Alright, I've started, and re-started, and re-re-started the post for this blog, and I can't even begin to introduce this monstrosity of a story that managed to be published as a book, and then turned into a film adaptation. I'm just at a lost for words. They all needed a good thing to remain a good thing with Silence of the Lambs.
So, the sequel of this movie does not have the original director, original main lead or the original script writer. This bodes well. Anthony Hopkins came back as Hannibal Lector cause man gotta eat! I'm also sure that playing someone like Hannibal is really fun, even though I still think he's a Gary Stu.
They took out a few characters, like Margot and Jack Crawford. They weren't really needed in the film, as they just added flavor to the book. Jack Crawford's story in the book is pretty sad, and I loved how they interpreted his character for the show. Margot... I thought she was a poorly written character to begin with, so I was relieved that that they didn't include her in the movie, because I can only imagine how they would interpret her.
They also left alone Hannibal's surgeries... only to disguise him with big... hats. That's right. The most wanted man in the world remained uncaught because he wore big hats and sunglasses in the movie.
There are other similarities and differences between the book and the movie. The stuff in Italy is mostly the same, with the rescue of Hannibal by Starling after she is put on administrative leave. There isn't mention of Mischa, the sister that was cannibalized by Nazi deserters when he was a young child.
However, what I really want to discuss is the ending of the book, and the ending of the movie. I'm relieved, as I think everyone involved in the movie that Harris agreed to allow the movie script to be completely rewritten. The ending... absolutely blew in the book, as I reviewed. Even though I think the story is crappy, the ending of the movie was a heck of a lot better than the book. So in the movie, Hannibal rescues her after she is wounded after rescuing Hannibal from the Verger Farm.
They run off and Hannibal, a licensed medical doctor, treats Starling's wounds. At one point, she awakes to find an evening dress and invited down to dinner. She does... to find Knedler there. She watches horrified as Hannibal feeds Knedler's brain to him. She tries to attack him and he overpowers her. They kiss, and Clarice manages to put handcuffs on them so he won't get away. The police are on their way to the residence, and Hannibal wields a meat cleaver to cut off his hand.
Clarice still remains true to her character by still desiring to catch the bad guy and not completely give into Hannibal's sociopathic charms. At least Clarice didn't do a 180 character turn where she decides that Hannibal is her end all be all, and HEY, LET'S HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH A CANNIBAL. Like, Clarice, he defo is on the run from the law and broke out of a mental institution. Maybe you should, idk, get away from him?
There isn't much else to say about this, except Silence of the Lambs is my favorite book and movie out of the entire series. I wished, like I think everyone else wished, that the book was better and that the movie had better material to go off of.
Showing posts with label Hannibal Lector. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Hannibal Lector. Show all posts
Tuesday, December 22, 2015
Friday, December 18, 2015
Hannibal by Thomas Harris
Oh man.... oh man, oh man, oh man....I felt like I was forced to climb Mount Everest.
My husband warned me that this would be a rough book, but I didn't realize just how rough it was. Now, I'm sure my view of the book is distorted because I've seen the movie and watched the show before ever touching the book, so like my review of Red Dragon, I feel like at this point, I'm over it.
Also, sidebar... was Thomas Harris going through something when he wrote this book? I feel like he had a rough marriage, or going through a divorce, or realized he had some kinks going on... because there is some weird shit in here. Maybe he played a joke on us? "What can I get readers to buy?" Because again, there is some weird shit in here.
He writes about topics that didn't fit in with 2001 mentality of "normal" with such a fetish that I squirmed during some parts of the book. It was as if he wrote to just shock people, and instead of just shocking them, left them to question if Harris needs to read a few books or see a few people.
His idea of a "villain" is Mason Verger, who praises Jesus but, gasp! still verbally abuses children. He's rich! He abused his sister, Margot! He wants revenge! He's a pig farmer who bribes politicians to vote against bills that promote animal safety and well being! The other villain in the book, Krendler, is laughably sexist and evil that of course you are rooting for Hannibal to eat him, or Clarice to just flat out kill him.
