Hello, folks... here's next week's list of film reviews. It's another Jelly Bean Grab Bag of random flavors and genres.
As soon as the last of the Serial Killer flick reviews post by Tuesday morning, we'll be caught up. Because I'll be on the road again this week, please expect next week's reviews to post as time allows.
Thanks, folks... and Happy Halloween!
Here's the list:
# 142 - BLACK RAIN: 1989 (AKA: Michael Douglas Proves The Crazy American Overseas Is Alive And Well)
# 143 - HALF NELSON: 2006 (AKA: My Teacher Has A Drug Habit And I Don't Care! My Teacher Has A Drug Habit And I Don't Care!)
# 144 - DEEP BLUE SEA: 1999 (AKA: Just An Excuse To Put Some Hot Guys And Gals In Tight-Fitting Wetsuits. I Am. So There.)
# 145 - THE DEVIL WEARS PRADA: 2006 (AKA: I Don't Wear Prada. I Wear Calvin Klein By Way Of Ross. Get It Right. That Is All.)
# 146 - KISS BANG KISS BANG: 2005 (AKA: A Gay Sleuth And His Straight Buddy Bicker And Argue For Two Hours. Why Does This Seem Familiar? Ahem.)
# 147 - WAKING LIFE: 2001 (AKA: Oh. My. God. I. Love. This. Movie...)
# 148 - PARANORMAL ACTIVITY 2: 2010 (AKA: SLIVER, but with ghosts and poltergeists.)
And now, for a taste of hot asses in wetsuits, specifically Saffron Burrows and Thomas Jane:
Lucky sharks... they get to chomp on some fine-ass booty...
And allow me to introduce you to the newest addition to my list of TOP FIVE FAVORITE MOVIES:
Yup. That Clark Kent sure knows how to pick 'em.
Have a great week! I'll be thinking of y'all in Sin City and the City of Angels!
REVIEW UPDATE: SEVEN, KISS THE GIRLS, & TAKING LIVES
Hello, folks...
Hope everyone's having a great All Hallow's Eve (Halloween, to us Philistines). It's been an eventful weekend, and I'm not one to pat myself on the back, but I'm kind of proud of the fact that I was able to knock out four of the Serial Killer reviews while on the road.
With that in mind, please expect the last three reviews to post by Tuesday morning. They are:
# 139 - SEVEN
# 140 - KISS THE GIRLS
# 141 - TAKING LIVES
Also, please note that I'm turning right around and going out of town again on Tuesday afternoon. So please expect to see next week's reviews post intermittently throughout the week, as time allows.
Next week's review theme will be another Jelly-Bean Grab-Bag week. Yup, all kinds of movies, all kinds of genres. Most of them recommendations. Thanks, folks!
Next week's list of reviews to post shortly...
Trick or Treat! Or is that Treat or Treat?
Hope everyone's having a great All Hallow's Eve (Halloween, to us Philistines). It's been an eventful weekend, and I'm not one to pat myself on the back, but I'm kind of proud of the fact that I was able to knock out four of the Serial Killer reviews while on the road.
With that in mind, please expect the last three reviews to post by Tuesday morning. They are:
# 139 - SEVEN
# 140 - KISS THE GIRLS
# 141 - TAKING LIVES
Also, please note that I'm turning right around and going out of town again on Tuesday afternoon. So please expect to see next week's reviews post intermittently throughout the week, as time allows.
Next week's review theme will be another Jelly-Bean Grab-Bag week. Yup, all kinds of movies, all kinds of genres. Most of them recommendations. Thanks, folks!
Next week's list of reviews to post shortly...
Trick or Treat! Or is that Treat or Treat?
# 138 - JENNIFER EIGHT (1992)
JENNIFER EIGHT (1992 - ROMANCE/SERIAL KILLER THRILLER) **** out of *****
(Nice to know that even in cow country a woman still has to carry mace around all the time. Especially if she‘s blind. )
CAST: Andy Garcia, Uma Thurman, John Malkovich, Lance Henricksen, Kathy Baker, Graham Beckel, Nicholas Love, Perry Lang, Lenny Von Dohlen.
DIRECTOR: Bruce Robinson
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and a forbidden romance between a cop and a blind murder witness - straight ahead…
With the release and smash success of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in 1991, it was only logical that all the other studios would trot out their own Serial Killer extravaganzas. JENNIFER EIGHT was one of the first to roll down the pike. It didn’t make much of a splash at the box-office, despite a gripping trailer and a very intriguing poster (see above). The main reason for JENNIFER EIGHT’s box-office misfire is easy to posit: people were expecting another SILENCE, and they didn’t get it.
This isn’t to say that JENNIFER EIGHT is a bad film; far from it, in fact. This film is both old-fashioned and ahead of its time. Old-fashioned, in the sense that it takes its time to develop its characters and their relationships with one another, and refuses to place second the central relationship between its leads. And ahead of its time, in terms of building a dark, rainy, brooding atmosphere filled with gloomy interiors and ominous exteriors - which would be recycled in future films like SEVEN and THE BONE COLLECTOR.
Bottom line: JENNIFER EIGHT is an underrated and overlooked gem that influenced the genre more than most people realize. It’s not a perfect film, although it comes very close until it reaches its third act. But more on that later….
The film starts with a shot of our hero, John Berlin (Andy Garcia), driving through the majestic redwoods of Northern California. Soon, he arrives at his destination: the sleepy town of Eureka. Seems John is a burnt-out L.A. cop who has finally decided to check out of life in the fast lane and join buddy and fellow ex-LAPD cop Freddie Ross (Lance Henricksen) up in the boonies where it’s quieter.
Freddie and his wife Margie (Kathy Baker) are overjoyed that John has moved to Eureka. They help him get his new farmhouse into decent shape. By the way, the farmhouse has a great view of… cows in the nearby pasture. Well, it beats seeing traffic on the 405 Freeway right outside your window, right? Anyhow, it looks like John’s going to finally be able to enjoy a slower pace both at work and at home.
Or maybe not.
See, the very first day that John arrives in town, one of the local cops discovers a severed hand in a local garbage dump. This leads to an all-night search of the dump to see if there any other body parts mixed in with the leftover Chinese food and old tires. With the exception of the body of a dead dog, there doesn’t appear to be any more unpleasant surprises. Not at the garbage dump anyway.
If you were hoping that John would downshift and get used to the slower pace of Eureka, well, let me just say the discovery of the severed hand - which appears to be from a woman - pretty much puts the kibosh on that possibility. John Berlin is one of those driven types that doesn’t stop until he gets to the bottom of a mystery. Must be a Scorpio. In this particular case, it’s The Mystery of the Severed Hand at the Dump Site that John wants to unravel.
Furthermore, John learns of a grisly murder from a couple of years ago in which the female victim was left headless and handless. Her identity was never confirmed - and therefore was coded “Jennifer.” And to make matters more interesting, John does a database search and discovers six other blind women who have gone missing across California in the last several years. In other words, there’s possibly a serial killer on the loose who targets blind women - and the hand found at the dump site just might be “Jennifer Eight.”
After examining the hand’s fingertips, John notices the heavy calluses and soon after deduces that the victim got them from reading Braille. In other words, she was blind. Scouring a list of blind people in the area who have not been heard from, John and Freddy zero in on one Amber Stone, a blind girl who has not been heard from in six weeks. No one thinks that she’d dead, though - just relocated to San Diego (and who can blame her) and hasn’t written yet. John, however, strongly suspects that Amber has become “Jennifer Eight.”
John questions Amber’s roommate who is also blind: Helena Robertson (Uma Thurman). Seems Helena was there when Amber’s boyfriend came to pick her up. John thinks that this “boyfriend” just might be the killer he’s looking for. Despite her blindness, Helena is still able to tell him some helpful things: (1) this mysterious guy who picked up Amber was a smoker; (2) drove a car that sounded “fat”; and (3) his name is also “John.”
Given that “John” is the most common name in the English language, and is also the moniker of our hero, how many of you want to guess that this is a significant plot twist? Ahem.
At any rate, John’s investigation into the “Jennifer” cases gets him in hot water with his new co-workers, who see him as some flashy big-city dude who’s cooking up a serial-killer investigation out of nothing. Needless to say, none of them believe that there’s a mad psycho on the loose preying on blind women. Not even Freddie, apparently. Which is very disappointing to John because it means he has absolutely no supporters on the police force.
He does, however, have at least one in Helena, with whom he has gotten close to. As you can imagine, a detective carrying on an affair with a woman who is essentially an eyewitness (despite being blind) in one of his cases is not exactly the least controversial of relationships. Helena’s belief in the existence of a serial killer might also have something to do with the fact that, I don’t know, he actually broke into her house and threatened her to shut up… or else. Of course, no one believes her either.
How will John track the killer down when no one believes any crimes have been committed? Will Helena end up becoming “Jennifer Nine?” Will Freddie come around and support John in his quest to prove the shadowy killer’s presence in Eureka? Or will he continue to side against John with the rest of the choads of the Eureka police department? Will Helena provide a vital clue that will lead to the discovery of the killer’s identity? Why is the killer preying on blind women? Does he have some sort of fetish? Like someone who goes gooey all over at the sight of a Roman Gladiator outfit and a hairy chest? Ahem?
See for yourselves. Just don’t be surprised if you end up asking to be blindfolded and tickled with a feather after you see this movie. Someone once told me that blind people are the best lovers. Or at least, blind-folded people. I’m just saying…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: As I wrote in the intro, JENNIFER EIGHT is old-fashioned in the sense that it puts the characters before the mystery. In fact, the mystery springs from the character’s actions and reactions. This is perhaps why the film didn’t find a wider audience when it was released in 1992. People must have wanted something as fast-paced as THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
And, as I also wrote in the intro, this movie is way ahead of its time with its dark and moody atmosphere and gradual build of tension, paving the way for the dark tones of SEVEN, THE BONE COLLECTOR, and even the TV series of THE X-FILES.
Perhaps audiences who were expecting a more fast-paced thriller in the vein of SILENCE were probably surprised by JENNIFER EIGHTS’s deliberate and ominous pace which bathed everything in a brooding aura of fear. Like SILENCE, though, this film has some very interesting characters that give the narrative significantly more weight than it might have had.
JENNIFER EIGHT reportedly had a troubled production. According to some quarters, there was conflict between writer/director Bruce Robinson and the studio concerning the script. Not sure exactly what the issues were, but I do know that there was concern about the ending. My understanding is that Robinson’s original ending didn’t fare well with the powers-that-be, and was changed to the one that exists now.
I’m not going to spoil the new ending for you, except to say that while serviceable and decent - it’s also a bit abrupt. Especially considering the mystery’s careful build-up all the way through the first, second, and much of the third-act. If Robinson would have drawn-out the ending just a bit more to fill in some holes, the film would rate almost as high as THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
Like I mentioned before, the film focuses on its characters as the mystery unfolds. Which is a good thing, since they are an interesting bunch. John Berlin is an appealing hero. He’s clearly the type of guy who’s drive is both his talent and his curse, pushing him to go after his goal to the point of sometimes alienating those around him. A lesser actor might’ve toned down John’s rough edges and intensity, but Andy Garcia wisely avoids neutering the character in this way. He also ably displays John’s bruised interior and his desire for some sort of redemption by pursuing a relationship with the good-hearted Helena. Their relationship is surprisingly touching - and becomes JENNIFER EIGHT’s beating heart, acting as a ray of light through all the darkness.
Speaking of Helena, Uma Thurman creates a truly memorable character, too. Unlike a lot of heroines whose vulnerabilities are hidden under tough exteriors, Helena Robertson is the reverse: she hides her resilience and resourcefulness beneath a fragile veneer. Even when she’s sitting still and just staring off into space, she’s compelling to watch. Much of that has to do with Thurman’s innate expressiveness. Playing a blind woman, she has to deaden her eyes (usually an actor’s best weapon) and rely on the rest of her face, body language, and voice to convey Helena’s confusion, terror, courage, and love for John. The fact that she pulls this off so wonderfully and makes Helena such a strong presence in the film when a lesser actress could’ve inadvertently condemned her to the background, is a testament to Ms. Thurman’s talents.
