Hollywood went nuts when it was announced that Thomas Harris was going to finally pen a sequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, which its cinematic adaptation was a major smash hit, and won the Best Picture Oscar.
Italian producer Dino DeLaurentiis infamously passed on LAMBS because his MANHUNTER (based on Harris' RED DRAGON) died in theatres, paid an astronomical $10 million for HANNIBAL's film rights, saying: "I won't make the same mistake twice!"
To give him credit, HANNIBAL did make alot of money all over the world, as did his later Hannibal Lecter pictures in HANNIBAL RISING and yet another version of RED DRAGON. I must say, it was a smart financial investment....but that's about it.
Besides the fact that the novel sucked, Harris had a very nice contract clause where he had script approval. Now I'm not blaming him at all for this goop, but consider all the talent involved with HANNIBAL.
Besides Anthony Hopkins back, you have the very capable Julianne Moore booked after Jodie Foster bailed. You have the great Sir Ridley Scott hired after Jonathan Demme passed on it, and this as the follow-up to Scott's triumphant GLADIATOR.
Then you have both great scripters David Mamet and Steven Zaillian take a crack at the adaptation. When the penners of GLENGARRY GLEN ROSS and SCHINDLER'S LIST can't make something out of this book, there is a serious problem here.
More than likely though, its probably another Hollywood production where too many cooks are in the kitchen, and no one really has a clue as for what the approach for the material should be....except that HANNIBAL is a cash register.
I think my central problem with HANNIBAL is the whole emphasis on Lecter. He's simply a monster that by sheer dramatic manipulation, was able to come off as an anti-hero in LAMBS because compared to Ted Levine, he seemed charmingly gracious. Plus, audiences respect a villain after such a brilliant jail break.
With HANNIBAL, we're supposed to cheer for him again because an old maimed victim in Gary Oldman wants revenge...and why shouldn't he get it?
Yeah Oldman is as prickish as any villain supposed to be, but wouldn't you be too if someone ate your face off? Forget W.W.J.D., Christ would go medieval on Hannibal's ass too.
Then there is Julianne Moore. She's a good actress, but damn her character is pretty boring. If Foster was supposed to be a wild-eyed rookie that was way over her head, Clarice Starling is now a clone from a bad action movie.
You know what I'm talking about, a cop in heat with her superiors like Ray Liotta over nothing, and getting wrongly blamed for a botched FBI operation because of something, because otherwise the story wouldn't move forward. It's amazing how already we don't care about her story, and it doesn't ever improve.
Cue the "boring" chants from wrestling fans.
And yet whenever Hopkins appears, despite my problem with his angle, he is thrilling. He's clearly having fun and really energized in his return to his iconic role. Most of all, he's involved in a really well-shot sequences contained in what is overwise a meh glamour production.
There is great tension and a pure atmosphere of terror this side of the Grand Guignol when at the museum in Florence, Giarncarlo Giannini finally realized too late that he's no match for the Good Doctor. If only it was in a good movie....
As much as I've trashed the novel, I'll give it credit in that its ending is very conclusive, and perhaps logical in a screwy romantic sort of way this side of BUG or NATURAL BORN KILLERS.
Of course it was inevitably too insane and grotesque to stay in the final film (and if the reports are to be believed, its a major factor why Demme/Foster bailed out.) Yet the ending for HANNIBAL the movie is a fustratingly alienating cop out, surely they couldn't have done worse with the original finale.
If only if they picked apart Liotta's brain more for some better ideas....
