Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews40
blubb06's rating
... I assume, not having the personal experience. To be that grotesquely over-rated, a sizable part of the world's teens must have voted for it ;-) Pros: This is what a new Star Wars movies should have been like - a cool hero, a not-to-geeky cast, a slice of sex, humor and lots, lots of explosions! - without needless blood and gore. The story isn't too bad either, although not particularly brainy or emotionally challenging. This is a character-driven movie.
Cons: Well, for us ol'uns above thirty-five, the enjoyment lies in watching the kids have fun - there isn't really anyone or anything to identify with for boring grown-ups. I think I would have liked it - twenty years ago.
Cons: Well, for us ol'uns above thirty-five, the enjoyment lies in watching the kids have fun - there isn't really anyone or anything to identify with for boring grown-ups. I think I would have liked it - twenty years ago.
Yes, it's disgusting, and Jodie Foster isn't in it. But apart from that, this is a very good movie.
Obstacle n°1 that kept me from appreciating it the first time around is -- yes, Julianne Moore brings a classical beauty (sort of) and her own kind of moral strength to the 'Starling' role. This time it's supercooled woman, not snotty-nosed little girl against the beast. Of the two, the rookie was more likable. In the Lecter-Starling tapes that were re-recorded with Moore, she sounds super-self-controlled -- all reflections on that earlier, more vulnerable self are gone. Pity, because it could have reflected how Starling has changed, and added depth to her character. But hers is not the starring role, anyway -- Mason Verger and the city of Florence outshine, or rather out-darken everything else, including the famous Dr Lecter, M.D. I only would have wished this great villain a better death.
Where 'Silence of the Lambs' was unnerving, 'Hannibal' is really straining to the point of nausea. It's not a movie one can easily fall in love with, because it's de-romanticizing the idol Lecter and putting him in the same club as Jeffrey Dahmer. No wonder some people find it disappointing. But get away from Lecter-worship and the image of Jodie-who, forget Thomas Harris's novel, and you'll not be bored. You'll still need a strong stomach, though.
Obstacle n°1 that kept me from appreciating it the first time around is -- yes, Julianne Moore brings a classical beauty (sort of) and her own kind of moral strength to the 'Starling' role. This time it's supercooled woman, not snotty-nosed little girl against the beast. Of the two, the rookie was more likable. In the Lecter-Starling tapes that were re-recorded with Moore, she sounds super-self-controlled -- all reflections on that earlier, more vulnerable self are gone. Pity, because it could have reflected how Starling has changed, and added depth to her character. But hers is not the starring role, anyway -- Mason Verger and the city of Florence outshine, or rather out-darken everything else, including the famous Dr Lecter, M.D. I only would have wished this great villain a better death.
Where 'Silence of the Lambs' was unnerving, 'Hannibal' is really straining to the point of nausea. It's not a movie one can easily fall in love with, because it's de-romanticizing the idol Lecter and putting him in the same club as Jeffrey Dahmer. No wonder some people find it disappointing. But get away from Lecter-worship and the image of Jodie-who, forget Thomas Harris's novel, and you'll not be bored. You'll still need a strong stomach, though.