| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| damalc |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 16:23:04
does this character really need a 4th film?
i've found that 2 or 3 movies is almost always as good as it gets for any concept. most look like bad parodies of the original by the 3rd installment. think Batman, Nightmare on Elm Street, The Matrix (i know i'm going to take some hits for that last one.) James Bond has survived but there have been some awful installments over the years.
Anthony Hopkins was excellent in 'Silence' but came off as a bit of a ham to me in the other 2. but Hopkins is not in 'Rising' and Thomas Harris is a brilliant writer, so it may work out. but i'm really skeptical. i'm not getting my hopes up too high for the new Spiderman either. |
| 15 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| BaftaBaby |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 20:11:53
quote:
Originally posted by Downtown
I completely disagree that yet another film about Hannibal Lecter is by definition a bad thing.
I completely agree that this "origin" film is an idiotic idea. I'm not really interested in seeing how he was turned into a monster. First of all, it might make me sympathetic to the character and it pretty much ruins a villain when you do that (see: Darth Vader). More importantly, I just find it hard to believe that what he was before and how he transformed could possibly be even remotely as interesting as what he did much later.
If they think Anthony Hopkins is too old for the part (and he is), they should simply create a new character/franchise borrowing whatever elements they want. It's not as if there are really any new ideas in Hollywood anyway, so blatantly ripping off an established character is still preferable to doing a "The Beginning" movie about said character.
Just saw the trailer, which sure wasn't giving away anything! 
|
| Downtown |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 15:28:29
I completely disagree that yet another film about Hannibal Lecter is by definition a bad thing.
I completely agree that this "origin" film is an idiotic idea. I'm not really interested in seeing how he was turned into a monster. First of all, it might make me sympathetic to the character and it pretty much ruins a villain when you do that (see: Darth Vader). More importantly, I just find it hard to believe that what he was before and how he transformed could possibly be even remotely as interesting as what he did much later.
If they think Anthony Hopkins is too old for the part (and he is), they should simply create a new character/franchise borrowing whatever elements they want. It's not as if there are really any new ideas in Hollywood anyway, so blatantly ripping off an established character is still preferable to doing a "The Beginning" movie about said character. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 13:38:44
quote:
"Lolita" is, for me, the seminal novel of the 20th century. All I said was "comparison." Truly, you are absolutely correct to chastize me to the extent there was any suggestion of complete parity. Nabokov is divine.
All other disagreements aside MGuyX - I think you're my new best friend as you seem to rate VN as much as me. Bravo!
You've inspired me to give Harris another chance.
quote:
Point made. Bow accorded.
You're a gent, and I bow to you. |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 10:28:49
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I enjoyed "Hannibal" the book, immensely. In fact, it encapsulates a literary flair that justifies comparison with such classics as "Lolita."
Whoa there! I can't let that go unremarked upon. You can love Harris' fiction as much as you like but comparing a mass-market popular thriller writer who's output has been critically patchy with the foremost stylist of the English language is preposterous. As you say yourself it's like comparing space with the number 7.
I agree to a large part. CLEARLY Harris is no Nabokov, I give you that, which is no grant. I meant only to give praise to Harris for the moments where he does exceed, at least, my literary expectation. Yes, I apologize to the extent I offended the sentiment of literary sensibility beyond my own circle of literary taste. I, too, treasure Nabokov; thus I meant only to give Harris some credit. Preposterous? Possibly, because we are talking about Nabokov. But not so incredible. "Lolita" is, for me, the seminal novel of the 20th century. All I said was "comparison." Truly, you are absolutely correct to chastize me to the extent there was any suggestion of complete parity. Nabokov is divine. However, I just wanted to reward what I consider a loving and literary approach toward a story. I agree with you D. I just wanted to give Harris a compliment, which I believe he deserves. "Hannibal" (the book) is a great production, with an homage to allusion as a concept. Since it is not allusion, per se, I compliment Harris as such.
But I agree: Nabokov is far superior.
Yes: "Hannibal," the movie, was less than I would have wanted. But for people to criticize the story line? It is what the author says. Yes: it was a very "interesting" conclusion (in the "Hannibal" book), but that is what it is. I do not fault Harris for not doing what the reader may want characters to do. I take the tale as the tale tells. I fault Hollywood for not telling that tale, regardless of what the public may desire.
Got me: yeah, I know, there's no rule that says he doesn't spend seven years doing the books -- argumentative error on my part, which you clearly exposed. Sorry about that.  One of the publisher persons may have more to say about that, but I concede that time does not mean productive use of time. Got me there.
Which is all to say as follows: the Nabokov reference was only a suggestive compliment (but I take the chasetisement without objection), but I admire the writing.
