Hannibal should not be a guilty pleasure, but because it lives in the shadow of a great and respected film, it may be just that for many years. It certainly isn't the better of the two Lector films, but in its own right, it is an engaging, brilliant work, that if had paradoxically been released in and of itself with no Silence Of The Lambs before it, would have been able to contend for respectability with considerably more clout.
Most critics were indignant to the film. They painted it as a thin, weary attempt to profit from the success of an Oscar winner. If this is a simple B-movie sequel, it's the best that will ever be. It so carefully, precisely extends the characters from the Silence Of The Lambs, that only those who payed little attention to it could dismiss it as plotless and thin.
Consider the scenes between Lector and Starling. They are as captivating and unnerving as any in Silence Of The Lambs, and take on a new weight in light of Lector's freedom. Roger Ebert asserted that part of the appeal of Hannibal Lector was that he was caged. His body was trapped while his mind roamed free, and that made his relationship with Starling poignant. According to Ebert, Lector being freed makes him a simple movie monster, acting ghoulishly and for the sake of monstrosity. But that ignores the reason Lector murders Paul Krendler. I believe that Lector and Starling's relationship evolves into something even more palpable in this sequel, because Lector is free. Lector is not offended by Starling's reassignment to his case. He isn't resentful, nor would he hurt her because she is on the hunt for him. He kills Pazzi, and later brutally kills Krendler, because their motives were 'rude.' Clarice has been more or less betrayed by the institutions she respects. She has done the right thing, and been punished in spite of it. In this film, both her and Lector are in considerably more control of their lives than in Silence. Early in the film, we see that Clarice has no trouble asserting her control of a situation. That she is cut off from her duty is a personal wound to her. Lector is more free perhaps than he ever has been, and relishes it. He is in total control of almost every situation he encounters, up until the bizarre moment when he is overpowered. Then he bides his time, and is still in pyschological control.
Lector is free, and therefore he can act on his convictions. When he sees that a truly kind and noble human being has been swindled, used, and betrayed, he concocts the most elaborate, brutal revenge he can, to show Starling that the system cannot get away with what it has done to her. Of course, his primary motivation may be his love for Clarice, his desire to show her that he'd do so much more than merely kill for her, but in the end I believe he knows he'll never get her, "not in a thousand years."
All of this leads of course, to the most brutal murder ever elaborated on celluloid. The film was already full of surprises, but the final scene leaves one wondering if Ridley Scott and his special effects team have gone entirely too far. I believe this film is a masterpiece, and I'm astonished and bewildered and ambivalent about the gruesome final passage. That scene alone has solidified Hannibal's place in film history. As it was happening, there were actual stifled screams, uncomfortable sighs, confused, bewildered laughs, and hisses. I remember many strange hissing sounds. Perhaps that's why the film was not well regarded. The final passage is so extreme and brutal, that some were ready and willing to dismiss the film as trash and move on. But that scene, and more importantly the motivations behind Lector's greatest, most elaborate work of murder, is the reason Hannibal gets it right, and is true to its characters and the previous film. The Harris novel ended with Clarice running off with Hannibal. I think the film knows that's a contradiction to her character. "Not in a thousand years."
