Hannibal Rising (2007)Also known as : "Young Hannibal: Behind the Mask"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
  Sat, Feb 17, 2007 | Change   
      
|
|
(1-35) of 111, sorted by last name z-a
 Hannibal Rising is a bloody good time!
 What's left is a plodding revenge story, memorable only for the way it strips the last vestiges of interest from what was once a fascinating character.
Lecter is all relish, which is fine for a side dish but unsatisfying in a main.
The film naturally has its share of gruesome moments, but it's also surprisingly dull and uninvolving.
This horribly ill-
Errors in logic will delight the attentive.
You know those artsy European coming-Traumatic early-A straightforward revenge drama with added gore.
What this nasty, brutish movie left me feeling was ashamed to be American. First of all: As a folk archetype, a supervillain for our times, this is the best we can come up with? A vaguely Eurotrash schoolboy who eats people's cheeks?
The film's near fatal flaw rests with the recasting of Hannibal as an admirable Nazi hunter capable of compassion, a person who bears little relation to the psychopathic misanthrope who so easily sent shivers running up and down an audience's spine.
The guy's about as intimidating as a mildly irritated kitten, and that certainly doesn't up the creep factor.
I always knew I was going to see another Hannibal Lecter movie, but did it have to be the Muppet Baby version of Hannibal Lecter?
While it's fascinating to watch the killer evolve, the fact that he's always onscreen detracts from his mystique. Hannibal derives much of his intrigue from his mystery.
Seeing the character's protean quirks reminds one of Dr. Evil's speech about luge lessons; it's that ridiculous.
This is watchable enough as a grisly revenge thriller but it would have worked better without the Lecter connection.
I'd like to think the Lecter who schooled Clarice Starling on the psychotic intricacies of Buffalo Bill would by bored by the obviousness of it all.
Hard to stomach...this handsomely appointed but turgid, dramatically inert movie simply bites off more than it can successfully chew.
For all of the story's lack of suspense and terror, it is Gaspard Ulliel who makes the movie dramatic. His is an audacious performance that bewitches the viewer into relishing something that we should not. But there is nothing to be frightened of here.
8%
  
Average Rating: 3.8/10
The great thing about monsters is that they glide noiselessly from nightmare straight into myth, fully formed and eternally mysterious. To know what made them is to explain them. And once you explain anything, you begin to lose your fear of it.
Harris, who adapted the screenplay, and director Peter Webber are faithful to his book. Strong production values, a lush score and scenic locations work seal the deal.
Lecter is presented as a soul-Prequel alternates between being awfully silly and awfully boring before settling on just plain awful.
What Hannibal Rising is, mostly, is a hoot. Gong Li cautions the nightmare-Tilting his elegantly aquiline features downward while hoisting one eyebrow over a dark orb, curling his lips with Grinchian deliberation, he seems to be determined to kill people on the strength of his cologne alone.
The movie succeeds on some level, but the series has definitely begun to eat its own with Hannibal Rising.
Formerly masterful novelist Thomas Harris continues to pimp out the serial-I can't name an actor who could have made young Lecter as interesting as the older one, but Ulliel does not come close.
(1-35) of 111, sorted by last name z-a
 Latest Posts on the Hannibal Rising Movie Forum
  Who are the Approved Tomatometer Critics? Critics, want your pic to appear next to your name? Send us a headshot! It should be at least 300x400 pixels and includes your entire head. Certain Hannibal Rising article data provided by the Movie Review Query Engine.
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