The supporting cast is similarly assigned to vivid roles. John Malkovich enters the film as FBI Special Agent St. Anne, who also doesn’t believe that a serial killer exists. Malkovich makes the most of his small role and gives St. Anne a sardonic bite that makes his exchanges with Garcia as John a delight to watch. Lance Henricksen is funny and magnetic as John’s best friend, Freddie, who disbelieves his friend’s suspicions - but then slowly comes around and imperils his life to help John. Kathy Baker is also great as Margie, Freddie’s wife, who is a lot like Helena in the sense that her easy-going and gentle exterior conceals a core of steel that comes out when the chips are down. Her role in the film’s climax is a very pleasant surprise, making JENNIFER EIGHT a nice showcase for two complex and strong female characters.
As John’s disbelieving and disrespectful colleagues, Nicholas Love, Graham Beckel, Kevin Conaway, and Perry Lang are all strong and succeed in getting us to believe in the unfairly hostile environment that our hero suddenly finds himself in. Which makes us sympathize with him even more. This just makes John’s vindication in the end all the more satisfying and deserved.
All in all, JENNIFER EIGHT is a very good thriller that was misunderstood at its time of release. Make no mistake, though, despite exhibiting some classic storytelling elements focused on character, it was also way ahead of its time in creating an ominous and bleak atmosphere. Something that future films would emulate and pass of as their own. They all a debt of gratitude to this movie.
(Nice to know that even in cow country a woman still has to carry mace around all the time. Especially if she‘s blind. )
CAST: Andy Garcia, Uma Thurman, John Malkovich, Lance Henricksen, Kathy Baker, Graham Beckel, Nicholas Love, Perry Lang, Lenny Von Dohlen.
DIRECTOR: Bruce Robinson
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and a forbidden romance between a cop and a blind murder witness - straight ahead…
With the release and smash success of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in 1991, it was only logical that all the other studios would trot out their own Serial Killer extravaganzas. JENNIFER EIGHT was one of the first to roll down the pike. It didn’t make much of a splash at the box-office, despite a gripping trailer and a very intriguing poster (see above). The main reason for JENNIFER EIGHT’s box-office misfire is easy to posit: people were expecting another SILENCE, and they didn’t get it.
This isn’t to say that JENNIFER EIGHT is a bad film; far from it, in fact. This film is both old-fashioned and ahead of its time. Old-fashioned, in the sense that it takes its time to develop its characters and their relationships with one another, and refuses to place second the central relationship between its leads. And ahead of its time, in terms of building a dark, rainy, brooding atmosphere filled with gloomy interiors and ominous exteriors - which would be recycled in future films like SEVEN and THE BONE COLLECTOR.
Bottom line: JENNIFER EIGHT is an underrated and overlooked gem that influenced the genre more than most people realize. It’s not a perfect film, although it comes very close until it reaches its third act. But more on that later….
The film starts with a shot of our hero, John Berlin (Andy Garcia), driving through the majestic redwoods of Northern California. Soon, he arrives at his destination: the sleepy town of Eureka. Seems John is a burnt-out L.A. cop who has finally decided to check out of life in the fast lane and join buddy and fellow ex-LAPD cop Freddie Ross (Lance Henricksen) up in the boonies where it’s quieter.
Freddie and his wife Margie (Kathy Baker) are overjoyed that John has moved to Eureka. They help him get his new farmhouse into decent shape. By the way, the farmhouse has a great view of… cows in the nearby pasture. Well, it beats seeing traffic on the 405 Freeway right outside your window, right? Anyhow, it looks like John’s going to finally be able to enjoy a slower pace both at work and at home.
Or maybe not.
See, the very first day that John arrives in town, one of the local cops discovers a severed hand in a local garbage dump. This leads to an all-night search of the dump to see if there any other body parts mixed in with the leftover Chinese food and old tires. With the exception of the body of a dead dog, there doesn’t appear to be any more unpleasant surprises. Not at the garbage dump anyway.
If you were hoping that John would downshift and get used to the slower pace of Eureka, well, let me just say the discovery of the severed hand - which appears to be from a woman - pretty much puts the kibosh on that possibility. John Berlin is one of those driven types that doesn’t stop until he gets to the bottom of a mystery. Must be a Scorpio. In this particular case, it’s The Mystery of the Severed Hand at the Dump Site that John wants to unravel.
Furthermore, John learns of a grisly murder from a couple of years ago in which the female victim was left headless and handless. Her identity was never confirmed - and therefore was coded “Jennifer.” And to make matters more interesting, John does a database search and discovers six other blind women who have gone missing across California in the last several years. In other words, there’s possibly a serial killer on the loose who targets blind women - and the hand found at the dump site just might be “Jennifer Eight.”
After examining the hand’s fingertips, John notices the heavy calluses and soon after deduces that the victim got them from reading Braille. In other words, she was blind. Scouring a list of blind people in the area who have not been heard from, John and Freddy zero in on one Amber Stone, a blind girl who has not been heard from in six weeks. No one thinks that she’d dead, though - just relocated to San Diego (and who can blame her) and hasn’t written yet. John, however, strongly suspects that Amber has become “Jennifer Eight.”
John questions Amber’s roommate who is also blind: Helena Robertson (Uma Thurman). Seems Helena was there when Amber’s boyfriend came to pick her up. John thinks that this “boyfriend” just might be the killer he’s looking for. Despite her blindness, Helena is still able to tell him some helpful things: (1) this mysterious guy who picked up Amber was a smoker; (2) drove a car that sounded “fat”; and (3) his name is also “John.”
Given that “John” is the most common name in the English language, and is also the moniker of our hero, how many of you want to guess that this is a significant plot twist? Ahem.
At any rate, John’s investigation into the “Jennifer” cases gets him in hot water with his new co-workers, who see him as some flashy big-city dude who’s cooking up a serial-killer investigation out of nothing. Needless to say, none of them believe that there’s a mad psycho on the loose preying on blind women. Not even Freddie, apparently. Which is very disappointing to John because it means he has absolutely no supporters on the police force.
He does, however, have at least one in Helena, with whom he has gotten close to. As you can imagine, a detective carrying on an affair with a woman who is essentially an eyewitness (despite being blind) in one of his cases is not exactly the least controversial of relationships. Helena’s belief in the existence of a serial killer might also have something to do with the fact that, I don’t know, he actually broke into her house and threatened her to shut up… or else. Of course, no one believes her either.
How will John track the killer down when no one believes any crimes have been committed? Will Helena end up becoming “Jennifer Nine?” Will Freddie come around and support John in his quest to prove the shadowy killer’s presence in Eureka? Or will he continue to side against John with the rest of the choads of the Eureka police department? Will Helena provide a vital clue that will lead to the discovery of the killer’s identity? Why is the killer preying on blind women? Does he have some sort of fetish? Like someone who goes gooey all over at the sight of a Roman Gladiator outfit and a hairy chest? Ahem?
See for yourselves. Just don’t be surprised if you end up asking to be blindfolded and tickled with a feather after you see this movie. Someone once told me that blind people are the best lovers. Or at least, blind-folded people. I’m just saying…
BUT, SERIOUSLY: As I wrote in the intro, JENNIFER EIGHT is old-fashioned in the sense that it puts the characters before the mystery. In fact, the mystery springs from the character’s actions and reactions. This is perhaps why the film didn’t find a wider audience when it was released in 1992. People must have wanted something as fast-paced as THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
And, as I also wrote in the intro, this movie is way ahead of its time with its dark and moody atmosphere and gradual build of tension, paving the way for the dark tones of SEVEN, THE BONE COLLECTOR, and even the TV series of THE X-FILES.
Perhaps audiences who were expecting a more fast-paced thriller in the vein of SILENCE were probably surprised by JENNIFER EIGHTS’s deliberate and ominous pace which bathed everything in a brooding aura of fear. Like SILENCE, though, this film has some very interesting characters that give the narrative significantly more weight than it might have had.
JENNIFER EIGHT reportedly had a troubled production. According to some quarters, there was conflict between writer/director Bruce Robinson and the studio concerning the script. Not sure exactly what the issues were, but I do know that there was concern about the ending. My understanding is that Robinson’s original ending didn’t fare well with the powers-that-be, and was changed to the one that exists now.
I’m not going to spoil the new ending for you, except to say that while serviceable and decent - it’s also a bit abrupt. Especially considering the mystery’s careful build-up all the way through the first, second, and much of the third-act. If Robinson would have drawn-out the ending just a bit more to fill in some holes, the film would rate almost as high as THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS.
Like I mentioned before, the film focuses on its characters as the mystery unfolds. Which is a good thing, since they are an interesting bunch. John Berlin is an appealing hero. He’s clearly the type of guy who’s drive is both his talent and his curse, pushing him to go after his goal to the point of sometimes alienating those around him. A lesser actor might’ve toned down John’s rough edges and intensity, but Andy Garcia wisely avoids neutering the character in this way. He also ably displays John’s bruised interior and his desire for some sort of redemption by pursuing a relationship with the good-hearted Helena. Their relationship is surprisingly touching - and becomes JENNIFER EIGHT’s beating heart, acting as a ray of light through all the darkness.
Speaking of Helena, Uma Thurman creates a truly memorable character, too. Unlike a lot of heroines whose vulnerabilities are hidden under tough exteriors, Helena Robertson is the reverse: she hides her resilience and resourcefulness beneath a fragile veneer. Even when she’s sitting still and just staring off into space, she’s compelling to watch. Much of that has to do with Thurman’s innate expressiveness. Playing a blind woman, she has to deaden her eyes (usually an actor’s best weapon) and rely on the rest of her face, body language, and voice to convey Helena’s confusion, terror, courage, and love for John. The fact that she pulls this off so wonderfully and makes Helena such a strong presence in the film when a lesser actress could’ve inadvertently condemned her to the background, is a testament to Ms. Thurman’s talents.
The supporting cast is similarly assigned to vivid roles. John Malkovich enters the film as FBI Special Agent St. Anne, who also doesn’t believe that a serial killer exists. Malkovich makes the most of his small role and gives St. Anne a sardonic bite that makes his exchanges with Garcia as John a delight to watch. Lance Henricksen is funny and magnetic as John’s best friend, Freddie, who disbelieves his friend’s suspicions - but then slowly comes around and imperils his life to help John. Kathy Baker is also great as Margie, Freddie’s wife, who is a lot like Helena in the sense that her easy-going and gentle exterior conceals a core of steel that comes out when the chips are down. Her role in the film’s climax is a very pleasant surprise, making JENNIFER EIGHT a nice showcase for two complex and strong female characters.
As John’s disbelieving and disrespectful colleagues, Nicholas Love, Graham Beckel, Kevin Conaway, and Perry Lang are all strong and succeed in getting us to believe in the unfairly hostile environment that our hero suddenly finds himself in. Which makes us sympathize with him even more. This just makes John’s vindication in the end all the more satisfying and deserved.
All in all, JENNIFER EIGHT is a very good thriller that was misunderstood at its time of release. Make no mistake, though, despite exhibiting some classic storytelling elements focused on character, it was also way ahead of its time in creating an ominous and bleak atmosphere. Something that future films would emulate and pass of as their own. They all a debt of gratitude to this movie.
# 136 - THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1991)
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS (1990 - SERIAL KILLER THRILLER) ***** out of *****
(Fava beans, anyone?)
CAST: Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, Scott Glenn, Anthony Heald, Kasi Lemmons, Diane Baker, Brooke Smith, Ted Levine.
DIRECTOR: Jonathan Demme
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and seriously questionable use of visiting hours - straight ahead
I remember the first time I saw THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS because it was the first time a whole tub of popcorn sat, barely-touched, on my lap. It's not because of the movie was gory (it is, but not overly so), or because I wasn't very hungry (I'm always hungry - ask anyone), but because the movie was just so suspenseful and exciting. I remember feeling like I was in the presence of greatness. And I was. If a movie can make me forget my food, then that, folks, is something quite remarkable.