The character of Margot in the book is... definitely written by someone who didn't bother to do any research, and really just fetishizes the idea of a woman who "wants to be a man" and thought, hey, if I was a woman, I would still want to be a man, so let's just write it like that. Also, what could possibly be the reason that anyone would want to be a lesbian or even want to be something other than the gender they are born it? ABUSE. ALSO WALNUTS.
I was pleasantly surprised with a few scenes between Barney and Margot... until we got to read from Margot's perspective. Turns out, she's just as manipulative as her brother! I had dreams of a funny buddy comedy between the two of them... until she fires him because he didn't want to be an accomplice to a murder. There is also another scene at the end of the book just so Barney can keep his life. ugh, Margot. Maybe you should have died as well? The eel turned on you?
Also, who else thinks that Hannibal Lector is the most uninteresting character ever in Hannibal? I'm not talking show Hannibal, which I think they did a good job of using source material and letting Mads Mikkelson do whatever the hell he wanted, but the character in the book is the biggest Gary Stu. Not only is he not the antagonist, but he's actually portrayed as the hero! Instead of preying on innocent people to eat, he only eats the "rude" and kill people that are after him. See? He's practically doing a service to society! He's refined! He's cultured! Oh, there's mention of his sister being cannibalized, so naturally, you should just feel sorry for him!
Now, finally, the relationship between Clarice and Hannibal. Harris, Silence of the Lambs was great. Why did you have to ruin it? How did Clarice take a 180? Did you read some fanfiction and decided, 'wow, that's a great idea, let's put Clarice and Hannibal together!' Because it wasn't.
Seriously, I wonder how many other authors and books were passed up in order for this one to be printed. Who's the agent for Thomas Harris? That person should be fired. Someone either didn't tell Harris No, or someone got the bright idea to make Hannibal into a main character. Not only that, Harris didn't bother to do any sort of research whatsoever in what makes a sociopath, a sociopath and what makes a cannibal into a cannibal. He legit made it all up. This is bad and you should feel bad.
Wish me luck on the final installment of Hannibal Rising.
My husband warned me that this would be a rough book, but I didn't realize just how rough it was. Now, I'm sure my view of the book is distorted because I've seen the movie and watched the show before ever touching the book, so like my review of Red Dragon, I feel like at this point, I'm over it.
Also, sidebar... was Thomas Harris going through something when he wrote this book? I feel like he had a rough marriage, or going through a divorce, or realized he had some kinks going on... because there is some weird shit in here. Maybe he played a joke on us? "What can I get readers to buy?" Because again, there is some weird shit in here.
He writes about topics that didn't fit in with 2001 mentality of "normal" with such a fetish that I squirmed during some parts of the book. It was as if he wrote to just shock people, and instead of just shocking them, left them to question if Harris needs to read a few books or see a few people.
His idea of a "villain" is Mason Verger, who praises Jesus but, gasp! still verbally abuses children. He's rich! He abused his sister, Margot! He wants revenge! He's a pig farmer who bribes politicians to vote against bills that promote animal safety and well being! The other villain in the book, Krendler, is laughably sexist and evil that of course you are rooting for Hannibal to eat him, or Clarice to just flat out kill him.
The character of Margot in the book is... definitely written by someone who didn't bother to do any research, and really just fetishizes the idea of a woman who "wants to be a man" and thought, hey, if I was a woman, I would still want to be a man, so let's just write it like that. Also, what could possibly be the reason that anyone would want to be a lesbian or even want to be something other than the gender they are born it? ABUSE. ALSO WALNUTS.
I was pleasantly surprised with a few scenes between Barney and Margot... until we got to read from Margot's perspective. Turns out, she's just as manipulative as her brother! I had dreams of a funny buddy comedy between the two of them... until she fires him because he didn't want to be an accomplice to a murder. There is also another scene at the end of the book just so Barney can keep his life. ugh, Margot. Maybe you should have died as well? The eel turned on you?
