This job doesn't get any easier, does it?
In the same way that kids shows often end up being butchered on the big screen, classic novels often become victims of Hollywood's executive changes. Granted, this is more of the case of translation between two massively different mediums; with a book, it's only as long as the reader allows it to be. They could easily read something like Victor Hugo's "Hunchback of Notre Dame" within the span of a few days, but have trouble getting through Mary Shelley's "Frankenstein" in less that a week. With TV, there is a specific and consistent time-frame for each episode, be it 25 minutes or a full hour.
But no matter the medium, both TV and books has not had the best track record in terms of feature length adaptations. Again, differences in the mediums may have something to do with it, as an average novel lasts for roughly 450-500 pages. However, it is often the interpretation that one gets from the novel that determines whether or not the representation of the novels themes, characters and story is both accurate and satisfying to the average movie-goer.
To once again draw the "Frankenstein" parallel, this book has had dozens of adaptations over the years, be it with Boris Karloff as the monster or directed by Kenneth Branagh... or having him be a gargoyle killer in modern times. Needless to say, each version tries to bring something different to the idea while still retaining the heart of the original. The Karloff version, for instance, is not 100% accurate to the book and is missing several scenes of the Dr's childhood. And yet, it still carries the theme of "who's the real monster" while showcasing the Dr's willingness to amend for his sins by finding the monster himself. The Branagh version, on the other hand, remains much more faithful to the book and still carries these themes. However, it also tries showing the monster growing increasingly intelligent and swearing vengeance on the Dr for his sins against nature. And as for "I, Frankenstein"... I honestly have no clue; something about fighting gargoyles, being a gun-wielding warrior, none of it makes any sense.
Still, I hope that I'm getting the idea across; if the themes and spirit of the book remain true while still making some minor changes, there could be a successful adaptation of a classic story. However, what happens if the book is already a piece of shit? What if it's stuff like "Twilight", "The 5th Wave" or "50 Shades", where the source material was already critically panned and no-one asked for a film adaptation?
This, of course, brings us to Number 3 on the Shit List, as well as another butchering of a classic series.
For those in need of a reminder, here were the three clues from last time:
1. It's a prequel.
2. It's a horror film.
3. It's based on an already shitty book.
The 3rd absolute worst film I have ever seen is:
Hannibal Rising... There's already a sour taste in my mouth.
This raw pile of used anal beads was released in 2007 and was directed by Peter Webber, with a screenplay from the books author Thomas Harris.
Said book is a prequel to a series of novels written by Harris in the mid-80's, commonly referred to as the "Lecter" series. The books were named such as all of them had the story revolving around the character of Hannibal Lecter, a former forensic psychiatrist who was sentenced to life in prison after it was discovered that he was a cannibalistic serial killer known as the "Chesapeake Ripper". The first in these series of books, "Red Dragon", focused on former FBI agent Will Graham, the man who arrested Lecter, investigating another series of bizarre murders from someone the press calls the "Tooth Fairy" due to jagged teeth marks on the victims, which leads to him reluctantly asking Lecter for help studying the cases. The second book, "Silence of the Lambs", saw FBI trainee Clarice Starling going to Dr Lecter for help in finding a new killer named Buffalo Bill, a man who peels the skin of off women to make himself a woman suit as he was too crazy for a sex change operation. The third and supposedly final book, simply named "Hannibal", takes place 10 years after "Silence" and Hannibal Lecter has escaped and been hiding in Italy ever since. That is, until veteran agent Clarice is tasked with finding him and being accosted by the only man to have ever survived an attack from Lecter, a deformed paedophile cripple named Mason Verger.
Along with the books gaining large critical acclaim, despite the controversial ending to "Hannibal" where Dr Lecter and Clarice are married, they were obviously adapted in films with admitted mixed results. First was "Manhunter" from "Red Dragon", named such as to avoid confusion with a series of Bruce Lee movies that were out at the time. While earning critical praise, it was a massive box office failure, though it has reemerged into cult status with fans of the films. The one that people seem to remember the most was "Silence of the Lambs", namely due to Sir Anthony Hopkins portrayal of the Lecter character, earning an Oscar despite being in the film for a total of 15 minutes. They were then followed by "Hannibal", to mixed reception and my all-time favourite movie, "Red Dragon", also to mixed reviews.
