I know Hannibal (the book and film) are very divisive, but I'm personally a huge fan and I even prefer it to The Silence of the Lambs. To each their own, but I have a hard time seeing how anyone could possibly think that the movie did better with the fugitive storyline than the show.
I do feel the same - I'd pick
Hannibal (2001) over
Silence of the Lambs; though a recent viewing of the latter renewed my appreciation of the film.
Silence of the Lambs is a strong film, with excellent pacing, acting and music. The close-ups of Lecter's and Starling's faces when they speak to one another are a brilliant detail.
For me,
Hannibal is the more pleasant viewing experience. Scott has delivered on exquisite cinematography and directing, Zimmer's score is one of my favorites ("To Every Captive Soul" especially), and it has a bit more humor. The cast is stellar - especially Moore, who can't escape being compared to Foster, but she holds up incredibly well.
I recall people were shocked when they saw the "brain scene" - while I'm not big on horror, it didn't bother me in the slightest. Perhaps because I knew what was coming (I'd read the book before seeing the film), and because the film is a watered-down version of Harris' work. (With good reason.)
The TV-show simply doesn't hold back. Whereas the film is very stylish, keeping things in the dark or out of focus, the show gives us everything in bloody detail. It works so well because it's nothing like the novels; while it is based on the characters and situations from the books, everything has been twisted to avoid being a rehash of the (four) films that came before.
To me, that's what makes it work. It's familiar, yet fresh and truly daring. Not holding back on anything sets it apart from anything that came before.
(I haven't seen the third season yet, I've ordered the DVD box. With a little luck it's here next week and I can finish my journey with Hannibal, Will and all the other characters.)
reply
share