Point made. Bow accorded. |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/16/2007 : 04:19:51
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I enjoyed "Hannibal" the book, immensely. In fact, it encapsulates a literary flair that justifies comparison with such classics as "Lolita."
Whoa there! I can't let that go unremarked upon. You can love Harris' fiction as much as you like but comparing a mass-market popular thriller writer who's output has been critically patchy with the foremost stylist of the English language is preposterous. As you say yourself it's like comparing space with the number 7.
quote:
I disagree about the writing in "Hannibal Rising."
Fair enough - I've not read it, but I was summarising the opinion of all of the book reviews I read in the last couple of months. Actually there's a very amusing summary here.
quote:
In the conclusion of "Hannibal," the book, Harris appears to make it clear that there will be no ongoing tales of post-asylum Hannibal, as the character appears to have reached a reconciliation point (BTW: the book was far superior to the script and ended very, very differently).
Yes, I know. Much to the disbelief and annoyance of a vast number of readers. I was working in a bookshop at the time it came out and all you ever heard about for months was how unbelievable the end was. Thankfully Harris' original ending didn't make it into the cinemas or the film would have been even worse. And it did suck pretty badly. Or maybe it would have made it funnier, so a bit better?
quote:
He averages just over seven years per book!
Quite true, but that doesn't mean he spends seven years actually writing his books.
quote:
In Harris's case, the movies have proved very entertaining so far (except that I didn't much care for "Manhunter," which I saw when it first came out, which was long before the franchise found Anthony Hopkins), and I might even offer that I enjoyed "Red Dragon," the movie even more than I enjoyed reading the book.
And that's why personal taste is so fascinating! I think Manhunter is a totally brilliant film, one of my favourites, whereas I find "Red Dragon" a clumsy and dull retread. Hopkins never hammier, Norton utterly lacking screen presence and character depth. I give Fiennes, Watson and Hoffman some credit, but all the original actors brought more to it, with much less melodrama. I blame Brett Ratner mostly - thankfully he's gone back to the Rush Hour movies.
quote:
I hope the film is good.
We definitely agree there. I never want a film to be bad - I love watching films, and I'm certainly going to give it a go. |
| Sean |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 23:50:14
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
I'm looking forward to Spiderman 3 though, I'm not expecting wonders, just more of the same - with the added plus of Venom, Sandman, and the return of the Green Goblin - bring it on.
...and Kirsten Dunst in a T-shirt... in the rain...  |
| thefoxboy |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 21:45:38
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I enjoyed "Hannibal" the book, immensely.
Me too.
quote:
Originally posted by MguyX
I am anxious to see the film. I am not one of those snob sorts who expounds at every opportunity "Oh the book was much better than the film!" (take "Anal Cocktail Sluts 3," for example: believe me, the movie was much better than the book)
|
| randall |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 20:33:20
I was with Bantam Doubleday Dell during the long interregnum between SILENCE and HANNIBAL, when Thomas Harris owed the latter book to Dell. Harris's glacial pace was legendary in the company; trade book publishers prefer somebody who can churn out a genre book every year, like the titans: Grisham, Steele, Crichton, Koontz, etc. This guy was taking forever.
At our sales conferences, we used to have "funny" "talent" nights, when publishing people got up to sing "funny" songs, such as "We Got To Work Till the Midnight Hour," you get the picture. One poor publicist from Dell brought the house down with his Motown pastiche:
You can't hurry Tom, no,
You'll just have to wait,
He said books don't come easy...
I still haven't forgotten that one. You laugh and you wince too. In that spirit, RISING was written at laserlike speed. Difference was, this time he had to beat the movie! |
| MguyXXV |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 20:19:24
Wait just a sec.
I enjoyed "Hannibal" the book, immensely. In fact, it encapsulates a literary flair that justifies comparison with such classics as "Lolita."
I disagree about the writing in "Hannibal Rising." Regardless of any desire for money, Thomas Harris is certainly a multi-millionaire after having had each of his books made into movies -- one twice -- and three of those after the phenomenal success of "Silence." So the issue is, I would offer, that the character of Hannibal Lecter is so engaging that people can't seem to get enough of him. Supply and demand. However, if it were merely a matter of Hollywood sales potential, I would gather that it would be a new film about adult Hannibal, doubtless with a multi-million dollar deal to get Anthony Hopkins back into the role. Instead, however, this story is about a young Hannibal. So I wouldn't quickly attribute Harris's motivation for writing to much more than a desire to complete the character as well as give his writing fan base more of what they want.
In the conclusion of "Hannibal," the book, Harris appears to make it clear that there will be no ongoing tales of post-asylum Hannibal, as the character appears to have reached a reconciliation point (BTW: the book was far superior to the script and ended very, very differently). In fact, the narrator actively tells the reader to leave Hannibal alone. And given the fairly well-portioned description of Hannibal's childhood in that book, it also appeared that Harris wanted to flesh the character out for all to know. However, the concluding language leaves open the possibility of at least one more encounter (after all, he's still alive).