I'm not even joking; "Red Dragon" is my all-time favourite movie. It's the one that introduced me to the series and is the one I have the most fond memories of. Granted, some of the stuff in it was done better in "Manhunter", but I remember the visuals, performances and story of "Red Dragon" a lot more.
This, of course, brings us to the unnecessary prequel that was made a few years after "Red Dragon" was released to cinemas, with Hopkins no longer in the role and replaced by a then-teenager Gaspard Ulliel.
As one could gather from the title, this is the origin story about how Lecter would eventually become Hannibal "the Cannibal". As a boy in WWII Lithuania, a young Lecter and his sister Mischa were forced to live in a cabin with a group of sadistic Nazis after their parents were killed in a bomb blast. In order to survive, the Nazis killed and ate Mischa, leaving Hannibal alive. After escaping and being put into an orphanage (which, through irony and coincidence, was his old mansion), Lecter then escapes and runs to Paris, where is taken in by his Asian aunt, Lady Murasaki, played by Gong Li.
Now fuelled with a lust for revenge, and after finding his sisters remains at the cabin along with the dog-tags the Nazi's left behind for some reason, Lecter now starts his killing spree at a young age, hunting them down all the way to their leader, Grutas. Oh, he also starts medical school, becomes a master detective, an expert cook, a cannibal, a fucking samurai; all in the span of 2 and a bit hours while also evading the suspicions of the police officer Popil and --
That's twice now that I've used that clip; how does this keep happening?!
But yeah, much like "Fant4stic", I ended up asking the same question; who honestly gives a shit? For much of the film, we see Gaspard trying to emulate Hopkins' portrayal of Lecter, but failing miserably as they screwed up the characterisation, which I'll get to later. Gaspard's performance, while not unbearable, is bland, stoic and lacking in any form of emotion outside of being a generally smug jackass with delusions of grandeur. I hate these kinds of characters, especially if they're the protagonist, as they ruin any form of appreciation or sympathy they are trying to force out of the audience. Again, we'll address more of how badly they got the character wrong in this film later.
Now, onto the villains. The Nazis in this film are just stock, generic bad guys, which is probably the most insulting thing about them. With the other villains in the franchise, there were more layers and a level of sympathy to be had with them. Buffalo Bill, for instance, was someone who believed that he was a woman in a man's body and was not mentally stable enough for a sex change. He was depraved and depressed and his only means of escaping that was to commit the heinous actions that he did. Francis Dolarhyde, the "Tooth Fairy", was a victim of abuse from his grandmother who threatened to cut off his dick for wetting the bed and having a verbal lisp, resulting in creating the personality of the Dragon who demanded that people be killed to satisfy it's hunger. It was ultimately Francis' love for a blind woman that stopped him from killing more people and fighting back against his dark side, killing himself in the process. Even Mason Verger, even if he is wholly unsympathetic, had a good reason for trying to kill Lecter; he was scarred and paralysed, thus could no longer do anything without someone else helping him. Granted, he was a paedophile who used the misnomer that God inspired him to do what he did, but at least it's a reason to see him as a legitimate threat as he had the resources to get want he wanted.
Also, Mason had the best death scene in the films, bar non. Sorry if you're squemish:
The Nazis? They're just a bunch of assholes who only killed Mischa for the sake of survival, still keeping contact with each other years after the war was over and Grutas partakes in human trafficking and white slavery for the sake of wealth. Yeah, tell me where I'm supposed to feel sorry for these guys when Lecter ultimately does kill them?
