Did the last scence go too far?
-
Archived from the IMDb Discussion Forums — Hannibal
jmdris — 11 years ago(July 04, 2014 11:21 AM)
Does anybody else think the last scene with the child eating that piece of brain went too far? I understand that this is a horror film, and that anyone watching it can expect to get what they asked for. But there are some things that just don't need to be committed to film
I think there is an analogy to be drawn here between the way the SOTL films and the way the Saw films have evolved. You have a horror film series that starts out scary in a chilling and thought-provoking sort of way. Then, as new movies come out, the elements that made the original so good are traded in for pure shock value; and what you are left with is just trash for trash sake. -
FirstBlood1982 — 11 years ago(July 04, 2014 06:30 PM)
Hannibal and the better SAW sequels are no less thematically interesting than their predecessors, more gore doesn't automatically mean less depth.
And since this movie centers more around Hannibal while he's on the loose, it should be expected that it's going to be more brutal than a movie where he's locked up throughout most of the movie.
+++by His wounds we are healed. - Isaiah 53:5+++ -
Poltrgst — 11 years ago(March 30, 2015 10:15 AM)
I agree. Except I thought his closing remark "It's important to always try new things" seemed rather dull and insipid for someone of Dr. Lecter's acumen. I think a far more humourous and poignant end note would have been for him to say something like, "As my mother used to tell me, you are what you eat."
-
AarOnHisBox — 11 years ago(August 08, 2014 12:38 PM)
LOL.
Well said. I do not see how it can be going too far. If the kid doesn't know what it is and never will because he will probably forget about it, then who cares? What does it hurt?
I am not a cannibal (wait - that's pathetic that I have to point that out), but I honestly doesn't see it being that much worse than eating cats and dogs and other intelligent mammals. And like it was mentioned a couple of times in the film, Hannibal usually eats rude or discourteous people. He is performing a service to human society. Yep yep. -
ConstanceLambert — 11 years ago(September 02, 2014 09:02 AM)
But there are some things that just don't need to be committed to film
Do you have a for instance? I'm struggling to think of anything really. My own personal view is that if a thing exists, or happens, why would it NOT be ok to commit it to film?
It's a little bit like saying some things shouldn't be talked about -
jmdris — 11 years ago(September 02, 2014 09:28 AM)
Well, to clarify, I'm not saying it's immoral necessarily to put certain content in films.
As far as horror films go, I think there is a fine line between scenes that are effective in creating a sense of fear and suspense, and those that serve only to deliver shock value.
Good horror films try to creep you out. Bad horror films try to make you throw up.
Of course you're free to entertain yourself any way you want -
hackt_tamui — 10 years ago(June 23, 2015 02:02 PM)
A kid eating something nasty in a film will never be "Went too far" compared to any type of murder in a film. So in your opinion it is more acceptable to see a series of brutal murder and extreme gore than to see a kid eating something nasty?
-
regahsof — 10 years ago(June 29, 2015 03:40 PM)
I thought you were referring to the Liotta scene, to which I would say yes, it did. The one with the child on the airplane, well, where the heck were his parents? How were they not able to feed him? If you don't get fed from them, at that age, you go in search of something, to which he found something to be fed by. But what child would have trouble eating airplane food, which is actually pretty good?