TV first impressions #1: Hannibal (2013-2015)

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-tv-series/images/34599546/title/hannibal-lecter-wallpaper

As with the last few reviews of films on this blog, many thanks to the University of Sussex Sci-fi and Horror society for giving me the opportunity to see this TV show for the first time.

I just wish I could give the same level of thanks to the makers of the 2013 horror/thriller TV series Hannibal for the quality of their project's final form.  This isn't to say that Hannibal is a bad TV show but I feel that it is pretty dull a lot of the time and has a lot of unfulfilled potential.  Now there are a few good points about this show from the first few episodes, so I'll try as best as I can to give them due credit.

First off, I have to give massive credit to Mads Mikkelsen for this inexplicably Danish but nonetheless highly impressive performance as a young Dr Hannibal Lecter.  While his performance as the iconic horror character is somewhat more restrained than that of Anthony Hopkins in The Silence of the Lambs (1991), Mikkelsen's performance still resonates buckets of charisma and heavy atmosphere.  When he slowly and smoothly walks into the scene, you can feel that something drastic or haunting is about to occur.  Even when your boy Hannibal is just making someone breakfast in this show he reeks of subtle and deeply psychological threat.  Mikkelsen combines this with a greater emphasis on having a hauntingly stony-faced persona than how Hopkins relied on portraying a highly-intelligent but nearly-at-the-breaking-point persona in the 1991 movie.  If it wasn't for Hopkins performances in both Silence of the Lambs and the 2001 movie Hannibal then Mikkelsen's performance as the eponymous Dr Hannibal Lecter would be the very best in the series.

Image source: http://quotesgram.com/hannibal-lecter-tv-show-quotes/

The other main aspects I have to give credit to is the sound design and soundtrack.  The soundtrack does not have a great many memorable tunes but it does its job of amplifying the mood of a certain scene admirably.  Where the series might have a scene that is lacking to, for example, have an atmosphere of tension, the soundtrack for the most part helps amplify this purpose and elevate otherwise lacklustre scenes to being genuinely entertaining.  This is in no small part also helped along by the equally solid sound design.  Admittedly, I feel this is an aspect of the show that may go over people's heads as it did certainly mine before I had some time to think about the first few episodes.  However, it is undeniable that the atmosphere of a horror show or film rests heavily on good sound design.  Granted, this is to different extents depending on what kind of horror we are looking at but the aim and purpose of sound design in horror or thriller films and shows is all the same.  And, fortunately for Hannibal, the show has top-notch sound design that really brings out the best in the most intense and harrowing scenes which really helps with some of the more visually and vocally dull moments.

This dullness unfortunately is something that seems to pop up during the first few episodes a fair bit.  I feel this is in large part down to three major issues I have with the first few episodes; the directing is uninspired for the most part, most of the actors are dull as dishwater and the dialogue is mostly grey and pretty boring.  

Image source: http://www.fanpop.com/clubs/hannibal-television-series/images/36351719/title/hannibal-tv-series-wallpaper

I do feel, at the very least, the less-egregious aspect of these three is the poor-quality direction which does a bad job of grabbing attention in the first few episodes of the show.  The direction might improve later on into the series but the interest of an audience in a TV show heavily relies on it making a deep and lasting initial impact on the viewer.  And despite the best efforts of the director of the first few episodes, I just did not get such a feeling from this show at all.  Even with poor acting talent at hand and a lacklustre script, I firmly believe that a competent director can at least squeeze something entertaining out of such a conundrum.  However, the directing in the first few episodes has little such direction and thus fails to make itself entertaining be that in a genuine sense or being something that is 'so bad its good'.  In all honesty, I would take good-bad over what we got here but to be fair, the show is still generally competently made so I can't be too harsh on the directing.

