Hannibal Rising (Theatrical Film Review)

 

Stars: Gaspard Ulliel, Gong Li, Rhys Ifans

Director: Peter Webber

Critic's rating: 4 out of 10

 

Review by Chuck O'Leary

 

The ill-conceived Hannibal Rising plays sort of like how Death Wish might have turned out had Charles Bronson's vigilante been a bloodthirsty cannibal. 

 

In Manhunter (1986), The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Red Dragon (2002), Dr. Hannibal "The Cannibal" Lecter was a diabolical villain whose only redeeming qualities were his intelligence and sardonic wit.  In the vastly underrated Hannibal (2001), his infatuation for Clarice Starling combined with the fact that his adversary was a wealthy, powerful pedophile made him more sympathetic.

 

Humanizing Lecter to a certain degree because of his love of Clarice is clearly as far as it should have gone.  In the new prequel Hannibal Rising, which is easily the weakest of the series, turning the cannibalistic killer into a vengeful hero is just too much to stomach.

 

In all the previous films where Lecter appeared, it was either FBI agent Will Graham or Clarice Starling who was the protagonist and moral center.  Their goodness is sorely missing here.

 

For fans of the series, Hannibal Rising should still be quite watchable (it's seldom boring), but the film's moral repugnance and disingenuousness leaves a bad taste in one's mouth.  While watching this troubling glorification of a merciless, cannibalistic murderer, one shouldn't forget about a real-life monster such as Jeffrey Dahmer, who also liked to decapitate and eat his victims.

 

Hannibal Rising opens in the waning days of World War II as Nazi Germany is losing its grip on occupied Lithuania to Soviet forces.  The Lecters are well-to-do Lithuanians who live in a countryside castle.  When the fighting and bombing get too close for comfort, Mama and Papa Lecter flee the castle with their two young children, Hannibal and Mischa, and hole up in a cottage that's a few miles away in the wintry woods.

 

When the adult Lecter's are killed after getting caught in the middle of wartime violence, young Hannibal and his beloved little sister are forced to fend for themselves.  But their peace together at the cottage is soon shattered when a group of vicious Lithuanian looters, and Nazi collaborators, take refuge in the cottage and tie up the two young Lecters. 

 

With little food available in the freezing cold, the starving men eventually decide to kill little Mischa and use her body for food.  Young Hannibal survives, but is driven mad by memories of his sister, and spends the next several years lusting for revenge against the bad men who decided to take her life to save theirs.

 

As a young adult, Hannibal moves to France where he stays with his Japanese aunt by marriage, Lady Murasaki (Gong Li), who protects him and teaches him the way of the samurai while Hannibal studies medicine and plots his bloody retribution; the unlikely samurai lessons provide explanations for the Hannibal mask and his proficiency with sharp objects.

 

Hannibal Rising plays out predictably as a series of sadistic revenge killings which are conveniently justified by the fact that all the men who ate Mischa are war criminals.  This would be more acceptable if Hannibal turned out to be some sort of cannibalistic avenger who only went after the evil, but despite this prequel's assertion that Hannibal only targets "bullies," we know from the other films in the series that he eventually ended up murdering a lot of innocent people too. 

 

All the sudden we're supposed to forget about his future murders referenced or shown in the other films -- like the census taker, the Princeton student, the out-of-key orchestra player and the two cops guarding him in the cage in The Silence of the Lambs.  Why did they all deserve to die?  And the thought is never supposed to enter our mind that if the nasty chief villain played by Rhys Ifans in Hannibal Rising had been successful in stopping Hannibal, would it have ended up saving a lot of innocent lives in the long run?

 

It was a lot easier accepting the actions of screen vigilantes like Charles Bronson in the Death Wish films or more recently Thomas Jane in The Punisher since the characters they played were decent men before becoming consumed with rage and vengeance.  And unlike Hannibal Lecter, those characters weren't sociopathic and had a concern for the innocent.

 

Hannibal Rising also makes the mistake of casting the role of the young adult Hannibal with a European pretty boy (Gaspard Ulliel) who could NEVER grow older to look like Anthony Hopkins. He also lacks any of the substance and likablity of Hopkins, qualities that made the character easier to take in the other films.  As played by Ulliel, Hannibal comes across as a smug, arrogant punk whose viciousness is indistinguishable from those he's hunting. 

 

Screenwriter Thomas Harris, whose novel version of Hannibal Rising came out in early December of 2006, should have quit when he was ahead.  The film version of this prequel, at least, often comes across as a desperate attempt by Harris and producer Dino De Laurentiis to cash in one last time.

 

It's obvious the Lecter series has run its course when this one ends with unintentionally campy exchanges like, "You ate my sister!" followed by "You ate her too!," coupled with those old action movie contrivances of the protagonist having to save his woman from the clutches of the archvillain and a concealed piece of metal preventing a bullet from killing the hero.

 

But in case you thought Mel Gibson's Apocalypto didn't have enough severed heads, Hannibal Rising is the movie for you.