“˜Hannibal’ fails to serve up tasty cinematic treat

By Ryan Joe
Daily Bruin Contributor

Hannibal Lecter is out. Previously, he was confined to pick
through the minds of others with psychological scalpels.

Now he can have your brain and eat it too, perhaps with a nice
glass of Chianti.

“Hannibal,” directed by Ridley Scott, is the latest
entree in the cinematic feast featuring everybody’s favorite
cannibal (the two previous films being “Silence of the
Lambs” and “Manhunter”).

Unfortunately “Hannibal” is more like an appetizer
than a meal.

Individual scenes within the film work well, recalling the tense
character interactions from “Silence of the Lambs.”
“Hannibal,” however, is not better than the sum of its
parts.

The acting is good, but the characters, and subsequently the
movie itself, would be rather forgettable were it not for the
scenes reflecting Lecter’s penchant for gourmet cooking.

The film opens with a slam-bang action shoot out, a messy drug
bust gone wrong that lands its commander, FBI agent Clarice
Starling (Julianne Moore), in the hot seat.

This opening sequence also establishes the action-film pacing
that permeates the film. While “Silence of the Lambs”
worked as a precise psychological duel, “Hannibal” by
contrast is a brutal physical brawl.

Clarice soon receives information on the whereabouts of the good
Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), whom she had profiled a
decade ago. This information comes from Mason Verger (Gary Oldman),
Lecter’s fourth victim.

Years ago, Lecter had convinced Verger that it would be grand
entertainment if Verger were to rip off his own face with a jagged
piece of glass. Quite understandably, Verger is perturbed and
desires revenge, which consists of feeding Lecter, piece by piece,
to giant man-eating pigs.

Lecter, played again with delightful intellectual coldness by
Hopkins, is in the meantime living in Italy. Lecter is chillingly
inhuman and is as viciously effective devouring others with his
mind as he is with his teeth ““ a truly great villain.

Why then is he demoted to the status of anti-hero, his evil
little spotlight shining instead on a vindictive brat without a
face?

While Lecter is an intellectual demon, Verger is a comic book
gimmick.

To make matters worse, Clarice’s chauvinistic boss Paul
Krendler (Ray Liotta) is on the payroll of Verger. Following a
messy, bowel-depleting attempt to kidnap Lecter in Italy, Verger
instructs Krendler to use Clarice ““ immersing her in even
deeper career woes. Krendler is all too happy to comply.

The plan is for Lecter to move back to America, into the hands
of the FBI and subsequently, the hands of Mason Verger. This plan
works for the sake of the screenplay, as Hannibal does return to
the States. (It didn’t seem he was eating all that well in
Italy anyway).

Meanwhile Verger and his men wait in the wings, ready to pounce
on the good doctor, so they can give the pigs their meal.

One scene that conjures up the best aspects of the
Clarice-Lecter relationship from “Silence” involves
Lecter tantalizing Clarice with hints, messages and phone
calls.

In a very effective sequence, a cat-and-mouse game of verbal
phone calls becomes a physical hunt as Clarice actively searches
for the elusive Dr. Lecter. This raises the question of who is
truly the prey and who is truly the predator.

What follows is a roughly Indiana Jones-like plot involving more
gore, Lecter, Clarice and the man-eating pigs. The
execution-by-pigs scheme is an inane plot thread and the film often
crosses the lines of ludicrousness.

Many may recall the questionable finale as written in the novel
by Thomas Harris. The film version is less likely to evoke
controversy but nevertheless remains unsatisfying.

By the film’s end the characters are back to square one.
There have been no changes, except for a few people who may be
missing certain body parts, or any great character evolutions,
except for the hinting of an almost romantic urging Lecter has
toward Clarice.

These emotions give Lecter human qualities that detract from
what he would seemingly represent: evil incarnate.

Steven Zaillian (“Schindler’s List”) penned
the script, adding a delightfully witty touch in the dialogue
““ especially given the subtle, carefully-worded double
entendres that Lecter relishes in zinging maliciously out toward
his prey.

Yet, when taken in comprehensively, “Hannibal” is a
disappointment.

There is a lot of blood and guts in the film, which is to be
expected when one of the main characters occasionally goes by the
nickname Hannibal the Cannibal. In “Silence of the
Lambs,” however, director Jonathan Demme realized that a
little goes a long way and in “Hannibal,” a lot goes
too far.

The film basks in its bodily fluids more for worse than for
better. This is detrimental when placed alongside aspects of plot
that are, while entertaining in a cheap popcorn thrills context,
almost comedic in their outlandish nature.

FILM: “Hannibal” is now playing in
theaters nationwide.