Hannibal

Loomis wrote:

How would you rank them?

Probably like this:

RED DRAGON
HANNIBAL
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
HANNIBAL RISING

Loomis wrote:

Yes, I took the bit where Abigail Hobbs drops the teacup in episode four to be a reference to HANNIBAL. Only someone who'd read the book would be likely to pick up on it (if indeed it was an intentional reference).

I caught the same reference.

I'll be interested to see where they go with the planned storyline involving Hannibal's uncle for next season.

Harmsway wrote:

RED DRAGON
HANNIBAL
THE SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
HANNIBAL RISING

You now consider RED DRAGON the best of the bunch? I'll have to give it a re-read.

Just seen the first episode. Surprisingly sophisticated and dense enough that I may watch it again.

Glad it made an impression.

Harmsway wrote:

There's more than one moment with him playing classical music at a piano, and the gourmet entertaining and opera shows up rather prominently in later episodes, as do other moments with Lecter sketching/drawing as he so famously does. Rest assured, all the trademark Lecter elements appear.

I'm now about two-thirds of the way through the first season and you're right: Lecter does become markedly more, well, Lecterish. Although it's jarring to have him implicitly accept (while talking to Franklin) the idea that Michael Jackson represented "greatness" - Lecter would surely dismiss all non-classical music.

I also wonder whether Mikkelsen's Lecter rather lacks the otherworldly, almost supernatural quality that's sometimes apparent from the books and from Hopkins' performance - Shaitan, Son of the Morning, to quote Harris' HANNIBAL. And what of the character's legendarily towering intellect? Here, he doesn't really seem any more intelligent than Will Graham or Jack Crawford, and all the outrageous, audacious leaps in deductive reasoning appear to come from Will, with Hannibal just standing around. That said, it's fairly clear that Lecter is deliberately keeping his own counsel for much of the time.

Another criticism I have is that the serial killings and investigations seem underwritten, easily solved (thanks to Will's famous "This is my design" routine) and generally just shoehorned into the plot - mere excuses for the main characters to get together. Fortunately, when the main characters do get together, HANNIBAL is extremely watchable. It fails as a SE7EN-style thriller but succeeds pretty well as a drama about three powerful personalities (Crawford, Graham and Lecter).

Loomis wrote:

Although it's jarring to have him implicitly accept (while talking to Franklin) the idea that Michael Jackson represented "greatness" - Lecter would surely dismiss all non-classical music.

Isn't he technically silent on the question? At any rate, Lecter rarely speaks his mind: he's almost always playing to his audience.

Loomis wrote:

I also wonder whether Mikkelsen's Lecter rather lacks the otherworldly, almost supernatural quality that's sometimes apparent from the books and from Hopkins' performance - Shaitan, Son of the Morning, to quote Harris' HANNIBAL.

Maybe, though this is only really laid on thick in HANNIBAL (which is, after all, Harris indulging in outrageous self-parody), and isn't as pronounced in the other novels.

Loomis wrote:

And what of the character's legendarily towering intellect? Here, he doesn't really seem any more intelligent than Will Graham or Jack Crawford, and all the outrageous, audacious leaps in deductive reasoning appear to come from Will, with Hannibal just standing around. That said, it's fairly clear that Lecter is deliberately keeping his own counsel for much of the time.

Lecter's intelligence comes through in his very careful and deliberate manipulation everyone around him. He's the one running the show. Will and Jack are always just playing catch-up (which becomes clearer and clearer as the season goes on). Furthermore, the show continually gestures at Lecter's enormous wealth of knowledge. So, no, I don't think the show undersells his intellect, even if it doesn't signpost it.

I must say, your complaints along these lines strike me as being the equivalent of watching a Timothy Dalton Bond film and complaining that it's not MOONRAKER. ;)

Loomis wrote:

Another criticism I have is that the serial killings and investigations seem underwritten, easily solved (thanks to Will's famous "This is my design" routine) and generally just shoehorned into the plot - mere excuses for the main characters to get together.

They're clearly contrived (they're the source of the show's clunkiest and most absurd plotting), so in that sense I think you're right. But I think there's some sense in keeping them in the background, rather than in emphasizing them too strongly: these killers essentially embodied images and ideas, designed to reflect the characters and their struggles.

Harmsway wrote:

Isn't he technically silent on the question? At any rate, Lecter rarely speaks his mind: he's almost always playing to his audience.

Sure. And in his professional capacity he perhaps ought not to contradict a patient or butt in and insert his own tastes and opinions. That said, if I'd been the director I'd have had a small shot of Lecter raising a sceptical eyebrow or grimacing at this point - something that Franklin doesn't see but the viewer does. Or better yet, have Lecter ask in all seriousness: "Excuse me, but who is Michael Jackson?" 

