World Famous Comics: Hannibal Rising (Unrated Widescreen Edition)
Hannibal Rising (Unrated Widescreen Edition)
Starring: Aaran Thomas, Helena Lia Tachovska, Richard Leaf, Michele Wade, Martin Hub Directed By: Peter Webber Average Rating: Aspect Ratio: 1.85:1 Audience Rating: R (Restricted) Binding: DVD Format: Closed-captioned, Color, Widescreen, NTSC Label: Weinstein Company Number of Items: 1 Region Code: 1 Release Date: May 29, 2007 Running Time: 131 minutes Theatrical Release Date: February 09, 2007
Product Description: In Red Dragon we learned who he was. In Silence of the Lambs we learned how he did it. Now comes the most chilling chapter in the saga of Hannibal Lecter the one that answers the most elusive question of all why? Written by Thomas Harris the best-selling author of the Hannibal book series this fascinating and terrifying journey into the making of a monster (Pete Hammond Maxim) reveals for the first time the metamorphosis of a brilliant medical student into Hannibal the Cannibal. Good Morning America s Joel Siegel says if you can keep your eyes open you re going to get scared. Format: DVD MOVIE Genre: HORROR UPC: 796019802413 Manufacturer No: 80241
Amazon.com: Though Hannibal Rising's Lecter (Gaspard Ulliel) is a pussycat compared to Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs, this sequel's story of revenge is grizzly enough to satisfy lovers of Thomas Harris's epic tale. After young Hannibal (Aaron Thomas) is forced to watch his little sister, Mischa (Helena Lia Tachovska), devoured by starving soldiers in his homeland Lithuania, Hannibal vows to avenge his sister's death by slaying those who committed not only war crimes against the Lecters, but also against other families during WW II. In detailing Hannibal's revenge plan, the film investigates the psychological implications of witnessing cannibalism to justify Hannibal's insatiable appetite for human flesh. The most interesting aspect of Hannibal Rising—its analytical connections drawn between Hannibal's childhood traumas and his murderous adult obsessions—is also the film's weak point. The links oversimplify Lecter's complex character. For example, though titillating to see flashbacks of Lecter's sister hacked up and boiled while Lecter visits a Parisian meat market, the reference is too obvious. One learns why he excels in his medical school classes dissecting cadavers, and we're given explicit explanation for why he slices off and eats his victims' cheeks. The story only complicates when Hannibal interacts with his sexy Aunt, Lady Murasaki (Gong Li). When Murasaki educates him in the art of beheading, the viewer sees Hannibal's sword fetish as a manifestation of physical lust. --Trinie Dalton
The only thing rising was my blood pressure What a load of distasteful rot! But let's put aside the feeble main lead, the idiotic pantomime villains and the tedious, sick and overly-drawn out plot...
What I want to know is this... why was there a crescendo of build-up to the 'dramatic' moment when the young Lecter pulls on a face mask for the first time?? I thought in the original film, when Hannibal's all grown up and the world knows what a monster he is, the mask is what the prison guards put on him to stop him biting people! So there's one huge gaping plot hole to start with!
Fortunately this comes about 20 minutes into this 17-hour bum-number, by which time you will either have fallen asleep, or thrown your DVD player out the window in disgust.
Blech, what am I missing? I am a HUGE fan of the Hannibal movies. SOTL is my favorite movie of all time and I can quote lines with the best of them. This movie...I don't know, doesn't it seem like...more could have been done with it? Admittedly, I did not read the book.
Look, there is a REASON that no major young star would touch the role. Do you think this kid was the first one offered the part? Please. When you have a franchise that successful, and then another one comes out with no major stars...you KNOW a bunch of people said "No, thanks" because it was a stinker on paper (the script).
One positive: Just like the Anthony Hopkins older H.L. manages - through the horrors of what he does - to sort of be likeable in a weird way, so was this guy. In this case, it's because you can understand his desire for revenge on the people who murdered and ATE his sibling! I guess what makes him a true "monster" is that he acts on it. And once he got a taste (no pun intended), he never could stop.