Then again, much of Lecter's actions are facilitated by the utter incompetence of his aunt. Not only does she encourage him to go to medical school (which wasn't even alluded to or referenced beforehand, by the way) to work on preparing cadavers for the class; not only does she show him how to properly use a samurai sword and various cooking utensils; but she constantly contradicts her own arguments when it comes to revenge, coming off as an utter hypocrite. I kid you not; one scene, she's all like "revenge isn't a horrible path to walk", thus setting Lecter's path in motion. Then later, she says "Vengeance is like a knife; it hurts you." Bitch, MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MIND!!
But of course, there's the star himself; Hannibal Lecter, one of cinema's greatest villains...... or least he WAS, until he was rewritten to be a goody-goody anti-hero who has no will of his own with the mid-set of a sociopath! Yeah, a little reminder for people who haven't seen these films:
HANNIBAL LECTER IS NOT A SOCIOPATH!!!
Sociopaths often have an inability to connect emotionally with anyone and tend to keep to themselves, while also being weakly aware that what they are doing is wrong, just not having enough will to stop themselves from committing heinous crimes.
Lecter, on the other hand, is a forensic psychiatrist, thus has the ability to get a clear understanding of what people are thinking and can easily and accurately predict their next move before even they know it. He also had a booming social life, yet was able to conceal his identity as the Chesapeake Ripper for years, even from the people closest to him, such as Will Graham or the people that he invites over for dinner. He had in-depth knowledge of how to get around the precautions that the police had set up in the asylum he was admitted to after being found guilty, using his excellent memory skills to get to Will Graham from inside his cell. But on top of that, Lecter also had a very Grey moral boundary, meaning he would only do stuff for someone through Quid Pro Quo; they give him something and he gives information in return. That's what made the dynamic between him and Clarice interesting and frightening.
But here, not only is Lecter a sociopath with an amazing sense of luck given how he gets any form of information in this film, but he's also a moron too. Popil, the police officer I mentioned earlier, offers Lecter amnesty for his crimes if he gives the information about the Nazis to the police, as the Nazis are wanted criminals who would be sent straight to the guillotine. And to add to the pot, Lady Murasaki offers herself as a reward if he goes down this path. He gets his revenge, he gets off scot free and he gets to lose his virginity to a hot Asian lady. Granted, it's aunt who's doing it, but it's Gong Li, so it's a win-win as far as I'm concerned. And what does he do, instead of the fucking obvious?!
He ignores what they say, choosing to instead try and get revenge his own way, resulting in his aunt being kidnapped by Grutas and him learning the "shocking twist" that he was fed his sisters remains while he was asleep!
In the words of Krusty the Clown:
Also, that "shocking twist"? Yeah, not much of a twist, This is a prequel for a character who we, as an audience, knows about Hannibal's cannibalism, as it is what got him put in a loony bin in the fucking first place! For fucks sake; HIS NICKNAME IS HANNIBAL "THE CANNIBAL"!! How is this in any way a surprise?! Why isn't this movie over yet?! Just END! END!!
Initially, I had this film in the number one spot for the longest time before two more films came along and stole that position. But even if it's not at number one on this list, that doesn't change that this movie is awful! Terrible acting, disregard for continuity, a lack of competent or interesting villains, idiot or useless side characters and a complete and utter misunderstanding of what makes Hannibal Lecter a brilliant character not only to watch, but also to analyse. If this was just any other horror movie, it may have been crap, but it would be less insulting. But through association of it being a Hannibal Lecter movie, and based on a shitty Hannibal Lecter book at the same time, it ends up being more insulting to the audiences intelligence. Just through this film in the trash bin where it belongs, because no-one should feast their eyes on this garbage.
Overall rating: 1/10 (A Trainwreck).
So, with this in mind, it's time to leave you with another round of clues:
1. It's another prequel.
2. It's another horror movie.
3. It's a prequel to my all-time favourite horror movie.
Narrows it down, doesn't it?
So til next time, this is Callum Lewis, the Media Man, going to find some liver, with some fava beans and a NICE Chianti...
No comments:
Post a Comment