I don’t mean to toot my own horn (at least not in public), but my initial thoughts on Hannibal Rising were pretty much correct. But while I felt that this prequel would be the worst in the series, the situation is far more serious than that: it’s one of the worst films in quite some time.

I should start by warning you of SPOILERS. Normally, I avoid them entirely in a review, but I have so little respect for this film that I feel I’m helping you by spoiling the plot points, and saving you from a dissatisfying trip to the cinema. The films starts with a young and innocent boy Hannibal, full of life and love for his doting parents and adorable little sister in scenic Lithuania. But WWII intervenes, with the Nazis and the Russians battling it out in difficult conditions.

The Lecters hole up in a cabin, and after only Hannie and sister Mischa survive, they are held hostage by a bunch of marauders. Suffering from starvation, these vagabonds decide to eat up little Mischa as Hannie watches.Cutting to eight years later, we follow a teenage Hannibal as he commences his vengeance against the men, exacting an eye for an eye by devouring them.

The main problem I have with this film is the feeble attempt to explain the Hannibal we all know and love through this mildly sympathetic tale. As mentioned before, I just feel that there’s a gaping chasm between this Hannibal and the Anthony Hopkins/ Brian Cox figure. It doesn’t make sense that a person witnessing such a horrific event turns into a genius murderer maniac. There’s something intangible and unpredictable about the Hopkins Hannibal. And what we get here is a simple tale of vengeance.

But in most vengeance stories the anti-hero walks away to live a life of complacent guilt. In this film, the vengeance is done, we leave with Hannibal approaching his final victim, but then what? Admittedly, the film ends with one twist that suggests that Hannibal’s motives are more about self-hatred than exacting revenge, but it still feels psychologically inaccurate.

For the kind of evil that lurks in the mind of a killer like the Hopkins Hannibal can never be ascribed to a single trauma. He’s much too creepy for that. Such a person would have always had emotional problems as a child. Look at Hitler. As a recent Norman Mailer book proposes, a lot of Hitler’s inhumanity arose from his relationship with his domineering father who whipped him. His life always included violence. In Hannibal Rising we get a sentimental view of the perfect family and a happy Hannie, and the transition to evil genius never rings true.

There are times when the film tries to add imagery to suggest later films, as if that helps in illustrating the transition from young Hannie to old. Hannibal becomes interested in the samurai, and at one stage dons the lower half of a mask, as seen in the picture, left. It’s an obvious reference to the mouth gag he dons in Silence of the Lambs, but besides acting as an in-joke, the scene has no point. Hannibal doesn’t use the Japanese mask for anything, making the whole moment utterly laughable.

But in the end, why would you even want to make a Hannibal prequel. With somebody like James Bond, there are reasons for charting his rise, to show his training, his mind and feelings hardening. But with the Hopkins Hannibal films the very appeal of his character was his mystique. He’s the bump in the night, the boogeyman who appears from the shadows. It would be like having a prequel to explain Freddie, or Pinhead.

As for the usual qualities in film, direction, acting, cinematography, they’re all pretty average. Gaspard Ulliel spend most of the film trying to look through his eyebrows in an attempt to be “evil”. Rhys Ifans is hammy as the nasty rogue Grutas, and Gong Li does her best to be the ambiguous love interest.

In any series, whether TV or film, everything becomes a parody of itself. Look at Ross from Friends, who turned from average academic nerd to the most irritating amalgamation of ticks and anxieties. Dirty Harry became a joke (although it was never that serious to begin with), and by the third film Ridley Scott knew that the only way to do the maniac cannibal was to go completely over-the-top. When Red Dragon attempted to be the gloomier remake, it failed. And making a serious prequel about a ridiculous figure is a futile effort.

Popularity: 1% [?]