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS practically created the Serial Killer genre as we know it today. Of course, that's considered by some to be a dubious distinction, at best, and a lamentable one, at worst. For better or worse, a plethora of similarly-plotted films soon followed. Some have been stellar in their own right (SEVEN, COPYCAT), others have been interesting or different enough to stand above the pack (TAKING LIVES, JENNIFER EIGHT, KISS THE GIRLS, HANNIBAL, MR. BROOKS), even more have been average or above-average (THE BONE COLLECTOR, THE CRIMSON RIVERS, RED DRAGON, THE CELL, HORSEMEN), and yet even more have been below-average and missable (STRIKING DISTANCE, SAW, SUSPECT ZERO, THE COLLECTOR, HIGHWAYMEN, GIALLO).
Bottom line? At its best, the Serial Killer genre has provided us with some razor-sharp thrills and pulse-pounding suspense. At its most average, it's given us some decent entertainment. At its worst, it's subjected us to hours of our lives we will never get back - and DVD rentals or - heaven forbid - purchases that might as well be used as coasters. Suffice it to say, THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS belongs in the first category: it is quite likely the best serial killer thriller ever made. And it has the Academy Awards to prove it.
The plot is elegance defined: an FBI Academy trainee (Jodie Foster) is recruited by one of her superiors (Scott Glenn) to solicit the help of institutionalized cannibalistic psychopath Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins) in profiling a new serial killer named Buffalo Bill, who has been abducting women laterly in the Midwestern and Southern states - and skinning them. Hence the nickname.
The trainee is Clarice Starling, and she's a coolly confident chick. After rebuffing the rather alarming advances of Dr. Chilton (Anthony Heald), the institution's director, she is taken to Dr. Lecter's cell block where the following things happen: (1) an inmate tells her that he can smell her you-know-what; (2) Dr. Lecter calls her "tornado-bait white trash" before telling her to take a hike (ouch); and (3) the aforementioned inmate hurls a glob of cum right at her face.
In other words, not exactly the most positive first meeting in history.
Still, it's not a complete train wreck. Before Lecter told Clarice to vamoose, he also shared with her some juicy tidbits of information which, Clarice being the brilliant chick that she is, quickly deciphers to be a self-storage unit that belonged to one of Dr. Lecter's patients - that is, before said patient's lover decapitated him. And before the not-so-good doctor was revealed to be a people-eating carnivore.
Soon, through deductive reasoning that Sherlock Holmes would envy, Clarice figures out that whoever killed Dr. Lecter's patient is also Buffalo Bill. Lecter confirms this by saying that his patient was just Billy Boy's practice run at homicide. Presumably, he got better at it and stopped leaving the heads behind in self-storage units. He also tells Clarice that he can help her make a name for herself by providing insight into Buffalo Bill's pathology. In exchange for a cell with a view. How generous of our not-so-good doctor, eh?
Then another girl is abducted. She just happens to be Catherine Martin (Brooke Smith), daughter of Senator Ruth Martin (Diane Baker). As you can imagine, this sends the FBI and various other law enforcement agencies into a tizzy with a major case of the ass-puckers. I wonder if they would have hopped to it in the same way if Catherine had been the daughter of a greasy-spoon waitress. Methinks not.
Crawford sends Clarice back into the dungeons to offer Lecter a deal: help them catch Buffalo Bill in time to save Catherine's life, and they will relocate Lecter to more comfortable surroundings - to include an "annual vacation" on an island. Under SWAT team surveillance, naturally. For a minute there, I thought that the FBI was getting a little soft.
Will Lecter go for the deal? Will he help Clarice get to Buffalo Bill in time? Or will Catherine end up just like all the other victims? Does Lecter have an agenda of his own? Or does he really want to help Clarice? How can Clarice trust a psychopath? Will she survive this "deal with the devil?" Is Crawford being completely straight with Clarice? Or does he, too, have his own agenda? And most importantly: what the hell is up with Buffalo Bill and that home-made music video?
You'll see what I mean. And trust me - you will never listen to the song in question ever again without feeling the heebie-jeebies and laughing out loud - simulataneously.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: I remember reading the novel back in 1990 right before THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS came out in theaters. I finished the book in less than three hours. Thomas Harris crafted a visceral, elegant, and perfect thriller. Combining a psychological thriller with a "ticking-clock" element and two very interesting character studies, the novel was simply breathtaking. It's one of those stories that you just almost regret finishing because you know it will be awhile before another story as powerful and gripping comes along - if ever.
The film is a perfect cinematic realization of the book. Just like the novel, it is moves grimly and inexorably forward and gains momentum without sacrificing the delicate psychology that gave the plot a lot of depth. Clarice's background not only shapes her actions, but also informs her relationships with both Crawford and Lecter. Having lost her father when she was just a little girl, Clarice is essentially torn between two father figures - one good (Crawford) and the other evil (Lecter). The juxtaposing of these connections is mirrored by two scenes: (1) Lecter brushing Clarice's hand when he hands her the Buffalo Bill case in Memphis; and (2) Crawford similarly clasping Clarice's hand during the graduation at the finale.
It's the central relationship between Clarice and Lecter that gives the film it's punch, though. Clearly, Lecter is interested in Clarice. But what does he feel? Curiosity? Attraction? Exasperation? Love? Protectiveness? As the sequel HANNIBAL would confirm, it's all of the above - and maybe more. As with the most powerful cinematic couples, Clarice and Lecter's connection is made implicit rather than explicit. In the sequel, it would become more explicit (more on that in HANNIBAL's review). By making the conflict between Clarice and Lecter the primary thread, and not Buffalo Bill's murder spree, both the book and the film end up being more than just about a mad killer on the loose. It becomes about honor and courage, about a woman making a deal with the devil to save the life of another woman. And it's all beautifully played by Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins.
Foster very much deserved her Academy Award for Best Actress for this role. With Clarice Starling, she actually creates a full-blooded character, instead of just saying lines and hitting her marks. Clarice is simultaneously demure, tough, naive, worldly, courageous, scared, ambitious, and humble. But Foster makes all her contradictions seamless and fathomable. With just a few key tidbits revealed about her past, the character comes alive and becomes one of the strongest and most complex heroines to grace the silver screen.
Playing a more flamboyant and attention-grabbing role, Anthony Hopkins makes screen legend with his Academy Award-winning portrayal of Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Evil has never been more seductive and terrifying onscreen. In Hopkins' hands, the character is unforgettable not just because of how frightening he is, but also how human he is at the most unexpected of times. It's Clarice that brings this out in him. While we know he doesn't really care whether or not Catherine lives, but is really interested in improving his confinement, we also sense that he is also helping Clarice because he somehow feels a kinship with her - and therefore cares for her.
And then there's the glimmer of tears in Lecter's eyes when Clarice finally breaks down and tells him the story of the screaming lambs - which is the trauma that pushes Clarice to save others. By revealing this deeply personal story that essentially leaves her at her most naked and vulnerable, Clarice achieves an intimacy with Lecter that is obviously unprecedented with anyone else. It doesn't matter that she does it to save Catherine. What's important is the reaction Lecter has to it: those tears pooling in his eyes as she finishes the story, and his words: "Thank you, Clarice. Thank you." If that's not a sign of humanity, I don't know what is.
While this movie belongs to Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins, kudos should also go to the supporting cast for their more-than-able assistance. Scott Glenn is cool, calm presence as Crawford. His scenes with Foster as Clarice radiate with paternal pride and affection. This is cemented by his comment at the end that her father would be proud of her.
Brooke Smith, Diane Baker, and Kasi Lemmons are all good as, respectively, the scared-then-steely Catherine, her terrified mother whose power is useless against a vicious killer, and Clarice's best friend at the Academy. These women are all strong and pivotal to the plot, and - along with the movie's remarkable heroine - help make up for the unpleasant fact that all of Buffalo Bill's victims are female.
Finally, there's Buffalo Bill himself. As played by Ted Levine, he is one of scariest villains to grace the silver screen. His pathology is both pathetic and terrifying at the same time. Not going to reveal it here, but suffice it to say, it's quite messed-up. Which I guess is why he's a serial killer.
Long story short, this movie is awesome. It's that simple. Go see it again, to be reminded of how brilliant it is. And if you haven't seen it yet, you are in for a treat - just remember one thing going in, though: this movie came before all the knock-offs you might have seen before it. And there's likely never going to be another Serial Killer flick quite as excellent.
(Fava beans, anyone?)
CAST: Jodie Foster, Anthony Hopkins, Scott Glenn, Anthony Heald, Kasi Lemmons, Diane Baker, Brooke Smith, Ted Levine.
DIRECTOR: Jonathan Demme
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and seriously questionable use of visiting hours - straight ahead
I remember the first time I saw THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS because it was the first time a whole tub of popcorn sat, barely-touched, on my lap. It's not because of the movie was gory (it is, but not overly so), or because I wasn't very hungry (I'm always hungry - ask anyone), but because the movie was just so suspenseful and exciting. I remember feeling like I was in the presence of greatness. And I was. If a movie can make me forget my food, then that, folks, is something quite remarkable.
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS practically created the Serial Killer genre as we know it today. Of course, that's considered by some to be a dubious distinction, at best, and a lamentable one, at worst. For better or worse, a plethora of similarly-plotted films soon followed. Some have been stellar in their own right (SEVEN, COPYCAT), others have been interesting or different enough to stand above the pack (TAKING LIVES, JENNIFER EIGHT, KISS THE GIRLS, HANNIBAL, MR. BROOKS), even more have been average or above-average (THE BONE COLLECTOR, THE CRIMSON RIVERS, RED DRAGON, THE CELL, HORSEMEN), and yet even more have been below-average and missable (STRIKING DISTANCE, SAW, SUSPECT ZERO, THE COLLECTOR, HIGHWAYMEN, GIALLO).
Bottom line? At its best, the Serial Killer genre has provided us with some razor-sharp thrills and pulse-pounding suspense. At its most average, it's given us some decent entertainment. At its worst, it's subjected us to hours of our lives we will never get back - and DVD rentals or - heaven forbid - purchases that might as well be used as coasters. Suffice it to say, THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS belongs in the first category: it is quite likely the best serial killer thriller ever made. And it has the Academy Awards to prove it.
The plot is elegance defined: an FBI Academy trainee (Jodie Foster) is recruited by one of her superiors (Scott Glenn) to solicit the help of institutionalized cannibalistic psychopath Dr. Hannibal Lecter (Sir Anthony Hopkins) in profiling a new serial killer named Buffalo Bill, who has been abducting women laterly in the Midwestern and Southern states - and skinning them. Hence the nickname.
The trainee is Clarice Starling, and she's a coolly confident chick. After rebuffing the rather alarming advances of Dr. Chilton (Anthony Heald), the institution's director, she is taken to Dr. Lecter's cell block where the following things happen: (1) an inmate tells her that he can smell her you-know-what; (2) Dr. Lecter calls her "tornado-bait white trash" before telling her to take a hike (ouch); and (3) the aforementioned inmate hurls a glob of cum right at her face.
In other words, not exactly the most positive first meeting in history.
Still, it's not a complete train wreck. Before Lecter told Clarice to vamoose, he also shared with her some juicy tidbits of information which, Clarice being the brilliant chick that she is, quickly deciphers to be a self-storage unit that belonged to one of Dr. Lecter's patients - that is, before said patient's lover decapitated him. And before the not-so-good doctor was revealed to be a people-eating carnivore.
Soon, through deductive reasoning that Sherlock Holmes would envy, Clarice figures out that whoever killed Dr. Lecter's patient is also Buffalo Bill. Lecter confirms this by saying that his patient was just Billy Boy's practice run at homicide. Presumably, he got better at it and stopped leaving the heads behind in self-storage units. He also tells Clarice that he can help her make a name for herself by providing insight into Buffalo Bill's pathology. In exchange for a cell with a view. How generous of our not-so-good doctor, eh?
Then another girl is abducted. She just happens to be Catherine Martin (Brooke Smith), daughter of Senator Ruth Martin (Diane Baker). As you can imagine, this sends the FBI and various other law enforcement agencies into a tizzy with a major case of the ass-puckers. I wonder if they would have hopped to it in the same way if Catherine had been the daughter of a greasy-spoon waitress. Methinks not.
