Ridley Scott
Hannibal

A pity, a waste. That's what this film is.

Year 2000: After "Thelma & Louise" (1991) Ridley Scott put together three decent films ("1492" / "White Squall" / "G.I. Jane") but certainly not up to a name like his, and to redeem himself he's betting everything on his new project: "Gladiator." Scott puts everything on the line and wins on all counts: "Gladiator" is a triumph in terms of both critical acclaim and box office (it grossed $457,640,000 in 2000 alone), won five Oscars, propelled Russell Crowe onto the Hollywood A-list thanks to a frankly unforgettable character, and brought Scott's stock to an all-time high. At this point, Scott can do anything. The film industry is ready to put every resource at his disposal. And our director, while filming his last masterpiece, set his sights on "Hannibal," a novel by Thomas Harris released in 1999 and a sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs," whose cinematic adaptation earned five Oscars, just like "Gladiator." Said and done! Dino De Laurentiis provided Scott with a budget of $90,000,000 for the film's production! Everything seems to be going well. But this is where the snags begin...

Anthony Hopkins immediately agreed to reprise his role as the cannibal that earned him an Oscar years earlier, but Jodie Foster refused to return as Clarice Starling, as she didn't approve of the changes made to her character by Harris in his new book. The choice to replace her fell on Julianne Moore, who does her best but just can't escape Foster's overwhelming shadow. The new entries are Ray Liotta, playing Paul Krendler (a superior of Starling), and especially Gary Oldman, who portrays the disfigured Mason Verger, the only surviving victim of Lecter and eager for revenge.

Ten years after the events of the first film, Starling sees her career falter due to a failed operation, and her superiors offer her the chance to redeem herself by resuming the search for Hannibal Lecter, encouraging her to reach out to Mason Verger, a billionaire who is also interested in finding Lecter to exact his revenge. Meanwhile, Lecter is in Florence under a false identity and is recognized by Inspector Pazzi (played by our own Giancarlo Giannini) who, in agreement with Verger, attempts to capture the good doctor to claim the $3,000,000 reward. The film develops along the two parallel searches, Starling's and Verger's, until their paths cross and lead to a macabre finale.

The first weakness of the film lies in the screenplay, which changes significantly from the book (why ever when you have a great book at your disposal?!) altering mainly the ending and removing key characters from Harris's imagined plot (which, it should be noted, has little to do with the film's production). With such a screenplay at hand, the poor Scott tries to manage as best as he can, heavily focusing on close-ups in search of psychological introspection, in which the script however does not support him; even the landscapes are not exploited as they could and should be (failing to do justice even to the American countryside, but with Florence at your disposal such criticism is unacceptable!). The actors feel the confusion reigning around them: Hopkins is, as always, comfortable as Hannibal, but sometimes his character is so ironic and subtle it borders on the ridiculous and he can only put on a brave face. Julianne Moore is haunted by the great shadow of Jodie Foster and never fully inhabits the character, while Ray Liotta is as insipid as the character he plays. The best performances, alongside Anthony Hopkins, come from Giancarlo Giannini with his inspector role, and Gary Oldman who, under layers of makeup, does the best he can.

"Hannibal" thus turns out to be a gamble lost, and this is even more serious considering all the ingredients for success were there. Compared to "The Silence of the Lambs," which relied heavily on the profound psychological introspection of its characters and a tense, palpable atmosphere, "Hannibal" relies much more on the unease transmitted directly by the images, never managing to take off; in short, while there you were led to perceive, here you are reduced merely to looking. From the deepest interiority, it shifts to the blandest exteriority, and this is precisely the main flaw that penalizes this film at every level.

The only thing that will remain in memory for a long time are the splendid music scores by Hans Zimmer, the only one involved in the project to come out better than he entered.