'Hannibal' Breaks Through 'Silence'
Sequel Not As Complex, But Still Chilling
Since the speculation about this year's Oscar nominations is at a fever pitch, it's only appropriate, then, to lead this week's column with a review of the sequel to 1991's best picture winner, "Silence of the Lambs."
It's hard to believe that it's been almost 10 years to the day that the film was released, but the suspension of time brought about by Anthony Hopkins' riveting Oscar-winning performance is testament of the film's lasting impact. He's without question filmdom's most famous ? or infamous, depending on your point of view ? villain to don the screen in the last decade. But does he have the moxie to haunt us for another 10 years? Read the review, see it, and decide for yourself.
'Hannibal' (R)
Let's face it: As much as we want it to, there's no way "Hannibal" can compare to the raw intensity of "Silence of the Lambs," the heart-stopping thriller that allowed Anthony Hopkins' chilling Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter to pry into our vulnerable psyches 10 years ago.
But that's not to say this much-anticipated sequel should be "cut out" out of your movie plans. Sure, the prospects of guaranteed success aren't too promising from the get-go: Most glaringly, three quarters of its Oscar-winning team -- Jodie Foster, director Jonathan Demme and screenwriter Ted Tally ? have all left the lineup.
But what remains, of course, is the irreplaceable Hopkins, whose presence alone provided more than enough reason to get the ball rolling again. Hopkins also has the foundation created by author Thomas Harris' follow-up novel to "Silence" (although the critically maligned ending of "Hannibal" is said to be what turned Foster, Demme and Tally away).
Stepping into an unenviable task, director Ridley Scott ("Gladiator") picks up that ball and runs with "Hannibal," and thanks to his crafty technique and a slew of competent players in front of and behind the camera, the chilling tone of "Silence" manages to remain intact. Even with its faults ? and there are plenty of them -- "Hannibal" casts a gut-gnawing spell from the very first scene to its utterly disturbing conclusion (which for those who care to know, is different from the book). If you can stomach it, it's well worth a night out for a dinner and a movie. Well, maybe just a movie.
It's difficult to imagine anybody else in the Foster's role, but Julianne Moore admirably steps in ? slight southern drawl and all -- as Clarice Starling, the FBI agent who formed a bizarre alliance with Lecter in "Silence" to help track down a serial killer. Of course, Lecter himself escaped from the insane asylum at the conclusion of the film, and "Hannibal" finds him 10 years later in Florence, Italy, posing as a library curator.
Starling, meanwhile, remains in the states, fighting the bureaucratic fallout from a botched FBI raid that resulted in five deaths. And while the rattling chain of events clearly wasn't her fault, Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), a sleazy justice department official, exploits the tragedy by coercing Starling to take an assignment that will surely resurrect her demons.
On the surface, the assignment is to catch Lecter and "cleanse the stigma of her dishonor," but underneath, the plan is dangle her as bait to get Lecter to come out of hiding. Behind it all is Mason Verger (an unrecognizable Gary Oldman in an uncredited role), a twisted billionaire who happens to be Lecter's only surviving victim. Horribly scarred and nearly immobile, Verger wants revenge, and he promises Krendler big money to help him get it. But when Lecter is elevated to the ranks FBI Top 10 Most Wanted (why he wasn't there in the first place is questionable), an Italian detective (Giancarlo Giannini) is also enticed by Verger's riches. But since Lecter's ferocious appetite means little to those lawmen across the pond, the detective becomes a natural target.
While the level of intensity is always high, "Hannibal" ultimately lacks the complexity of "Silence" and sadly at times runs like an all-too familiar cat-and-mouse plot. In fact, Hopkins and Moore don't appear onscreen together until 90 minutes into the film. Granted, while it would have been foolish to try to repeat the formula that made "Silence of the Lambs" such a screaming success, to put the two main characters into different countries is too stark contrast to Lecter's glass confines and face-to-face psychological deconstruction of Starling. The claustrophobia associated with "Silence" gave us little room to breathe, which greatly enhanced the tension. Now we're seeing the characters in wide-open spaces.
