This is a perfect movie. It hits every right note, the theme isn't lost from the source work, as an adaptation it knows exactly what to cut, and enhance, to make it work for a shorter format. Despite it being a book sequel it stands alone. Hopkins and Foster create a dynamic that works so well for the story it has yet to be topped.
Hopkins performance is so strong, that even when Mads does a more novel accurate portrayal, its hard to forget what Anthony brought to the table. it also maintains the books dilemma of making you sympathetic to Hannibal, despite your knowledge of him being a complete monster. you kind of want him to escape.
 |
 Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68 |
|
the 3 hopkins movies were all good, every year i marathon them. Will Graham is a slightly more interesting character though. Red Dragon kind of fricks up by making Nortons character disfigured at the end
*not making
moron Hannibal is an embarrassment and red dragon sucks and he just cameos in it
It sucks. One of the most overrated of them all
lol why?
It's just way more cheesy than the fans will admit. Cartoony characters and dialogue
explain. don't just say that, tell us what your issue is.
I don't have the film memorized scene by scene. That's just the impression I was left with when I rewatched it last year
i think it only seems corny to you because you've seen it so much paradied
Maybe it is a little cheesy but it did come out in 1991.
Appreciate the concession that it is (or "might") be cheesy. I'm not saying you guys shouldn't like it, I just think it's really overrated. People talk about it like it's one of the GOATs
overrated is not a critique. unless you can say why it needs to be rated lower, you're just saying words.
>People talk about it because it’s one of the goats fr
Because it is homosexual zoom
I know you think 13 reasons why is the pinnacle of this sort of thing but allot happened before your were born
Get a hair cut
Because it is moron.
It’s a ridiculously good movie. Just a work of genius
you're dead clarice. don't forget to check your corners.
Yeah stupid good film.
Great movie.
agree
it makes the real villain seem to be the criminal justice system and especially Dr. Chilton who is sadistic and self-serving
we're stoked to see he will likely be eaten
the chilton shit at the end is great because you're rooting for it. you WANT chilton to die horribly, despite the fact he's really just tourchering one of the worst people in the world.. Hannibal justifies himself to the audience and chilton is a little b***h so you're somehow happy he's about to be killed and eaten. its genius. you end up loving hannibal just like clarice will eventually
Exactly. Chilton hits on clarice shamelessly, he delights in his work as disciplinarian, he recklessly dehumanizes his "patients" ("lecter is our most prized 'asset'")
When the press arrives on the scene he makes sure they know who he is ("that's CHILTON, spelled: C-H-I..")
we love an anti-hero
It IS one of the GOATs though. It's a little dated but very few films compare, anon. If anything the "TrueCrime" aspect of it has given it a new life of relevance.
and yet objectively Chilton is nowhere near as bad as Hannibal, but thats what i'm saying. Thomas Harris' novels make you kind of 'get' these killers. By the end of the movie you want Chilton dead and Hannibal alive, as a writer his stories twist you into rooting for the depravity. the movie captured it. truly nothing else has.
there's really nothing redeemable about Hannibal, but he's charming as frick and at some point you just accept you like him
absolutely. it's very natural to accept our legal system as corrupt and rogue individuals as perhaps valorous
yes interesting point. I also think its somewhat of a commentary on how we all view scheming buttholes as less than. it was written in a time where serial killers were getting love letters and shit, in fact thats a big plot point in the first novel
Again, this really isn't interesting or that unique in movies. It is, after all, a movie.
And I was just making a glib response. I don't care about your wrong opinions, anon.
You really don't need to be this rude, but I understand you won't answer the question. I hope you have a good year.
>Again, this really isn't interesting or that unique in movie
NTA but it's really well-done. which is worthy of praise
its pretty unique since there's nothing else like it (red dragon was a better movie than manhunter btw, and if you did manage to like Manhuntrer, the hannibal show is better than both)
Manhunter is better.
