Hannibal Rising
Movie Review
"Hannibal Rising"
Review by Eric D. Snider
Grade: C
Rating: R
Released: Friday, February 9, 2007
Directed by:
Cast:
It may have classier roots, but "Hannibal Rising" suffers from the same problem that doomed "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginning." Both prequels purport to show the ghastly psychological underpinnings of their respective killers -- Hannibal Lecter here, Leatherface in the "Chainsaw" films -- yet both are hamstrung by the fact that monsters like that are born, not made. Traumatic early-life experiences can only go so far, can only prove so much. Lots of people have horrible childhoods and still manage not to become flesh-eating serial killers.
There have been a few films that have accurately and effectively conveyed a character's psychological transformation from good to evil, but "Hannibal Rising" is not one of them. Film is a visual medium, and it's hard to demonstrate through outward action what is happening to someone inwardly. It's even harder to show WHY it's happening.
The reason Hannibal Lecter became the slithering psychopath of "Silence of the Lambs" and its companion stories is, of course, that novelist Thomas Harris willed him to do so. That is, Lecter was already fully grown and killing people when we first met him, in Harris' 1981 novel "Red Dragon." We have no reason to suspect that Harris had a backstory in mind at the time. Surely the subsequent explorations into Hannibal's past have been afterthoughts.
"Hannibal Rising" smells of afterthought, among other things. Based once again on a Harris novel (and for the first time screenwritten by him, too), the film obviously was not made because Harris had a fantastic idea for a Hannibal Lecter origin story. It was made because someone backed a dumptruck full of money up to Harris' house and said, "If we pour this money into your living room, do you think you can come up with something?" And Harris said, "Yes. Yes I can."
What he came up with is that Lecter Castle in Lithuania was evacuated in 1944 as Russia-vs-Germany warfare tore the region apart, and li'l Hannibal (played at age 10-ish by Aaron Thomas) and his sister Mischa (Helena Lia Tachovska) were left to fend for themselves after their parents were killed. They're stuck in an isolated cabin through the dead of winter, menaced by Russian mercenary soldiers who eventually commit an act that is unspeakable -- almost literally so, as the movie knows that if anyone ever says it out loud, it will sound ludicrous and funny. (Someone finally does say it, much later, and sure enough: funny. That's the nature of cannibalism, I suppose -- creepy to think about, funny to talk about.)
Hannibal goes to an orphanage -- conveniently located in what used to be his family's castle, certain key heirlooms still intact!! -- and grows up to become a handsome, snake-faced medical student played by Gaspard Ulliel. He lives with his hot, widowed, Japanese aunt, Lady Shikibu (Gong Li), and defends her honor by butchering a butcher who insulted her. The provenance of his people-eating predilection is obvious enough, but that's only a start. Why is he smarter and more perceptive than everyone around him? How does he understand human nature so thoroughly? He must have been born with that kind of genius. So, tell me again: Why are we watching a movie that's supposed to explain Hannibal Lecter if the only real explanation is that, well, he's just always been like that?
It's a case of bait-and-switch. It lures us in with a promise to uncover all of Hannibal's psychological secrets, and then all it actually does is show him killing people -- same as the other movies, only now he's younger.
As far as movies about psycho killers go, and laying aside the expectations created by the film's better predecessors, "Hannibal Rising" isn't particularly bad. Peter Webber ("Girl with a Pearl Earring") directs it as a gray, somber story, occasionally tense and not without its interesting passages. And while Ulliel is no Anthony Hopkins -- well, who is? Ulliel is malevolent and articulate enough as Hannibal.
But the film can't escape the weakness of Harris' melodramatic screenplay. The point keeps being made that many people lost everything during the war -- Hannibal, Lady Shikibu, even the French inspector Popil (Dominic West), a character the film includes with such halfheartedness that you wonder why they even bothered. So how come Hannibal's the only one who got screwed up by it? Wasn't the movie supposed to be explaining that?
Instead, the movie is busy doing stupid things like having Hannibal find an Eastern ceremonial mask that bears a striking resemblance to the famous one he'll wear years later. He puts it on, and it's supposed to feel like Batman putting on his cowl for the first time. But it doesn't make any sense: When Hannibal wears that mask in "Silence of the Lambs," it's not an affectation; it's a precaution set in place by the federal authorities to prevent him from EATING ANYONE WHILE BEING TRANSPORTED. If he's getting his jollies from wearing it now, as a young man, are we to assume he likes it as an old man, too? Does he find the straitjacket comfortable as well? Good thing he chose a profession -- incarcerated serial killer -- that allows him to wear the costume he'd have chosen anyway!
To enjoy the film, you'll need to disregard its Oscar-winning precursors, and especially forget the true psychological tension that "Manhunter" and "Silence" had. It's gory, gruesome kill-for-thrills stuff, not unlike certain chainsaw-based shockers I could name. Hannibal might just as well be another garden-variety psycho, and maybe that's enough to titillate some viewers.
Grade: C
Rated R, some harsh profanity, a lot of violence, blood, and gore
1 hr., 57 min.
