The adventures of the cannibalistic young scamp, Hannibal Lector Esq! - by Scots Taffer
Scots Taffer on 7/8/2006 at 01:44
(
http://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=23157) Way, way, way back I was actually excited at the notion of a sequel to
Silence of the Lambs, which I feel is pretty much the gold standard when it comes to thrillers - it's pretty much perfect.
Hannibal was a massive disappointment, but of course it only really could be after the abortion that the book was. It's obviously Harris' creation to do with as he will but the character and the whole series just crashed and burned at that stage, for me. The film was a weird mishmash of the book and new ideas that just didn't gel, they tried to be horrific and romantic all at once and just failed.
Similarly, I was disappointed when I heard they were remaking the flawed but excellent
Manhunter as
Red Dragon and I have purposefully avoided the movie. I see no need to see the film again purely to have an even older Anthony Hopkins playing a younger version of Hannibal.
Manhunter may be marred with certain 80s artifacts, but it's still a pretty weighty thriller and Mann did a good job with it. I pretty much realised at this stage that the Hannibal Lector series was now a cash cow.
So it's without any disappointment and in fact a little bit of anarchic glee that I view the unfolding development of
Young Hannibal: (
http://www.upcominghorrormovies.com/movies/lecter.php) Behind The Mask, which was apparently simultaneously developed as a book and as a screenplay.
If you're interested in a hilarious spoiler mine-field, (
http://www.aintitcoolnews.com/display.cgi?id=23494) read this review of an early cut of the movie. Basically it paints the picture of a Hannibal prequel story which sounds like Kill Bill set in the time of World War II. Seriously,
HANNIBAL IS A NINJA AND ONLY EATS BAD PEOPLE.
Screw Snakes on a Plane, nazi-eating samurai-sword-weilding psychiatrists is where it's at motherfuckers!
Tocky on 7/8/2006 at 02:04
Am I wrong in thinking Red Dragon was a stand alone book dealing not at all with Hannibal then? It's been ages since I read it but I can't seem to recall agent Starling making an appearance either. I didn't read Manhunter.
Scots Taffer on 7/8/2006 at 02:10
Manhunter was the first movie adaptation of the novel Red Dragon. Red Dragon was written prior to Silence, and dealt with practically the same scenario: FBI hunting serial killer, FBI agent seeks help from Lector, FBI find serial killer. The only difference being that the FBI agent in Red Dragon is the very person who caught Lector.
Gestalt on 7/8/2006 at 06:48
You'll know the franchise has definitively jumped the shark when Harris writes a sequel in which Hannibal Lecter travels back in time to fight/eat the other Hannibal.
Oli G on 7/8/2006 at 07:55
It's interesting that you didn't like the book Hannibal - when I read it a few years ago I felt that it was the best book of the series. What was it that you didn't like about it? It's a strange book, and I suppose your response is going to be determined to a certain extent by how you approach it. It isn't really a thriller in the way that the previous two books are so if you judge it in purely comparative terms then it's never going to stand up so well. For me it does exactly what it says on the tin - it's called Hannibal and it's about Hannibal, and it's the strength of the character rather than the plot which carries the book through.
The film, of course, is shit. I have to say though that I wasn't even that impressed by the film of Silence of the Lambs. I made the mistake of watching it within a week of reading the novel so all I could do was compare the two - and favour the latter.
Do give Red Dragon a try. It's not a perfect film by any means but it's immensely better than Hannibal and has the pacing and performances which a good thriller needs.
Scots Taffer on 7/8/2006 at 09:21
Quote Posted by Oli G
It's interesting that you didn't like the book
Hannibal - when I read it a few years ago I felt that it was the best book of the series. What was it that you didn't like about it?
There are a few reasons that I can recall offhand, it's been several years:
- The general tone of the novel and the writing was smug, Harris felt compelled to share every tedious bit of information that he had about Florence in his head and felt the need to expound upon it at length - and often in Italian. The speech Hannibal gives to justify his position in the museum was entirely in Italian, no one's going to tell me that wasn't an element of intellectual elitism at play.
- The character of Hannibal thus far had been so compelling because it had been unknown, everything was implied. He was a man of refined tastes, knowledgable about art and music, a qualified and potentially gifted psychiatrist which suggests an uncanny understanding of the human condition and so on. In this novel, they basically just made him a camp Grand Guignol villain, eluding detection in a cat and mouse, smoke and mirrors way that just reeked of operatic themes that Harris had started to imagine had some sort of bearing upon the overall story.
- The matter of the plot, lastly. A rather excellently bizarre character used purely to offset Hannibal's villainy and create something of an anti-hero, who was definitely well written but more or less a vehicle for Hannibal's "transformation". I suppose several of the themes had been so exhausted from the near-duplication of Red Dragon to Silence of the Lambs that I just felt there was very little left to add to this character except to demystify him. I suppose in that regard, he sort of succeeded. The romance of Hannibal and Clarice almost works, however the humanising is somewhat contradicted by the blatant and almost cartoonish "evil" way that he acted throughout the novel.
I very much doubt I'll give Red Dragon a try, not because I don't trust other's opinions but because I know I'm already predisposed to disliking it and from what I've heard, if one has that attitude going in then they'll almost certainly hate it.
Agent Monkeysee on 7/8/2006 at 15:06
The later Hannibal movies always struck me as a less nerdy variation on what would have happened if Lucas made movies strictly about Boba Fett. Hannibal was a cool character partly because there was so little of him on screen. His effectiveness arises from using him sparingly and having not one but two movies which featured him prominently, especially what 10 years after the fact?, always struck me as fanboy wankery.
jersy on 7/8/2006 at 23:11
I suppose several of the themes had been so exhausted from the near-duplication of Red Dragon to Silence of the Lambs that I just felt there was very little left to add to this character except to demystify him.
Scots Taffer on 7/8/2006 at 23:12
Yes, I am quite amazing, thank you. :cool:
jersy on 7/8/2006 at 23:17
I was disappointed when I heard they were remaking the flawed but excellent Manhunter as Red Dragon and I have purposefully avoided the movie. I see no need to see the film again purely to have an even older Anthony Hopkins playing a younger version of Hannibal
