Hannibal Lecter: Les origines du mal

Truly disturbing and succeeds in making you understand why Hannibal Lecter turned out to be the person he became. Not justified, but understandable. Don't leave this out when revisiting the other movies.

Hannibal Rising is a dark and thrilling grand guignol excursion into the formative (but still plenty brutal) years of the infamous Hannibal Lecter. Considering the amount of psychological material the film would appear to have to get through, I think it definitely errs on the side of briskness. In a broad sense, many important sequences are played out and edited very quickly, and this saps them of some of their resonance, but the mood does gradually coalesce into something followers of the prior films and novels will recognise, and will be rewarded in revisiting.

The teen-adult Hannibal as played by Gaspard Ulliel is pale and handsome, and his red slash of a mouth is always very much in evidence, signalling violence and malice, and reminding us of the flesh that we know will come to pass through it. After surviving some murky carnage on the Eastern Front during World War II, he eventually seeks out remaining family in the form of his widowed aunt in France (Gong Li). He begins to open to a more regular life under her curious guidance, but the post-war environment is conducive to grudges and violence, and these are the sparks that are quickest to ignite in Lecter. Direction in this all-too-brief part of the film is some of its best, as it visually and thematically stitches together Hannibal's fascinations so that we can feel them wrap around each other - blood, violence, his own incestual leanings towards his aunt, and his childhood bond with his late sister, Mischa.

After the first murder, though, (which definitely doesn't disappoint) it's a straighter ride through many more on the path of vengeance. It all makes for a fine thriller, but development in Lecter's character beyond this point is harder to read, and Ulliel's performance offers much relish but not-so-much variation. Of the other films in the series, this one has the most in common, stylistically and in subject matter, with Hannibal. As my friend also suggested when we left the cinema, I still feel there could easily be another film out there to deal with Hannibal practising as a psychiatrist and murdering folks on the side, pre-Silence Of The Lambs. This one offers the concrete details of his origins within a thrilling story, but somehow doesn't feel as deep or profound as I'd hoped it would - and I wish it would just relax and offer some longer scenes and more ambiguous moments at times. Nevertheless, Hannibal Rising is a strong film.

I avoided this movie for years. After seeing "Hannibal" I had no interest in seeing how he became the monster he was. Alas, an Amazon Prime membership and down time at work drove me to "Hannibal Rising." I learned that I have a far greater affinity for young Hannibal than old Hannibal. Young Hannibal grew up in WW2 Europe. He went from affluence to fighting for his life due to the war. One particularly tragic event forever changed him.

The actor chosen for Hannibal (Gaspard Ulliel) was excellent. He even had a sinister looking face the way the corners of his mouth curve upward in a Joker-esque manner made him able to sneer with ease. His acting left a little to be desired as his accent (or simply his manner of speaking) seemed forced. Also there was the dialog between him and Lady Murasaki (Li Gong). They constantly spoke in hushed romantic tones as if every word they exchanged was secretive or passionate. It came off as pretentious and grandiose as though they were the two most important or two most passionate people in the world.

If we were to boil it all down, "Hannibal Rising" was a revenge story. Some people are fueled by love, some by hate, others by both. Hannibal was definitely fueled by both and it was his inability or unwillingness to not cross the line that made him Hannibal the cannibal.

Strange opus with a rather complex feedback: I really like certain aspects of the film while others bother me. First of all, I think it's a critical mistake to explain the origins of an imaginary evil character. Indeed, it's always better to confine a reader or a spectator to the darkness so that he's always able to imagine the worst. Moreover, in doing so, we find ourselves in a rather embarrassing situation of being in empathy with Hannibal Lecter: failing to be forgivable, a revenge is always understandable. Despite this rather negative introduction, the actors are excellent including the enigmatic Gaspard Ulliel and the gorgeous Gong Li, and the film enjoys a particularly neat photography.

I've heard a lot of reviews saying this was a bad movie. I disagree! I don't know if any of these people have read any of the books, let alone Hannibal Rising, but I loved the movie. Given, it seemed like Thomas Harris wrote the book strictly for the movie, but I felt this movie was made to have people understand how Lecter, "the monster" was created.

Yes, Lecter is irrational and that's the point. Hannibal Lecter is suppose to be distant because he's a psychopath. He's suppose to be apathetic. Some people mistook that for bad acting.

Comparing the movie to the book...they were about 85% compatible. Minor changes were made, but nothing too critical.

I think some people are quick to make this movie out to be horrible because they really are milking the Hannibal Lecter story, but I felt it to be a decent movie.