Crawford sends Clarice back into the dungeons to offer Lecter a deal: help them catch Buffalo Bill in time to save Catherine's life, and they will relocate Lecter to more comfortable surroundings - to include an "annual vacation" on an island. Under SWAT team surveillance, naturally. For a minute there, I thought that the FBI was getting a little soft.
Will Lecter go for the deal? Will he help Clarice get to Buffalo Bill in time? Or will Catherine end up just like all the other victims? Does Lecter have an agenda of his own? Or does he really want to help Clarice? How can Clarice trust a psychopath? Will she survive this "deal with the devil?" Is Crawford being completely straight with Clarice? Or does he, too, have his own agenda? And most importantly: what the hell is up with Buffalo Bill and that home-made music video?
You'll see what I mean. And trust me - you will never listen to the song in question ever again without feeling the heebie-jeebies and laughing out loud - simulataneously.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: I remember reading the novel back in 1990 right before THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS came out in theaters. I finished the book in less than three hours. Thomas Harris crafted a visceral, elegant, and perfect thriller. Combining a psychological thriller with a "ticking-clock" element and two very interesting character studies, the novel was simply breathtaking. It's one of those stories that you just almost regret finishing because you know it will be awhile before another story as powerful and gripping comes along - if ever.
The film is a perfect cinematic realization of the book. Just like the novel, it is moves grimly and inexorably forward and gains momentum without sacrificing the delicate psychology that gave the plot a lot of depth. Clarice's background not only shapes her actions, but also informs her relationships with both Crawford and Lecter. Having lost her father when she was just a little girl, Clarice is essentially torn between two father figures - one good (Crawford) and the other evil (Lecter). The juxtaposing of these connections is mirrored by two scenes: (1) Lecter brushing Clarice's hand when he hands her the Buffalo Bill case in Memphis; and (2) Crawford similarly clasping Clarice's hand during the graduation at the finale.
It's the central relationship between Clarice and Lecter that gives the film it's punch, though. Clearly, Lecter is interested in Clarice. But what does he feel? Curiosity? Attraction? Exasperation? Love? Protectiveness? As the sequel HANNIBAL would confirm, it's all of the above - and maybe more. As with the most powerful cinematic couples, Clarice and Lecter's connection is made implicit rather than explicit. In the sequel, it would become more explicit (more on that in HANNIBAL's review). By making the conflict between Clarice and Lecter the primary thread, and not Buffalo Bill's murder spree, both the book and the film end up being more than just about a mad killer on the loose. It becomes about honor and courage, about a woman making a deal with the devil to save the life of another woman. And it's all beautifully played by Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins.
Foster very much deserved her Academy Award for Best Actress for this role. With Clarice Starling, she actually creates a full-blooded character, instead of just saying lines and hitting her marks. Clarice is simultaneously demure, tough, naive, worldly, courageous, scared, ambitious, and humble. But Foster makes all her contradictions seamless and fathomable. With just a few key tidbits revealed about her past, the character comes alive and becomes one of the strongest and most complex heroines to grace the silver screen.
Playing a more flamboyant and attention-grabbing role, Anthony Hopkins makes screen legend with his Academy Award-winning portrayal of Dr. Hannibal Lecter. Evil has never been more seductive and terrifying onscreen. In Hopkins' hands, the character is unforgettable not just because of how frightening he is, but also how human he is at the most unexpected of times. It's Clarice that brings this out in him. While we know he doesn't really care whether or not Catherine lives, but is really interested in improving his confinement, we also sense that he is also helping Clarice because he somehow feels a kinship with her - and therefore cares for her.
And then there's the glimmer of tears in Lecter's eyes when Clarice finally breaks down and tells him the story of the screaming lambs - which is the trauma that pushes Clarice to save others. By revealing this deeply personal story that essentially leaves her at her most naked and vulnerable, Clarice achieves an intimacy with Lecter that is obviously unprecedented with anyone else. It doesn't matter that she does it to save Catherine. What's important is the reaction Lecter has to it: those tears pooling in his eyes as she finishes the story, and his words: "Thank you, Clarice. Thank you." If that's not a sign of humanity, I don't know what is.
While this movie belongs to Jodie Foster and Anthony Hopkins, kudos should also go to the supporting cast for their more-than-able assistance. Scott Glenn is cool, calm presence as Crawford. His scenes with Foster as Clarice radiate with paternal pride and affection. This is cemented by his comment at the end that her father would be proud of her.
Brooke Smith, Diane Baker, and Kasi Lemmons are all good as, respectively, the scared-then-steely Catherine, her terrified mother whose power is useless against a vicious killer, and Clarice's best friend at the Academy. These women are all strong and pivotal to the plot, and - along with the movie's remarkable heroine - help make up for the unpleasant fact that all of Buffalo Bill's victims are female.
Finally, there's Buffalo Bill himself. As played by Ted Levine, he is one of scariest villains to grace the silver screen. His pathology is both pathetic and terrifying at the same time. Not going to reveal it here, but suffice it to say, it's quite messed-up. Which I guess is why he's a serial killer.
Long story short, this movie is awesome. It's that simple. Go see it again, to be reminded of how brilliant it is. And if you haven't seen it yet, you are in for a treat - just remember one thing going in, though: this movie came before all the knock-offs you might have seen before it. And there's likely never going to be another Serial Killer flick quite as excellent.
# 137 - HANNIBAL (2001)
HANNIBAL (2001 - SERIAL KILLER FLICK) **** out of *****
(Oh, Hannibal my Hannibal, wherefore are thou my Hannibal? Probably out there gnoshing on someone's head with some horseradish sauce on the side.)
CAST: Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta, Gary Oldman, Giancarlo Giannini, Frankie Faison, Francesca Neri, Zeljko Ivanek, Hazelle Goodman.
DIRECTOR: Ridley Scott
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and rather grotesque love stories straight ahead...
LECTER: Would you ever dream of saying: "Stop. If you love me, you'll stop."
CLARICE: Not in a thousand years.
LECTER: (almost proud) Not in a thousand years? That's my girl...
- Scene from HANNIBAL
With the stunning success of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in the early 90's - including Academy Awards for Best Actor, Actress, Picture, Picture and Director - it was pretty much a given that a sequel would eventually come along. Stars Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster seemed amenable to reprising their Oscar-sealed roles as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, the brilliant but psychotic serial killer/psychiatrist, and Clarice Starling, the FBI trainee-turned-agent that catches his fancy. It was just a matter of novelist Thomas Harris writing the follow-up novel to SILENCE.
In the late 90's, Harris finally delivered. Titled simply as "Hannibal," the novel immediately rose to the top of the international bestseller lists. This doesn't mean, though, that the novel was embraced as warmly as its predecessor. Far from it. In fact, "Hannibal" sharply divided readers. Those expecting a fast, linear thriller in the vein of SILENCE were disappointed by the new novel's multi-threaded plot that spanned two continents and several subplots.
The biggest bone of contention, however, was "Hannibal's" ending. If you haven't read the book, I won't spoil it for you. If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. Requiring a gargantuan suspension of disbelief, the ending isn't exactly terrible. Just... very odd and different. Now, "odd" and "different" are normally okay in my book. Unfortunately, the ending is also illogical - requiring us to accept that Clarice Starling would change her value system so radically that she would actually.... well, like I said, I won't spoil it. Let's just say that, while I find the ending intriguing, I ultimately don't agree with it because it negates all the character groundwork established in the first novel.
Evidently, Jodie Foster felt the same way. She despised the ending with a capital "D." Like a lot of readers including myself, she couldn't accept that Clarice would do what the novel showed her doing at the end. When adapting the novel for the silver screen, several top-flight screenwriters including Steve Zaillian and David Mamet set about changing the book's ending to something more acceptable. Even with that, though, Foster still eventually dropped out of the production. Faced with the loss of it's Academy-Award winning star who'd cemented the character of Clarice Starling in the minds millions of audience members, the producers scrambled to find a suitable replacement.
Names like Angelina Jolie, Helen Hunt, Cate Blanchett, Hilary Swank, Gillian Anderson and others were bandied about. Eventually, they settled on actress Julianne Moore. Moore was the perfect caliber of actress the part needed, having amassed an impressive body of work to attest to her talent but still managing to avoid being tabloid fodder. In other words, she was cut from the same cloth as Jodie Foster, which is what the role of Clarice Starling needed. With this vital role filled, production moved forward.
HANNIBAL is set 10 years after the events of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Hannibal Lecter is still at large, and Clarice Starling is now a world-weary agent whose current assignment is leading the DEA and DCPD for a raid on Evelda Drumgo (Hazelle Goodman), a drug dealer that Clarice has busted before. During a pre-raid briefing, Clarice exerts her authority over the operation. When a cocky dipshit of DCPD detective tries to prove how big his dick is by patronizing Clarice, she basically verbally castrates him right then and there. Clearly, Clarice hasn't lost her toughness. Go, girl.
Unfortunately, the raid goes south in a very big way - in a Titanic-big way. Clarice sees that Evelda - that sneaky bitch - has brought her infant with her to work that day. Not wanting a kid caught in the crossfire, Clarice orders everyone to stand down.
Unfortunately, the DCPD dick (in more ways than one) that she humiliated earlier wants to save face and opens fire on Evelda's people anyway. This leads to such a cluster-fuck of stellar proportions that Clarice ends up being blamed for it all - despite having clearly behaved above reproach. Meanwhile, the DCPD dick probably got a promotion or something. How's that for fairness?
Fortunately, Clarice has a patron saint in one Mason Verger (Gary Oldman). The scion of a powerful meat-packing dynasty, Verger also just happens to be Hannibal Lecter's only surviving victim. See, Lecter was Verger's court-appointed psychiatrist in the wake of the latter's conviction for being, well, a disgusting slimeball towards minors. Lecter, clearly realizing that a world without Mason would be a better one, got him all doped up on hallucinogenics - convinced him to: (1) hang himself while jerking off; (2) peel his face off with a shard of glass; then (3) feed it to the dogs.
Well, Lecter's joke on Verger apparently left the latter: (1) paralyzed; (2) ugly as sin; (3) and mad as hell - at the not-so-good doctor. Basically, Verger has declared a bounty of $3 million for anyone who can provide information on Lecter's capture. Also, Verger thinks that by requesting Clarice be re-assigned to the Hannibal Lecter case, the not-so-good doctor may try to initiate contact - and possibly give away his hiding place.
In other words, Clarice is now Verger's pawn in his game of "Hunt Down and Kill Hannibal Lecter." Clarice doesn't have much say in this because her FBI bosses pretty much bow down and comply with Verger - who's very politically-connected. In other words, they're all his bitches. Especially mega-asshole Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), who would probably go down on Verger if he asked him to. Yuck. Clarice, being the pragmatic Lutheran that she is, realizes things could be worse than being assigned to a celebrated case - and gets busy.
Well, right now you're probably thinking, "The fucking movie is called HANNIBAL. Where the fuck is he?" Thank you, kind reader, for asking. See, Dr. Hannibal Lecter and I have something in common: a deep and abiding love for Italy and all things Italian. Recall that his cell in SILENCE were papered with sketches of the Duomo in Florence. Three guesses as to where the not-so-good doctor has absconded to. First two definitely don't count.
If you answered, "Why... Florence, of course!" then clearly you are the smartest one in your circle of friends. Yes, Dr. Lecter is now living in lovely Firenze under the alias of "Dr. Fell," and is apparently in charge of the prestigious Caponni library. The previous curator went missing - AHEM - not too long ago and "Dr. Fell" was gracious enough to step in to replace him. How generous of him. And how fucking convenient.
Anyhow, the disappearance of Lecter's predecessor is what causes Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) to come snooping around the Capponi library to see what's what. Needless to say, Pazzi gradually grows suspicious of Lecter and begins to tail him around Florence. During one of these stalking sessions, Pazzi notices that Lecter always wipes his fingerprints off restaurant utensils and glasses that he uses. How very, very odd. Hmmmmmmmmm....