"Hannibal Rising," however, is neither the literary masterstroke that lifts from the pages of "Hannibal," nor is it the merely intriguing tale that reads out in "Red Dragon." Nor is it an adapted screenplay. The book is about young Hannibal Lecter and goes into greater detail about the events that led to his formation.
I disagree entirely with the conclusion that Harris did anything but devote care and attention to developing the story. If you'll notice, Harris takes his time in writing these books. He published "Black Sunday" in 1974. "Red Dragon," 1981; "Silence of the Lambs," 1988; "Hannibal," 1999; and now "Hannibal Rising," 2006. He averages just over seven years per book! Also, Harris is very studious about his subjects: he put in an incredible amount of work in developing the Lecter character and story lines. While I did not find this last book as alluring as the writing in "Hannibal," I found it equally gripping and entertaining.
I am anxious to see the film. I am not one of those snob sorts who expounds at every opportunity "Oh the book was much better than the film!" (take "Anal Cocktail Sluts 3," for example: believe me, the movie was much better than the book) -- critically comparing the two media is like arguing whether space is better than the number 7. In Harris's case, the movies have proved very entertaining so far (except that I didn't much care for "Manhunter," which I saw when it first came out, which was long before the franchise found Anthony Hopkins), and I might even offer that I enjoyed "Red Dragon," the movie even more than I enjoyed reading the book. But Harris's development as a writer has been tremendous since then (nearly 20 years). So, for anyone who approaches this next film with trepedation, give yourself a treat and read at least the last three books of the series. The film is going to depend on good script adaptation, a good director, and good actors -- the last two of which seem taken care of. Even if the film falls into less than entertaining territory, the story as told in the book is no less necessary to a complete understanding of Hannibal the character.
I hope the film is good.
|
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 15:25:13
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Perfect casting - absolutely. Although the concept of the Vulture as a villain has always made me laugh a bit.
Yep- he'd definitely be relegated to a support villain role, probably for comedy effect given the actor.
Oh... and another bunch of foes that I wouldn't mind seeing pop-up at some point: Mysterio, Tombstone or Kingpin (forgetting about the Daredevil film). |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 14:35:21
Perfect casting - absolutely. Although the concept of the Vulture as a villain has always made me laugh a bit. Having said that bring back Doc Ock, Hobgoblin, and there we have makings of the Sinister Six. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 13:58:54
quote:
Originally posted by demonic
Well we've got the Gwen Stacy episode to enjoy in this one, which is an absolute classic story I'm sure you'll agree.
It'll be a corker if they keep true to the comic, and with a Green Goblin flying about all the requirements are certainly in place.
Then again, I'd also be happy if they went a whole new direction and offed that bloody smug-faced Dunst woman.
quote:
I hope they get round to the Lizard and Kraven the Hunter (although just checking the cast list now Dr. Curt Conners is there - maybe it's a set up for S4, or perhaps we are getting some Lizard action in this one.
Yeah- that'd be great stuff (but probably 'Batman & Robin'-style overload), plus we still have John Jameson kicking about in the background.
On the rumour mill... I heard a great (probably untrue) suggestion that Larry David was being considered for the Vulture- how perfect would he be? |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/15/2007 : 13:12:40
Well we've got the Gwen Stacy episode to enjoy in this one, which is an absolute classic story I'm sure you'll agree. I hope they get round to the Lizard and Kraven the Hunter (although just checking the cast list now Dr. Curt Conners is there - maybe it's a set up for S4, or perhaps we are getting some Lizard action in this one - not heard anything to support that though with three major villains as it is) and especially the Hobgoblin - with full on twisted demonic CGI that really could be a franchise highlight. |
| benj clews |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 23:32:16
With the kind of box office Spider-man films make (i.e. the law of diminishing returns didn't kick in with number 2), the studio will definitely be wanting more and I've read comments from Raimi saying he's considering not just a 4, but a 5 and a 6.
Plus, with over 40 years' worth of story arcs and more opponents than pretty much any other superhero (Batman aside) they certainly have the source material to work with. And this Venom thing could run and run if they play it right.
The only question is whether Toby Maguire would stick with it- the obstacles being medical (back problems) or career longevity, but I think the series could easily survive without him (especially given the large amount of CGI used). |
| demonic |
Posted - 01/14/2007 : 22:40:45
Think they'll keep going? I often wonder sometimes as a trilogy always seems to be a good marker for a film franchise - it doesn't outstay its welcome. I can think of a few examples where the fourth broke the camels back. |
|
|