>it also maintains the books dilemma of making you sympathetic to Hannibal, despite your knowledge of him being a complete monster. you kind of want him to escape.
This is not at all interesting. It's easy to do this when he's as cartoonish as the Joker.
While I like man hunter
TSotL is a superior film
I’m sure it’s the bath salts talking
Silence isn't even a good film. Demme has directed so many better films. Manhunter is a masterpiece, only marred by not having its cut scenes fully restored.
Why did Will burst through the glass right into what'shisnames arms? Always thought that was moronic.
Hard hitting criticism.
We have the scenes but I don't think they've ever been properly restored.
>Hard hitting criticism.
Anon I'm just asking a question. If there isn't an answer then that's fine, I don't think Manhunter is bad. Just not as good as Silence.
I see why they cut that. Seems a bit out of place after the arrest and before the beach ending, and with the resident taking out his gun lol. But I do like that he needed to see who he saved, with his beaten scarred face.
>with the resident taking out his gun lol
Are you an moronic?
Nothing else like it? You haven't watched too many movies, which seems to fit because you sound underage. Red Dragon is shit btw, and TV is a waste of time.
>Nothing else like it?
Yes. There is nothing else like the scene where Hannibal is wearing a wig, seeing Chilton disembark from a plane, and the audience realizes Hannibal is going to eat Chilton at some point in the near future, and getting positive entertainment from that. You will not be able to name a scene where the a character is wearing a wig, watches another character disembark from a plane, where the audience knows the disembarking character will be eaten soon by the first character mentioned. You're being needlessly annoying.
Well, that's needlessly specific. You could say the same about any film if you narrow your perimeters. But the conceit of a villainous character being likable, being someone the audience roots for, is terribly common, even as meta-commentary on the nature of its appeal. Unremarkable.
>Well, that's needlessly specific
It's as specific as it needs to be. You're the one who said there are other films that are like that scene and has yet to name anything.
> But the conceit of a villainous character being likable, being someone the audience roots for, is terribly common
And only one has it exactly as I described. You will be unable to name a scene exactly as done at the end of Silence of the Lambs. That's the whole point of something being "unique". You understand that, right? You seem like an intelligent person, but I've been wrong about seeing intelligence in people before.
Either you're 13 years old or moronic.
Still hasn't named a scene, doesn't understand the word "unique", isn't intelligent. Sayonara man.
you don't get it. Hannibal is unique because he's one of the most reprehensible people of all time, yet you sort of want him to escape. no movie has done this, even as a book its wild. this isn't like Thanos or something where you get his point of view, this is like there's a serial killer who murders innocent people and the viewer is kind of charmed and wants to see where the evil goes. we all want Hannibal to escape even though we know its wrong. no other movie does that. the viewer almost has a little guit when he is up in that ambulance taking off his face. we just want more
Since you're being redundant, you can forgive me for doing likewise when I say, no that's not unique.
then tell us something that does it, because you're just being annoying now
i think if you had something, you'd have set it right there. tell me, do you often make big... proclamations.. like this for strangers online? or is there something else you're after, maybe its something you can't prove. i'm willing to bet your daddy wouldn't like the language you use. perhaps he was angry his son was a homosexual? anyways tata, i hope you find peace in your attraction to him
What a normal post.
Hard hitting criticism.
I mean that it's strange that his wife and kid are casually fricking around in the kitchen, but he runs to the door with the gun after hearing the bell and her gasp. That part could have been done better.
one thing i do like about manhunter is how fricked up will gets. Red Dragon has the line from the book where Hannibal sends him the letter hoping he's not too ugly now, but we never really see that. Will also becomes an alcoholic and divorces his family in the book, hannibal ruins him
>its cut scenes fully restored.
Do you know anything about what was cut? So there'll never be a director's cut I guess.