Meanwhile, Clarice has received a letter from Lecter that reads like World's Kinkiest Love Letter. Noticing that the paper has a fragrant scent, Clarice cannily enlists the aid of perfume experts who tell her that the bouquet was engineered specifically using a rare ingredient - which is basically whale vomit. How whale vomit can be used for making perfume I live up to you guys to figure out. Anyway, only a few places in the world, apparently, use this rare ingredient. They're located in London, Tokyo, Paris.... and Florence.
DUN-DA-DUN-DUN!
Over in Belle Italia, Pazzi is growing increasingly sure that "Fell" is actually Lecter. Noticing an ad on the internet for a reward for Lecter's capture, Pazzi contact's Mason Verger's people and begins to cut a deal with the devil - or at least someone who looks just like him. Why is Pazzi doing this, you ask? Why doesn't he just tell his own people at the Firenze questura about Lecter? Won't he get some sort of recognition for being the detective that caught Lecter?
Well, evidenly, Pazzi feels that the $3 million that Verger will pay him in exchange for Lecter's capture is recognition enough. Besides, he also has a young wife, Allegra (Francesca Neri), whom he has to keep happy with trips to the opera, expensive gifts, and vacations in New England. Sadly, Pazzi grossly underestimates his adversary, because Lecter is the quickest of quick studies... and is at least ten steps ahead of Pazzi.
So... Will Pazzi succeed in nabbing Lecter? Or will Lecter enjoy, ahem, a Florentine meal of Spaghetti A la Pazzi? Will Clarice trace Lecter's whereabouts in time to save Pazzi from himself? Will Lecter return to the States to initiate contact with Clarice? What is Lecter's master plan? Will Krendler be part of it? Or will he end up a meal for Lecter? What about Allegra? Will Lecter consider trading Clarice in for her? I mean, come one: Allegra's a hot Italian babe. I sure as hell would. See below:
BUT, SERIOUSLY: If there was ever a film that had huge shoes to fill, it was HANNIBAL. As the follow-up to a much-loved (and much-feared) suspense classic like THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, it was always going to be an uphill battle. Fair praise should be given to Thomas Harris for producing a sequel that diverges from its predecessors more business-like tone, and going for something more European and surreal. With the exception of that infamous ending, there's really not much wrong with the book. Fortunately, screenwriter Steven Zaillian gives the film an alternate ending that is very satisfying - and leaves the door open for a sequel - should the producers and Harris decide to go that route.
Being partially set in Italy - the loveliest place on Earth - HANNIBAL has a very brooding and moodily atmospheric feel to it that SILENCE didn't have. While the first film had its own atmosphere that was often cast aside by its fast-moving plot, this film is slower-paced and very sensual. Slowly, one begins to realize that HANNIBAL wasn't meant to be a kinetic, race-against-time thriller like SILENCE, but instead a sort of dark love story between two people who can never be together. I think a lot of folks were disappointed with HANNIBAL because they were expecting another film SILENCE. But the two are as different as night and day.
Ridley Scott's direction underscores the dream-like atmosphere. This surreal feel is never more present than in the Florence scenes. Scott transforms the ancient city into a funhouse of shadows, mist, shapes, and moving bars of light. It would be difficult to portray Italy in any way less than ravishing, but Scott not only emphasizes Florence's beauty but also the darkness and foreboding that the casual eye easily misses. Constantly juxtaposing darkness with beauty in the same way that he's done will all of his films (ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME, BLACK RAIN, THELMA AND LOUISE), Scott turns HANNIBAL into something approaching a grisly fairy tale. Even the Stateside scenes have a moody, off-kilter quality the reminds one of a half-remembered dream.
The big question here is whether Julianne Moore measures up to Jodie Foster? Well, the short answer is "Yes." The complex answer is: "You can't really compare the two performances because each actress is playing Clarice Starling at a different chapter in her life." Foster's Starling was ambitious, driven, playful, intuitive, and full of the fire and confidence that one has when their life is still ahead of them. Moore, on the other hand, is portraying Clarice at a time in her life when she's started to become disillusioned with the FBI - with its ruthless politics and duplicitous superiors like Krendler. As a result, her portrayal of Starling is chillier, more detached and wary, and no longer starry-eyed. Moore, however, manages to still hint at a reservoir of softness and innocence, especially in her brief scenes with Frankie Faison as Barney, Lecter's old asylum attendant. In the end, it's better to gauge Moore's performance based on the character that she's playing now, instead of comparing it to Foster's ten years ago - which essayed the same person at a much more promising time in her life. In either case, Moore is terrific.
Anthony Hopkins delivers the same playful and lethal performance that he delivered in SILENCE, and all the unspoken stuff in that film are revealed more explicitly this time around. For example: (1) Verger wonders out loud if Lecter has a carnal interest in Clarice; (2) Lecter writes a letter to Clarice that seems to taunt her, but is really a letter of support in her time of need; (3) Allegra asking Lecter at the opera if he believes that a man can fall in love with a woman after just a brief encounter; (4) Lecter purchases designer evening shoes and a dress for Clarice; and (5) at the climax of the film, Lecter's exchange with Clarice while she's trapped in the kitchen with him, pretty much all spell out what's going on inside of him. Anthony Hopkins plays all of the character's level vividly. Just as he clicked with Foster, so, too, does Hopkins click with Moore.
As for the supporting cast, Ray Liotta is just the right blend of smarmy, sleazy, and oily as Krendler. Suffice it to say, he deserves his gory fate at Lecter's hands. Giancarlo Giannini is perfection as Inspector Pazzi, the decent cop whose desire to hold on to his wife pushes him to make some very dangerous decisions - which he ultimately pays for with his life. Frankie Faison makes a nice impression from the first film as Barney, and as I mentioned before his scenes with Moore as Clarice have a nice warmth to them.
Finally, in her small but fairly important role as Allegra - the woman for whom Pazzi takes the great risks that he does - Francesca Neri is absolutely dazzling. She only has a couple of scenes, but one of them forms the emotional heart of the film: when Allegra and Lecter discuss the opera they just saw. See below:
ALLEGRA: (reading from libretto) "Joyous love seemed to me, the while he held my heart in his hand. And in his arms, my lady lay asleep - wrapped in a veil."
LECTER: (quoting from memory) "He woke her then, and trembling and obedient, she ate that burning heart from his hand... Weeping, I saw him then depart from me..."
ALLEGRA: Doctor Fell, do you believe that a man can become so obsessed with a woman from a single encounter?
LECTER: Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for her? And get nourishment from the very sight of her? Yes, I think so. But... would she see through the bars of his plight - and ache for him?
This brief scene cuts right through the heart of the Lecter-Clarice conundrum with graceful and elegant efficiency. It is one of my Top Five Favorite Scenes of All Time, and its due largely to the lovely writing - and Hopkins and Neri's tender delivery. I'm glad that Ridley Scott and Steve Zaillian made the decision to soften the character of Allegra. In the book she was quite unysmpathetic and shrill - a woman who clearly only cared about money and not at all about her husband. You could care less whether or not Lecter killed her. In the film, Allegra is much more likable and clearly cares for Pazzi - and Francesca Neri makes her memorable.
All in all, HANNIBAL may not be the excellent film that THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is. However, it is a very good film that is sadly misunderstood and unfairly maligned. If only people would forget about expecting it to be a thriller - and see if for the very dark romance that it is - then they would see what a gem this movie is.
(Oh, Hannibal my Hannibal, wherefore are thou my Hannibal? Probably out there gnoshing on someone's head with some horseradish sauce on the side.)
CAST: Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta, Gary Oldman, Giancarlo Giannini, Frankie Faison, Francesca Neri, Zeljko Ivanek, Hazelle Goodman.
DIRECTOR: Ridley Scott
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and rather grotesque love stories straight ahead...
LECTER: Would you ever dream of saying: "Stop. If you love me, you'll stop."
CLARICE: Not in a thousand years.
LECTER: (almost proud) Not in a thousand years? That's my girl...
- Scene from HANNIBAL
With the stunning success of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in the early 90's - including Academy Awards for Best Actor, Actress, Picture, Picture and Director - it was pretty much a given that a sequel would eventually come along. Stars Anthony Hopkins and Jodie Foster seemed amenable to reprising their Oscar-sealed roles as Dr. Hannibal Lecter, the brilliant but psychotic serial killer/psychiatrist, and Clarice Starling, the FBI trainee-turned-agent that catches his fancy. It was just a matter of novelist Thomas Harris writing the follow-up novel to SILENCE.
In the late 90's, Harris finally delivered. Titled simply as "Hannibal," the novel immediately rose to the top of the international bestseller lists. This doesn't mean, though, that the novel was embraced as warmly as its predecessor. Far from it. In fact, "Hannibal" sharply divided readers. Those expecting a fast, linear thriller in the vein of SILENCE were disappointed by the new novel's multi-threaded plot that spanned two continents and several subplots.
The biggest bone of contention, however, was "Hannibal's" ending. If you haven't read the book, I won't spoil it for you. If you have, then you know what I'm talking about. Requiring a gargantuan suspension of disbelief, the ending isn't exactly terrible. Just... very odd and different. Now, "odd" and "different" are normally okay in my book. Unfortunately, the ending is also illogical - requiring us to accept that Clarice Starling would change her value system so radically that she would actually.... well, like I said, I won't spoil it. Let's just say that, while I find the ending intriguing, I ultimately don't agree with it because it negates all the character groundwork established in the first novel.
Evidently, Jodie Foster felt the same way. She despised the ending with a capital "D." Like a lot of readers including myself, she couldn't accept that Clarice would do what the novel showed her doing at the end. When adapting the novel for the silver screen, several top-flight screenwriters including Steve Zaillian and David Mamet set about changing the book's ending to something more acceptable. Even with that, though, Foster still eventually dropped out of the production. Faced with the loss of it's Academy-Award winning star who'd cemented the character of Clarice Starling in the minds millions of audience members, the producers scrambled to find a suitable replacement.
Names like Angelina Jolie, Helen Hunt, Cate Blanchett, Hilary Swank, Gillian Anderson and others were bandied about. Eventually, they settled on actress Julianne Moore. Moore was the perfect caliber of actress the part needed, having amassed an impressive body of work to attest to her talent but still managing to avoid being tabloid fodder. In other words, she was cut from the same cloth as Jodie Foster, which is what the role of Clarice Starling needed. With this vital role filled, production moved forward.
HANNIBAL is set 10 years after the events of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. Hannibal Lecter is still at large, and Clarice Starling is now a world-weary agent whose current assignment is leading the DEA and DCPD for a raid on Evelda Drumgo (Hazelle Goodman), a drug dealer that Clarice has busted before. During a pre-raid briefing, Clarice exerts her authority over the operation. When a cocky dipshit of DCPD detective tries to prove how big his dick is by patronizing Clarice, she basically verbally castrates him right then and there. Clearly, Clarice hasn't lost her toughness. Go, girl.
Unfortunately, the raid goes south in a very big way - in a Titanic-big way. Clarice sees that Evelda - that sneaky bitch - has brought her infant with her to work that day. Not wanting a kid caught in the crossfire, Clarice orders everyone to stand down.
Unfortunately, the DCPD dick (in more ways than one) that she humiliated earlier wants to save face and opens fire on Evelda's people anyway. This leads to such a cluster-fuck of stellar proportions that Clarice ends up being blamed for it all - despite having clearly behaved above reproach. Meanwhile, the DCPD dick probably got a promotion or something. How's that for fairness?
Fortunately, Clarice has a patron saint in one Mason Verger (Gary Oldman). The scion of a powerful meat-packing dynasty, Verger also just happens to be Hannibal Lecter's only surviving victim. See, Lecter was Verger's court-appointed psychiatrist in the wake of the latter's conviction for being, well, a disgusting slimeball towards minors. Lecter, clearly realizing that a world without Mason would be a better one, got him all doped up on hallucinogenics - convinced him to: (1) hang himself while jerking off; (2) peel his face off with a shard of glass; then (3) feed it to the dogs.
