Change Your Image
j-sampiro
Reviews
The 19th Wife (2010)
Not even worth a dollar at the Redbox
The acting isn't terrible and that's about the only thing you can say.
If you read the book, you'll hate this movie as they've gutted it (and not just the "heterosexualization" of Jordan). If you liked BIG LOVE, pass this one by- it's nothing like it. If by some odd chance you read Ann Eliza Young's book (or Irving Wallace's about her) you'll hate this movie as it not only gets everything wrong but takes less than 10 minutes and that in blips. Most of the scenes in the movie last on average about 30 seconds each and there are many plot holes, some from the book and some that the movie cooked up.
Just to correct a couple of historical errors: Ann Eliza Webb was NOT an adult when her father brought home his first plural wife but a baby so young she grew up in a polygamous family and had no memory of a life before it. She and Brigham Young had no children together- she had two sons with a first husband (omitted from the movie) and he had a few dozen with other women. Dramatic as it may seem, she did not flee from an angry mob- she checked into a hotel, gave constant interviews, and when she left town it was on a train and she sued him for a ton of alimony (unsuccessfully as their marriage was not legally recognized). That's an impressive number of errors considering the Ann Eliza story lasted all of about 5 minutes in this movie and could/should have been dropped altogether. (Her melodramatic ghost written tell-none is far from likely to inspire anybody in the modern era; even Ebershoff completely rewrote it and making her family far less interesting as he did so). This movie is basically a waste. I hope that most of the money went to Patricia Wettig's salary as she was by far the best thing in it. I read and did not like the book (too much purple prose and too much historical inaccuracy and too much clearly vanity driven inclusions with the murder mystery, which should have been the focus, taking up maybe 5% of the book's text). Compared to the movie, the book is a masterpiece. Not good, not so-bad-it's-good, just all around mediocre with a heaping side dish of "yeah right", followed by a yawn.
Hannibal Rising (2007)
Still the weakest link but MUCH better than the book
I read the book soon after it came out and hated it, but decided to see the movie just to complete the series. While still not on par with Silence or even Hannibal, the film version of Hannibal Rising is a far better addition to the series than the book was.
Usually the great thing about a novel over the film version is that it gives a lot more back story and details that flesh out the characters more than a 2 hour film can. Unfortunately the back story and details were the W0RST part of the novel Hannibal Rising, not because they were gory but because they were goofy. The deserters were not desperate men who committed cannibalism to stay alive but cartoon villains you'd expect to find in Gotham or Metropolis instead of Paris. They made Mason Verger look like Christopher Reeve in kindness and humanity. In the film they're still a bit overdone and too Gothically seasoned, but Rhys Ifans and Kevin McKidd especially managed to suck the marrow out of what they're given and make their characters more believable on film than they ever were in print; ironic that for such a thin novel less is more.
What helps the film most, however, is Gaspard Ulliel. He's incredible. His cadence and speech (perhaps because English is not his native language, but everything is precise and suave and clearly calculated and menacing while you can't identify why), his presence (ominous and intelligent and calculating) and all about him work beautifully. His feral movements and face in the final scenes are terrifying. It's ultimately Gaspard Ulliel and NOT Thomas Harris, who finally makes you believe this kid could one day be the same man who tries to have Will Graham's family slaughtered or slice the face off of an innocent policeman who stands between him and freedom.
If you're curious about the differences in the movie v. book, basically Hannibal's relatives (other than Mischa) are reduced to cameos. His parents and their servants appear but only long enough to say 'howdy' and get killed, his uncle doesn't appear at all (he's already dead when Hannibal arrives in France) and Hannibal escapes from the orphanage rather than being rescued (which works far better plot-wise). Hannibal's muteness is addressed but they needn't have bothered as it adds nothing to the movie. I would love to have seen his bonding with Lady Murasaki explored further as perhaps that would have come across far better on film than in print as well, but it's pared significantly.
All in all I'd give the movie a solid B- where I only gave the book a D+. See it for Ulliel and Ifans.
(And please, Mr. Harris: WE DON'T NEED "HANNIBAL THE INTERN" OR "HANNIBAL: THE NIXON YEARS" Just take your money and retire to Florence or Paris. Or write something else- you've only written 1 book that wasn't Hannibal centered, go find something else! Leave our cannibal gourmet alone and stop trying to redeem him too much!