dl_lipken
Joined Sep 2001
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.
Reviews2
dl_lipken's rating
The actors chosen to play the characters were adequate at best. The premise of the story was changed, making much less sense. The only thing that remained the same was the fact that there was an author and a clone of him. After that the story deteriorates.
I don't know why a Dean Koontz book cannot be made into a movie without making ridiculous changes to the story line. The changes that were made took away the motivation from the characters, so there is no understanding why they do what they do. Drew Oslett actually has a significant reason in the book for pursuing the clone, but that is completely lost in the movie. Clocker's role was pretty insignificant in the movie, but was essential in the book. This movie was not worth the two nights of viewing. If you want a good story, read the book.
I don't know why a Dean Koontz book cannot be made into a movie without making ridiculous changes to the story line. The changes that were made took away the motivation from the characters, so there is no understanding why they do what they do. Drew Oslett actually has a significant reason in the book for pursuing the clone, but that is completely lost in the movie. Clocker's role was pretty insignificant in the movie, but was essential in the book. This movie was not worth the two nights of viewing. If you want a good story, read the book.
It is a shame that a director takes liberties with an author's work because he does not like parts of the story. If you listen to Ridley Scott's commentary of the Hannibal (on the DVD version) he explains why he changed the end of the story. He did not like Thomas Harris' ending, so he changed it. If he did not like the story that Thomas Harris had written, then someone else should have directed it.
Scott not only changed the ending, but completely ignored Hannibal's motivation, the history of his sister Misha, and Mason's sister Margo. Barney's character was limited so much, that his role became useless to the movie.
The high points were Anthony Hopkins' performance (a phenomenal actor) and that of Giancarlo Giannini (Rinaldo Pazzi). Julianne Moore was adequate, but no Jodie Foster.
Scott not only changed the ending, but completely ignored Hannibal's motivation, the history of his sister Misha, and Mason's sister Margo. Barney's character was limited so much, that his role became useless to the movie.
The high points were Anthony Hopkins' performance (a phenomenal actor) and that of Giancarlo Giannini (Rinaldo Pazzi). Julianne Moore was adequate, but no Jodie Foster.