Last week I read Thomas Harris' new novel, Hannibal, and the only thing I can imagine more difficult than adapting it successfully to a feature film is avoiding all the spoilers on the internet about the book's plot (surprisingly, I escaped the information assault relatively unscathed). As a friend or mine (yet to read it) remarked to me, Hannibal the book seems less a literary event than a brief, almost incidental stop on the way to becoming a major motion picture. As cynical as it sounds, I can't help but agree with her.

Only problem is someone forgot to tell the author.

Harris' previous novel, The Silence of the Lambs,
spawned a film version so successful that it essentially swallowed all of Harris' future writings about the fictional serial killer Dr. Hannibal Lecter. But what makes Hannibal so stunning (and wickedly delightful) is the author's wild and utter disregard for his story's almost certain future in film form. It's as if Harris said, "Try making THIS into a movie. I dare you."

What reads for several hundred pages as a violent,
scary and fascinating thriller, one practically made for the movies, ultimately evolves into something altogether different. The resolution of Hannibal manages to be defiant, shocking and entirely appropriate. Some early reviews sharply criticize Harris for steering an otherwise solid novel into an implausible and unlikely ending. I couldn't disagree more. Like the best twists of plot, the finale of Hannibal surprises you at first, and seems plainly apparent after the fact. Of course it ended like this. It HAS to end this way.

But as much as I enjoyed Hannibal as a book, I have a difficult time imagining it as a successful movie. For all sorts of reasons, a faithful adaptation of this Harris novel would likely alienate audiences more than enrapture them. What seems plausible on the page may not translate very well to the screen, and I think Jonathan Demme knows it.

Harris made a lot of easy money. 5 million dollars for the rights to an unfilmable book! I can't imagine any Hollywood studio touching that ending with a ten foot pole.

Wait two weeks. MGM is opening "Hannibal" Feb. 9. MGM needs a hit very badly. To Murray-TWO studios-MGM and Universal-must have had the proverbial ten foot pole, as they co-produced this.

I found out the other day that Dino DeLaurentiis is producing "Hannibal." Despite that, I still have faith.

5 million dollars for the rights to an unfilmable book!

I haven't read the book yet, but I saw the movie and it looks to me like they found a way to film the unfilmable. I can't imagine the book being more disturbing than the movie.

***********SPOILER WARNING*******************
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
BTW can some one explain to me how he got out of the handcuffs. In the final scene I thought that he had both hands. Or was I just too shocked to notice he was missing one.

Perhaps he just cut through the chain, and he still hurt his hand doing it.
And did anyone else notice that the birds in the last shot of the opening credits actually form a pic of Hannibal's face?

His arm was in a sling when he was on the plane at the end all but confirming he cut his own hand off.

Interestingly enough, Titus also features Anthony Hopkins cutting off his own hand and serving people in tasty meat pies...

There was a lot from the book that was taken out to make a two-hour movie, and to be honest, the book was infinitely better. For example, in the book, the villain, Mason Verger, had a sister. Now, Mason had no heirs of his own, and he was determined to leave his wealth to a male descendant. The only problem is, his sister is a lesbian, not likely to produce any male descendants herself. In the end, she in fact kills Mason with glass from the fish tank, but not before stealing a "sample" from him, so she can impregnate her lesbian lover. In the film, Mason just got fed to the hogs.

I noticed a big nit in this film, similar to one Phil picked up on in his review of Star Trek V: The Final Frontier. At one point, Mason has a phone call with Krendler. Mason is in Virginia, Krendler is in DC, so they're in the same time zone. Problem is, for Mason, it's sunset, but for Krendler, it's still mid-afternoon!

After watching this film for a second time I noticed that this movie could almost be called a high brow Freddy Kruger. What I mean by that is, Silence of the Lambs' main plot is about the police hunt for Buffalo Bill. Lector stole the show but the movie's plot told the story from the POV of Agent Searling. This one seemed like those slasher films where they introduce a bunch of unlikable characters who do wrong and than we are supposed to root for them to get killed by a monster who cracks jokes while going his dirty deed.

Also why did that Doctor kill Verger after a simple suggestion from Lector but refuse to kill Lector. A don't say it has anything to do with fear of legal reprisals. He could just as easily have said that Lector was coming after him and he fired in self defense and no one would question it. Heck he could still push Verger in and say that Lector did that before he shot him.

Yeah, the book is much better than the movie. Film nits to follow:

So, the Italian cop leaves his gun on his desk . . .please. That's like someone who wears glasses every day forgetting to put them on in the morning.

Starling orders the local cop to stop the raid two or three times over the radio. There is no way she would be in trouble for this. Even if her boss wanted to get her in trouble, the Feds would have released the radio transmissions to the media to get their feet out of the fire.

Hanibal repeatedly proves to be faster and stronger than trained federal agents and police officers though he is about 60. (Even with chlorophorm, the cops were awefully nice to gasp it in and immediately pass out)

That'll do for now . . .

Starling orders the local cop to stop the raid two or three times over the radio. There is no way she would be in trouble for this.

More importantly even without the tape why doesn't searling point this out to her boss. Instead of her weak arguements why not say "I said abort the operation when I saw the baby but the idiot from the DC Police told his men to keep going"

This film has the single most disturbing scene in a movie that I have ever seen. To those out there that have seen "Hannibal", you probably know what I'm referring to. For those that haven't, I will give no spoilers.

Hey Adam. When is the Scene that you consider the most disturbing. I counted three very disturbing scenes, one at the beginning, one in the middle and the one at the end.

SPOILER WARNING
The scene where Lecter removes the top of Ray Liotta's scalp, exposing his brain. I recently read that an animatronic replica of Liotta was used, not CGI as I originally thought. Regardless, I almost lost it after that one.
END SPOILER WARNING

I agree. That is the most disturbing scene in this movie.

Hannibal is set for an airing on broadcast TV. (CBS, May 8, 8 - 11 p.m.) How are they going to make this film suitable for broadcast? I don't think I'll be watching to find out.