‘Hannibal’ doesn’t have same feel as predecessor

In theaters

“HANNIBAL” Directed by Ridley Scott. Written by David Mamet and Steven Zaillian. 131 minutes. Rated R.

There’s something to be said for the containment of evil. Keep it rooted to a confined space – such as a tiny basement cell below the dark recesses of a mental institution – and that evil can fill up a room, and a theater, rather nicely.

But if that same evil is let loose and allowed to wander along the fringes of a larger landscape – such as the gorgeous, less-threatening streets of Florence, Italy – it can exhaust itself in its effort to fill up a movie screen.

Ridley Scott’s “Hannibal,” from a screenplay by David Mamet and Steven Zaillian, is a textbook example of this. As beautifully shot, scored and as witty as it sometimes is, the film, based on Thomas Harris’ best-selling novel, his third to feature the gruesomely well-mannered serial killer, Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins), fails to drum up much tension in its two-hour running time.

While the decision to set Lecter free gave the ending of “The Silence of the Lambs” a fantastic bite – just imagine the havoc the man could wreak in the outside world – the realization of his freedom in “Hannibal” is a disappointment.

Indeed, those expecting “Hannibal” to be a sharply paced, unrelenting thriller reminiscent of “Lambs” should take note: More often than not, the movie is so mired in police and FBI procedurals, it’s something of a sophisticated bore.

What’s worse? Without giving too much away, Lecter and Clarice Starling – now played with a steely determination by Julianne Moore, a strong actress who comes to the role with a mouthful of clenched teeth and the pallor of a snowman – spend only about 25 minutes together on screen. When they do meet, it does help to lift the film – if only because their reunion is something audiences have been waiting 10 years to see. But because “Hannibal” is more concerned with the guts of its plot than the soul of its characters, their meeting doesn’t lift the film enough.

And right there – the guts of this film – is where it truly falters. Unlike Jonathan Demme’s superior adaptation of Harris’ “Lambs,” which trusted its audiences to fill in the blanks of its considerable horror with their own imaginations, Scott makes the mistake of showing us every grisly moment in stark detail.

He can’t help himself. Whereas the fear “Lambs” elicited came directly from Demme’s unflagging restraint – watch the film again to see the power Demme wields in his decision to hold back – Scott has no restraint. It’s as if the director of “Alien” and “Gladiator” is forcing us to be afraid, bludgeoning us with gore in an effort to make us feel uneasy. Unfortunately, that proves a misstep, one that not only alters the tone and the mood that made “Lambs” such a gripping movie, but which, in “Hannibal’s” final moments – which differ from the book’s final moments – gives itself over to high camp.

With Gary Oldman in a terrific performance as the fabulously wealthy and horrifically disfigured Mason Verger – Lecter’s only victim to have survived and the man now determined to make him pay – and Giancarlo Giannini in a fine turn as inspector Pazzi, a man greedy enough to try to catch Hannibal on his own, “Hannibal” isn’t without its pleasures. It’s just that the dish it offers is rather cheap, one that would be better served with a box of Merlot and a plate of refried beans than the previous film’s more famous Epicurean fare.

Grade: C

On video and DVD

“GET CARTER” Directed by Stephen Kay. Written by David McKenna. 102 minutes. Rated R.

Stephen Kay’s remake of Mike Hodges’ seedy, noirish 1970 classic, “Get Carter,” may feature Sylvester Stallone in his first major film in three years, but don’t call it a comeback. Call it a dud.

“Get Carter”? Get real. The film is a conceptual nightmare, a train wreck of bad acting, bad directing and uneven production values that try their best to back the nearly nonexistent plot: A Las Vegas mob enforcer (Stallone), convinced his brother’s car accident was no accident, goes on the hunt for those who did the killing.

Pepper that puny premise with the pairing of Stallone and everyone’s favorite actor’s actor – Mickey Rourke, staging a comeback of his own – and you have an idea of how high the testosterone level is in this movie, and how low your expectations should be for any of it to work.

Three years ago, when Stallone appeared in James Mangold’s “Cop Land” opposite Harvey Keitel and Robert De Niro, it seemed as if the man who had become a star in the ring as Rocky and then in big-budget action films decided to try his hand at more serious work.

It was a symbolic move – by getting rid of his famously chiseled body, Stallone was, in effect, neatly leaving behind the films that had buoyed his career for 20 years. But now we have “Get Carter” and with it, Stallone reverting back to type. None of this is as bad or as embarrassing as Stallone’s worst movie, “F.I.S.T.,” but it makes “Rhinestone” seem like the crown jewel in his career.

Grade: D-

Christopher Smith is the Bangor Daily News film critic. His reviews appear Mondays in Style and Thursdays in the scene.