I'm just really surprised that the ratings on this averaged as many stars as they did! I seriously must have missed something.
No crime against humanity can go unpunished The book was perfect, the film is even more perfect than perfect. It is exactly what we could have dreamed of. The story is the absolute logical explanation of the previous volumes about Hannibal Lecter and we cannot think of one detail in these earlier volumes that is not the direct consequence of what happens in this later volume that tells the infancy, teenage and youth of Hannibal Lecter. What makes it so fascinatingly believable is that this period of his life is situated in Lithuania during the war and in the Soviet union and in France after the war. The political elements, allusions or direct references are correct even if at times slightly simplified, for instance the butcher, the first victim of Hannibal Lecter's on the French territory, who was a collaborator during the war and took part in the sending of some Jews to deportation could go on with his profession in spite of the hatred he had accumulated among people because as a butcher he must have taken part in a lot of black market operations and most post war higher ups or councilors and representatives in his zone must have used his services in a way or another during the war, to sell the meat they produced on their farms or to buy the meat they could not have with the food coupons. But that lack of precision is already in the book. But a little bit of research on such a point, and others, would have made the film even more believable. The man Hannibal Lecter, and his psychology are really clarified. He was traumatized by what he went through and he never managed to get out of it, to forget it, to forgive the criminals, etc. But is a man that resilient to be able to forgive and forget seeing his own younger sister being cooked in her own copper bathtub and then eaten by a bunch of wild human beasts? I guess we would like to think so. But what we are sure of is that no matter how much you forget something, that thing remains in your mind and can manipulate you any time anywhere unconsciously. All people who suffer such traumas do not become criminals but most of them have some blank moments and their general attitude is either one of distantiation or one of extreme orthodoxy along some ethical or ideological line. For example we have not really thought of the impact of the torturing and execution of the early Christians on the very corpus of their beliefs and principles. How can some persecuted group defend the principle of loving their enemies who are putting them to death in atrocious ways everyday? That is what this film is all about and it shows how relentless the victim of such violence can become, and that is not vengeance. It is justice in the eye of plain humanity, in the eye of what they have suffered, in the eye of God even. But the good question remains to know where the police, or more generally the forces that are supposed to defend law, order, justice, freedom and many other principles, were at the time of the crimes. No one can answer even when one war criminal of that type is caught up like Papon in France who was tried in the late 1990s for crimes against humanity he committed in Bordeaux in 1944 after a complete career in the top administration or the government of the country. He was the police and the direct representative of the state in Bordeaux hence law and order in 1944. The problem we have to solve is then what do we do for these people who suffered such horrible crimes after the end of the period concerned. What do we do with the victims of the war in Iraq, both American GIs who come back completely disturbed and Iraqis who are going to be haunted by what they suffered for decades. There is no easy answer to that question.
Dr Jacques COULARDEAU, University Paris Dauphine, University Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne & University Versailles Saint Quentin en Yvelines
Vary good but not great This young actor is good but nobody compares to Anthony Hopkins. Also I wish it covered more into how he became a cannibal. Yes I know it had to do with his sister being cannibalized but besides that didn't go deep into his pathology. Also In the book Hannibal raising, Hannibal is portrayed as vary intelligent at a young age where his mother takes him to a psychologist who he outwits would have liked to see that in the movie. It's a shame could have been a lot better, but also a lot worse. I enjoyed it but will never compare to Hopkins portal of Hannibal.
Great Film - potential classix I was half prepared for arty film which made no sense unless you had read the book, instead we have a great film that sticks close to the book, is a directorial delight and gives us great performances from the cast. This is a great film - it is not boring unless you find Bambi difficult to follow - it is not gory - no more than you see on UK Tv. Thomas Harris wrote the screenplay ( enough said) and it shows. This is as good as Red Dragon.
Anything Goes Trivia
Megaton Man
Not Available Comics
Tony's Online Tips
Trevor