Also, who else thinks that Hannibal Lector is the most uninteresting character ever in Hannibal? I'm not talking show Hannibal, which I think they did a good job of using source material and letting Mads Mikkelson do whatever the hell he wanted, but the character in the book is the biggest Gary Stu. Not only is he not the antagonist, but he's actually portrayed as the hero! Instead of preying on innocent people to eat, he only eats the "rude" and kill people that are after him. See? He's practically doing a service to society! He's refined! He's cultured! Oh, there's mention of his sister being cannibalized, so naturally, you should just feel sorry for him!
Now, finally, the relationship between Clarice and Hannibal. Harris, Silence of the Lambs was great. Why did you have to ruin it? How did Clarice take a 180? Did you read some fanfiction and decided, 'wow, that's a great idea, let's put Clarice and Hannibal together!' Because it wasn't.
Seriously, I wonder how many other authors and books were passed up in order for this one to be printed. Who's the agent for Thomas Harris? That person should be fired. Someone either didn't tell Harris No, or someone got the bright idea to make Hannibal into a main character. Not only that, Harris didn't bother to do any sort of research whatsoever in what makes a sociopath, a sociopath and what makes a cannibal into a cannibal. He legit made it all up. This is bad and you should feel bad.
Wish me luck on the final installment of Hannibal Rising.
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Which is Better? The Red Dragon
Whereas Silence of the Lambs was a masterpiece and a movie that was so unexpected that it won a few Oscars, the movie Red Dragon unfortunately, a prequel shot 10 or so years after Silence of the Lambs, falls flat. Now, I am unsure if my opinion on the movie Red Dragon is the result of over saturation of all things Hannibal Lector or if I really was just underwhelmed with the movie in general, but I digress.
There are a few major problems with the movie.The first problem was the casting of Will Graham. In the book, Harris takes you through the downfall into madness of Graham and his relationship with Hannibal Lector. Lector isn't very involved in the book, but Graham, in looking at Francis, starts to lose his sense of self. In order to catch a serial killer, he has to think like one, and in the book, it just tears him apart. In the movie, Norton is just walking around like he owns the place and that he is not phased by what he has to do. In the movie, Edwards Norton is a badass. He isn't overpowered by Francis at the end and he sort of regains his life after Francis is shot by Molly. His relationship with his wife and stepson falls apart in the book and alludes to a divorce.
The second major problem with the movie is that the book, is set before Silence of the Lambs, but the movie is made over 10 years later. Anthony Hopkins is noticeably older and my husband pointed out that Hopkins wore a girdle to keep himself trim. They recasted Crawford... and I get why they brought Hopkins back, but I think it would have been well served if they got a younger Hopkins look alike to play his younger self. In the movie, after watching Silence of the Lambs, he just looks ridiculous.
I really liked the backstory of Freddy Louds in the book. I was able to see his inner workings and how he was shafted for most of his life and just decided to take control of it. He was really valued at The Tattler, but everyone hated him in the journalists world. Throughout the book, he was a guy that knew that no one would look out for him but him, and he did what it took to be successful. All he wanted was to be a serious journalist with lots of money and it was very sad when The Dragon took him. In the movie, I didn't really didn't feel any sort of way for him. He was played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who does sarmy very well. There was never any sort of backstory to him other than skeevy gossip journalist.
In the movie, they alluded to his backstory and showed the time with his grandmother when he wet the bed when he was a child. What is lost in the movie is the time frame. This whole serial killer case was done in the 1970s, which makes Francis' low self-esteem and self loathing due to his cleft palate much more probable if the audience knew that he grew up in the 40s and 50s.
Reba's interpretation in the movie is mostly spot on. She's white with golden pageboy hair and she's blind. I liked her inner monologue in the book, but in the movie, you lose that. You feel for her because she genuinely likes Francis and he can't get past his own abuse (or really, into therapy) to be available for her. He is so far gone by the time he meets Reba. It's sad because The Dragon helps him be more confident and strong but also drives him to kill people and encourage him to kill Reba.
All in all, Red Dragon is better as a book than a movie. You get more material and the motives of characters which is lacking in the movie. It would have been better served to recast Lector just for the simple fact that Hopkins is noticeably older in a movie that was supposed to take place before Silence of the Lambs. The movie is entertaining, however, so if you want to just settle for watching something thrilling, then it's a good way to spend a few hours.