What I feel that I definitely CAN be mean and nasty to though is some of the mostly horrendous acting which for me, has to be the worst aspect of the initial episodes of the show.  Despite the best efforts of Mikkelsen and Hugh Dancy to provide decent performances in their scenes, which I feel that both men definitely do, they are not above having some bad lines and this goes quadruple for the rest of the cast.  The rest of the cast in the initial run of the show are guilty being either uncharismatic as unbuttered Sainsbury's basic white loaf or skin gratingly annoying.  Most performances like Lawrence Fishburne, Brian Zeller or Hettienne Park are just simply good actors not performing at their best or at least not being given enough opportunity to do so.  But, the worst performance for me has to go to Lara Jean Chorostecki as thoroughly unpleasant reporter Freddie Lounds.  Now I'm not saying that a slimy, loose-on-morals undercover reporter character is out of place in a show like this and I think that Lounds could have been one of my favourite characters if Chorostecki did not play her as unlikeable as possible.  Plus, in fairness to her, this is not entirely down to her as she and the rest of the cast are given a bad script with uninspired direction.  But, I can't shake such a feeling about such an unappealing character as the performance itself really isn't good.

Image source: http://rockmyvegansocks.com/hannibal-the-vegan/

But perhaps the saddest aspect of this show to compare to previous entries into the Hannibal Lecter franchise is the lacklustre script and writing in general.  Even the poor-quality previous entries into this franchise have had some memorable lines but when you compare the 2013-2015 series to entries such as The Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal (2001), you begin to realise that the dialogue in this entry is just not memorable enough to make any significant impact in the beginning.  This all adds up with the acting and directing to make a first few episodes that could grab the viewer by the nose and wrench them in but it falls so short of that supposedly easy task.

In conclusion, I wish I liked this TV show a lot more and its not like it doesn't have good things going for it.  In a way, I wish the series was given more effort into its first 2 to 5 episodes than into the style of the whole show or its advertising.  As a result, the show relies heavily on nostalgia, name recognition and a generally talented cast without focussing on the spine of what makes a good show; a good script, direction, acting and an immediately grabbing initial run.  Either these aspects are missing or are not prominent enough in Hannibal which isn't too much of a surprise that it only lasted a few dozen episodes over just under 3 years.  I kind of wish this wasn't the case but the show really is as sleep-inducing as Mads Mikkelsen's recent Carlsberg adverts.

Camerawork/cinematography: 6.5/10

Directing: 4.5/10

Acting: 4/10

Writing: 4.25/10

Soundtrack and sound design: 8.25/10

Overall rating: 27.5/50

New film review #11: Thor: The Dark World

What is it with sequels?  They seem so fickle about how good or bad they may be.  At the very least there is a common consensus amongst film fans that remakes usually suck rat-poison-pellets, historical dramas are sentimental and formulaic but still moving and that some reboots such as The Amazing Spider Man (2012) are made far too soon to have either any real success or ground-breaking impact on the world of film and cinema.  In contrast to these kinds of films and in much similarity to a former-child-star's moods and career prospects, sequels to films can either be improving on the first film in some way (E.g. Bad Boys II (2003) or Star Trek II: The Wrath Of Khan (1982)) or (arguably in most cases) being nowhere near the greatness of the first film that the sequel was based off of (E.g. Universal Soldier III: Unfinished Business (1999) or The Neverending Story III (1994)).  Yet sometimes, and by 'sometimes' I mean 'A-reality-show-off-of-MTV-being-good' rare, there pops up a sequel to its original film that is just about as good.  No doubt this should put some emphasis on how surprised I was that when I went to see the new Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe film, Thor: The Dark World I was surprised to find that it was neither better or worse than the first film but just about the same, I know right?

The first Thor film which was released in 2011, was good and a great box office hit for a number of reasons.  Firstly, it was a hit particularly with young kids because the little ones always enjoy a bit of action mixed with humour and represented by shining knights in armour representing things like freedom, justice and other noble traits.  Adults also made this film a success because they had kids like that or simply wanted to see it themselves for a simple bit of fun while teenagers pretty much went to see it on the same reasons.  On top of this, the film itself was great as it had loads of well-filmed and done action, colourful characters, even more colourful sets and costumes, an easy-to-explain but also deep mythos and universe and of course, great acting by Chris Hemsworth as Thor, Tom Hiddleston as the Norse god of mischief and evil Loki and Anthony Hopkins as the regal but wise Norse all-father god Odin.

