Hannibal

Perhaps the most surprising thing (to me) about Ridley Scott's Hannibal is that I own a copy of Ridley Scott's Hannibal. The film really isn't that great.

The film just misses greatness by feeling a little too much like airplane reading — you know, the formulaic type sold in airport bookstores and meant to be consumed quickly and without much thought.

The story gets wrapped up in fine details of fine things set in fine places, and even after several viewings, I still feel the presence of Thomas Harris trying to impress me with how much he knows about hand cream.

Further, and probably more obvious, is that Jodie Foster isn't here. Julianne Moore does an admirable job stepping into an iconic role, but I still can't get past it. She's not Jodie Foster, and no amount of southern accent can make her a different person, even if the film is set 10 years later.

But I went through a Hannibal phase a few years ago anyway, picking up The Silence of the Lambs first, then Hannibal, and finally Red Dragon. Sometimes, obsessive completist tendencies got the best of me regardless of quality.

Of course, I've seen the film that started all this Hannibal Lecter stuff — Michael Mann's Manhunter, but that film feels terribly dated and inconsistent compared to the films featuring Anthony Hopkins.

Just as Brian Cox does not feel right as Lecter in the first film, Julianne Moore does not feel right as Clarice Starling. Maybe for thinking this way, I'm one of the Philistines that Dr. Lecter rails against. I hope he doesn't find me rude for saying these things.

p.s. I should note that I do not own a copy of the prequel, Hannibal Rising. That film is garbage.