STRONG AS I AM
THERE'S SOMETHING BOUT THIS THING THAT SCARES ME
STRONG AS I AM
THERE'S SOMETHING BOUT THIS THING THAT DARES ME
STRONG AS I AM
THERE'S SOMETHING BOUT THIS THING THAT SNEEDS ME
STRONG AS I AM
THERE'S SOMETHING BOUT THIS THING THAT FEEDS MEEEEE
ZHA ZHA ZHA YEAH!
ZHA ZHA ZHA YEAH!
>Manhunter is better
Because it sounds like gay porn causing you to prioritize it in your mind
>it also maintains the books dilemma of making you sympathetic to Hannibal, despite your knowledge of him being a complete monster. you kind of want him to escape.
How do people fall into this? It's the same drivel I hear with regards to Tony Soprano.
1. He's helpful, almost friendly towards our protagonist, Clarice
2. He's principled; he drives Miggs to death because Miggs abused Clarice
3. He's needlessly tormented by Dr. Chilton ––Lecter is depicted as intelligent and his punishment insultingly crude
4. He is ultimately the catalyst for the plot's resolution
And on top of all that he seems like a pretty savvy and tasteful dude. Literally everything about the movie makes us want to like him. We scarcely see his violent acts; only those which contribute to his eventual freedom.
That nurse whose tongue hit bit off probably lived a full life of day in, day out labor. Cleaning the shit of patients, cleaning the blood off patients, going home, balancing her checkbook, paying bills, maybe raising a child or two like many other people. She was just doing her job when Hannibal fricked her life up. He's really not that likable a guy, definitely entertaining.
Dude you have no idea how evil nurses are. You'll see when it's time for your parents to die.
I've known some great nurses, I've known some awful nurses in my time.
I think you have something here actually. Chilton's crassness, his obvious scummy behavior is more in our face than Hannibal's previous murders, thus making the former more dislikable despite the latter's objectively worse personhood.
>thus making the former more dislikable despite the latter's objectively worse personhood.
That's right. We're really not served any of Lecter's true nastiness. It is only delivered to us in stories.
If we had a 1:1 of Lecter vs. Chilton's evil deeds we'd likely side with Chilton. Or maybe not. But the film clearly depicts Chilton as more despicable than Lecter.
>I think you have something here actually. Chilton's crassness, his obvious scummy behavior is more in our face than Hannibal's previous murders, thus making the former more dislikable despite the latter's objectively worse personhood.
precisely, and this is laid out more clearly in the first novel, where will knows all about hannibals crimes and even caught him but is still sort of charmed because hannibals have some sort of sense to them. Hannibal only kills rude people so there's some fricked up justification for it all, and WIll can get in the head of serial killers so he kind of sees their points. Clarice doesn't have this ability, she's a regular person so Hanniba treats her as a student, which the movie captures.
You see Hannibal as a mentor, the viewer sort of sympathizes with Hannibal because he's the only person Clarice can talk to, and at the same time, the only person he opens up to. Chilton is probably a sociopath as well, but theres no connection for him, nobody wants to hang out with chilton
>nobody wants to hang out with chilton
There's the crux right there. Well said.
the whole point of the book is to get you to ponder and question the nature of good and evil, and ultimately the book can't make its mind up one way or another what good and evil really is.
hannibal speculates that maybe good and evil are supernatural in nature and "just is", and its not just mere behaviourism, but i suspect he also hasn't totally made his mind up.
clarice suggests that destruction is evil, but then hannibal says that based on that logic, storms and hurricanes are evil, but they are acts of nature, or acts of god.