Oh, and Hannibal having his own analyst (Gillian Anderson)? Really?

Harmsway wrote:

I must say, your complaints along these lines strike me as being the equivalent of watching a Timothy Dalton Bond film and complaining that it's not MOONRAKER. ;)

LOL! I guess some of my comments would find a welcoming readership on a MikkelsenNotLecter forum. But I do like Mikkelsen as an actor and am warming to his Hannibal.

Loomis wrote:

Oh, and Hannibal having his own analyst (Gillian Anderson)? Really?

Just wait and see.

Just saw the first episode... going in for ep.2 right away.

Edited: Just saw the first four episodes tonight. Love it. Keep in mind that I rarely watch TV so this is a nice change of pace for me. Thoroughly enjoying the ride. I like the cast too... Not just Mads.  

I recently bought Hannibal The Complete Season One and I have all of the films. I'm looking forward to seeing them all when I get the chance.

This show is absolutely terrific! Just finished the last four episodes of season 1.

The acting is superb... great dialogue and suspense. But visually... WOW! I love the costuming and the set design. Gillian Anderson is as smart and sexy as ever.

I may just watch the whole season again before the next one starts. Won't be as suspenseful but it's so visually stimulating, that won't matter.

Having said all that... it's a bit of a blood fest. Not usually the type of show I get into. But the story draws you in. You endure the gore in order to see what happens in the story. And that's great.

The level of gory ickiness is a first for American network television, I understand.

For the record I don't care for blood and gore either, but this intrigued me so I had to buy it.

Blunt Instrument wrote:

The level of gory ickiness is a first for American network television, I understand.

I've heard that too, Blunt Instrument.  And there were a few scenes that made me raise my eyebrows.  But, for the most part, because we see the really gory bits as Will Graham's imagination, the gore is filmed in a fantasy sort of way.  Not glorifying but just not clinically gory.  There are some real life bits that are hard to take but the shots are quick.  And they are no worse than some of the stuff that has been on criminal minds and other shows like it.

As a non-meat eater, I have found some of the dining scenes a bit more disturbing than the crime scenes.

Presumably there'll be some sort of horrendous collective projectile-vomiting scene when Will, Jack Crawford etc. discover just what Dr Lecter has been serving them in his 'exquisite' gourmet dinners  .

To prepare for the second season, I'm making it through the first via rental (I've made it a rule to never rent DVDs of TV shows on Netflix, but this is an exception). Before this, I've only seen the first three episodes but they left a great impression. Right now I just finished the first disc, and am waiting for the second to come in the mail soon. Looking forward to it, as the show is really growing on me. Even Hugh Dancy, who I didn't care for too much on my first go with the series, is working for me. It was just difficult to go with his Graham at first because of how Mikkelson steals the show with his fantastic Hannibal Lecter.

I maintain that, as of the second season (which is a big improvement over the first), this is unquestionably the best show on television.

I too thought the second season a major improvement on the first - vastly more gripping and involving. Indeed, it's more intense and more chilling than even the films at their best ever managed to be. Neat use of elements from the novels, too.

Oh, and I'm now 100% sold on Mikkelsen's Lecter. Remarkable performance.

Loomis!

How have you been, you old so-and-so?

(And I'm pleased to hear you came around on Mikkelsen!)

Hey Harms. All good, thanks. Nice to see you back here as well.

Yep, I've converted to Mikkelsen in a major way. He's now the definitive Lecter for me (to put it in Bond terms, Hopkins now strikes me as less the Connery of Lecters than the Moore*, while Cox is perhaps the Dalton - Mikkelsen is Craig).

Mikkelsen exudes such a powerful combination of charisma, intelligence and danger in season two that I found myself wondering whether he might have made just as compelling a Bond in CASINO ROYALE as he was a Le Chiffre.

*No criticism, as I'm very fond of Moore.

Loomis wrote:

Yep, I've converted to Mikkelsen in a major way. He's now the definitive Lecter for me (to put it in Bond terms, Hopkins now strikes me as less the Connery of Lecters than the Moore*, while Cox is perhaps the Dalton - Mikkelsen is Craig).

Yeah, he comes to own that character. What he does with just a flicker of the eyes or a twitch of the jaw...

Loomis wrote:

Mikkelsen exudes such a powerful combination of charisma, intelligence and danger in season two that I found myself wondering whether he might have made just as compelling a Bond in CASINO ROYALE as he was a Le Chiffre.

No question about it.