Hannibal

I picked up Hannibal with the same zeal that the rest of the reading public did. I was fucking down right excited, to be honest. 10 years later, the sequel to a great movie, a great novel... I was almost drowning in my own drool.

I picked up the hardbound book at a Borders in the World Trade Center and began reading avidly, with a fervor, every morning and evening I went home on the trains.

And then something started happening. I was getting bored. I was reading about pigs... Italian history... and some guys obsession with Lecter. I came up with a philosophy about this novel, roughly halfway through it, and I put the book down, took my marker out and returned the novel for two other novels.

Thomas Harris, I believe, was so sick and tired of having to write a sequel that he did this. He wrote the dreaded novel and, upon entering his editors office, placed the manuscript down and said "You will make no changes to this manuscript, no editing. You will publish this book, as is."

From an editing point of view (which I have been in a previous life) the book is a complete nightmare. From a reading perspective, there is no flow what-so-ever. Sure, there's gruesome scenes, some well depicted writing about Italy and of course two great characters... but the rest of it was down right flat.

I told anyone who would listen to me not to read that novel, and to stick to Harris's earlier work. As a point of fact, Harris, upon writing Lambs, was contracted to write 2, that's right, 2 novels about these existing characters. I can't wait for what tortured story comes from him the second time around.

Now on to the movie.

I had heard a number of different names that were going to helm the directors chair on this particular project, but when I heard Ridley Scott's name, my heart sank. I did not see White Squall, I did not particularly like G.I. Jane (though I understood what he was doing)... and I had not seen Gladiator yet, because it hadn't come out... but my mind was filled with dread as I thought of Scott making another film that would not live up to the Scott name. Blade Runner, Alien, Legend, Black Rain and Thelma and Louis.

I am not a fan of David Mamet, ever since I had to sit through an agonizing 2 and a half hours of Oleanna, the play, not the movie. That is, quite possibly, the worst thing I've ever seen, besides American Buffalo, another Mamet mistake. Glengarry Glen Ross is a well made film, as was The Spanish Prisoner, but lets face it, I think Mamet's had more misses then hits.

Steven Zaillian was the co-writer for this film. He's had a much more impressive past than Mamet has, in my opinion, with such films as The Falcon and the Snowman, Awakenings, Schindler's List, Searching for Bobby Fischer and the much awaited new Scorsese movie, Gangs of New York.

When I heard that Jodie Foster wasn't going to take the position of Clarice Starling, I was impressed at her will power for turning down the roll, and I was almost certain that Gillian Anderson was going to get the part. I'm glad she didn't. Julianne Moore did a wonderful job, but I'll get to more of that later.

I'll start with Anthony Hopkins, who's work I've always enjoyed, though I haven't ventured into watching all of his work. My favorite Hopkins film is a triple tie between as Dr. Frederick Treves in The Elephant Man, Van Helsing in Bram Stokers Dracula and as Hannibal in Silence of the Lambs.

I was particularly impressed in how he went from such films as Instinct and Meet Joe Black and that Zorro picture to Hannibal. It was almost seemless, and I suppose that's the mark of a great actor. He did everything right. He portrayed the character in his many backgrounds with ease. I loved him in Italy, the city seemed to be a perfect fit for the character.

Julianne Moore was very good in the roll. She brought a certain flatness to the character that was, I think, necessary. When I say 'flatness', I mean straight-forwardness. She was straight laced, a straight shooter, straight from the hip. You get me?

She took the character and ran with it, something she has had no problem doing with other rolls. From her P.T. Anderson pictuers Boogie Nights and Magnolia, to The Big Lebowski, I've enjoyed her 'fun' work much more than her serious work. She tends to give the rolls, these more eccentric rolls, more depth of character, instead of portraying them the stock way they were written.

She gave the character Starling a more mature stature than Foster did, though I must say it would have been quite something to see Foster in this, much more action packed roll. I'm curious to see if she would have been able to handle it.

Giancarlo Giannini deserves a best supporting actor nod for his performance of Rinaldo Pazzi. I thought his performance was the best in the entire picture, with his brushes with Hannibal forcing different facial tics and expressions that spoke volumes.

What can I say about Gary Oldman. Jesus, from the first minute that poor bastard gets on the screen, the movie has slapped the audience in the face and made them sit up and pay attention. His character rocked the house, and the make-up effects were incredible (though he looked a little too much like Arseface from the Preacher comics series).

Ray Liotta was very good in his role, though I wished he'd expanded the character more. I've always liked Liotta's work, ever since Something Wild, Field of Dreams and Goodfellas. He went on to make other great films, but sticking with the same character set like Article 99, No Escape, Unforgettable, Cop Land and the much anticipated Blow, coming out this year.

John Mathieson was the cinematographer, and I have to admit he did an excellent job. Some of the Italy shots were just so beautiful. You could tell, going into the film, just from the trailers, that Mathieson was the same photographer that worked with Scott on Gladiator. There was something eeriely similar about the shots and the way certian scenes were handled. But, I suppose you stick with what works.

Greg Cannom is one of those names that doesn't circulate around much... I guess. He's been responsible for a lot of the great make-up films of the last twenty years. It would be worthwhile for anyone interested to type his name in the Internet Movie Data Base (www.imdb.com) and check out the long history of this genius make-up artist. He's worked on a lot of the greats, and brought his wonderful knowledge and experience to this film.

My take on the film was, if you expected it to be bad, you'll be pleasantly surprised. If you expect it to be better than Lambs, you're nuts. Go see the film in the theaters, it's worth the $9.50 (though I will admit that my wife paid for the tickets).

J.P.