Then he brings up that he collects news clippings of church collapses, and that one church collapsed on twenty five people.
and then he jokes that god seems to love evil.
but i think ultimately he dosn't know and is sort of in awe of, and resentful of, the absurdity of life and the mysteriousness of good and evil.
so making hannibal lector so likable, and then making other charectors have such dark qualities, and making most of the charectors a combination of good and evil is an exploration of that question.
even clarice starling, who is the "most good", is still revealed that her desire to help others is really about trying to heal her child hood trauma. and explores the question, if charity and good are entirely motivated by selfish ends, is it still good? i think ultimately hannibal atleast partially decides that yes it is, because he ultimately becomes smitten with clarice over her goodness, inspite of it being largely motivated by her trying to heal her child hood trauma, again because he had the exact opposite reaction to his own trauma.
true but the whole thing is subverted in another sense. if we go by what happens to everyone, Will is completely destroyed. Clarice is another person at the end, sort of a wife or whatever, although its made clear its her choice, its clearly manipulation, she's lost her real humanity, and they all live in beunos aries where starship troopers killd them. which brings me to my next pioint...jk jk
what did you think about the show, i think it did a good job for something that wasn't allowed to use any characters from silence?
dad died with dementia. nurses aren't evil but nursing home nurses have to have a specific kind of sociopathy
its hinted at in the movies and explored more in the films, but he tends to be violent either to survive or towards though who he sees as very rude.
notice that clarice starling says that he's not afraid of hannibal coming after her after he escapes because "that would be rude".
he attacks the police officers who have him caged but i think that they were "rude" to him in the books and also it was in order for him to escape from being held captive where he was being abused for years.
in the movie he says "nothing happened to me clarice, i happened", so he's making the same argument you are making, that some people are just evil and aren't understandable, but this is undone when in the books we find out that he does have an extremely traumatic childhood that contributed towards his being the way he is.
and he's fascinated with, and ultimately falls in love with clarice do to her actual innocence, which he rarely sees in the world.
So you can speculate that the nurse that he mutiliated may have been extremely rude, similar to the nurse from one flew over the coocoos nest.
explored more in the books*
>but this is undone when in the books we find out that he does have an extremely traumatic childhood that contributed towards his being the way he is.
we can ignore Hannibal Rising outside of broad strokes since Harris was blackmailed into writing that book by a movie studio and he explicitly said he didn't want to
ok but its still something that is alluded to in the book "hannibal" that something traumatic happened to him when he was young
this is why i really didn't like the tv show "hannibal" because they decided to protray him as a super human devil incarnate. but he is ironically actually a deeply flawed human being, thats the whole point, that he projects him self as above regular human beings, even with great success, because of his trauma and disgust with the human condition, but ultimately he is still a human being.
they also depict hannibal murdering people not just for survival and not because they are rude, which is something you don't actually "see" in the books.
High school level analysis, and none of this is interesting.
Could we have a university-level analsyis from you then, please? Or is uni leftish bullshit so I should ask for trade-school level?
Hannibal is supposed to be likable that’s why he’s so dangerous
The people that are based and don’t fall for his bull shitting are presented as bad guys because it’s a film made by leftist who had he been real person would have spent millions to free him through some NGO and no doubt been mauled in their unending thirst for fatalism
well chilton is definitely an butthole regardless of whether he was operating within his legal right
It's a movie. You don't have to condone Lecter's cruelty to want him to succeed within the language of the film.
I don't think the senator was wrong for absolutely despising him.
I love that actress' voice.
>Take this thing back to Baltimore!
was delivered pitch perfect.
its not really about falling for it. you as the viewer are completely aware of what you're starting to like. you aren't being sort of made to see tony as a human as in supranos, youre now being made to see Hannibals debachery as something you kind of get.
You know hannibal is a monster, but he's better than his captors intellectually. he's wrong.. but he's soooo right
It really does a great job of presenting typical horror tropes into the crime genre
“He likes to skin his humps”
I wish I was on the LT because I have such gifs to show you
What are some other movies like that? I just want to watch something good again.
>Hannibal lecter film
>It Ain't Bweee starts playing
>Eight years ago
>780 views
I don't care that this is yours this is hilarious.