Now the story isn't a huge deal different from the film that it is a sequel to so there is no real need to go into too much depth of its description.  Thor must face an enemy attacking from the outside and within (this time its the murderous but wily dark elves) in order to prevent them from stealing some ancient maguffin of untold power (this time its a floating, reddish-black liquid called the aether) led by a foe unexpected by the Asgardian gods (Malekith the cursed played by an under-used Christopher Eccleston) and do this while having been cast out by his father Odin for a crime of disobedience (this time its disobeying his orders to wait for Malekith to return to Asgard after the first battle there).

There are a few differences in Dark World in terms of the story in particular though.  Firstly, something I was particularly interested by was the exact reason why Thor was cast out of Asgard in this film in the sense that this time round, the reason for him being forced into temporary exile is less selfish and more noble than in the first Thor.  In the first film, Thor was banished for going to the realm of the frost-giants and giving them a real good Mike Tyson-style beating despite the fact that Odin made it very clear that doing so was not needed and would only bring ruin to the doorstep of Asgard which indeed did happen.  This made Thor's struggle to better himself in the film more compelling as he had a very real character trait that he needed to get rid of while redeeming himself for a really damn stupid crime.  On the other hand Thor is thrown out of Asgard in Dark World for simply following an actually noble reason for vengeance and going against Asgardian tradition in order to save the lives of the men in the Asgardian army and his non-goddess-normal-nerdy-but-hot-human girlfriend Jane Foster (Natalie Portman).  See the reasons why Thor this time flees from Asgard are noble ones as SPOILER ALERT Thor's mother Frigga (Rene Russo) is murdered by Malekith and his right-hand man Algrim, aka Kurze (Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje), and a piece of the aforementioned aether is just under the skin of Jane Foster who is brought to Asgard which in turn attracts Malekith to the god-city in order to what was once his most powerful weapon.  These are noble reasons indeed and I just can't see why Thor is forced to flee from Asgard in order to achieve them, perhaps it is in part because he releases the already proven-untrustworthy and Disney-corporation-evil Loki from prison to help him achieve these goals.

This is probably the main gripe I had with Dark World apart from one, probably more important, factor that didn't bother me so much but did indeed niggle at the back of my mind like taking out a room-full of foes in Battlefield 3 (2011) and then realising you have plenty of ammo left but only one bullet left in your clip thus leaving you with the annoying choice of either shooting out a firing-slit in the wall or reloading. In the first film there was a definite reality and sense that we all as the viewers knew the mood of each scene and what to feel when watching each scene thereof.  In Dark World there are definitely palpable moods to most of the scenes such as grief, desperation, determined valour (particularly in the final battle in the third act) or swashbuckling excitement.  But one factor that definitely puts the first film above Dark World in terms of pacing and emotional setting is the fact that Dark World interchanges most of its big action-set-pieces or small skirmishes or even emotional scenes with moments of comedy.  Now admittedly, while these moments of comedy were well-executed, the frequency with which they were dropped in between the more important moments of plot and character development made for some slightly jarring feelings I had like when one important character dies and I'm supposed to laugh almost immediately afterwards.  It isn't really a big problem but it is quite irritating.

Despite this little rash on the film's otherwise good performance, it does one-up the first Thor on one very notable aspect of the story.  In Dark World Thor is clearly shown to be up against far greater odds against a far greater threat with far greater stakes.  In the first film, Loki was prepared to demolish a town in Texas to take over Asgard, but in Dark World Malekith clearly raises the stakes by not only forcing Thor to go on a forbidden crusade of vengeance but also threatens his Father, Brother, girlfriend, SPOILER ALERT AGAIN kills his mum, threatens to snuff out any semblance of light in the nine realms of Norse mythology, threatens the destruction of Asgard, threatens the destruction of Earth (or Midgard as the Norse gods refer to it) and threatens the literal existence of life as we know it throughout the nine realms altogether.  This adds a greater sense of tension and suspense to Dark World  than the first Thor had as Thor's sometimes desperate plans to defeat Malekith are truly justified as is his desperation, heroism and pseudo-reckless attitude towards battle.  All this is emphasised even more so as Malekith himself is extremely powerful nearer towards the end and is ever backed up by his powerful forces of foot soldiers and badass, knife-like magical space ships.  Yes that sounds dumb but MAN do they ever look cool.

