Netflix Review - Hannibal Rising (2007)

Shoes Not Filled

It should come as no shock that Hollywood couldn’t leave well enough alone. They just HAD to try to turn a profit on the Hannibal Lecter name, didn’t they? This was about as surprising as a Lindsay Lohan coke binge – and about as annoying.

Hannibal Rising

Suggested Netflix Queue Position: 277, right behind the remake of Psycho

It’s already been 16 years since Silence of the Lambs burst onto the scene, sweeping all 5 major Academy Awards (one of only 3 films to do so) and permanently etching Hannibal Lecter into the pantheon of cinematic villainy.

In fact, Anthony Hopkins’ turn as the chilling psychiatrist has been so enduring that his career has never really been the same. I don’t say that lightly. This is one great actor. Consider that Hopkins has been nominated three times for Oscars since Silence and still has failed to live up to the standard he created. Simply put, Hopkins’ turn as Lecter is one of the best single acting performances of all time. Hell, even his own reprisals of the role (in Hannibal and Red Dragon) have failed to live up to the original.

So it should come as no shock that Hollywood couldn’t leave well enough alone. They just HAD to try to turn a profit on the Hannibal Lecter name, didn’t they? This was about as surprising as a Lindsay Lohan coke binge – and about as annoying.

And so it is against this backdrop of studio greed that I reluctantly agreed to watch and review Hannibal Rising. How did I get up the courage? I just told myself that John Travolta wasn’t in it. It’s all about perspective.

I started this review with the Hopkins perspective so I could illustrate just what an impossible task lay before Gaspard Ulliel, the actor chosen to portray Lecter in his youth. And Ulliel, a French actor in his first American film role, is in way over his head. So is director Peter Webber, whose only significant credit is that he directed Girl With a Pearl Earring.

I’m not sure who to blame for the fact that Ulliel’s Lecter is completely inconsistent with the later model. Look, I wasn’t expecting Ulliel to be as good as Hopkins; I was ready to cut the kid a break. But it’s clear that he was just aching to be psychotic, to the point where I think he overstepped where Lecter would have been at that age.

Ulliel’s Lecter is a bitter, sullen bully who can’t get along with other kids. The fact that he constantly wears a psychotic grin on his face seems overcompensation. Later versions of Lecter (don’t forget that Brian Cox played him in Manhunter) betray hardly any emotion on their faces. And wasn’t that the scary part? Lecter could be cordial and charming, but underneath was a man who wanted to eat you.

Enough discussion of Ulliel’s portrayal – no need to bludgeon the kid.

The movie’s plot isn’t going to baffle any Rhodes scholars. It’s a good old fashioned tale of revenge. But it doesn’t have to be brilliant or complex if character rings true. It doesn’t; I simply don’t see a lot of connection between Hannibal Lecter (as we knew him) and this film.

It seems as if the life portrayed here is lived by some other serial killer. Lecter grows up in a castle in Lithuania, learns to use a Samurai sword – no, that is not a typo – nearly bangs it out with his Asian aunt, all the while exacting revenge on some war criminals who did his family wrong. If this is the history of Hannibal Lecter, perhaps the producers would have been better off casting Dennis Hopper.

The point is, throughout the film, one just can’t reconcile this crazed teenager with the cool psychiatrist in Baltimore.

To be fair to the movie, it seems to have been pretty true to the book. I thought the Samurai Training School was a Hollywood plot device – and who could blame me? Hollywood has done much worse. But it turns out that non sequitur is straight from Thomas Harris’ novel of the same name. Not so coincidentally, Harris wrote the “screenplay.” What a shame. Silence of the Lambs was not only a terrific film but an incredible book. Red Dragon was also a fine novel. But who can resist the temptation to write a bland, senseless exploitation of a fine character when piles of money are thrown at you by the studios? Clearly not Thomas Harris.

No matter. This latest profiteering effort isn’t worth your time. Move on to the next exploitation of a brand name, like I, Robot 2.