>You know what you look like to me with your good bag and your cheap shoes? You look like a rube. A well scrubbed, hustling rube with a little taste. Good nutrition has given you some length of bone, but you’re not more than one generation from poor white trash, are you Agent Starling? And that accent you’re trying so desperately to shed – pure West Virginia. What was your father, dear? Was he a coal miner? Did he stink of the lamp? And oh, how quickly the boys found you. All those tedious, sticky fumblings, in the back seats of cars, while you could only dream of getting out. Getting anywhere. Getting all the way to the F.B.I.
did they end up together? any bookgays to answer this q?
reminder to everyone that hannibal himself confirmed that buffalo bill only THINKS he’s trans and isnt actually a transwoman. i feel like everyone purposefully forgets about this :/
>he's not a "real troon" he's just some guy with intense self-hatred and a sexual fetish based around transforming into a woman
maybe every troony only THINKS they are trans and isn't actually a trans woman?
in any case yea buffalo bill is more obcessed with the idea of metamorphosis and beauty.
his mother treated him very badly and he had a very hard life, so he feels undeserving of being treated well and feels like he needs become a different person, a personification of beauty, in order to deserve love.
in the book, as he's dieing, he asks clarice starling, "how does it feel? to be so beautiful?"
but through out the film and book, clarice experiences alot of difficulty do to the fact that she is a beautiful woman, which becomes a dimension in almost all interactions she has with other men.
in fact, ironically, hannibal points this out that everyone is fixated on her beauty when they talk to her, and so he is one of the few people who can see the difficulty she has in wanting to be taken seriously as an fbi investigator but being treated merely as a pretty girl. and he goes on to interact with her as a worthwhile investigator, and also admires about her that she seems to be a genuinely good person, not just a pretty girl. and this climaxes in the scene where when he is passing the files, or documents, to her, something they bond over that stimulates the mind, not pleasures of the flesh, their fingers touch, and this is an inversion of a sex scene where he "touches" her in that he touches her heart and genuinely "connects" with her by seeing her the way she wants to be seen and not just as a pretty girl.
>in the book, as he's dieing, he asks clarice starling, "how does it feel? to be so beautiful?"
That's interesting. I'm glad they cut it out but I wouldn't have minded seeing that.
>their fingers touch, and this is an inversion of a sex scene where he "touches" her in that he touches her heart and genuinely "connects" with her by seeing her the way she wants to be seen and not just as a pretty girl.
Did that part come across more in the novel? In the film she just seems scared and nervous since she wanted her case file and they were taking her away.
If the officers were rude in the books that makes sense but in the film they were just dudes doing their job. Shame.
yes but he is still also doing what he absolutely needs to do in order to survive, regarding killing the officers, so while it still can be classified as evil, its atleast understandable, its not merely sadistic for its own sake.
i think the finger touching was pretty god damn powerful in the film, it zooms right in on their fingers touching, and they are staring right into the camera as a facsimile as staring right into eachothers eyes.
the scene starts, clarice brings hannibal his drawings back, he asks if she's there because jack crawford sent her for the case, to get something, but she says that she just came because she wanted to, hannibal says "people will say we are in love"
then when hannibal asks starling if the lie that he would be moved to a different location was partially constructed by starling, specifically that he would go to "anthrax island" (plum island), clarice says "yes", and smiles like "you got me", she doesn't keep lieing to him. and hannibal is pleased that she told the truth and amused at her naughtiness.
then clarice points out that his red herrings that he gives to the police are becomming obvious to her, do to the fact that he can't help but hide annagrams in them.
so then hannibal is tickled by her intelligence and her pointing out his naughtiness.
then clarice asks hannibal to tell her more abotu the case, and he says that its in the case files, she doesn't get frustrated, she's up for the challange, and tries to figure out the puzzle with him.
he points out that the serial killer covets what he sees every day, he doesn't seek out things to covet, then he says "don't you feel eyes moving over your body clarice? and don't your eyes seek out the things you want?" and it shows hannibal and clarice staring at eachother.
like dude its SCORCHING.
