posted
Is this something we should be excited about? I'm not sure yet. That kid has some big shoes to fill. I mean, I saw A Very Long Engagement, but that's a far cry from, uh, Hannibal Lecter. Anyone read the book?
posted
I'm amazed they have Gong Li playing a woman quite younger then she is, and she pulls it off from what I can see in the preview.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, so far I haven't heard anything too spectacular, but I'm hoping...I'm going to be a little disappointed if the biggest thing I appreciate about this movie is that purty French actor.
posted
I don't think the book has gotten very positive reviews. However, the movie might end up redeeming the story. Who knows. I'm not too terribly interested either way.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wanted to be interested, but I find it hard to. I hear the book is a lot worse than the previous ones (yes, even Hannibal). That doesn't bode well for the movie. We'll see though.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder if it's gonna follow the current trend of extremely graphic gore like in Saw and the like.
Also, thinking of Sir Hopkins, he's cut off his own hand in three movies, I think. Hannibal, Titus, and one more that escapes me right now. Strange...
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by pfresh85: I wanted to be interested, but I find it hard to. I hear the book is a lot worse than the previous ones (yes, even Hannibal). That doesn't bode well for the movie. We'll see though.
Really?
Weird...I heard the exact opposite: that it was the best of the series, better even than Silence of the Lambs, and not by a small margin.
posted
I don't know, I enjoyed the book. I wouldn't say it was exceptional or even really good...but it was interesting. I think it plausibly told the story of how someone such as Doctor Hannibal Lecter might come to exist.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: I wonder if it's gonna follow the current trend of extremely graphic gore like in Saw and the like.
Also, thinking of Sir Hopkins, he's cut off his own hand in three movies, I think. Hannibal, Titus, and one more that escapes me right now. Strange...
Yeah, I liked the story of Saw, but some of the gore was just...I mean, the second one was the height of too-muchery, but a couple scenes in the third one were just...no.
Weird...I heard the exact opposite: that it was the best of the series, better even than Silence of the Lambs, and not by a small margin.
And I heard this from multiple people.
:shrug:
That is odd to hear such extremes on both sides. Maybe I'll check it out, as I did enjoy all the previous books.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
Weird...I heard the exact opposite: that it was the best of the series, better even than Silence of the Lambs, and not by a small margin.
And I heard this from multiple people.
:shrug:
That is odd to hear such extremes on both sides. Maybe I'll check it out, as I did enjoy all the previous books.
Yeah, now I'm really curious as to what the heck is causing such a discrepancy. I'll have to read it and then dialogue about it with people.
Posts: 4313 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I loved the other three, but I don't know if I can bring mysef to appreciate a Hannibal Lecter played by anyone but Anthony Hopkins.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, I saw the film last night, and I enjoyed it. It seems to me that quite a few of the reviewer's complaints are criticisms of the story itself, not the movie. so much...
SPOILERS
l l l l l
This film is quite different from the other Hannibal Lecter films in the way Hannibal Lecter himself is portrayed. In the other films, Dr. Lecter is portrayed as an intensely frightening, sick, wicked man delighting in bringing those aspects of himself to the people around him. He's a refined, cold-blooded and murderous psychopath not redeemed by his sophistication and veneer of courtesy. He's pretty clearly evil, or at least insane.
In Hannibal Rising, on the other hand, we get a different Hannibal Lecter. We see him as a young child where he clearly is not insane. He has a mother, father, and most especially a younger sister whom he adores to distraction. The world is cruel to him, not him to the world. His childhood trauma is so severe, so horrifying in fact, that it's almost a given that he will turn out deeply damaged. The film-and the novel, in fact-is sympathetic to Hannibal Lecter, at most of it is.
And his violence is portrayed differently, too. Hannibal doesn't use violence against those who irritate him in matters of courtesy, he uses violence against those who invite it-bullies, bigots, and those who attempt violence on him first. Violence all out of proportion to the violence his enemies do, of course, but he learned that in a very cold Lithuanian winter.
Still, I thought that it was a good film. It's not gotten a fair shake, in my opinion, because many people don't like the story of how Hannibal Lecter came to be Hannibal the Cannibal-this story presents Hannibal's gradual turn to murderous psychopath-cannibal as nearly inevitable. But...I believe that if you look far enough back into the history of many of the most infamous killers, you'll find that their background makes it nearly inevitable that they will do dreadful things later in life as well. l l l l l l l l l
quote:It was a ridiculous movie, having absolutely nothing in common with the other two stories.
It was a generic stalk and kill slasher flick.
They made Hannibal a <i>samurai.</i>
My complaints could go on and on.
