Johnny's Movie Page: Review of Hannibal

Review of Hannibal
by Johnny Erickson

Hannibal is a movie trying to tell too many stories at once. The first, obviously, is the sequel to Silence of the Lambs: the story of Clarice Starling's continued adventures with serial killer Hannibal Lector, M.D. The second story is centered around the revenge plotting sicko Mason Verger, Dr. Lector's only surviving victim. (Note: There is an inconsistency here. In the first Hannibal Lector movie, Manhunter, Dr. Lector is said to have left two survivors.) The final story revolves around the attempts of Detective Pazzi to capture Lector for a bounty. These last two stories are successfully woven together. The story centered around Starling should have either been left out or made the focus of the movie. As it is, Starling's story is set aside for seventy-five percent of the movie and resurrected to create a gruesome ending

An abruptness is apparent as the movie transitions from Pazzi's story to Starling's. Stating that Dr. Lector is attracted by stress, Mason Verger sets up Starling as a way to lure the good doctor. This transition seems like an afterthought, to give Lector a least a small motivation for appearing in final scene. In fact, Paul Krendler admits that he wishes he wouldn't have helped Starling out of the mess that lead to her initial reassignment to Hannibal's case. This is a clumsy transition at best. At worst, it is an insult to the intelligence of Lector. Lector has managed to stay out of the public eye for more than 10 years. Now, suddenly, he pops into view and allows himself to be caught (one assumes allows or else the writer and director have insulted both Lector and the audience's intelligence) to help Starling through her metal angst. This is absurd and uncharacteristic for Lector.

Perhaps the biggest problem with this movie is that none of the stories revolve around the title character. Hannibal shows up whenever a baddie is needed to give the story some punch and then goes back into hiding. This isn't too surprising; it is essentially the same roll Lector performed in the first two movies. Hannibal adds no depth to the Lector character and never explains why he does the things he does. Also, one of Dr. Lector's most disturbing "talents" was his ability to convince his victims to hurt themselves. This ability is almost completely missing in Hannibal. It is only alluded to in Mason's flashback. Hannibal Lector has become a run-of-the-mill, slice and dice killer. He is not even the same strong character seen in Silence of the Lambs.

There are other inaccuracies as well. In Silence of the Lambs, Dr. Lector makes short work of a pair of handcuffs with just a pen clip and Dr. Lector never looses his cool - ever. Yet, in the end of this movie, he cannot open a pair of handcuffs without a key and so he rashly cuts off his own hand (or at least his thumb). Also, Mason ask Starling if she believes in God. Nothing more on the subject is mentioned, but this subject could have been intriguing.

The only character who undergoes a change in Hannibal is Agent Starling. With the help of Dr. Lector, Clarice realizes that she is not defined by her job. She does not need a trophy on the wall to remind her of her dedication and honesty; she only needs a mirror. Big whoop. With such a bland main conflict, it is no wonder that the movie is sometimes boring. Starling is not in this movie long enough for anybody to care. The movie relies too heavily on the audience's relationship with the Starling from Silence of the Lambs.

There is an allusion to the fact that Mason Verger wanted to become like Dr. Lector. This goes unexplored. A similar subject involves Dr. Cordell dumping Mason Verger into the pit with the bores. In this case, Cordell in effect becomes Dr. Lector. Also, the last scene, when Lector discusses the airline food with the child sitting next to him, hints that maybe Dr. Lector is trying to warp the minds of those around him. There may be an interesting sequel to Hannibal, in which it is discovered that the serial killers we have met in the first three movies were actually patients/associates of Dr. Lector's and that it is he who shaped those twisted souls.

Fortunately, the actors in Hannibal do a good job. Sir Anthony Hopkins is excellent as Dr. Lector. Gary Oldman, unbilled, as Mason Verger is equally creepy, though (as usual) a little over-the-top and annoying. Julianne Moore's stiff acting style fits the rigid Starling. Ray Liotta, in what is probably his best roll since Goodfellas, is great as the sexist jerk Paul Krendler. In general, I am not a fan of Moore, Oldman, or Liotta. I was actually surprised by their strong performances.

Overall, I was disappointed in the lack of development of Hannibal's title character. By trying to weave too many stories together, the movie generated an abruptness in the transition between the stories. The writer made Lector take unbelievable actions to get him into the final scene. There were many psychological issues that needed to be further explored. Even if it did not meet my expectations, Hannibal did manage to keep my attention most of the time. Hannibal is a solid action movie, though, by no means, a thriller.