Falling victim to this lack of depth is Moore, and it's really unfair to compare her turn as Starling with Foster's brilliant performance from the first film. Naturally, it's hard to look at Moore at first without thinking of Foster, but soon enough she blends into the framework of the film. After all, she's an accomplished actress that has proved her worth time and again, and because of that, she takes advantage of every opportunity that the role presents to her. Unfortunately, the opportunities are few and far between. With only a few hints of the vulnerability associated with Foster's characterization of Starling, Moore's subject to scenes stuck in a far-removed dark office lit by computer glare, very much akin to something you'd see in "The X-Files." It's only in the film's final half-hour where she gets to strut her stuff.
Ultimately, though, Moore's involvement amounts to a supporting turn that pales in comparison to Foster's Starling. She's clearly she's playing second fiddle to Hopkins, whether it was intended that way or not. That's because like "Silence" -- where Hopkins amazingly had a mere 30 minutes of screen time ? his ominous presence is felt throughout. Obviously Hopkins is a large part of that reason, but credit Scott and his "Gladiator" team (that includes cinematographer John Mathieson and composer Hans Zimmer) for creating the film's daunting atmosphere to support him.
What's great about the Scott's atmosphere is that it's driven more by the fear of the unknown, rather than a highly visible body count (unlike his "Gladiator" ? but that was warranted to drive the story). Yes, there is blood, but with one nightmarish exception, the death and mutilation scenes are brief and somewhat obstructed, revealing only enough to stir the imagination.
Needless to say, when Scott does decide to bring terror of "Hannibal" to the fore, the results are utterly disturbing. One integral scene features Hopkins, Moore and Ray Liotta, which in a bizarre sort of way plays like a hybrid of the shocking conclusions of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre" and Shakespeare's "Titus Andronicus." Needless to say, the scene is repulsive, but you're still likely to be drawn in by your morbid sense of curiosity. There's irony in that plot development, too, in that Hopkins played the title character just last year in "Titus," director Julie Taymor's screen adaptation of the play (which is followed, oddly enough, by another "Titus" similarity).
While 'Hannibal's' major supporting roles are racked with inconsistencies (Liotta's character is one-dimensional, while Oldman explores a greater range -- even by tossing in some wit reminiscent of Jack Nicholson's Joker), it doesn't really matter since this is clearly Hopkins' movie. He's so engrossing, in fact, that even a simple utterance of the words "okey dokey" sends chills down your spine. For the lack of better words, his portrayal really does have bite. What else would you expect? --Tim Lammers
OK, I admit it. I?m generally a snob when it comes to what I call the "idiot movies." Bodily functions and sexual innuendo jokes just don?t fly for me unless they are part of a well-written and performed film. "Something About Mary?" Yes. "Dumb and Dumber?" Not my cup of tea.
I expected "Saving Silverman" to be in the "Dumb and Dumber" camp, but I was pleasantly surprised with a screwball comedy where nobody is particularly bright, but the situations themselves were original. It?s amazing what a talented veteran cast can do to up the hilarity of an "idiot movie."
When Silverman gets caught in the clutches of the beautiful, yet bitchy Judith (Amanda Peet), his buds feel it is their duty to save him and to reunite him with the love of his life ? who is just about to enter a convent.
Add in a psychotic former football coach and a special appearance by Diamond, himself, and you have just enough wattage to light up the dim-bulb movie concept. "Saving Silverman" just may save the "idiot movie" genre. --Debra Scott
Catch up with Tim Lammers on these recent @ The Movies interviews:
Also New In Theaters
'Saving Silverman' (PG-13)
Only Jason Biggs, in the title role, was flat. But he has the thankless role of being the person that all the insanity revolves around -- so he has an excuse. Silverman and his two best buds from high school (Jack Black and Steve Zahn) are happy campers working their dead-end jobs and singing in a group called "Diamonds in the Rough." You see, they are all gigantic Neil Diamond fans and have the restraining order to prove it!