Well, Lecter's joke on Verger apparently left the latter: (1) paralyzed; (2) ugly as sin; (3) and mad as hell - at the not-so-good doctor. Basically, Verger has declared a bounty of $3 million for anyone who can provide information on Lecter's capture. Also, Verger thinks that by requesting Clarice be re-assigned to the Hannibal Lecter case, the not-so-good doctor may try to initiate contact - and possibly give away his hiding place.
In other words, Clarice is now Verger's pawn in his game of "Hunt Down and Kill Hannibal Lecter." Clarice doesn't have much say in this because her FBI bosses pretty much bow down and comply with Verger - who's very politically-connected. In other words, they're all his bitches. Especially mega-asshole Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta), who would probably go down on Verger if he asked him to. Yuck. Clarice, being the pragmatic Lutheran that she is, realizes things could be worse than being assigned to a celebrated case - and gets busy.
Well, right now you're probably thinking, "The fucking movie is called HANNIBAL. Where the fuck is he?" Thank you, kind reader, for asking. See, Dr. Hannibal Lecter and I have something in common: a deep and abiding love for Italy and all things Italian. Recall that his cell in SILENCE were papered with sketches of the Duomo in Florence. Three guesses as to where the not-so-good doctor has absconded to. First two definitely don't count.
If you answered, "Why... Florence, of course!" then clearly you are the smartest one in your circle of friends. Yes, Dr. Lecter is now living in lovely Firenze under the alias of "Dr. Fell," and is apparently in charge of the prestigious Caponni library. The previous curator went missing - AHEM - not too long ago and "Dr. Fell" was gracious enough to step in to replace him. How generous of him. And how fucking convenient.
Anyhow, the disappearance of Lecter's predecessor is what causes Inspector Rinaldo Pazzi (Giancarlo Giannini) to come snooping around the Capponi library to see what's what. Needless to say, Pazzi gradually grows suspicious of Lecter and begins to tail him around Florence. During one of these stalking sessions, Pazzi notices that Lecter always wipes his fingerprints off restaurant utensils and glasses that he uses. How very, very odd. Hmmmmmmmmm....
Meanwhile, Clarice has received a letter from Lecter that reads like World's Kinkiest Love Letter. Noticing that the paper has a fragrant scent, Clarice cannily enlists the aid of perfume experts who tell her that the bouquet was engineered specifically using a rare ingredient - which is basically whale vomit. How whale vomit can be used for making perfume I live up to you guys to figure out. Anyway, only a few places in the world, apparently, use this rare ingredient. They're located in London, Tokyo, Paris.... and Florence.
DUN-DA-DUN-DUN!
Over in Belle Italia, Pazzi is growing increasingly sure that "Fell" is actually Lecter. Noticing an ad on the internet for a reward for Lecter's capture, Pazzi contact's Mason Verger's people and begins to cut a deal with the devil - or at least someone who looks just like him. Why is Pazzi doing this, you ask? Why doesn't he just tell his own people at the Firenze questura about Lecter? Won't he get some sort of recognition for being the detective that caught Lecter?
Well, evidenly, Pazzi feels that the $3 million that Verger will pay him in exchange for Lecter's capture is recognition enough. Besides, he also has a young wife, Allegra (Francesca Neri), whom he has to keep happy with trips to the opera, expensive gifts, and vacations in New England. Sadly, Pazzi grossly underestimates his adversary, because Lecter is the quickest of quick studies... and is at least ten steps ahead of Pazzi.
So... Will Pazzi succeed in nabbing Lecter? Or will Lecter enjoy, ahem, a Florentine meal of Spaghetti A la Pazzi? Will Clarice trace Lecter's whereabouts in time to save Pazzi from himself? Will Lecter return to the States to initiate contact with Clarice? What is Lecter's master plan? Will Krendler be part of it? Or will he end up a meal for Lecter? What about Allegra? Will Lecter consider trading Clarice in for her? I mean, come one: Allegra's a hot Italian babe. I sure as hell would. See below:
BUT, SERIOUSLY: If there was ever a film that had huge shoes to fill, it was HANNIBAL. As the follow-up to a much-loved (and much-feared) suspense classic like THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, it was always going to be an uphill battle. Fair praise should be given to Thomas Harris for producing a sequel that diverges from its predecessors more business-like tone, and going for something more European and surreal. With the exception of that infamous ending, there's really not much wrong with the book. Fortunately, screenwriter Steven Zaillian gives the film an alternate ending that is very satisfying - and leaves the door open for a sequel - should the producers and Harris decide to go that route.
Being partially set in Italy - the loveliest place on Earth - HANNIBAL has a very brooding and moodily atmospheric feel to it that SILENCE didn't have. While the first film had its own atmosphere that was often cast aside by its fast-moving plot, this film is slower-paced and very sensual. Slowly, one begins to realize that HANNIBAL wasn't meant to be a kinetic, race-against-time thriller like SILENCE, but instead a sort of dark love story between two people who can never be together. I think a lot of folks were disappointed with HANNIBAL because they were expecting another film SILENCE. But the two are as different as night and day.
Ridley Scott's direction underscores the dream-like atmosphere. This surreal feel is never more present than in the Florence scenes. Scott transforms the ancient city into a funhouse of shadows, mist, shapes, and moving bars of light. It would be difficult to portray Italy in any way less than ravishing, but Scott not only emphasizes Florence's beauty but also the darkness and foreboding that the casual eye easily misses. Constantly juxtaposing darkness with beauty in the same way that he's done will all of his films (ALIEN, BLADE RUNNER, SOMEONE TO WATCH OVER ME, BLACK RAIN, THELMA AND LOUISE), Scott turns HANNIBAL into something approaching a grisly fairy tale. Even the Stateside scenes have a moody, off-kilter quality the reminds one of a half-remembered dream.
The big question here is whether Julianne Moore measures up to Jodie Foster? Well, the short answer is "Yes." The complex answer is: "You can't really compare the two performances because each actress is playing Clarice Starling at a different chapter in her life." Foster's Starling was ambitious, driven, playful, intuitive, and full of the fire and confidence that one has when their life is still ahead of them. Moore, on the other hand, is portraying Clarice at a time in her life when she's started to become disillusioned with the FBI - with its ruthless politics and duplicitous superiors like Krendler. As a result, her portrayal of Starling is chillier, more detached and wary, and no longer starry-eyed. Moore, however, manages to still hint at a reservoir of softness and innocence, especially in her brief scenes with Frankie Faison as Barney, Lecter's old asylum attendant. In the end, it's better to gauge Moore's performance based on the character that she's playing now, instead of comparing it to Foster's ten years ago - which essayed the same person at a much more promising time in her life. In either case, Moore is terrific.
Anthony Hopkins delivers the same playful and lethal performance that he delivered in SILENCE, and all the unspoken stuff in that film are revealed more explicitly this time around. For example: (1) Verger wonders out loud if Lecter has a carnal interest in Clarice; (2) Lecter writes a letter to Clarice that seems to taunt her, but is really a letter of support in her time of need; (3) Allegra asking Lecter at the opera if he believes that a man can fall in love with a woman after just a brief encounter; (4) Lecter purchases designer evening shoes and a dress for Clarice; and (5) at the climax of the film, Lecter's exchange with Clarice while she's trapped in the kitchen with him, pretty much all spell out what's going on inside of him. Anthony Hopkins plays all of the character's level vividly. Just as he clicked with Foster, so, too, does Hopkins click with Moore.
As for the supporting cast, Ray Liotta is just the right blend of smarmy, sleazy, and oily as Krendler. Suffice it to say, he deserves his gory fate at Lecter's hands. Giancarlo Giannini is perfection as Inspector Pazzi, the decent cop whose desire to hold on to his wife pushes him to make some very dangerous decisions - which he ultimately pays for with his life. Frankie Faison makes a nice impression from the first film as Barney, and as I mentioned before his scenes with Moore as Clarice have a nice warmth to them.
Finally, in her small but fairly important role as Allegra - the woman for whom Pazzi takes the great risks that he does - Francesca Neri is absolutely dazzling. She only has a couple of scenes, but one of them forms the emotional heart of the film: when Allegra and Lecter discuss the opera they just saw. See below:
ALLEGRA: (reading from libretto) "Joyous love seemed to me, the while he held my heart in his hand. And in his arms, my lady lay asleep - wrapped in a veil."
LECTER: (quoting from memory) "He woke her then, and trembling and obedient, she ate that burning heart from his hand... Weeping, I saw him then depart from me..."
ALLEGRA: Doctor Fell, do you believe that a man can become so obsessed with a woman from a single encounter?
LECTER: Could he daily feel a stab of hunger for her? And get nourishment from the very sight of her? Yes, I think so. But... would she see through the bars of his plight - and ache for him?
This brief scene cuts right through the heart of the Lecter-Clarice conundrum with graceful and elegant efficiency. It is one of my Top Five Favorite Scenes of All Time, and its due largely to the lovely writing - and Hopkins and Neri's tender delivery. I'm glad that Ridley Scott and Steve Zaillian made the decision to soften the character of Allegra. In the book she was quite unysmpathetic and shrill - a woman who clearly only cared about money and not at all about her husband. You could care less whether or not Lecter killed her. In the film, Allegra is much more likable and clearly cares for Pazzi - and Francesca Neri makes her memorable.
All in all, HANNIBAL may not be the excellent film that THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS is. However, it is a very good film that is sadly misunderstood and unfairly maligned. If only people would forget about expecting it to be a thriller - and see if for the very dark romance that it is - then they would see what a gem this movie is.
# 135 - RED DRAGON (2002)
RED DRAGON (2002 - SERIAL KILLER THRILLER) **1/2 out of *****
(Wow. For a killer called "The Tooth Fairy" he sure looks fairly butch.)
CAST: Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel, Ralph Fiennes, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Mary Louise Parker, Emily Watson.
DIRECTOR: Brett Ratner.
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and decidedly non-flirtatious Lecter behavior - straight ahead.
Ask anyone to name the Top Five most memorable cinematic villains to come along in the last twenty years. Chances are the name "Hannibal Lecter" will be included, along with possibly Catherine Trammell (BASIC INSTINCT), Hans Gruber (DIE HARD), Darth Vader (DUH), and whatever rocket scientist approved Nicolas Cage's hairdo in NEXT (talk cruel and unusual punishment). In fact, I don't think anyone ever thought of fava beans, Chianti, or Anthony Hopkins in the same way ever again.
Most audiences got their introduction to Dr. Lecter through Anthony Hopkins' brilliant performance in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in 1990. But the character had been around long before that, and had even featured in another film. The not-so-good doctor made his debut in Thomas Harris' novel "Red Dragon" in 1980. Then, in 1985, he made his cinematic debut in MANHUNTER (1985), Michael Mann's slick and scary adaptation of that novel.
In MANHUNTER, Dr. Lecter was played by the now-ubiquitous Brian Cox. Several years later, after Harris' next novel "The Silence of the Lambs" hit big and picked up for the silver screen, Cox was reportedly approached to reprise his role of Hannibal Lecter. Fortunately, he turned it down for whatever reason. No disrespect intended to Brian Cox, because he's one of my favorite character actors, but I'm glad he did. His understated Lecter was perfect for the coolly clinical MANHUNTER. But for THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, a new Lecter was needed. A fiery, larger-than-life, lethally-charming-when-he's-not-just-being-lethal Lecter.
Enter Sir Anthony Hopkins. And the rest is history....
After the huge critical and commercial success of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, it was only inevitable that a sequel would rise, albeit belatedly. In 2001, HANNIBAL was released and raked in $50-plus million in its first three days of play in North America. Although not as critically-adored as its predecessor, HANNIBAL became a huge domestic and international hit - enough for the powers-that-be to start eyeing the first Lecter novel, "Red Dragon". Enough for them to travel back in time, cinematically speaking, and adapt it a second time under its true title.
