The Silence Of The Lambs
 

Just got through reading this book and was amazed by how much better it was than the movie. I never really like books better than movies, but this one was actually way better. It went into detail more about what was happening and had parts in it that were horrific but they were left out of the movie. I beleive that if they had followed the book, scene by scene, chapter by chapter, it would have been so much better. I mean, don't get me wrong, it was an excellent movie. But I recommend the book to anyone.

Has anyone else read the book? If so, I'd like to hear your thoughts on it. Whether you agree with me or not. I still beleive it was an astounding book and very well written.

The movie was great and honestly, they did the absolute best they could , I believe(hard to follow a book exactly, because films and books are so very different). The book really was far better though. I found it deeply unsettling. But if you haven't read it yet, I highly recommend Red Dragon. Personally I think it is the best Harris book (and Hannibal was just so disappointing). Red Dragon and Silence of the Lambs both have some incredibly well-written moments of suspense that are just absolutely blood chilling.:eek:

the crap excuse for a book 'hannibal' is a direct result of a writer being swallowed up by the hollywood machine ..
either that or he just didnt have that much left in him.

i think it was the influence of the movies myself ... hannibal the character becoming some superhuman anti-hero because the movie audiences couldnt get enough of him ...

sort of like Dr Evil running away with the Austin Powers movies :)

Red Dragon is an excellent book.

I also think that the film Manhunter was good too. The remake was a piece of shit. Even with a cast of great actors it still sucked.

I mean every line in the film save for a few scenes were the exact same lines in Manhunter. It would not have surprised me if they used the same script.

Hollywood needs to quit with the recycling.

I have read all of the books, and while I must say that at first I hated Hannibal, I think that was just because I had built it up too much in my mind. It was a highly anticipated novel, and I don't think that it could ever have been good enough to live up to the hype. Kind of like the Star Wars prequels, and the last Dark Tower books. If a long time goes between installments in a series, people get all of these ideas in their heads about what they think the book should be. About what they want to happen. But they are not the author, and the author's vision is very often vastly different. So people get disappointed. I am positive that the same thing will happen with the end of the Harry Potter series. It will be impossible for it to live up to people's expectations.

Go back and reread Hannibal. It is much more enjoyable the second go around, especially if you've already got it in your head not to expect a great novel. The truth is you find that it is. Not as great as the first two, IMHO, but a damn good book. It is much more cerebral than the first two. You get inside Hannibal's head a bit and get to learn his motivations and weaknesses. That is an underrated thing these days, because people want ACTION ACTION ACTION! There is more to it than that. The movie did it a grand injustice.

I think Urge hit on why Hannibal was so disappointing. I did read it twice, because someone else suggested I do so. To be honest, it felt like Harris didn't even know his own characters anymore. And that is why it was such a letdown to me. It wasn't the direction the book itself took, but the direction the characters took. It seemed very wrong somehow. And I don't begrudge a writer the right to his vision, but it was weak; especially compared to the previous novels.

an author shouldnt write a book in anticipation that there will immediately be a movie made from it.

thats exactly what Hannibal felt like ...
Harris writing with a producer standing over his shoulder - with a fistfull of money.

I agree, but IMO, Julianne Moore still did a great job. Albiet, nowhere near as great as Jodie Foster would have, but she still played it well, IMO

I will say that she did the best with what she was given to work with. It wasn't easy on her walking into a role that everyone already so strongly identified with Foster. But the movie was mediocre for reasons that had nothing to do with her.

I agree Urge....it did feel as if he were influenced in that way. If he didn't have the creative vision for another one, he should have let his characters rest in peace rather than forcing it just so the powers that be would have another moneymaker on their hands. But that is how it happens, not likely to change anytime soon. It is disappointing when a decent writer gets pulled in like that though.