anticipated motion pictures of 2001. It has taken ten years for the
sequel to The Silence of the Lambs to reach the screen, sadly, it
wasn't worth the wait. Hannibal isn't a terrible movie, but it is a
disappointment, and more than a small step down from the level of its
predecessor.
It is understandable why Jodie Foster wasn't interested in the sequel.
The Clarice Starling of The Silence of the Lambs was a psychologically
complex individual who remained squarely at the center of the storyline.
Her relationship with Hannibal Lecter was endlessly fascinating, a game
of mental chess between two evenly matched players who were drawn
together by a perverse attraction. That Clarice is missing in action in
Hannibal. The character has been emasculated and reduced to little more
than a plot device. This is Lecter's movie; Clarice's role is secondary,
and there's little in the way of interesting character development.
Almost nothing is done with Silence's most compelling aspect, the
Hannibal/Clarice relationship; these two have only a handful of scenes
together. Julianne Moore, doing the best she can with the limited
material, admirably fills her predecessor's shoes. It's just that
Hannibal offers her a far less meaty bone to gnaw on than Silence gave to
Foster.
Hopkins' Hannibal is as witty and urbane as ever, but even he seems
diminished from his Silence persona. Perhaps it's that the shock value
has worn off. Or perhaps it's that Scott and Hopkins have made a
conscious decision to tone down Hannibal's creepiness factor. There's
none of the slithering/slurping tongue action that was so imitated a
decade ago. The Lecter of Hannibal is more of an anti-hero than a
villain. Despite some of the heinous crimes he commits, we find ourselves
rooting for him to get away in the end.
Hannibal begins with a lengthy prologue detailing Clarice's fall from
grace within the FBI. Just when her career seems to be over, a mysterious
benefactor comes to her rescue. He is Mason Verger, whose "family's
political contributions aren't enough to buy him a senator, but they are
enough to rent one from time-to-time." Verger was one of Lecter's victims
- he survived his encounter with the doctor, but at the price of a
horribly disfigured face. Now, he wants Clarice back on the case because
he plans to use her as bait. Meanwhile, in Florence, an Italian
detective has seen through Lecter's false identity and is plotting to
turn him over to Verger in return for a $3 million reward. However, he,
like so many others over the years, has underestimated the cunning of his
quarry.
Hannibal is divided into three segments. The title character is absent
from the first, which lasts about 30 minutes, and he and Clarice don't
come face-to-face until the third. The bulk of the movie is devoted to
Pazzi's pursuit of Hannibal - an activity that occasionally feels
drawn-out and a little plodding. The ending, which has been somewhat
altered from what happens in the book (a change initially made in a
failed attempt to lure Foster to the project), is patently absurd. In
fact, it's so off-the-wall (not to mention gory, albeit in a cartoonish
way) that it's almost farcical, and it leaves a bad aftertaste. After
waiting nearly two hours for the confrontation between Clarice and
Hannibal, we are treated to...this. Nothing is more disheartening than
the final fifteen minutes.
Stylistically, Hannibal is everything one would expect from a Ridley
Scott film. It doesn't have the claustrophobic feel of Silence, but that
lack is compensated for with innovative shots and an abundance of
gothic-drenched atmosphere. (My favorite moment is when Lecter turns from
the camera and walks away with his cape billowing behind him. It's pure
style.) One area where Scott goes over the top is in his frequent use of
religious (specifically Christian) iconography, including a scene in
which Hannibal appears like Christ on the cross. The problem is that
there's no reason for this - ultimately, all of the Christian symbolism
is meaningless. It doesn't contribute to the movie from a thematic or
story-related perspective.
The movie is not a hack job - it contains moments of genuine suspense,
always looks good, and has the virtue of Anthony Hopkins returning to the
greatest role of his incredibly diverse career. But there's a lot
missing from the sequel, and many of the those absent elements are the
things that differentiated Silence from so many also-ran serial killer
flicks.
Rating: 2 1/2 (out of 4)