No I get all that, but I feel like it's onesided. At least in Silence. It isn't until later where they play up the love stuff.
how is it one sided, he's providing her psychotherapy, helping her understand her own childhood trauma and why she does what she does, and he's providing her sympathy and understanding and validation as to how difficult it is to have eyes crawling all over her for being a pretty woman inspite of her wanting to be taken seriously as a fbi investigator so she can help save innocent lives, he's having a back and forth with her where they tease each other for being mischevious, and he treats her like an adult instead of a pretty little girl. its absolutely a mutual scene of intense chemistry between a woman who is a super good person and a man who is a super bad person. its an incredible scene.
I really think that's your novel experience coloring the film in that light. We'll have to agree to disagree.
nah dude i literally just watched the scene again its clearly all there. , what do you need, a david lynch's dune esque whispering monologue?
the film employed staring into the camera, something that is typically a no no in film making, to help highlight the symbolism of having eyes crawling on you, and the film brings up issues of clarice being looked at as just a pretty girl, it shows charectors staring into the camera when they comment on how pretty she is, and it shows her room mate staring into the camera when they connect while talking about hannibal lector and her room mate is treating her like a person and not a pretty girl (cause her room mate is a black chick). the themes i'm talking about are present in the movie its just not literally spelled out for you, she doesn't say "hannibal is the only man who i can be certain has treated me like a human being and not just a pretty girl".
then he convinces her to finish telling her about her child hood trauma, letting him get into her head, she tells him her story of what all her altruism is based on, and its based on merely wishing that lambs didn't have to suffer, that it bothered her.
this is this paradox, is she motivated by personal gain, wanting to heal her child hood trauma? or is her altruism a continuation of her childhood empathy, she just doesn't want people to suffer, she just wants the lambs to stop screaming.
hannibal is not able to "figure out" clarice, and realize how she is deep down "rude", she remains a puzzle. good and evil remains a puzzle, but not with evil, with her good, a counter point to his own evil. he's amazed by her.
"do you think if you save poor catherine, you can make them stop? that you can stop that awful screaming of the lambs?"
"i don't know"
"thank you clarice"
so then he offers the case files and they touch fingers. they have connected. he sees the real her. SCORCHING DUDE.
its also important that she reaches past the safety bannister to grab the case files that he offers her, a sign of trust, knowing that he's extremely dangerous and has maimed people with such an oppurtunity, and he caresses her finger when they touch, showing that he could have hurt her, and showing the strongest act of affection and sensuality shown in the film full of grotesque violence and sadism.
holy frick can you learn how to write?
people gonna clown on you but it is an important part.
Because we forgot that that is literally all trannies.
no its not, there is a huge difference between a "transgender" person who is driven by fetish/trauma than a transgender person who is trans because of gender dysphoria, someone he/she cannot control.
something not someone*
There's no hard evidence they're mutually exclusive, and trauma driving anything has no basis in reality.
what we know about buffalo bill is that he was denied treatment because psychiatrists thought he was a fetishist. that's really all there is to it
I wasn't responding to what your said in regard to the movie, numbnuts. And neither was the post that I responded to.
Jared Leto's the Joker.
Honey, finish up on the computer and get to bed. It's a Tuesday night.
thanks for bumping my thread, guy who wastes his time making sure clasic films get derailled, you kind of saved it.
Don't worry, it's not a real classic. Deserves to be derailed.
i am truly on my last straw here. whatever, i tried to make a good thread. there were three posters who wanted to talk, checking the front page the other categories are *how fat amy shumer is, two threads about how they used to jack off to women who are now old, 5 shitposts, and i guess one other jackoff one disguessed as something else. it is time to retire.
It is time to retire. Your bedtime was hours ago.
Ehhhhhhh
Can anyone make a webm of Jodie Foster reloading her gun? One of my favorite small movie moments in all of kinema
this moment was a little over the top for me. Lecter was strapped for time and he decided to get dramatic with it?