I agree that it had very little in common with the other three stories. Nor did the book. I disagree that it was a generic stalk and kill slasher fic, because I've seen a few of those and not very many that I recall involve cannibalism and Lithuanian orphans who suffered on the Eastern Front in 44/45, and grew up to exact revenge.
I disagree that wielding a katana makes one a samurai. He did revere one specific samurai, though, because his beloved aunt did as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't either, pH. He had some...well, not redeeming, but at least not evil...qualities in the other films as well. But overall? He was supremely selfish and self-involved, willing and sometimes eager to kill or inflict horror and suffering on others in pursuit of his own pleasure or-sometimes-survival.
So, pretty clearly (although not totally clearly) evil to me-or at least insane.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
In certain instances, he killed for others (in the same way he killed the butcher). I mean, there is a reasoning behind what he does in the other movies as well, I think.
I would've loved it if the movie had extended a bit longer to show his next murder, just to give a smoother transition into the rest of the story.
posted
I guess I'm not qualified to be a part of this discussion. I haven't even seen Silence of the Lambs.Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Certainly, sometimes he did kill for others. There was the flutist in the orchestra (was it a flutist? I don't recall) whose playing was bad, according to Dr. Lecter, so he was killed and partially devoured. That's not necessarily an example of killing for others, but there is a reason in it.
But then there are other times, times when he is willing to put the killing from Red Dragon onto the cop who caught him (forget the name, played by Ed Norton) wife and young son in retaliation and revenge. Or when he feeds human flesh to dinner guests.
This is why I say Hannibal Lecter is shown as pretty clearly evil in the other films. I mean, if pure evil were milk, Hannibal Lecter is whole milk, with maybe the cream skimmed off.
Hannibal Rising, on the other hand, didn't show him using violence against anyone who wasn't attempting to harm him first that I can recall. The bully in the orphanage, the looter who came upon him sifting through the remains of the hunting lodge, the butcher, the family man and restaurant owner, the man who came to the hospital, the ring leader, all of them attempted to kill (or threatened serious physical harm, at the least) on Hannibal Lecter before he killed them.
Of course, in a couple of cases, Hannibal either invited the initial threat, or was planning as though he was certain it would happen, and ready to retaliate much more forcefully...
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Certainly, sometimes he did kill for others. There was the flutist in the orchestra (was it a flutist? I don't recall) whose playing was bad, according to Dr. Lecter, so he was killed and partially devoured. That's not necessarily an example of killing for others, but there is a reason in it.
You could argue that he was killing for the benefit of society somehow.
quote:I agree that it had very little in common with the other three stories
Yeah, my mistake was the result of strange math. One movie was made twice... so I subtracted one from the count. 3 - 1 = 2.
quote:I disagree that it was a generic stalk and kill slasher fic, because I've seen a few of those and not very many that I recall involve cannibalism and Lithuanian orphans who suffered on the Eastern Front in 44/45, and grew up to exact revenge.
Right, defending the originality of the story by pointing out the traumatized child that grows to exact revenge aspect of the story makes perfect sense.
quote:I disagree that wielding a katana makes one a samurai. He did revere one specific samurai, though, because his beloved aunt did as well.
Well if you're going to be hyper literal, why not just point out that samurai refers to a social class, and not just sword training? Yeesh.
Posts: 1515 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Maybe my memory is off (it's been years since I read Red Dragon, Silence of the Lambs, or Hannibal), but I seem to recall that many of the people he killed before getting captured were very bad people (i.e. child rapists, murderers, etc.), many of which were above the law (thanks to money and their familities and such). This doesn't make Hannibal a good guy for killing those people, but it makes him a little less evil. Of course, this doesn't excuse any of the stuff he does in Red Dragon and beyond.
Posts: 1960 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:You could argue that he was killing for the benefit of society somehow.
That could certainly be argued, but thinking back I don't recall Hannibal Lecter ever demonstrating anything along the lines of social concern. What he thinks, being insane, is something else entirely, of course.
--------
Foust,
quote:Right, defending the originality of the story by pointing out the traumatized child that grows to exact revenge aspect of the story makes perfect sense.
Oh, I see. You're using 'originality' in the sense of "kind of basic story that's not been told before" then? Alright, I challenge you to think of, I don't know, three movies in the past ten years that fit the bill for that sort of originality.
It's also a nice touch that you focused exclusively on what I said which supported your argument, utterly ignoring everything else.
quote:Well if you're going to be hyper literal, why not just point out that samurai refers to a social class, and not just sword training? Yeesh.
Dude, you said they made him a samurai. It's not hyper literal of me to point out that slicing someone with a katana doesn't make on a samurai. So, yeesh yourself, man. Don't complain if you don't say what you actually mean, or if someone criticizes the meaning of what you say.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