RED DRAGON opens with a shot of our not-so-good Dr. Lecter at a symphony. He's trying his best to enjoy the music. Unfortunately, one of the orchestra's flutists is playing just a tad off-key. Now, to most people this would go unnoticed. Dr. Lecter, however, has hearing that makes a bat look like a prime candidate for a hearing aid. Basically, it's like nails scraping a chalkboard. Only somehow worse. And our doctor likes his music, just like his crimes, to be perfect. Which means that the flutist isn't long to this world.
Not too much later, we see Lecter entertaining a bunch of la-di-da dipsits at a dinner party where the guests talk about the following: (1) how tragic it is that the flutist has gone missing; (2) but also how fortunate that is for the symphony since his fluting skills were more suited to blowjobs than actual flute-playing; and (3) what is that divine red sauce that Dr. Lecter just served them? Do tell.
Lecter smiles coyly and actually says: "I'm afraid if I tell you, you won't eat it." No fucking shit, doc. Just tell them it's "Flutist Ragu." That ought to wake them up.
Anyhow, long after the hoity-toites leave with human flesh rolling around in their tummies, our hero shows up to consult with Dr. Lecter. He is FBI Special Agent Will Graham (Edward Norton), and he's been using Lecter's psychiatric wisdom to try to solve the recent spate of murders that apparently now involves the missing flutist. Of course, Graham has no fucking clue that he's basically soliciting advice from the person he's looking for. Not yet anyway.
Turns out the reason for Graham's visit is to inform Lecter that he just had a revelation. See, the killer - ahem - has been removing sections of flesh - double ahem - from the bodies. And Graham just realized that the section removed are all connected to... cooking. From there, it's a fairly small leap to conclude that the killer he's looking for is a cannibal.
Oh my God, you should see the barely-concealed look of "Holy Fucking Shit" on Lecter's face at this news. Oh, sure... he gives good poker face - but you know underneath he's thinking "This. Goddamned. Upstart. Has. Figured. Me. Out." To cover for his dismay, Lecter kisses Graham's ass and uses a bunch of fancy words to call him a superhuman genius who can "assume the emotional viewpoint of others - even if its unpleasant." Psssst, doc. There's a bunch of people who can do that: they're called actors and they tend to congregate in New York and L.A. Just keeping it real, doc.. Please don't eat me. At least, not literally.
Needless to say, our not-so-good doctor know its just a matter of time (minutes, to be exact) before Graham piece things together. So Lecter tries to kill him by jamming a knife in midsection, while calling him "a remarkable boy." Which would be accurate, considering Graham beat Lecter at his own game. He goes on to prove just how remarkable he is by going tit-for-tat and jamming a bunch of nearby arrows into Lecter's hard-to-miss gut. This distracts our not-so-good doc long enough for Graham to pull out his ankle gun and pump a few ounces of lead into Lecter's aforementioned gut. Seems it's a bad night to be Hannibal Lecter's gut.
Not enough to kill him, though, otherwise we wouldn't have THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and HANNIBAL.
Flash forward a few years, and we find Graham has been medically-retired from the Bureau, and is now living the good life on Key West in a bungalow by the sea with wife Molly (Mary-Louis Parker) and son Josh ( ). Well, I guess that's one way to get a cushy retirement: survive getting gutted by a cannibalistic serial killer. And I guess there's the added achievement of being the one to actually putting Lecter behind bars.
Unfortunately, Graham's peace doesn't last for long. His old boss, Special Agent Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel), shows up to recruit his help in solving a new case: a new serial killer nicknamed "The Tooth Fairy" has killed two whole families in Georgia and Alabama. Evidently, the Fairy (snicker) kills every 30 days or something, and the clock is ticking down to when the next family will fall.
As much as Graham would love to stay on Key West and allow his hair to get blonder and his skin to get tanner, he feels that he should lend Crawford his help. Molly, as you can imagine, takes this news like someone just told her that a hurricane is headed their way and all the bridges back to the mainland have been sabotaged by intelligent sharks. In other words, Graham's got a lot of hard-selling to do.
Eventually, Molly gives in and lets him go. Without wasting any time, Graham heads over to the homes of the murdered families and does his "remarkable" thing by prowling around the inside and outside of the house to try to get into the killer's head. Soon, he intuits the following things: (1) the Fairy's interest is in the mothers (shocker, considering his name, right?); (2) he stalks the families and seems to know a lot about their patterns; and (3) he's going to need some help in building the Fairy's profile.
Right about now, you're probably wondering where the fuck Dr. Lecter is in all of this. Patience, young grasshopper, patience. Turns out that Lecter survived Graham's gunshots, and is now residing comfortably in the Baltimore State Sanitarium headed by asshole Frederick Chilton (Anthony Heald). The sharp-eyed and "remarkable" among you may remember that Dr. Chilton became Dr. Lecter's pot roast at the end of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. In this movie, though, Chilton has no fucking clue that his final destination in life will be Dr. Lecter's toilet, and is therefore smug as ever. Just you wait, jackass.
So, Graham again consults with Dr. Lecter on a case. Now, I don't know about you folks, but I'm thinking that Lecter being asked for help by the guy who: (1) stabbed him with arrows, (2) shot him silly, and (3) put him behind bars, is not exactly the most feasible proposition. It's kind of like a deer hunter shooting a stag in the ass, then going up to it and asking it if it has seen Rudolph around lately. In other words, Graham's just asking for it.
Meanwhile, while Graham is (unwisely) hitting up our not-so-good doctor for info on The Tooth Fairy, we we skip over to see what the Fairy is actually doing. Turns out he's a very not-bad-looking guy named Francic Dolarhyde. Actually, make that a smokin' hot guy named Francis Dolarhyde. Not surprising, since Dolarhyde is played by Ralph Fiennes. Yes, folks. Our serial killer, The Tooth Fairy, is played by Ralph Fiennes. How's that for "shit that doesn't add up."
Anyhow, when Dolarhyde is not stalking families with the intention of turning them into statistics and urban legends, he works as some sort of video processor/technician. As you can imagine, his coworkers at the company are kind of scared of him. Probably because he's too good-looking. Happens all the time. The only person that is kind to him is blind co-worker Reba McClane (Emily Watson). Dolarhyde finds comfort in the fact that she can't see him because he thinks of himself as ugly. Again, try to suspend your disbelief.
Things get complicated, though, when Dolarhyde finds himself falling for Reba. Yes, deep down our serial killer is really just Heathcliff from WUTHERING HEIGHTS. For realz, yo. It goes without saying that when you are getting ready to unleash a can of hurt on some unsuspecting family, getting all googly-eyed for someone is a big distraction and highly inadvisable. It appears that The Tooth Fairy isn't a fairy after all.
So... the big questions... Will Dolarhyde allow Reba to humanize him? Will Graham get anything useful out of Lecter? Or will Lecter just smile and politely tell him to fuck off? Or worse - will Lecter deliberately try to mislead Graham and - even worse - turn Dolarhyde onto Molly and Josh? Will Graham catch up with Dolarhyde in time to save the next family? And the most pressing question of all: will Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes end up duking it out in a game of "Quien Es Muy Macho?"
Inquring minds would like to know.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: It's a shame that RED DRAGON came out in 2002 - well after the Serial Killer genre's zenith. In the aftermath of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS's runaway success, a tidal wave of similar films (in plot, if not quality, for most) flooded theaters: JENNIFER EIGHT, COPYCAT, STRIKING DISTANCE, NIGHTWATCH, SEVEN, THE BONE COLLECTOR, THE CRIMSON RIVERS, THE WATCHER, KISS THE GIRLS, and SILENCE's own sequel HANNIBAL - just to name a few.
The point is, with RED DRAGON coming out after all of those movies (despite being based on a book from 1980) the serial-killer conventions it trots out on us feel a little recycled. And for those who've seen MANHUNTER, the superior 1987 version of the novel, that feeling is stronger. While RED DRAGON is technically well-made, it doesn't have any real feeling or distinctive tone of its own.
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS had a no-nonsense, procedural feel to it that was also suspenseful. HANNIBAL had a surreal, dream-like feel to it that was very removed from SILENCE's urgent tone. RED DRAGON, on the other hand, attempts to re-create SILENCE's brisk flavor - but only succeeds in feeling workmanlike and mechanical. What's missing here that was very abundant in both SILENCE and HANNIBAL is tension.
Fortunately, the cast is so good that they make the film a serviceable entry into the genre. Whatever suspense wrung from the story comes from their efforts. Edward Norton make a nicely-atypical and quirky hero. He's very handsome, but not in a way that distracts like Jon Hamm in THE TOWN. You believe immediately in Norton's portrayal of Graham as an extremely intuitive and gifted eideteker whose brilliance is also his curse.
Ralph Fiennes is low-key as Francis Dolarhyde - which is the right "volume level" to play this twisted character at. If Fiennes had played Dolarhyde as more flamboyant, the character would seem less threatening. While it takes a little getting used to seeing Ralph Fiennes as a serial killer, it eventually works due to his combo of icy good looks and innate ability to suggest dark, dark depths beneath those sad eyes.
The rest of the cast nail their roles. Harvey Keitel is concise and potent as Crawford. Philip Seymour Hoffman is appropriately sleazy and hissable as a tabloid reporter who becomes a pawn in both Graham and Lecter's games.
As for the women, Mary Louise Parker and Emily Watson are very good in their roles. Parker manages to keep Molly from slipping into "damsel-in-distress" territory, while Watson provides the film with something approaching an emotional center with her strange and strangely-sympathetic relationship with Dolarhyde.
And what about Sir Anthony Hopkins? Well, he's good as ever as Hannibal Lecter. This time, though, he is a meaner (if that's possible) presence. Remember: his dynamic with Graham is an antagonistic one since Graham caught him. Their exchanges have none of the semi-playful and almost-affectionate tones that Lecter's conversation with SILENCE's Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster). As he did with SILENCE, Hopkins and Lecter make the most of their limited screen time.
In the end, RED DRAGON is rendered average by its late entry into the genre, despite originating from source material that basically established it. Unfortunately, director Brett Ratner's attempts to recreate THE SILENCE OF THE LAMB's style instead of giving his film a flavor of its own also works against it.
Fortunately, that stellar cast sells the material with their conviction and dedication to their roles. And given how played out the Serial Killer genre is by now, I suppose that's more than we can hope for.
(Wow. For a killer called "The Tooth Fairy" he sure looks fairly butch.)
CAST: Edward Norton, Harvey Keitel, Ralph Fiennes, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Mary Louise Parker, Emily Watson.
DIRECTOR: Brett Ratner.
WARNING: Some SPOILERS and decidedly non-flirtatious Lecter behavior - straight ahead.
Ask anyone to name the Top Five most memorable cinematic villains to come along in the last twenty years. Chances are the name "Hannibal Lecter" will be included, along with possibly Catherine Trammell (BASIC INSTINCT), Hans Gruber (DIE HARD), Darth Vader (DUH), and whatever rocket scientist approved Nicolas Cage's hairdo in NEXT (talk cruel and unusual punishment). In fact, I don't think anyone ever thought of fava beans, Chianti, or Anthony Hopkins in the same way ever again.
Most audiences got their introduction to Dr. Lecter through Anthony Hopkins' brilliant performance in THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS in 1990. But the character had been around long before that, and had even featured in another film. The not-so-good doctor made his debut in Thomas Harris' novel "Red Dragon" in 1980. Then, in 1985, he made his cinematic debut in MANHUNTER (1985), Michael Mann's slick and scary adaptation of that novel.
In MANHUNTER, Dr. Lecter was played by the now-ubiquitous Brian Cox. Several years later, after Harris' next novel "The Silence of the Lambs" hit big and picked up for the silver screen, Cox was reportedly approached to reprise his role of Hannibal Lecter. Fortunately, he turned it down for whatever reason. No disrespect intended to Brian Cox, because he's one of my favorite character actors, but I'm glad he did. His understated Lecter was perfect for the coolly clinical MANHUNTER. But for THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, a new Lecter was needed. A fiery, larger-than-life, lethally-charming-when-he's-not-just-being-lethal Lecter.
Enter Sir Anthony Hopkins. And the rest is history....