Copyright © Eric D. Snider.
This work may not be transmitted via the Internet, nor reproduced in any other way, without written consent from Eric D. Snider.
This item has 10 comments
February 15, 2007 at 10:52 pm
Dude, my grandparents were run out of Lithuania by the Russians, too, but they didn't eat anybody. I'm like, offended and stuff. Why is it that my motherland is only mentioned when there is weirdness afoot?
February 20, 2007 at 6:26 pm
dude, he was fed his own sister.
February 28, 2007 at 6:23 pm
GUSY WHAT THE HELL!
Have you even watched the film? ITS Lithuanian looters who killes and eats hes sister.
HE IS RESCUED by Russian soldiers. The Russians soldiers are not looting or eating children.
You get this all mest up! There comes a Russian tank to fill out water, its destroyed by the german plane "stuka" the plane crashes and hes parents die.
They are both left in the wooden house. The lithuanians come and start looting and eating hes sister.
HE IS LATER RESCUED. YES RESCUED BY RUSSIAN SOLDIERS.
LEARN HISTORY or THINK! Heard a Russian name like Grutas?, Milko?, Grantz?!
WAKE UP!
I am outraged by this unhistoric mistake!
May 24, 2007 at 2:34 pm
the entire movie sux
June 1, 2007 at 1:32 am
Hey Jess, you're "like, offended and stuff", eh? That's unfortunate. You're also inarticulate and probably boarder line retarded, so I wouldn't get too indignant about your family lineage. Lecter is a psychopath for a reason. This isn't what made him crazy, he was crazy. It has nothing to do with Lithuania. Litas for everyone.
"..." you are observant and I like you.
Peter. Oh Peter. I appreciate your effort here, but I'm going to have to say no. I think you were a little "mest up" when you wrote that garbage. Learn to spell and I'll take your critique seriously. Nazi abandoners hid in the cabin, keeping the children alive only so that if they were found, they could maybe try to explain why they were there, and why their commander had been shot. Unhistoric, is not a word. If there was an anachronism (your word for the day Peter, www.dictionary.com...don't worry, you can copy and paste it) then you're missing the point of the story.
This is how Thomas Harris created this character beloved as the maniacle phantom of American suburban well being. He wrote the book, he wrote the screenplay, he created Lecter. Stop comparing 'this Lecter' to 'that Lecter' because they are both Harris' Lecter. Appreciate the movie for what it is. Well thought out, well studied, exceptionally well acted (I give Gaspard Ulliel more credit than any of you) and an eerie story.
June 17, 2007 at 4:00 pm
Sucked, real bad. They completely ruined the whole series with this stupid, unscrupulously put together abomination. Everything that made Hannibal Lecter Hannibal Lecter has been successfully slaughtered and disintegrated into little tiny bits of vigilante dust. I'm personally going to pretend that I never saw this movie.
June 28, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Huh. I'm thinking it says a lot for people to be announcing that they know Harris' own characters better than he does. (Although I nearly said the same thing when Lecter ran off with Clarisse in Part II. On the other hand, at least Jodie Fioster knew better than to tell Harris he wrote her character incorrectly when she politely declined to take on the role a second time,)
Disclaimer: I read the book and am trying to decide whether or ot to watch the movie.
July 5, 2007 at 1:56 am
Oh, prequel movies…where to start with them? I agree the movie wasn’t the greatest, but then again, is any prequel good? The problem is that people want to see more of these characters, but there’s often no more story to play out. What to do? Tell the back story! But it never really works right because the important part of Hannibal’s story is The Silence of the Lambs. If how he got to that part was important, it would have been in the original story. The same goes with Star Wars – if seeing how Darth Vader got to his position was the important part of the story, we would have seen it years ago. Nice try with that whole “it’s episode four†bit, George, but I’ve never bought it (the first Star Wars originally was not a numbered episode). Anyway, I guess my whole point here is that prequel movies are generally bad because they were written after the original story and often have to include or expand on things in such a way so that they just don’t quite fit with the first film.
July 23, 2007 at 2:46 pm
Well, the actor was nice to look at when he wasn't covered in blood. Unfortunately, he spent a lot of time covered in blood. I have to agree with how lame it is of them to go, "Wanna know how I came to be like this?" *Audience slaps down cash.* "Well, I was always like this! The end! I'll kill some peeps now!" And yes, I know he was starving and ate his own sister. But...isn't that the kind of thing that puts a person /off/ eating human flesh, even more so than a normal person? It's not like the stuff tastes that good. Oh, and Chainsaw said: "...but then again, is any prequel good?" I dunno, "The Lion King 1 and 1/2" was pretty good. :P
August 8, 2007 at 12:23 am
What I really don’t like in this movie is that it presents a nonsense explanation of how someone good turns to evil. It promises a clear cut explanation of the evolution of evil. The demonic cannibal serial killer at first, Hannibal is still a righteous avenging fury - pursuing justice, in the end. Putting this to our own story, it’s no wonder why some people turn out to be evil when once in their life they were good. It’s unfortunate how some life circumstances can push someone beyond his/her limits.