|
Directed by: Peter Webber Starring: Gaspard Ulliel, Helena Lia Tachovska Just got home from seeing this movie and I was impressed. It took us through young Hannibal Lecter's life and allowed us to see why he is as twisted as he is. For 117 minutes, Peter Webber did a fantastic job taking us through the story. I am very impressed. I wish they would stop making really lovely horror films and start looking towards this direction. RATING: 5.0 PROS: Much better than recent horror movies CONS: Dominic West's inspector role.. Got kind of irritating ADDITIONAL INFORMATION: http://imdb.com/title/tt0367959/
|
# ? Feb 10, 2007 05:44 |
|
|
# ? Apr 17, 2024 21:08 |
|
Just came back from it... I'm still unsure how to feel. From an acting stand-point, I find Gaspard Ulliel did an excellent job of adapting the mannerisms and expressions set forth by Anthony Hopkins. He really did a wonderful job. The later part of the movie felt good. It was pretty well streamlined and organized. It's the start that sits poorly with me. It's fast paced, with many jumps in time early on. I found it hard to keep up with the information being given, and I read the book. It's a shame that this set a negative precedent for me, because it diminished my outlook on the rest of the movie. To me, it almost feels like we took a step backwards towards Hannibal again, after having such an amazingly well orchestrated adaptation of Red Dragon between. In the end, it's most likely a result of Thomas Harris's writing taking a plunge. When the book a movie is based on is lacking, the movie struggles to come out on top. When the movie's screenplay is written by the author who wrote the sub-par novel in the first place, I don't know if the movie really stands much of a chance. All the same, it had its highlights and its falls. Pros: Good acting, intense scenes late into the movie Cons: Poor set-up/background and fluidity early on Maybe I'll feel better about it in the morning. Rating: 3.0 Zyste fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Feb 10, 2007 |
# ? Feb 10, 2007 06:55 |
|
Perfectly Psychotic. I'll start by saying I have yet to read a Thomas Harris novel in the Hannibal mythos (it's on the list of things to do, believe me.) So, I'm only a fan of the movies, and a big fan. I read a lot of negative reviews going in, but was actually surprised by how well it actually is. While Gasper whatever his name is (playing young Hannibal) can show emotion, the screenplay rarely gives him the chance to show the torment that pushed him to his psychotic breaking point. There are a few spotty dialogue moments, but overall I really enjoyed watching the brutality of Hannibal almost as much as he enjoyed his own psychosis. The story definitely needs more work on the background, I know showing a child being murdered and eaten is probably taboo, but a little more graphic imagery would really help to make me a bit more emphatic with our protagonist. With a character developed previously as a deeply troubled genius psycho, there really should have been a lot more insight into the how's and why's. 4.0 / 5.0 Good, but not great, but you could do a lot worse this weekend. A lot worse.
|
# ? Feb 10, 2007 07:43 |
|
Edit: Sorry, wrong forum.
Joey Freshwater fucked around with this message at 17:27 on Feb 10, 2007 |
# ? Feb 10, 2007 17:10 |
|
Great movie, though I instantly guessed the twist right when it was first hinted at. Also, it was a bit too long and drawn out, especially towards the end. 4.5/5
|
# ? Feb 11, 2007 01:17 |
|
---
astounding_zlatan fucked around with this message at 16:21 on Jul 23, 2020 |
# ? Feb 12, 2007 10:33 |
|
I -loved- Silence of the Lambs and have seen and -enjoyed- each of the other films. This film does not have the Red Dragon quailty of acting as such the charaters were not as well developed. However, it was a 3.5/5 in other words just better than average.
|
# ? Feb 12, 2007 13:16 |
|
Hannibal Rising could have been much better. The film does not give a satisfying account of Hannibal's psychological distress. Helena Lia Tachovska's use as a love interest comes off as a cheap trick. However, Gaspard Ulliel's (Hannibal)presence was electric. His eyes told more story and added more intensity than any amount of blurry flashbacks. 2.5 out of 5.
|
# ? Feb 15, 2007 05:11 |
|
Excellent acting from Gaspard Ulliel. You could feel the electricity radiating from him. His eyes bore into you exactly the way they ought to. That said, I feel this is a chapter of the Hannibal saga which never should have been written. The revenge story is incredibly unconvincing as an explanation for Hannibal's psychosis. The love story with Lady Murasaki and all the stupid samurai bullshit both feel cheap and incredibly tacked-on. Hannibal should be an intelligent, calculating killer, not a loving superhero. Gong Li plays the same character she does in every other movie. (insert rant about using Chinese actresses to play Japanese characters) The pacing in this movie is all off. Brief bursts of action, then lulls that last far too long. I found myself looking at my watch far too often. Honestly, it might be worth seeing insofar as Ulliel is an adequate substitute for Anthony Hopkins. He really does a fantastic job with the role. But everything else about this movie is depressingly mediocre. 2/5
|
# ? Feb 20, 2007 03:01 |
|
I thought it was an enjoyable "guilty pleasure". If I could summarize with the one line "pitch" people supposedly use to sell film concepts, it's a "Batman Begins" working of the Hannibal Lecter story, like the "origins" comic books where the story of how the character was irradiated and became a superhero. The whole story of Hannibal's ninja training and revenge mission is a rather preposterous, but it's fun enough to enjoy the movie and while away an afternoon, in my opinion. I agree with the other poster that the "twist" revealed in the climactic scene is somewhat telegraphed, and I thought something like this might emerge from early on in the film. I thought it would be revealed that right after the soldiers killed his sister, that they would have been killed or run away from something, and that the young Hannibal would have been betrayed by his own hunger and survival instinct to, well, you know. To me the plot doesn't really make sense. To the extent that Lecter becomes seriously implicated as a suspect in the events of the movie seems incompatible with him completing his medical training and becoming a successful doctor. Also, the guy is almost a sympathetic figure in the movie on a very understandable revenge mission, which is incongruous with the character from the other books and films who didn't just kill bad guys and killed just for his own amusement at times. I do agree that the lead actor did a good job with the role. The business with the samurai mask was just silly, also. I give it 2.5/5. I expected it to be plain awful, and instead was a guilty pleasure.
|
# ? Feb 22, 2007 00:16 |
|
I thought this movie was extremely lacking, and was a poor explanation of Hannibal growing up. For some reason, I feel the reason he has a martially proficient Japanese aunt was for the sole reason of the mask scene. Which is utterly silly, as mentioned previously. The acting wasn't bad, but the story didn't ring true to me. HANNIBAL IS A NINJA IMO. Also, did the ending say to anyone else "poo poo! Where's the money?! Umm....ROLL CREDITS!"
|
# ? Feb 22, 2007 22:01 |
|
|
# ? Apr 17, 2024 21:08 |
|
Boring as all hell. The movie was long, the acting was cheesy, and the story didn't make much sense with the Hannibal mythos. (Ninja?) And to be honest, even the gore wasn't that great, having the film marketed as "The most terrifying film of the year" is a gross understatement. It wasn't fun, it wasn't interesting, in fact, the only good part of the movie was the beheading. 1/5. The series needs another Hannibal/Starling story. Those first 2 movies were the only good ones, in my opinion.
|
# ? Feb 25, 2007 20:23 |