first one: I essentially knew what was coming around every corner.

The movie opens with Clarice Starling (now played by Julianne Moore, in case you've had your head buried in the sand or something) being screwed by a hotshot NYC cop and taking the fall for mistakes in a shooting. After receiving a dressing down from her superiors, Starling is sent to an X-Files-ish basement to work on unsolved cases. Meanwhile, in Florence, Hannibal Lecter has been living a quiet life and is in the midst of becoming the curator for a local museum. But his solitary existence is about to be interrupted by a greedy Italian cop out to collect the ransom on Lecter established by Mason Verger, Lecter's only surviving victim. Grossly disfigured, Verger wants to see Lecter suffer at the hands of wild boars. Whew.

The film is surprisingly close to the novel, mostly, but there are a few deviations. That infamous ending is now different and leaves the movie open for another sequel. Some characters aren't here (most notably, Verger's pumped-up sister) and a few fates are sealed a little differently, but otherwise, director Ridley Scott has created an almost perfect copy of the book's storyline.

Of course, the big question seems to be whether or not Moore pulls off the part Jodie Foster made famous. I think she does. Obviously, there's not much of a physical resemblance, but she certainly inhabits the character. And it's not as though Clarice is the same now as she was ten years ago. Remember, in Silence of the Lambs, she was still in FBI school (or whatever you call it), but now she's a seasoned (and somewhat jaded) FBI officer. I particularly enjoyed the reference to the first film early in the picture; Clarice is commanding a bunch of fellow officers, all male, and shows no sense of timidity. There's a scene in Silence of the Lambs similar to this, except she's almost afraid of speaking to all those men.

And then, of course, there is Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal. Now that Lecter's got free reign (he's no longer confined to a cell), Hopkins really has a chance to put some flair into the portrayal. Some of the most exciting parts of the film are when Lecter's about to kill someone. Morbid, sure. Exciting, definitely! The gruesome end of the Italian detective is certainly a highlight as is his confrontation with Verger's wild boars. But I also enjoyed the dialogue scenes between Lecter and Clarice, particularly their first conversation (held over a cell phone).

The problem lies, then, in the overlength of the film. While there are many exciting scenes, there are just as many sequences that seem to go on too long. I don't want to get into comparing this to The Silence of the Lambs, but where that film remained tense and suspenseful throughout, Hannibal goes through peaks and valleys. There are several sequences that rival anything found in Silence for pure adrenaline, but there are also several sequences that just don't work and should have been excised (or shortened, at the very least). I think a lot of this is due to Scott's excesses as a filmmaker. He's known for his love of over-the-top action and breathtaking scenery. And while Hannibal does feature plenty of those, there are several sections that are just too much.

But that's besides the point. Was it entertaining? Sure. Did it come close to the genius that was Silence of the Lambs? Not really.