Change Your Image
ClkwrkOr97-3
Reviews
The January Man (1989)
Trash, to be sure, but fun trash
"The January Man" is one of the most ludicrously-conceived, miscast, and blatantly manhandled films ever. Why is it, then, that I always find myself watching it late-at-night (usually in the venue of USA or TNN networks)? Maybe I'm a glutton for punishment. During my recent viewing, however, I noticed something. Within each actor struggling on-screen to make yet another terrible line work, a emotion best characterized by the phrase, "Oh, what the hell..." I do not doubt that Kline, Steiger, Rickman, and Keitel--talented as they might be--knew they got cast in a good idea gone bad. When they finally admitted it to themselves, they decided to have fun with what was left. The result is a very bad movie starring good actors acting badly, reveling in their own badness: an accomplishment in postmodernism if anything ever was.
So how does one rate such a situation (probably best not use the word "film" here)? Two options: 1) You ignore the context of what has been brought to and upon these actors and go for the jugular. In the IMDB realm of rating, that would result in a 2 or 3 (1/2 star or * for those liking a four-star system). 2) You sit back, leave your logic at home, grab a buddy or spouse who revels in bad movies, and have a lot of fun. A "so bad it's good night" would be in order: rating of 6 or 7.
I'll take the low road. Final rating: 6, with a wink.
Recommendations for viewing: Romance is out of the question; think neighbor or football buddy. Go with some junk food and the cheapest beer you can find. Watch as part of a triple feature, including "Plan 9 From Outer Space" and "Ishtar."
Hannibal (2001)
Excellent performances barely save troubled "Hannibal"
"Hannibal" is probably the most anticipated sequel since "The Phantom Menace"; like the latter, all that build-up can do nothing to prevent some disappointment. Director Ridley Scott has cast a film of his own vein--rich, operatic, laced with dark humor, and baring little resemblance to the eye of Jonathan Demme, director of the first film. That fact alone squelches most notions of comparison, and encourages the viewer to just sit back and enjoy the current rants and rampages of Dr. Hannibal Lector (played brililantly by Hopkins as older, more subdued, but never less threatening).
As for the bally-hoo surrounding Julianne Moore's replacement of Jodie Foster's Clarice Starling, I did not have trouble with her in the role. This has less to do with her performance (which is fine), however, and more to do with her undeveloped character. Like Lecter, Clarice has become older and wiser, but also more cynical. Moore tries her best to fit Foster's mold while aging the character in this natural direction, but she's given little chance. A clear mistake in the film is Starling's lack of presence, especially compared to the good doctor. This problem is inherited from Harris's novel. This mistake can be somewhat forgiven; adaptation must have been troublesome if even fantastic screenwriters such as Stephen Zaillian and David Mamet couldn't pull it off. However, if they had the guts to change the ending (a noticeable improvement over the novel), why not work to develop Starling's character more fully?
Less forgiving, however, is a certain lack of energy that casts a pall over proceedings. The scenes shot in Florence (where a local cop, wonderfully played by Giancarlo Giannini, tries to capture Lector) are remarkable in design, construction, and pacing. Outside Florence, the action tends to get muddled in religious ramblings, FBI casework, and a unique style of hog farming.
Also problematic is the character played by Ray Liotta, an FBI agent and former lover to Clarice Starling who tries to make work very hard for her. He's synonymous with the Anthony Heald character of the first film. Instead of being ambitious, however, Liotta simply plays a jerk, so slimy that his fate is pretty obvious. Liotta has (and could have) done better, but here again is a lack of character development.
When things are all said and done, however, it's Hopkins' dynamic performance that deserves most of the attention (a debatable second: Giannini's Italian cop). He refills Lector's shoes with graceful ease; one could say his performance in last year's "Titus" prepared him nicely. Although a certain aspect of his character is underplayed (which I will leave you to discover), he shows a natural aging of Hannibal that is most pleasing. You might not be able to teach an old dog new tricks, but who cares when those tricks are so perfectly honed.
Rating: 7 out of 10.