(This review was originally published in Sept. 2007)
I’d looked forward to seeing this film. I’d meant to see it in the theatres and then somehow things just kept coming up as if some strange force was trying to keep me away from it. So I finally got the chance to see it in the comfort of my own home thanks to the magic of Movies on Demand service.
I really hate to say this – I think that strange force was trying to save me eighteen bucks at the cinema house. I’m glad it succeeded.
This isn’t to say that I absolutely hated it. I didn’t. I loved the expressiveness of the young Hannibal character. I thought the story was pretty interesting, if a little over the top. I loved the sets and costumes. The horror elements were just fine.
But it just wasn’t the Dr. Lecter I know and love. And I don’t mean because Anthony Hopkins was too old to play the part for this film.
No, dear readers, they really screwed up on this. They made Hannibal a sort of lost soul hero with a purpose of revenge that many people would find forgivable. If a bunch of blokes killed and ate your sister, I think there are plenty of ordinary sane people who would want to hunt them down and do terrible things to them.
What happened to our classy sociopath who killed for amusing reasons such as wanting to improve an orchestra? How did we back-peddle into a vigilante justice scenario? I tell you, it just broke my heart.
Now I suppose you could say that once he got a taste of human flesh he became addicted to it and kept on killing afterwards, along the same vein as Ravenous, but I just don’t buy that. The character of Lecter has always struck me as just being someone who genuinely enjoys his classy little games, not some half-crazed man out for justice.
So yes, I was disappointed. I think the film would have been just lovely if they hadn’t tacked the name “Hannibal Lecter” to it.
Film information: Hannibal Rising
Post a Comment