As for the action, its pretty much the same quality as in the first film.  In my personal opinion, whereas the fight before the finale in the last Thor that was most memorable had to be Thor's battle against the destroyer, in this one it has to be the clash during the battle of Asgard where Heimdall (Idris 'badass' Elba) takes on one of the dark elves ships with daggers LIKE A BAWS and blows it THE FUCK UP.  In general the action is pretty much equal in both films with slight differences such as the action in the first film being driven more by Thor's strive for moral redemption while the action in Dark World is driven more by the character's frantic desperation to win the battle.

So while the action and plot is still as good as it was in the first film, I am glad to say that the rest of the film including acting, costumes and camera-work is still on par with the first film.  There isn't much to say about the acting in the Thor films in particular as they both feature well-talented actors who seem to be more acting out their favourite Saturday cartoon characters and simply having fun, and boy does it work well for them.  Unlike the other Ultimate Marvel Cinematic Universe films where the main character is either a slightly stereotypical characture of a country's patriotism (I.e. Captain America: The First Avenger (2011)) or a confident but emotionally unstable embodiment of a common character trait (I.e. Iron Man (2008)) and this in turn reflects onto the other characters in those films, the main character in the Thor films seems to be somewhat aware of his own emotional, psychological and physical limitations which in turn radiates off onto the other characters.  This means that the characters in the Thor films are given a bit more freedom to simply have fun acting as the main character is a bit more of a stronger emotional anchor for them to behave off of more so than in the other Marvel films in general (with possible exception to the very underrated first two Punisher films (2004 and 2008)).

Camera-work still is excellent as well.  Particularly in the formulaic but nonetheless beautiful panning and far-landscape shots we are shown either the destruction being wrought by Malekith's dastardly schemes and evil forces or the majesty of the golden and shining city of Asgard.  Equally shining in this film to the same extent that it was so in the first Thor are the costumes.  In particular this time round, I very much myself liked the armour that Natalie Portman wears for a few scenes in the middle of the film (although it doesn't seem to serve a great deal of purpose) and the uniforms for Malekith's dark elf soldiers which definitely express their dark and evil nature and heritage.

One last compliment I must give to the film as well is the exposition it gives at the beginning of the film.  Now exposition at the beginning of a film with a daring or epic universe and/or premise is a very difficult thing to do at times and has certainly been done wrong an innumerable amount of times (E.g. for good examples of bad exposition at the beginning of a film see films like Howard the Duck (1986) or Alone In The Dark (2005)).  But Thor: The Dark World manages this very well by combining excellent narration at the beginning of the film by Anthony Hopkins as Odin, telling us how aeons ago the evil Malekith was defeated and forced into hiding by the fearsome and noble might of the Asgardians led by Odin's father Bor.  With this great exposition coupled with a great opening action scene and very good special effects I guarantee you will be drawn into the drama of the film very quickly.

In conclusion, Thor: The Dark World IS FUCKIN' AWESOME WITH A SIDE OF GARLIC MASHED POTATO AND COLESLAW.  The quality of action, acting, characters, plot, camera-work and direction is still the same as the first film which is always a plus if the first film in a franchise is as good as the first Thor.  Perhaps this might come across as a bit disappointing to some people who were hoping for an even greater improvement on the first Thor but really, I don't think it matters so much.  I would recommend watching the first Thor first if you're not familiar to the series but going into Dark World with an open mind wouldn't hurt to be honest.  The only real criticisms I would have for Thor: The Dark World would be the fact that sometimes the emotional pacing and balance in certain scenes is not up to the same par as in the first film while the deaths of some main characters are pushed aside insultingly quickly.  On top of this I wish the ending would've included a little more clarity than it did and also wish that Christopher Eccleston's turn as Malekith had gotten more screen-time.  Regardless of this however, I would still say that Thor: The Dark World is a must see and mead-kegs worth of fun for the youngest children to the most noble of Asgardian gods.

Plot: 8.35/10
Action: 9/10
Characters/acting: 8.25/10


OVERALL RATING: 25.6/30