There are a few major problems with the movie.The first problem was the casting of Will Graham. In the book, Harris takes you through the downfall into madness of Graham and his relationship with Hannibal Lector. Lector isn't very involved in the book, but Graham, in looking at Francis, starts to lose his sense of self. In order to catch a serial killer, he has to think like one, and in the book, it just tears him apart. In the movie, Norton is just walking around like he owns the place and that he is not phased by what he has to do. In the movie, Edwards Norton is a badass. He isn't overpowered by Francis at the end and he sort of regains his life after Francis is shot by Molly. His relationship with his wife and stepson falls apart in the book and alludes to a divorce.
The second major problem with the movie is that the book, is set before Silence of the Lambs, but the movie is made over 10 years later. Anthony Hopkins is noticeably older and my husband pointed out that Hopkins wore a girdle to keep himself trim. They recasted Crawford... and I get why they brought Hopkins back, but I think it would have been well served if they got a younger Hopkins look alike to play his younger self. In the movie, after watching Silence of the Lambs, he just looks ridiculous.
I really liked the backstory of Freddy Louds in the book. I was able to see his inner workings and how he was shafted for most of his life and just decided to take control of it. He was really valued at The Tattler, but everyone hated him in the journalists world. Throughout the book, he was a guy that knew that no one would look out for him but him, and he did what it took to be successful. All he wanted was to be a serious journalist with lots of money and it was very sad when The Dragon took him. In the movie, I didn't really didn't feel any sort of way for him. He was played by Phillip Seymour Hoffman, who does sarmy very well. There was never any sort of backstory to him other than skeevy gossip journalist.
In the movie, they alluded to his backstory and showed the time with his grandmother when he wet the bed when he was a child. What is lost in the movie is the time frame. This whole serial killer case was done in the 1970s, which makes Francis' low self-esteem and self loathing due to his cleft palate much more probable if the audience knew that he grew up in the 40s and 50s.
Reba's interpretation in the movie is mostly spot on. She's white with golden pageboy hair and she's blind. I liked her inner monologue in the book, but in the movie, you lose that. You feel for her because she genuinely likes Francis and he can't get past his own abuse (or really, into therapy) to be available for her. He is so far gone by the time he meets Reba. It's sad because The Dragon helps him be more confident and strong but also drives him to kill people and encourage him to kill Reba.
All in all, Red Dragon is better as a book than a movie. You get more material and the motives of characters which is lacking in the movie. It would have been better served to recast Lector just for the simple fact that Hopkins is noticeably older in a movie that was supposed to take place before Silence of the Lambs. The movie is entertaining, however, so if you want to just settle for watching something thrilling, then it's a good way to spend a few hours.
Friday, November 13, 2015
The Red Dragon by Thomas Harris
So, I came back to the blog enthusiastically with my Thomas Harris books, the movies and the TV show. I watched all the movies, watched all of the show and finally finished my second Harris book, The Red Dragon. I finished my "Which is Better?" post about the book and the movie, (which will be published after this post) and then... I just ignored this unfinished review of The Red Dragon.
Why? Silence of the Lambs seemed pretty easy to write and to put together, so why did I avoid writing the review of the first book in the series? After much consideration, I think I have my answer.
I think it's a combination of being so saturated with all things Hannibal Lector and not enjoying Thomas Harris' writing. It feels that after watching the show, and then the movies, the time I got to the book, the story sort of falls flat. Besides for the background and inner monologue of a few characters that I will get into, the book doesn't offer anything new. It's not like it's drastically different, or the reader gets the complete inner workings of the main character that didn't carry through in the movie.
It's just... Will Graham is not that interesting in the book. The way he captures Hannibal Lector is also not very interesting or indepth like the TV show. Of course, I didn't expect 2 seasons of Will and Hannibal capturing serial killers like they did on the show in the book, but... Graham and Lector met twice. Lector was never a consultant for the FBI. Graham just sort of figured it out and then Lector stabbed him.
On the show, Graham's descent into madness after thinking like serial killers is disturbing and thorough. In the book, Graham seeks Lector's help and essentially Lector sends The Dragon after him... his marriage falls apart, but Graham doesn't seem to change all that much during the course of the book. Harris seems to beat his fists and tells the reader that he's changing, but... I barely knew who Graham was before Harris tells us that he lost it all.
