benjaminconvey

This film really works because the beauty of its characters, their faces, their rituals, the water they bathe in, the food they eat, the pacing, the framing and the use of sound and silence is woven so masterfully and with such purpose that you are really drawn in on all levels.

One IMDB commenter mentioned the film's cliched moments as if they are a flaw of the film; cliches are everywhere and completely unavoidable. The story itself has many cliches in it (the wife finding evidence of her husband's infidelity by rummaging through his jacket, for example) but the portrayal of the character's lives in this film rings so true that cliche is excusable: after all, look at your own life and you'll spot hundreds of cliches every day.

Admittedly, the cliche in question (a pan to a statue of a family ancestor after a tense moment between the characters) was more a cinematographic aspect than a plot aspect, but nevertheless merely being a cliche is not reason enough to avoid using it in a film and I can't see what the point is in pointing out one solitary cliche! I did not find a problem at all with the moment in question because it served the mood of the piece.

Nor is their a lack of character development. To know a character in a film, you must observe everything: the way they talk, how they move, what they say, what they do, how they interact with other characters, not JUST listen to (or read in subtitles) their dialogue. A lack of dialogue is not the same as a lack of character development. Many of the long, largely-dialogue-free sequences were the most memorable of the film (the morning exchanges between Lien and Hai (if I have his name right) and the scene dealing Quoc's confession of infidelity to Suong) and contain some of the most extensive character development of the whole film.

In response to another commenter, I also don't understand the notion that a lack of extreme conflict results in an uninteresting story, and again the statement that there IS no conflict in the film's early stages is simply a falsity.

No matter how much discussion one engages in though, the only real judge of wether a movie is good to you is wether or not you enjoyed it, and that is why I can say The Vertical Ray of the Sun is such a great movie: I enjoyed it immensely, and walked out of the cinema in a beautiful, happy mood. The film revitalised my psyche and had a profound affect on my outlook on films in general. I highly recommend you watch it to make up your own mind and ignore all these niggling comments.

I'll try to keep this brief and short.

Firstly, this film is completely different from Silence Of The Lambs. No, that does not mean that it isn't as good. In fact it is hugely better. Silence Of The Lambs was a well made police procedural. It wasn't a horror movie. Hannibal is a horror movie, and it is excellently original and excellently well made. And there is absolutely no way that the 'blood and guts' in this movie (which have been, as is common with the media, completely sensationalised) detract from its respectability or quality.

Hannibal is a brilliant movie, featuring perfection on every level. Acting, music, makeup, direction. Hopkins, Liotta, Moore and Gianni are all fantastic in their roles. Gary Oldman as Mason Verger (with a second billing to his fantastic makeup job) portrays the first truly abhorrent movie monster to be shown for quite some time. Hans Zimmer's beautiful, haunting music score really sets the gothic/macabre-romantice mood of this affecting movie. And Ridley Scott's direction is so visceral and immersive, not to mention unique, rich and original.

Hannibal truly is a masterpiece of a film. I won't bother going into specifics, because the movie itself is better at showing you WHY its so good. All I can really say is just how enjoyable and fantastic this film is.

Do not listen to anyone who says the following: "It focuses more on the gore than suspense." "It was a case of style over substance." "There was too much humour in it." "Doesn't hold a canlde to Silence Of The Lambs."

Quite honestly I am tired of hearing those cliches. Sequels are a strange, misunderstood and mistreated beast. In the world of film criticism, sequels are considered, as a rule to be inferior products. Well that's a closed minded belief if I ever heard one. Also, sequels are always damned if they follow the same kind of plot and style of the first film, a la Scream 2. But what of a sequel, like Hannibal, which is completely and utterly different, goes down a completely different path and is all the better for it? It gets ripped to shreds by the media for not being the same as its predecessor!!! What a load of hypocrisy!

Don't listen to critics. Which I guess means don't listen to me too. But as long as that means you watch Hannibal with an open mind, then I guess that's a good thing....

It isn't the worst film ever made, the actors aren't apalling and the script and director are not completely inept.

It isn't the best film ever made, the actors aren't excellent and the script and director are not completely brilliant.

It falls somewhere in the middle. A fun somewhere. An enjoyable, well constructed somewhere.

