"Silence of the Lambs", the film that preceded this film starred Jodie Foster as "Clarice Starling" and Anthony Hopkins as "Dr. Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lecter" in Academy Award winning roles. "Hannibal" stars Julianne Moore as "Clarice Starling" and Anthony Hopkins back from Silence as "Dr. Lecter", the title character. As I write this, there haven't been any awards given to "Hannibal" nor award nominations so any future readers, bear with me.
First off, "Silence" is a good film from many standpoints. Story, acting, direction are all excellent. Unfortunately, "Silence" suffers "age-wise". As time goes by more and more viewers should realize what a negative effect time has had on this film. From the technical facilities, hairstyles, even the character's idealisms become outdated. I suppose we should wait and see what will become of this film 50 years from now. Still, no one can deny the marvelous work done by all involved in this film. The sequel definitely had big footsteps to follow.
"Hannibal" (even though many try to deny) is truly horribly done. The blame really must go to the director. Ridley Scott, who directed "Thelma & Louise" has forgotten what was good about his earlier films. Myself, not being a fan of his, saw some great things in his direction of "Blade Runner" and "Alien". Maybe, he wasn't responsible for those films after all. With "Gladiator", "Hannibal" is a capsule of his 'money-making' best but his 'creative' worst. There are enough plot holes, one-dimensional characters and confusing editing to annoy the most patient viewers of this film.
*POSSIBLE SPOILER*
While "Silence" lets you use your brain, "Hannibal" shows theirs and eats them. Uninvolving and plotless (A 'Psychological Thriller' without a plot?), it eventually become annoying. Showing off does not make for a good show.
First off, "Silence" is a good film from many standpoints. Story, acting, direction are all excellent. Unfortunately, "Silence" suffers "age-wise". As time goes by more and more viewers should realize what a negative effect time has had on this film. From the technical facilities, hairstyles, even the character's idealisms become outdated. I suppose we should wait and see what will become of this film 50 years from now. Still, no one can deny the marvelous work done by all involved in this film. The sequel definitely had big footsteps to follow.
"Hannibal" (even though many try to deny) is truly horribly done. The blame really must go to the director. Ridley Scott, who directed "Thelma & Louise" has forgotten what was good about his earlier films. Myself, not being a fan of his, saw some great things in his direction of "Blade Runner" and "Alien". Maybe, he wasn't responsible for those films after all. With "Gladiator", "Hannibal" is a capsule of his 'money-making' best but his 'creative' worst. There are enough plot holes, one-dimensional characters and confusing editing to annoy the most patient viewers of this film.
*POSSIBLE SPOILER*
While "Silence" lets you use your brain, "Hannibal" shows theirs and eats them. Uninvolving and plotless (A 'Psychological Thriller' without a plot?), it eventually become annoying. Showing off does not make for a good show.