However, what the show and the movie missed out on is the sad, sad stories of Francis Dolarhyde and Freddy Louds. Freddy Louds' motivation and backstory is completely lost in both the show and the movie. In the book, he's a short, rat of a man who realizes that he is not going to get anywhere in life hoping that others open the doors of opportunities. So he leaves, goes to a tabloid paper and is treated like a king. Everyone hates him, but he doesn't care because he's on his way to getting a book deal and making even more money. Louds grabs life by the throat and is not afraid of taking risks.
However, it ends tragically for him. He is burned alive and accuses Graham of making him "his pet." Graham is left wondering if he really meant to do that, which left me with a chill.
Now Francis Dolarhyde's story is sad and disturbing as well. I loved how Harris made a point to state the time period, which would make it hard for children with cleft palates to gain self-confidence and be accepted by their families and society. It also just so happened that Dolarhyde had the shittiest family ever, and coupled with severe paranoia, turned him into a self loathing individual that identified with a dragon later in life. I'm not sure if that makes him a serial killer, but it also makes his story a bit more tragic when he meets a woman that likes him for him and he cannot escape the dragon's reach.
So overall... I'm not sure how enthusiastic I am to read the final 2 books in Harris' Hannibal Lector series. You may want to read the book first before venturing into the movie and the tv show. Otherwise you may be left underwelmed.
Why? Silence of the Lambs seemed pretty easy to write and to put together, so why did I avoid writing the review of the first book in the series? After much consideration, I think I have my answer.
I think it's a combination of being so saturated with all things Hannibal Lector and not enjoying Thomas Harris' writing. It feels that after watching the show, and then the movies, the time I got to the book, the story sort of falls flat. Besides for the background and inner monologue of a few characters that I will get into, the book doesn't offer anything new. It's not like it's drastically different, or the reader gets the complete inner workings of the main character that didn't carry through in the movie.
It's just... Will Graham is not that interesting in the book. The way he captures Hannibal Lector is also not very interesting or indepth like the TV show. Of course, I didn't expect 2 seasons of Will and Hannibal capturing serial killers like they did on the show in the book, but... Graham and Lector met twice. Lector was never a consultant for the FBI. Graham just sort of figured it out and then Lector stabbed him.
On the show, Graham's descent into madness after thinking like serial killers is disturbing and thorough. In the book, Graham seeks Lector's help and essentially Lector sends The Dragon after him... his marriage falls apart, but Graham doesn't seem to change all that much during the course of the book. Harris seems to beat his fists and tells the reader that he's changing, but... I barely knew who Graham was before Harris tells us that he lost it all.
However, what the show and the movie missed out on is the sad, sad stories of Francis Dolarhyde and Freddy Louds. Freddy Louds' motivation and backstory is completely lost in both the show and the movie. In the book, he's a short, rat of a man who realizes that he is not going to get anywhere in life hoping that others open the doors of opportunities. So he leaves, goes to a tabloid paper and is treated like a king. Everyone hates him, but he doesn't care because he's on his way to getting a book deal and making even more money. Louds grabs life by the throat and is not afraid of taking risks.
However, it ends tragically for him. He is burned alive and accuses Graham of making him "his pet." Graham is left wondering if he really meant to do that, which left me with a chill.
Now Francis Dolarhyde's story is sad and disturbing as well. I loved how Harris made a point to state the time period, which would make it hard for children with cleft palates to gain self-confidence and be accepted by their families and society. It also just so happened that Dolarhyde had the shittiest family ever, and coupled with severe paranoia, turned him into a self loathing individual that identified with a dragon later in life. I'm not sure if that makes him a serial killer, but it also makes his story a bit more tragic when he meets a woman that likes him for him and he cannot escape the dragon's reach.
So overall... I'm not sure how enthusiastic I am to read the final 2 books in Harris' Hannibal Lector series. You may want to read the book first before venturing into the movie and the tv show. Otherwise you may be left underwelmed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)