EPT[TV] Hannibal - Page 5
| Forum Index > Media & Entertainment |
|
Nevermind86
Somalia429 Posts
| ||
|
wei2coolman
United States60033 Posts
| ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17427 Posts
You won´t get Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal. This is something I'm actually glad about. Hopkins' Hannibal was never scary. This barrel-built man, with his gentle, round face just can't look scary for me. Hopkins' appearance and demeanor while playing his character wasn't really fitting in my opinion. Put it together with some ridiculously bad scenes in the movies (eating live victim's brain) and you get your serial killer grotesque to the point of being actually funny and moving away from criminal thriller to dumb comedy. Mikkelsen is on another level here. He might look gentlemantly but everything about him just exudes the aura of dread. In the single scene where he invites Lounds to sit by him on the couch he is way more terrifying than Hannibal scenes in all of the movies combined. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32743 Posts
On April 15 2013 08:51 Nevermind86 wrote: or when Fishbourne refers himself as a layman in a rather odd waysomething. This is a near direct reference to Red Dragon the novel, so it wasn't intended to be a real description of Crawford's thoughts to Lecter. I take it as fanservice to fans of the book. What I appreciate about Mads playing Lecter is how he actually looks like a person who could be a serial killer, unlike Hopkins who appears more like the kindly grandfather. Mads has a foreboding horror to him, and his accent adds to his European origins at least. | ||
|
Praetorial
United States4241 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
On April 15 2013 09:45 Manit0u wrote: This is something I'm actually glad about. Hopkins' Hannibal was never scary. This barrel-built man, with his gentle, round face just can't look scary for me. Hopkins' appearance and demeanor while playing his character wasn't really fitting in my opinion. Put it together with some ridiculously bad scenes in the movies (eating live victim's brain) and you get your serial killer grotesque to the point of being actually funny and moving away from criminal thriller to dumb comedy. Mikkelsen is on another level here. He might look gentlemantly but everything about him just exudes the aura of dread. In the single scene where he invites Lounds to sit by him on the couch he is way more terrifying than Hannibal scenes in all of the movies combined. Are you for real? There's a lot of dumb opinions on this thread (No offense all you wrong people!) But are you seriously comparing Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal positively to Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs? Really, Mark Wahlberg's portrayal of George Taylor is just so much more honest than Charlton Heston's myopic one-note performance. And he really blew Michael Caine out of the water as Charlie Coker - much more dynamic. Media criticism, ladies. | ||
|
vol_
Australia1608 Posts
| ||
|
slyboogie
United States3423 Posts
| ||
|
Discarder
Philippines411 Posts
I will watch this now.. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
| ||
|
DaCruise
Denmark2457 Posts
I wasnt excited or scared at any point at all. Everything just goes way too fast and doesnt build up any tension. | ||
|
calgar
United States1277 Posts
On April 15 2013 09:45 Manit0u wrote: Whaat is this blasphemy you utter? I think you're probably trolling and you hit the subtlety perfectly, but nevertheless..This is something I'm actually glad about. Hopkins' Hannibal was never scary. This barrel-built man, with his gentle, round face just can't look scary for me. Hopkins' appearance and demeanor while playing his character wasn't really fitting in my opinion. Put it together with some ridiculously bad scenes in the movies (eating live victim's brain) and you get your serial killer grotesque to the point of being actually funny and moving away from criminal thriller to dumb comedy. Mikkelsen is on another level here. He might look gentlemantly but everything about him just exudes the aura of dread. In the single scene where he invites Lounds to sit by him on the couch he is way more terrifying than Hannibal scenes in all of the movies combined. Hannibal is Hopkins. Hopkins is Hannibal. That's one of the most iconic performances in modern cinema, and Silence of the Lambs may be the last movie to ever win the big 5. Maybe the movie just didn't age well with you, but there's no way you can tell me you saw it in 1991 and thought he was 'never scary'. That role is objectively measured by any criteria one of the greatest of all time. So it doesn't sit well that you describe Mikkelsen as blowing an S-class actor's undefeated OSL victory out of the water in 2 episodes of TV. | ||
|
Manit0u
Poland17427 Posts
On April 15 2013 23:05 calgar wrote: Whaat is this blasphemy you utter? I think you're probably trolling and you hit the subtlety perfectly, but nevertheless.. Hannibal is Hopkins. Hopkins is Hannibal. That's one of the most iconic performances in modern cinema, and Silence of the Lambs may be the last movie to ever win the big 5. Maybe the movie just didn't age well with you, but there's no way you can tell me you saw it in 1991 and thought he was 'never scary'. That role is objectively measured by any criteria one of the greatest of all time. So it doesn't sit well that you describe Mikkelsen as blowing an S-class actor's undefeated OSL victory out of the water in 2 episodes of TV. I'm not talking about performance here. I merely stated that Mads' portrayal of Hannibal is way more fear-inducing than that of Hopkins'. | ||
|
AyaaLa
Spain629 Posts
| ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5079 Posts
I do agree that in Hannibal and the remake of Red Dragon that Hopkins was a little hammy at times. In The Silence of the Lambs he absolutely killed it. The first time you see his face... in the book he's described as having a head shaped like an otter's, and that description always stuck with me. And Hopkins looks it in the film. | ||
|
Rebornlife
Canada224 Posts
Also, I think part of what made Hopkins so good as hannibal is that he didn't look evil on his own accord. He looked like any other guy, which to me is "scarier" in the sense you could sit beside him on a bus and not have any hint of a clue that he eats people. Love Mikkelsen as hannibal though too, he is definitely much more creepy scary. | ||
|
crappen
Norway1546 Posts
| ||
|
Dazed.
Canada3301 Posts
On April 15 2013 10:01 slyboogie wrote: Anthony Hopkins is neither as refined, creepy, or intimidating as the subtlety of Mikkelsens hannibal.Are you for real? There's a lot of dumb opinions on this thread (No offense all you wrong people!) But are you seriously comparing Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal positively to Anthony Hopkins in Silence of the Lambs? Really, Mark Wahlberg's portrayal of George Taylor is just so much more honest than Charlton Heston's myopic one-note performance. And he really blew Michael Caine out of the water as Charlie Coker - much more dynamic. Media criticism, ladies. | ||
|
PhoenixVoid
Canada32743 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26018 Posts
What is nice about the TV serial format is that they can really develop how Lecter is perceived by other people. We're seeing already that Fisburne's character is very impressed with this intelligent, erudite fellow, and perhaps how it may at some later stage cloud his judgement as to Hannibal's other proclivities. The films couldn't have really developed the kind of 'monster within our midst' theme due to both the constraints of the medium, and indeed the source material that they were based on. | ||
| ||