Suppose the horror of the efficiency? Like for the audience to imagine what he would be able to do with more time.
its not unbelievable, he took the knocked out guard and used his ties on two ends of the ribbons and pulled his head up with the tie. the only reason it seems insane is hopkins is playing him
i believe he could do it, but he also had to tear off a guy's face and put it on and dress up like a cop and all this shit when he's strapped for time. just seemed silly and over the top to do all that with the guy
i hear you but we aren't really aware of the timeframe
this could be a problem with Silence being a sequel in a literary sense, in the book its like a reminder almost. in the movie its played more like ' well frick'
>was she a great big fat person?
Is that that movie about a great big fat person?
Hannibal is the logical sequel and frick everyone who said it was bad. it really should have had a moment where the director looked straight at the audience and said "this is what you wanted"
in the hannibal book it ends with clarice starling and hannibal lector falling in love and thats why jodie foster didn't return for the sequel and the other actress they got would only do it if they changed the ending, and i think they are fricking cowards.
Manhunter was shit and Mann is a hack.
it was boring as shit
same with that prisoners movie
or master commander (yeah epic practical effects, costumes bro, but utterly pointless like they just some random ass french cargo ship yeah that will get them bro)
>mfw during the night vision goggles part
shit is pretty tense
i thought that the show was a bit too cartoony, i liked that the books have an air of realism in its pondering of the nature of good and evil, the show kind of felt like cape shit how many serial killers there were with a weird gimmick, and i felt like mads mikkelsons hannibal didn't have enough vulnerability and that will crawford had TOO MUCH vulnerability. the point is that will and hannibal are supposed to be similar to eachother, thats something that hannibal suspects is what causes will to be able to figure out hannibal, so having will be a weird eccentric stammering guy, its like weird and cutesy. he should be imposing and off putting and sophisticated and cultured and quietly troubled like hannibal.
I can appreciate the Hopkins movies on their merits, but I honestly cannot look at them as Hannibal movies. I know that in the book Lecter is rather small, whereas Mads is Mads, but the Fuller version just tied it all together beautifully. The purple prose, the heightened reality, the aesthetics and the way everyone dressed so Cinemaphile, the overt horror tones; it just worked. It's more fantastical, but when you're dealing with a genius cannibal psychiatrist, you need that. In comparison Hopkins is more "tame", more down to Earth, while his Hannibal is like something out of a Hammer film. It creates this dissonance so while yes, TSOTL is objectively a well made film on all aspects, I see no reason to revisit it or keep it in mind. Even less so for the sequels/prequels. It's just a well made crime flick with a grimy atmosphere. It's too blasé.
After you've gotten used to Mads' version, Hopkins just visually cannot elicit the same emotions. Mads is beautiful and charming, and has this aura around him while he's dressed in these brilliant suits. He's something otherworldly. You can understand how someone like him would entice the high society of his world. You see him cook and it is an entire performance. You know he's cooking people and you're still bewitched by it all. Compare that to bald, fat, short Hopkins running around with a ponytail in Red Dragon. It's just not as beautiful, not as enticing. It's more realistic yes, but it's not aesthetic. And for me the whole point of Hannibal is to be aesthetic.
It's not even that I watched the Mads version first, I grew up with the Hopkins movies, and only years after it had concluded did I watch the Mads version (and Manhunter). But while the show has stayed with me and I think about it often (a scene, a frame, a piece of dialogue) I never think about TSOFTL. It's as if it's not the same material to me. Manhunter I enjoy more because it's similar to the Fuller version, in that it lives and dies by its aesthetic.
aesthetically madds hannibal is dope but i can't get over how cartoony and gay the actual show is.
Manhunter, Silence of the Lambs, and Hannibal are a trilogy. Frick the other two movies and the series.
Dammit I wish Jodie Foster was straight and with me. Hell even now at 61 I'd bang.
Hannibal is a bit of reddit character you have to admit