Hannibal Rising

Designed as a prequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (and MANHUNTER before it), this is a film that aims to show how Hannibal Lecter ended up as the human cannibal that we all know and fear. Many people criticised this film, arguing that familiarity breeds contempt and the more we learn about a killer's background and origin, the less frightening he becomes. They have a point, but they're also missing something: HANNIBAL RISING is a very well made and entertaining movie in its own right. My advice is to forget all about the connections with the later films and just enjoy this film on its own merits.

It's a distinctly European film with a European sensibility and a young, French, unknown lead actor. It has a level of classiness that's not present in many an American film; a sheen of quality that sets it apart from the rest. The opening sequence, set in the latter days of World War 2 and detailing horrific events in Lithuania, is very well handled, full of foreboding, great effects, and sinister actions. It ably sets up the rest of the film, which turns out to be a revenge flick with the added intrigue of having the main character becoming more and more sick and twisted as the movie progresses.

One thing that stands out is the quality of the cast. The unknown Gaspard Ulliel is weird and brilliant as the young killer, and you quite believe he's a sociopath. There's a romantic sub-plot that goes nowhere involving the lovely Gong Li (CURSE OF THE GOLDEN FLOWER) but it does serve to humanise the monster a bit. The ever-reliable Dominic West is also very good as the policeman investigating Hannibal's crimes, although his role is completely extraneous to the thrust of the film. The bad guys, too, are very well cast and all of them thoroughly despicable chaps: Kevin McKidd, Richard Brake, and in particular a cast-against-type Rhys Ifans all make an impact here.

The violence that plays out is entertaining because the villains all deserve it: from the butcher slashed apart with a samurai sword to the guy strangled and eaten, these men are repulsive and their deaths well earned. Another highlight is that the film doesn't focus on the gore, either, not in a repulsive way like HANNIBAL; there's nothing stomach churning here. The cannibalism ends up as a sub-plot, really, not involved with the main film, but that didn't bother me too much. I enjoyed the pacing, the acting and the direction, and found all three of those elements assured and designed to entertain.

I went to a free screening of this movie tonight, Thursday December 12, 2006 at the mall cause they gave out free passes at my work across the street.

I wont give really much away...but the movie itself was great. Great locations, great acting--especially by Gaspard Ulliel as Hannibal. I swear his acting was so good that it was scary and near perfect as the demented Hannibal Lechter.

The story about how he came to be was great also starting with his youth during WW2 in 1944. And 8 years later, the main plot line unfolds showing him becoming a medical school student in France where he begins to learn of the many body parts that make a human work.

All in All this movie is a delectable revenge type movie with scary, dark bad guys and many gruesome deaths.

*two thumbs up*

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.

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.