ROTTEN TOMATOES: Early Test Screener Digs the New "Hannibal" Flick

Early Test Screener Digs the New "Hannibal" Flick

by Scott Weinberg | October 20, 2006

Discuss Article | Blog Article | Email To A Friend

It's time once again for another installment of "Early & Enthusiastic Amateur Film Critic," a regular series of articles over at AICN. This time the test screening buzz comes from a reader who got in to see an early version of "Hannibal Rising," which is a prequel to movies like "Manhunter," "The Silence of the Lambs," and (of course) "Hannibal."

From AICN: "I don’t want to give away any more. Gaspard Ulliel is excellent as Young Hannibal. The period setting is remarkable. The cinematography by Ben Davis is as gorgeous as Gong Li. The script by Thomas Harris grabs you and leads you deeper into the legend of Lecter. The audience seemed overall pleased and I hope they change not a frame. Far superior to "Red Dragon." As good as "Hannibal." One of the most entertaining movies I have seen this year."

Click here for the full report, which I'm sure came from someone not even remotely related to the film's production, distribution, or marketing departments.

Related Items

Movie:	Silence of the Lambs
	Hannibal
	Red Dragon
Celeb:	Gong Li
	Thomas Harris
	Gaspard Ulliel
	Ben Davis

(1-14 of 14 posts) | Reply

new12play writes:
on Oct 20 2006 08:55 AM

I actually prefer Red Dragon to Hannibal. I'll take this with a grain of salt.

(Reply to this)

cgcbooks writes:
on Oct 20 2006 09:56 AM

In reply to this comment (#846938)
I agree.

(Reply to this)

BrokebackYoda writes:
on Oct 20 2006 10:32 AM

Red Dragon seemed almost...like a regular thriller. I like Edward Norton and Anthony Hopkins, and they both did a very good job, but Hannbial seemed to have more "class" I guess, like Hannibal himself. Red Dragon seemed more gritty, and I prefer a movie ABOUT the charecter of Hannibal Lecter himself, and I think after "Red Dragon", I like it more, because its interesting to see him outside of the prison cell, and to see what he actually is capible of doing. Ridley Scott also did a very good job directing to. I think a lot of people didn't like it because it was very graphic, and didn't deal as much in the mindwork of Hannibal.

(Reply to this)

new12play writes:
on Oct 20 2006 12:10 PM

Hannibal had a couple of problems that I just couldn't look past. First, Julianne Moore as Clarice Starling was very bland. I know Starling has some dark inklings, but she was just completely miscast. She didnt' have the same presence that Jodie Foster had. Plus, her accent was not very convincing. Second, the movie seemed to exist more to show the visual flair that Ridley Scott is known for. I remember visuals, and not so much the movie...the shootout, the deformed billionaire (an unrecognizable Gary Oldman), the hog sequence, and, of course, the brain. And the "okey dokey" catchphrases" took away from the sheer evil of Hannibal. The only redeeming quality I found with the film was the demented love story which humanized such a depraved and evil monster like Hannibal. Red Dragon, I believe, showcased the performances moreso than Hannibal. Edward Norton was excellent, but Ralph Fiennes steals the movie with a man who personified evil more than Anthony Hopkins did in "Hannibal." Love never quite broke through in him. To the very end, and with the help of Hannibal (which this subtle assistance I believe makes him stand out as more evil than he was in Hannibal), he is evil. Philip Seymour Hoffman's character was also well done. That is why in my opinion Red Dragon is ultimately supreme to the dull Hannibal.

(Reply to this)

blorenze writes:
on Oct 20 2006 12:20 PM

[b]He should have married Clarice[/b]
I wish the movie adaptation of Hannibal would have had him getting pussywhipped by Clarice, as she is realizes this is the only way of domesticating the nut case.

Cutting his hand of was pretty cool, and gutting Pazzi was one of the coolest things I have ever seen. Neither Hannibal nor Dragon could touch Silence of the Lambs, and I still can't quite figure out why. They might have actually been too monstrative with the violence, or maybe it was expectations... I dont know.

(Reply to this)

Master King Sexington writes:
on Oct 20 2006 03:22 PM

I prefer Zhang Ziyi to Gong Li...

(Reply to this)

lovesexy writes:
on Oct 20 2006 05:09 PM

Sounds interesting enough. I'm looking forward to Harris' upcoming book more than anything.

(Reply to this)

medicineman writes:
on Oct 20 2006 05:26 PM

It looks like this one is going to add the bite to Hannibal's character.

(Reply to this)

badmoviecritic writes:
on Oct 21 2006 04:08 AM

[b]hrm[/b]
yes medicineman, and i'm also sure that the Harris' fans will eat up this new book and movie

(Reply to this)

sammyL writes:
on Oct 21 2006 04:44 AM

Can't wait to see this. My firend saw a screening and loved it.

(Reply to this)

sr78 writes:
on Oct 21 2006 07:08 AM

[quote]The only redeeming quality I found with the film was the demented love story which humanized such a depraved and evil monster like Hannibal.[/quote]

Haven't read the book I take it? It had a far more disturbing way of showing the love story. The book was far superior to the movie, Ridley Scott raped it and made Hannibal into a charicature of himself.

(Reply to this)

new12play writes:
on Oct 22 2006 05:32 PM

Nope...haven't read it. I may find the time.

(Reply to this)

Capt. Sparrow 98 writes:
on Oct 23 2006 08:23 AM

[b]We'll see[/b]
It just seems a little weird to me that the book is comig out right around the same time as the movie, like Harris just wrote the book for the movie. Red Dragon was much better than Hannibal and they of course both topped by Silence of the Lambs. Juillianne Moore shoudl have stayed awya from the movie and they should have waited for Jodie Foster to get done with Panic Room. It will be an interesting movie, and it will add a special blend to an movie triology that is styarting to become bland.

(Reply to this)