Change Your Image
dietrich-3
Reviews
Crocodile Dundee in Los Angeles (2001)
not great cinema, but fun and enjoyable
This is a nice light comedy. If you enjoy the first two Dundee movies, especially the first, you'll probably enjoy this as well. This movie isn't one of the all time greats, but good for a fun evening. A cute movie which deserves a good notch or so above the overall rating here. As another review stated, just don't analyze it as if it were a serious movie and simply enjoy the fun. Personally I prefer this one over the second movie which I thought came off too heavy, took itself too seriously.
Mussolini and I (1985)
History and Hopkins
This is a very solid dramatic movie based on events in Italy during World War II. Hopkins plays the son-in-law of Mussolini who was also high in the Fascist party. He was a golden boy whose star rises quickly and then big trouble as he tries to get Mussolini to break ties with Hitler and the Nazis. I don't want to spoil this for anyone who hasn't seen it so don't want to get into the plot too deeply... but Hopkins is excellent, he'll make you cry and sweat. It is good drama (you'll be on the edge of your seat during the last half), good acting and a part of that time periods history that I didn't know much about prior to seeing this movie. It is a bit long, but definitely worth your time.
Hannibal (2001)
more and less than what you've heard (SPOILERS)
Although it is understandable everyone has differing standards and expectations for a sequel to a truly great movie, still I am astounded at some of the reviews on this movie. Both professionals and everyday movie-goers. I read the book, have seen and read Silence of the Lambs (SoTL), seen Manhunter. I had read nearly every review out there on this movie before seeing this and it seemed that there were two different movies called "Hannibal" out in the theatres. I wasn't sure what the extreme variation in opinions and reviews meant, this would either be the worst movie I've ever seen or possibly the best. It is neither the worst nor best movie ever made. However it is more (better or more intense) in some ways, and less (worse or less intense) in other areas of expectation. You have to know the background of the characters, need to know SoTL. Just don't go in expecting the style and the characters to be exactly the same after many years (in the story and in our reality). They are not and shouldn't be the same given passing years and differing circumstances. That said, I felt this was less horror and more thriller drama than many reviews would lead you to believe. Read on for why I say that.
There is far less blood and gore than what you have heard... that people might have puked at this movie I find laughable. Maybe having read the book version of Hannibal it toughened me up, I expected more disturbing material, more gore. The rants on the 'over-the-top' nature of this movie and it should be NC-17 were just plain alarmist. Anyone who has seen a horror movie made in the last 20 - 25 years (going back to The Texas Chainsaw Massacre) should not have a problem in this area. I can be squeamish and nightmare prone and I was able to watch all the scenes with only a bit of squinting to blur it now and then, more in fear (from the books detail and reviews) than how bad the visuals really were. The brain eating dinner scene was as much laughable as it was frightening or sickening. (And I believe this was purposeful, a bit of camp). It might shock a bit, but this is not THE most in amount nor in intensity of gore ever seen on the screen. Far less gore than Saving Private Ryan. Just before going to the theatre to see Hannibal a sci-fi movie on television rated Y -14 was playing. It had giant alien bugs tearing futuristic soldiers apart that was similiar to the level of gore with the man-eating pigs in Hannibal. Some people find the man-eating pig implausible, some extra information spent on that aspect might have helped. Verger's face was not as bad as I visualized it from reading the book, but looked plausible and still nasty. They took the very disturbing NC-17 level material in the book and got it down to R material. Not all that is for the better, some at the expense of character development - Mason Verger needed fleshed out (ha ha pun intended) in particular who was clearly evil in the book.
One complaint was that certain gore scenes were unnecessary. The tape of the attack on the nurse alluded to in SoTL being one of those. It WAS needed and perfectly fit in the plot. This is where Lecter's arm is broken for a comparative x-ray to the one Mason Verger supplies. This showing how Lecter even tied up was so dangerous, his bite there will be what Starling thinks about when Lecter feigns a bite at the refrigerator scene later on. The disfiguring of Mason Verger flashback might have been skipped. This doesn't detail the type of hypnotic drugs described in the book, but seeing Lecter mesmorize the drugged man into cutting off his face probably had some merit to the hypnotic power of the man (in reading the book this scene did about make me gag, it was blurry and dark for the most part in the movie). The disembowelment was perfectly in line with the historical event of Pazzi's ancestor and Pazzi was less than honorable in making sure the street thug bled to death. You really didn't see that much in the disembowelment, a pile of guts splat. Itchy and Scratchy from the Simpson's has more graphic broad daylight detail shown in their cartoon mutilations. The dinner scene, well he isn't called Hannibal the Cannibal for nothing. What do people expect? He is choosing the most appropriate punishment for Krendler. What does a brainless man need with his brain? Might as well get a gourmet meal out of it, and he can avenge the honor of Clarice at the same time.