After the huge critical and commercial success of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, it was only inevitable that a sequel would rise, albeit belatedly. In 2001, HANNIBAL was released and raked in $50-plus million in its first three days of play in North America. Although not as critically-adored as its predecessor, HANNIBAL became a huge domestic and international hit - enough for the powers-that-be to start eyeing the first Lecter novel, "Red Dragon". Enough for them to travel back in time, cinematically speaking, and adapt it a second time under its true title.
RED DRAGON opens with a shot of our not-so-good Dr. Lecter at a symphony. He's trying his best to enjoy the music. Unfortunately, one of the orchestra's flutists is playing just a tad off-key. Now, to most people this would go unnoticed. Dr. Lecter, however, has hearing that makes a bat look like a prime candidate for a hearing aid. Basically, it's like nails scraping a chalkboard. Only somehow worse. And our doctor likes his music, just like his crimes, to be perfect. Which means that the flutist isn't long to this world.
Not too much later, we see Lecter entertaining a bunch of la-di-da dipsits at a dinner party where the guests talk about the following: (1) how tragic it is that the flutist has gone missing; (2) but also how fortunate that is for the symphony since his fluting skills were more suited to blowjobs than actual flute-playing; and (3) what is that divine red sauce that Dr. Lecter just served them? Do tell.
Lecter smiles coyly and actually says: "I'm afraid if I tell you, you won't eat it." No fucking shit, doc. Just tell them it's "Flutist Ragu." That ought to wake them up.
Anyhow, long after the hoity-toites leave with human flesh rolling around in their tummies, our hero shows up to consult with Dr. Lecter. He is FBI Special Agent Will Graham (Edward Norton), and he's been using Lecter's psychiatric wisdom to try to solve the recent spate of murders that apparently now involves the missing flutist. Of course, Graham has no fucking clue that he's basically soliciting advice from the person he's looking for. Not yet anyway.
Turns out the reason for Graham's visit is to inform Lecter that he just had a revelation. See, the killer - ahem - has been removing sections of flesh - double ahem - from the bodies. And Graham just realized that the section removed are all connected to... cooking. From there, it's a fairly small leap to conclude that the killer he's looking for is a cannibal.
Oh my God, you should see the barely-concealed look of "Holy Fucking Shit" on Lecter's face at this news. Oh, sure... he gives good poker face - but you know underneath he's thinking "This. Goddamned. Upstart. Has. Figured. Me. Out." To cover for his dismay, Lecter kisses Graham's ass and uses a bunch of fancy words to call him a superhuman genius who can "assume the emotional viewpoint of others - even if its unpleasant." Psssst, doc. There's a bunch of people who can do that: they're called actors and they tend to congregate in New York and L.A. Just keeping it real, doc.. Please don't eat me. At least, not literally.
Needless to say, our not-so-good doctor know its just a matter of time (minutes, to be exact) before Graham piece things together. So Lecter tries to kill him by jamming a knife in midsection, while calling him "a remarkable boy." Which would be accurate, considering Graham beat Lecter at his own game. He goes on to prove just how remarkable he is by going tit-for-tat and jamming a bunch of nearby arrows into Lecter's hard-to-miss gut. This distracts our not-so-good doc long enough for Graham to pull out his ankle gun and pump a few ounces of lead into Lecter's aforementioned gut. Seems it's a bad night to be Hannibal Lecter's gut.
Not enough to kill him, though, otherwise we wouldn't have THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS and HANNIBAL.
Flash forward a few years, and we find Graham has been medically-retired from the Bureau, and is now living the good life on Key West in a bungalow by the sea with wife Molly (Mary-Louis Parker) and son Josh ( ). Well, I guess that's one way to get a cushy retirement: survive getting gutted by a cannibalistic serial killer. And I guess there's the added achievement of being the one to actually putting Lecter behind bars.
Unfortunately, Graham's peace doesn't last for long. His old boss, Special Agent Jack Crawford (Harvey Keitel), shows up to recruit his help in solving a new case: a new serial killer nicknamed "The Tooth Fairy" has killed two whole families in Georgia and Alabama. Evidently, the Fairy (snicker) kills every 30 days or something, and the clock is ticking down to when the next family will fall.
As much as Graham would love to stay on Key West and allow his hair to get blonder and his skin to get tanner, he feels that he should lend Crawford his help. Molly, as you can imagine, takes this news like someone just told her that a hurricane is headed their way and all the bridges back to the mainland have been sabotaged by intelligent sharks. In other words, Graham's got a lot of hard-selling to do.
Eventually, Molly gives in and lets him go. Without wasting any time, Graham heads over to the homes of the murdered families and does his "remarkable" thing by prowling around the inside and outside of the house to try to get into the killer's head. Soon, he intuits the following things: (1) the Fairy's interest is in the mothers (shocker, considering his name, right?); (2) he stalks the families and seems to know a lot about their patterns; and (3) he's going to need some help in building the Fairy's profile.
Right about now, you're probably wondering where the fuck Dr. Lecter is in all of this. Patience, young grasshopper, patience. Turns out that Lecter survived Graham's gunshots, and is now residing comfortably in the Baltimore State Sanitarium headed by asshole Frederick Chilton (Anthony Heald). The sharp-eyed and "remarkable" among you may remember that Dr. Chilton became Dr. Lecter's pot roast at the end of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS. In this movie, though, Chilton has no fucking clue that his final destination in life will be Dr. Lecter's toilet, and is therefore smug as ever. Just you wait, jackass.
So, Graham again consults with Dr. Lecter on a case. Now, I don't know about you folks, but I'm thinking that Lecter being asked for help by the guy who: (1) stabbed him with arrows, (2) shot him silly, and (3) put him behind bars, is not exactly the most feasible proposition. It's kind of like a deer hunter shooting a stag in the ass, then going up to it and asking it if it has seen Rudolph around lately. In other words, Graham's just asking for it.
Meanwhile, while Graham is (unwisely) hitting up our not-so-good doctor for info on The Tooth Fairy, we we skip over to see what the Fairy is actually doing. Turns out he's a very not-bad-looking guy named Francic Dolarhyde. Actually, make that a smokin' hot guy named Francis Dolarhyde. Not surprising, since Dolarhyde is played by Ralph Fiennes. Yes, folks. Our serial killer, The Tooth Fairy, is played by Ralph Fiennes. How's that for "shit that doesn't add up."
Anyhow, when Dolarhyde is not stalking families with the intention of turning them into statistics and urban legends, he works as some sort of video processor/technician. As you can imagine, his coworkers at the company are kind of scared of him. Probably because he's too good-looking. Happens all the time. The only person that is kind to him is blind co-worker Reba McClane (Emily Watson). Dolarhyde finds comfort in the fact that she can't see him because he thinks of himself as ugly. Again, try to suspend your disbelief.
Things get complicated, though, when Dolarhyde finds himself falling for Reba. Yes, deep down our serial killer is really just Heathcliff from WUTHERING HEIGHTS. For realz, yo. It goes without saying that when you are getting ready to unleash a can of hurt on some unsuspecting family, getting all googly-eyed for someone is a big distraction and highly inadvisable. It appears that The Tooth Fairy isn't a fairy after all.
So... the big questions... Will Dolarhyde allow Reba to humanize him? Will Graham get anything useful out of Lecter? Or will Lecter just smile and politely tell him to fuck off? Or worse - will Lecter deliberately try to mislead Graham and - even worse - turn Dolarhyde onto Molly and Josh? Will Graham catch up with Dolarhyde in time to save the next family? And the most pressing question of all: will Edward Norton and Ralph Fiennes end up duking it out in a game of "Quien Es Muy Macho?"
Inquring minds would like to know.
BUT, SERIOUSLY: It's a shame that RED DRAGON came out in 2002 - well after the Serial Killer genre's zenith. In the aftermath of THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS's runaway success, a tidal wave of similar films (in plot, if not quality, for most) flooded theaters: JENNIFER EIGHT, COPYCAT, STRIKING DISTANCE, NIGHTWATCH, SEVEN, THE BONE COLLECTOR, THE CRIMSON RIVERS, THE WATCHER, KISS THE GIRLS, and SILENCE's own sequel HANNIBAL - just to name a few.
The point is, with RED DRAGON coming out after all of those movies (despite being based on a book from 1980) the serial-killer conventions it trots out on us feel a little recycled. And for those who've seen MANHUNTER, the superior 1987 version of the novel, that feeling is stronger. While RED DRAGON is technically well-made, it doesn't have any real feeling or distinctive tone of its own.
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS had a no-nonsense, procedural feel to it that was also suspenseful. HANNIBAL had a surreal, dream-like feel to it that was very removed from SILENCE's urgent tone. RED DRAGON, on the other hand, attempts to re-create SILENCE's brisk flavor - but only succeeds in feeling workmanlike and mechanical. What's missing here that was very abundant in both SILENCE and HANNIBAL is tension.
Fortunately, the cast is so good that they make the film a serviceable entry into the genre. Whatever suspense wrung from the story comes from their efforts. Edward Norton make a nicely-atypical and quirky hero. He's very handsome, but not in a way that distracts like Jon Hamm in THE TOWN. You believe immediately in Norton's portrayal of Graham as an extremely intuitive and gifted eideteker whose brilliance is also his curse.
Ralph Fiennes is low-key as Francis Dolarhyde - which is the right "volume level" to play this twisted character at. If Fiennes had played Dolarhyde as more flamboyant, the character would seem less threatening. While it takes a little getting used to seeing Ralph Fiennes as a serial killer, it eventually works due to his combo of icy good looks and innate ability to suggest dark, dark depths beneath those sad eyes.
The rest of the cast nail their roles. Harvey Keitel is concise and potent as Crawford. Philip Seymour Hoffman is appropriately sleazy and hissable as a tabloid reporter who becomes a pawn in both Graham and Lecter's games.
As for the women, Mary Louise Parker and Emily Watson are very good in their roles. Parker manages to keep Molly from slipping into "damsel-in-distress" territory, while Watson provides the film with something approaching an emotional center with her strange and strangely-sympathetic relationship with Dolarhyde.
And what about Sir Anthony Hopkins? Well, he's good as ever as Hannibal Lecter. This time, though, he is a meaner (if that's possible) presence. Remember: his dynamic with Graham is an antagonistic one since Graham caught him. Their exchanges have none of the semi-playful and almost-affectionate tones that Lecter's conversation with SILENCE's Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster). As he did with SILENCE, Hopkins and Lecter make the most of their limited screen time.
In the end, RED DRAGON is rendered average by its late entry into the genre, despite originating from source material that basically established it. Unfortunately, director Brett Ratner's attempts to recreate THE SILENCE OF THE LAMB's style instead of giving his film a flavor of its own also works against it.
Fortunately, that stellar cast sells the material with their conviction and dedication to their roles. And given how played out the Serial Killer genre is by now, I suppose that's more than we can hope for.
REVIEW UPDATE: THE CRIMSON RIVERS is out, and KISS THE GIRLS is in...
Hello, folks. Magic Time is here. Hope everyone has good plans for the weekend. If not, find some. As in: get thy ass to a Halloween Party! Not telling what my costume is. Suffice it to say, it'll be provocative. My it's getting hot in here...
Anyhow, a bit of annoying news. My DVD Pimp has just informed me that his DVD of THE CRIMSON RIVERS is unavailable and probably lost. Fortunately, there's no shortage of Serial Killer flicks out there. So, allow me to introduce the Morgan Freeman-Ashley Judd hit from 1997, KISS THE GIRLS. Check out the trailer below. I've heard of people who like to collect stuff, but this is just insane...
Yikes. The review for KISS THE GIRLS will post along with the other six reviews by Monday morning.
Happy Halloween.
Anyhow, a bit of annoying news. My DVD Pimp has just informed me that his DVD of THE CRIMSON RIVERS is unavailable and probably lost. Fortunately, there's no shortage of Serial Killer flicks out there. So, allow me to introduce the Morgan Freeman-Ashley Judd hit from 1997, KISS THE GIRLS. Check out the trailer below. I've heard of people who like to collect stuff, but this is just insane...
Yikes. The review for KISS THE GIRLS will post along with the other six reviews by Monday morning.
Happy Halloween.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)