When I saw �Hannibal� I knew it couldn�t be better than �Silence of the Lambs.� It just was not possible. So what did I do? I didn�t even give �Silence� a second thought as I watched the �Hannibal.� And you know what? I am extremely glad I did.
Most critics out there will tell you �Hannibal� is a disappointment for one reason and one reason alone. It wasn�t as good as the original movie. What do we call this boys and girls? That�s right. �Citizen Kane Syndrome.� I personally think it is a very improper way to review films, but I digress.
I don�t think it you can compare this film at all to �Silence of the Lambs� because it is a totally different film altogether. The genre of the film not only felt totally different, but it was directed in a completely different style. The only things remotely comparable are the characters, and even they (thanks to a ten-year gap between the stories) seem different. And since �Hannibal� feels totally different from �Silence Of The Lambs� it should not be held to the criteria of the first film.
Hannibal is a very well made enjoyable film that, in my opinion, stands on it�s own thanks to the wonderful performances of Sir Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman, Giancarlo Giannini, and the directing style of Ridley Scott.
Sir Anthony Hopkins (A member of the �I could act as a potato for two hours, and still keep the audience riveted� club) is excellent as always. His performance made this movie watchable for me. Whenever he is onscreen he demands the audience's attention and they always give it to him. This movie would not (and could not) be the same without him in. He has by far given the best performance I have seen so far this year. One performance that surprised me was Julianne Moore. I�ll admit before this I don�t think she has given a single performance that I liked, but in this she does quite well as the new Agent Starling (though I will admit I did sort of miss Jodie Foster). Gary Oldman has played some of the best and most colorful villains in film history, but I don�t think he has ever had one quite like this. His character, Mason Verger, is a horrible, disfigured person that can be hard for the audience to look at for long periods of time, but Oldman (like Hopkins) is a very commanding actor. He demands attention as well. One of the biggest standout performances in the movie was Giancarlo Giannini as police inspector Pazzi. The man makes you really feel sorry for the tragic fate of the character, which everyone knows is inevitable. The whole first half of the film is fantastic because of his character and the way he performs with the Hopkins' Lecter.
This was not a plot driven movie; it was a character driven movie. The plot is actually very thin, but the characters were so strong they held the movie together and drove it forward. In many ways the movie could have been better if the plot was stronger to go with the strong main characters. Being with such a fragile plot there is no doubt going to be a few holes, a few characters underdeveloped, and a few times where the audience will go �Why did they do that?�
I liked this film very much and I hope to see it again to try to catch anything I might have missed the first time around. If you are planning on seeing it please try to do as I did and push out the comparison to �Silence Of The Lambs.� Trust me, you will be happier you did, Okay-dokay?
