epbomb
Joined Oct 2019
Welcome to the new profile
Our updates are still in development. While the previous version of the profile is no longer accessible, we're actively working on improvements, and some of the missing features will be returning soon! Stay tuned for their return. In the meantime, the Ratings Analysis is still available on our iOS and Android apps, found on the profile page. To view your Rating Distribution(s) by Year and Genre, please refer to our new Help guide.
Badges2
To learn how to earn badges, go to the badges help page.
Reviews13
epbomb's rating
When "Hannibal" was first announced, I was excited with the potential that might exist in a television series with the expectation the series would embrace Hannibal Lecter as developed in Thomas Harris' novels. Having read and reread the novels over the last twenty years, there seemed to be so much to work with.
"Hannibal" the television series fell short of my expectations when it originally aired; almost a decade later I've revisited the series and feel the same.
Hannibal Lecter is at best a supporting character - the series would have been better titled "Will Graham, Special Investigator." The episodes drudge through gory slasher procedural investigation, somewhat analogous to Dexter Morgan of the series "Dexter."
Thomas Harris' character development is completely absent in the scriptwriting. The script, overall, as are the repetitive slasher stories, is written to the lowest common denominator. The writing lacks the sophistication and educated substance as originally written by Thomas Harris, consequently characters who are supposed to be well-educated and immensely intelligent seem shallow and have the vocabulary of recent high school graduates.
The casting, excluding perhaps Laurence Fishburne, is poor and fails to overcome the the atrocious scriptwriting. Mads Mikkelsen's casting as Hannibal Lecter is an abomination! Mikkelsen fails in every regard as being the suave, gentleman psychotic who easily wins the favor of those around him, nor is he articulate and well spoken. His voice is gritty and too often sounds mumbled. He plays the character analogous to Anthony Perkins' portrayal of Norman Bates in the Alfred Hitchcock classic "Psycho," noticeably off-putting and uncomfortable, not enough so to to readily see his psychosis but enough for Lecter to feel creepy. Unfortunately creepy from Mikkelsen can be likened more to the sort of chap you'd feel likely to lure a child into a panel-van than intellectually provoking.
Hugh Dancy's portrayal of Will Graham is no better; Graham is a flat, one and a half dimensional character. While he is the focus of the series, he is never likable or a sympathetic character, just a character of necessity with a "special ability" to see into perpetrators' minds. Will Graham comes across as coincidentally average with a little bit of insight; Without Thomas Harris' character development, in this series Will Graham could have been replaced by any special investigator from from any other procedural drama of the last thirty years and no viewer would notice the difference.
As the series continues the plots weaken, plot holes become glaringly evident, and muddles into being just an everyday procedural drama that fills space on weeknight primetime television. If you have read Thomas Harris' original novels you will be disappointed and likely be better entertained by rereading the last hundred pages of the "Hannibal" novel.
"Hannibal" the television series fell short of my expectations when it originally aired; almost a decade later I've revisited the series and feel the same.
Hannibal Lecter is at best a supporting character - the series would have been better titled "Will Graham, Special Investigator." The episodes drudge through gory slasher procedural investigation, somewhat analogous to Dexter Morgan of the series "Dexter."
Thomas Harris' character development is completely absent in the scriptwriting. The script, overall, as are the repetitive slasher stories, is written to the lowest common denominator. The writing lacks the sophistication and educated substance as originally written by Thomas Harris, consequently characters who are supposed to be well-educated and immensely intelligent seem shallow and have the vocabulary of recent high school graduates.
The casting, excluding perhaps Laurence Fishburne, is poor and fails to overcome the the atrocious scriptwriting. Mads Mikkelsen's casting as Hannibal Lecter is an abomination! Mikkelsen fails in every regard as being the suave, gentleman psychotic who easily wins the favor of those around him, nor is he articulate and well spoken. His voice is gritty and too often sounds mumbled. He plays the character analogous to Anthony Perkins' portrayal of Norman Bates in the Alfred Hitchcock classic "Psycho," noticeably off-putting and uncomfortable, not enough so to to readily see his psychosis but enough for Lecter to feel creepy. Unfortunately creepy from Mikkelsen can be likened more to the sort of chap you'd feel likely to lure a child into a panel-van than intellectually provoking.
Hugh Dancy's portrayal of Will Graham is no better; Graham is a flat, one and a half dimensional character. While he is the focus of the series, he is never likable or a sympathetic character, just a character of necessity with a "special ability" to see into perpetrators' minds. Will Graham comes across as coincidentally average with a little bit of insight; Without Thomas Harris' character development, in this series Will Graham could have been replaced by any special investigator from from any other procedural drama of the last thirty years and no viewer would notice the difference.
As the series continues the plots weaken, plot holes become glaringly evident, and muddles into being just an everyday procedural drama that fills space on weeknight primetime television. If you have read Thomas Harris' original novels you will be disappointed and likely be better entertained by rereading the last hundred pages of the "Hannibal" novel.
Nature Boy it's a surprisingly sound documentary piece about one of professional wrestling most recognizable Stars. The piece touches on aspects of Ric Flair's life as a child and young man I never knew and certainly help shape the course of his life. You don't have to be a professional wrestling fan to enjoy this documentary, while although Ric Flair's career was a professional wrestler of over 50 years make something much of the documentary, his personal life, personal battles, and personal losses are highlighted and shape Ric Flair as a person outside of his professional wrestling character.
At the end of the documentary Ric Flair is both humanized and comes across as an almost pitiable older man who is filled with regrets in his personal life and struggles with remorse for his losses.
Unlike documentaries on some of his contemporaries like Vince McMahon's recent documentary, this documentary is unabashedly gritty and does not strive to whitewash character flaws, struggles with addiction, and regrets for not being a good enough family man while also confronting the issues that arose from Ric Flair's addictions, promiscuity, and inattention to his home and family.
Nonetheless the documentary focuses largely on his professional wrestling career in the 1980s and early 1990s and room for a deeper understanding of who Ric Flair is or was outside of the professional wrestling business during the peak of his career and in his retirement seems a little too much left to the wayside.
At the end of the documentary Ric Flair is both humanized and comes across as an almost pitiable older man who is filled with regrets in his personal life and struggles with remorse for his losses.
Unlike documentaries on some of his contemporaries like Vince McMahon's recent documentary, this documentary is unabashedly gritty and does not strive to whitewash character flaws, struggles with addiction, and regrets for not being a good enough family man while also confronting the issues that arose from Ric Flair's addictions, promiscuity, and inattention to his home and family.
Nonetheless the documentary focuses largely on his professional wrestling career in the 1980s and early 1990s and room for a deeper understanding of who Ric Flair is or was outside of the professional wrestling business during the peak of his career and in his retirement seems a little too much left to the wayside.