Thats about as close as Hannibal ever gets to subtlety, or the sublime. Though its Florence locations are remarkable, this is not a piece of Renaissance art. Mostly, this is a beautifully-photographed, very expensive gross-out movie, one that substitutes the grotesque for the chilling at every turn.
As most people by now know, Hannibal also features some of the most stomach-turning dining scenes ever captured on film. If the Mad Cow scare doesnt turn you into an instant vegetarian, the last half hour of Hannibal surely will.
The story picks up 10 years after FBI Special Agent Clarice Starling (played by Oscar winner Jodie Foster in the original, now played by Julianne Moore) has parted ways with cannibal gourmand Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins). After botching a drug raid, Starling is given one chance to save her FBI career: follow up the trail of Lecter, who is also being sought by one Mason Verger (Gary Oldman), a wheelchair-bound freak who was once persuaded by Lecter, under hypnosis, to cut his own face off and feed it to his dogs. (If this doesnt kill your appetite, the man-eating Sardinian pigs probably will, and if not that then, well, theres always dinner in the last half hour.) As played by Moore, Clarice Starling is no longer wide-eyed and vulnerable, the very qualities that made her earlier dance with Lecter fascinating. Instead, Moore plays her as tough, very handy with a gun, and sporting a twangier Southern accent than before. Unfortunately, she never comes off as vulnerable throughout Hannibal: she seems like someone who can take care of herself.
Lecter, on the other hand, remains an enigma: Hopkins brings an even more laid-back, twisted charm to his role as the psychiatrist who just happens to enjoy eating people. If anything, the freedom to pace around Florence, exacting his revenge at will, makes Lecter a more interesting character to watch. Hopkins seems to relish the role once again, albeit seasoned with a bit more ham this time.
But despite a script-doctored ending (by David Mamet and Schindlers List screenwriter Steve Zaillian), director Ridley Scott cannot escape the books fatal flaws. The first half builds up nicely, as Lecter slowly unveils a revenge scheme among the beautiful piazzas of Florence. Scotts cinematography in Italy, Sardinia and the lush green fields of North Carolina is quite stunning: but again, its just artistic wrapping for a rather basic grand guignol concept. (The Grand Guignol of Montmartre, Paris, was a 19th-century theater that specialized in blood-filled dramas and bouts of gore.) Hannibals story drips with excess, but its just sound and fury signifying nothing.
Gone is the sense of dread, terror and fear found in Jonathan Demmes Oscar-winning Silence of the Lambs. Instead, Scott serves up the macabre in large doses. He fills the cast with grotesques (like the swinish Sardinian pig farmers, Ray Liottas Paul Krendler and Oldmans gruesome Verger) in hopes that the audience wont object too much when these people are brutally dispatched. Of course, who wouldnt prefer the company of the much more urbane Lecter, who, despite being a vicious psychopath," cant stand rudeness"?
On a side note, I find it interesting that many British actors are making a career out of playing American grostesques. Oldmans facially-challenged Verger (along with his role as the creepy conservative senator in The Contender) reminds that he is best when burying himself in character. He transcends mere caricature of evil, throwing in the occasional "Wow!" or clucking his tongue nastily. Hopkins also plays an American psycho (as did Englishman Christian Bale in the film of the same name), and I cant help feeling its the Brits getting back at Hollywood for all the villainous Limey characters of late.
I admit, part of me enjoyed Hannibal the part that likes a good revenge scenario. And revenge, we know, is best served cold. But why does it feel as though Ridley Scott was trying to salvage a mediocre sequel by resorting to a bloodbath ending, to at least get people talking? That seems cold, indeed.