No need to say "don't take it seriously" or "so bad its good" or "it wasn't scary". None of these comments are relevant.

Cut has atmosphere. It's that atmosphere which is actually very unique, and the one really original aspect of the movie, which personally is what makes the film, for me.

I'll try to keep this brief and short.

Firstly, this film is completely different from Silence Of The Lambs. No, that does not mean that it isn't as good. In fact it is hugely better. Silence Of The Lambs was a well made police procedural. It wasn't a horror movie. Hannibal is a horror movie, and it is excellently original and excellently well made. And there is absolutely no way that the 'blood and guts' in this movie (which have been, as is common with the media, completely sensationalised) detract from its respectability or quality.

Hannibal is a brilliant movie, featuring perfection on every level. Acting, music, makeup, direction. Hopkins, Liotta, Moore and Gianni are all fantastic in their roles. Gary Oldman as Mason Verger (with a second billing to his fantastic makeup job) portrays the first truly abhorrent movie monster to be shown for quite some time. Hans Zimmer's beautiful, haunting music score really sets the gothic/macabre-romantice mood of this affecting movie. And Ridley Scott's direction is so visceral and immersive, not to mention unique, rich and original.

Hannibal truly is a masterpiece of a film. I won't bother going into specifics, because the movie itself is better at showing you WHY its so good. All I can really say is just how enjoyable and fantastic this film is.

Do not listen to anyone who says the following: "It focuses more on the gore than suspense." "It was a case of style over substance." "There was too much humour in it." "Doesn't hold a canlde to Silence Of The Lambs."

Quite honestly I am tired of hearing those cliches. Sequels are a strange, misunderstood and mistreated beast. In the world of film criticism, sequels are considered, as a rule to be inferior products. Well that's a closed minded belief if I ever heard one. Also, sequels are always damned if they follow the same kind of plot and style of the first film, a la Scream 2. But what of a sequel, like Hannibal, which is completely and utterly different, goes down a completely different path and is all the better for it? It gets ripped to shreds by the media for not being the same as its predecessor!!! What a load of hypocrisy!

Don't listen to critics. Which I guess means don't listen to me too. But as long as that means you watch Hannibal with an open mind, then I guess that's a good thing....

A film that can generate the most fiendish criticisms of all time, such as "pure crap" and "worst film ever made" etc etc, yet still manage to actually entertain some people, not because it is "so bad it's good" but because it is actually quite good must be hiding something from most of its audience.

Basically, I think very few people "get" this film.

In years to come this will be remembered as quite a well done little slasher flick, and will garner the kind of cult status that films like April Fool's Day and Prom Night achieved.

I recently watched this film for the first time in a while. Originally, as a kid, I liked this, but then I didn't really have much ability to discern between this or any other Freddy film.

Later, a couple of years ago, I revisited the movie and it seemed so bad I couldn't even watch all of it. The acting was appaling, it wasn't scary, there was 80s cheese everywhere, and it just didn't click.

I just watched it again however, and my opinions have really flipped. I honestly enjoyed it. I think the concept is actually quite good. Sure, there is some loss of logic when Freddy eventually does come into the real world, but its all rather ambiguous and open to interpretation anyway: if it weren't, what kind of a film would it be?

This episode of the Elm Street saga lacks that famous music that marks the first (and rest) of the films. Instead, it features a rather standard horror movie strings score that works rather effectively. While it isn't traditionally scary, the music (and quite masterful camerawork at times) really works to create a feeling of unease.

So the lead actor is a pretty shoddy actor, and there is a little bit too much "80s" trash involved, but this is an admirable attempt to take the Freddy motif to the next level. Certainly the themes of abandoned teenagers, middle America and sexual maturation are all evident here, and it certainly 'feels' in the same vein as the first. If anything, this film is the most in keeping with the spirit of the original Nightmare On Elm Street than any of the other sequels, even if it does disobey the cardinal rule of Freddy: he exists ONLY in our dreams.

It worked quite well for me.

(It must be mentioned however that those theories that this film is a metaphor for a young male coming to terms with his homosexuality are REMARKABLY well founded. The film-makers still claim to this day that this was completely unintentional...when you watch this film though, it will seem like the biggest coincidence you have ever encountered.)