The interactions between Hopkins and Moore don't have quite the same effect that those between Hopkins and Foster did in SoTL. It is less psychologically intense, more cat and mouse especially in the carousel scene. But was it supposed to be the same? Probably not because this is a different movie with a different focus. Clarice isn't a green FBI trainee but a time and experience hardened law enforcement officer. Hannibal is not behind glass or bars restricted to only "quid pro quo" fun. He is definately in love-mode here, he teases and wants, he pursues Clarice so she can chase him. She gives him some reason to be excited, to "come out of retirement," to fully appreciate his freedom by truly risking it by going to her. He desires to help her out of her quandry as he had helped her catch Buffalo Bill. The same yet different from SoTL. We can try to say the only reason Clarice risks her career to go save Lecter from Mason Verger's pigs is she is simply doing "right" regardless. I think that makes it too black and white, it is right but she couldn't and wouldn't have Lecter killed also because she does care for him. She is torn between her duty and right and feelings for the man.
Right wins in a way when the handcuffs are put on at the refrigerator - ask yourself why didn't she take and use her gun? She didn't want to be put into a position of using it against him. She isn't always happy doing the right thing. Like shooting a drug dealing HIV positive woman carrying a baby when she has no other choice. She would have felt guilty if Lecter had been imprisoned again, for him that is worse than death, she absolutely didn't want to kill him. This is some deep stuff hidden in this - Clarice feeling bad for doing the right thing, finding that doing the right thing can cause you to be punished unjustly, that doing the right thing can in a way be a bad thing. You are getting a bit more here then just good Clarice and evil Hannibal. There is a treading of common ground, two people who "have" to kill. How far removed is Clarice's killing in the line of duty or self-defense from Hannibal's killing in self-defense and killing the "rude" he feels the earth would be better off without? The main difference, outside of legalities - Hannibal being a bizarre vigilante, is in how it effects you. If Clarice keeps looking into the abyss (having to kill and having to be intimate with the mind of a killer) will she eventually see the abyss looking back? ... Hannibal doesn't fear the abyss but rather embraces it as his code of honor and morality. At the end Hannibal tho' smitten with Clarice isn't looking to run away with her ala the book end. He saw the phone line light and knew he had limited time to complete what he had started, he wanted her to do the right thing. Hannibal actually respects and admires her ethics. He wanted to give her a good-bye kiss then is going to run FROM her knowing she will continue the pursuit. He wants her to pursue, and he to turn the tables again later. Some quid pro quo, some cat and mouse, sequel time. Hey, SoTL was left W-I-D-E open for a sequel as well.
Straight up excellent performances from the cast given the material. The drug bust was very detailed action and let us see the new Clarice as we should. The hardened, experienced, unappreciated law enforcement officer that she bacame over the years. The scenes and filming in Italy, the Italian police officer Pazzi... just excellent. This IS Hannibal's world and gives some thriller drama over horror aspects. The scenes in the states between Clarice and Hannibal in the carousel, cat and mouse detective for Clarice. Her rescue of Hannibal more of an action scene than horror I'd say. We get to see Hannibal as surgeon sewing up Clarice, we get 'the picture' of what Hannibal would like from her (eventually, he's patient) when she wakes up dressed for dinner in the low cut evening gown. Ninety percent of this movie was thriller, action, drama and not slasher horror.
Overall the filming was excellent, the visuals were gore enough apparently to traumatize some but not much more than what was needed to convey the story. Some holes in the plot mainly not giving us the clear picture of Verger's crimes and evil nature. Read the book and you'd push him into the pig pit yourself. The ending of this movie was just short of satisfying and we are led to believe Hannibal sacrificed his hand... yet, I bet we'll see a 2-handed Lecter in the sequel to this. I personally could have lived without the brain eating dinner scene and would have prefered more time with Clarice and Hannibal alone interacting. Still this a movie about a cannibalistic killer, so something like that brain scene isn't out of place... maybe we need to feel less "romantic" about our favorite cannibal killer Hannibal. Still the brain dinner scene was a bit of a dive into campy B-grade territory. The ending of SoTL versus Hannibal makes the difference in how these two movies are regarded I think. Despite some flaws this is a very good movie. As far as sequels go I'd say it is close to excellent.
Sorry so long-winded, but I didn't see this until the 3rd weekend out and had heard so much I thought was misleading about this movie.
Tarzan (1999)
remake of the classic story
Excellent animation on the Tarzan character and great mood music by Phil Collins... a nice remake of a classic, my boys loved it.