Return of the evil Dr. Hannibal Lector but not here

ROVIN' AND RAVIN' WITH MIKE

Where's Hannibal?

Although the not so esteemed Dr. Lector is ravin' through your friendly neighborhood megaplex, he is not here in our little online peanut patch. Thank goodness. So, let's take advantage of his absence to talk about some of the human aspects of reviewing movies. Let's subtitle this, "Who Wants to Be a Film Critic?"

I would imagine not many people, if it meant sitting through Hannibal. Now, an issue immediately comes up. I have not seen that film, and I'm not in the habit of criticizing, even commenting on films I haven't seen. I do know that it is directed by Ridley Scott (Gladiator) and stars Sir Anthony Hopkins and probably my favorite contemporary actress, Julianne Moore. It is the sequel to one of the most powerful, downright haunting films I have ever seen, Silence of the Lambs. But, I've caught enough "buzz" about this film to know that I don't think I could sit through it. Silence of the Lambs gave me nightmares for a long time, and I remember reading that psychotherapists reported that they had never before had so many people spending their expensive minutes in therapy talking about a film.

Silence of the Lambs is to the playing-mind-games-with-the-psychopath genre pretty much what Rosemary's Baby is to the don't-look-now-but-the-devil's-taking-over genre (just as O Brother, Where Art Thou? seems to be the one and only country music version of a Greek epic). Both films deal with their own limited territory so well that there's just not much point in exploring it anymore, except for, perhaps, Seven in the psychopath genre. I'm sure this film will be wildly popular (gross-out films usually outgross), but I wonder whether it will be well received among older audiences who remember the chilling original.

The buzz on Hannibal is that there isn't an exploration of a theme or a character, just exploitation. And so, I think I'll pass. One of the hardest parts of this gig as movie reviewer (film critic, when I want to try to impress someone) is choosing the films to review. Since, as a rule, I review only one film a week, there is a certain amount of choice, which is usually based on some limited snooping around on the Internet.

I limit the snooping to basic information, without looking at anything (if possible) that might prejudice me toward the film, one way or the other. The most helpful sites are the Internet Movie Data Base, Rotten Tomatoes, and the Online Film Critics Society. I try to get some general idea about the film, its perpetrators, and whatever mysterious buzz there may be about it. One thing I do not consider is its subject matter.

Reviewers, I believe, should accept the possibility that there can be good films on any topic. Now, if you read my review of Me, Myself, and Irene, you might feel that I have some bad feeling about chickens in movies (because one of the most dreadful vignettes in that dreadful film is "the chicken scene"). Yet, Chicken Run made my list of the ten best films of the year 2000--right along with a film about a kid who goes through about half the film wearing a dog-skin cap and a table cloth (George Washington), another about a Gladiator, and another about a potty-mouthed pretty woman (Erin Brockovich). No subject, not even psychotic cannibals, is off limits if the film is well-made.

For me, the main factor in my choice to see a film is that I expect to like it. Life is too short for bad movies. If I write a negative review, it is because I was honestly disappointed. I am quite a fan of Jim Carrey, so I honestly expected to like Me, Myself, and Irene. Oops. So, would Hannibal be a similar surprise for me? Maybe some day I'll find out, but not now. Not now.

Keep your feet dry, your heart full of noble thoughts, and—if what I hear about this film is true—your brains in your head, not in your.... Oh, you know... If there's anything you'll know about this film, it is where the brains end up.