Almost, vol. 1

Films that should have been great, but were not.


Dreamcatcher

Why it should have been great:
It starred Morgan Freeman, Thomas Jane, Tom Sizemore, Damian Lewis, Jason Lee, Timothy Olyphant and Donnie Wahlberg. It was based on a bestselling Stephen King novel, and was adapted by none other than William Goldman. It also had the benefit of being directed by Lawrence Kasdan.

Why it wasn't:
There was a lot of source material to work through, and rather than trying to condense the story into a more manageable form, Goldman instead basically wrote a bare-bones outline. Sure, it covered the key points, but it sacrificed all the depth. Lewis and Wahlberg (both fresh from the amazing Band of Brothers miniseries) are the only actors who appear to be trying. Sizemore somehow manages to put no energy into his role (did he not realize that he's Tom Sizemore?), Jane is flat, Lee and Olyphant just play themselves, and most shockingly, Freeman is atrocious. Morgan Freeman has been in a lot of bad movies, but he is always on top of his game. This is the single instance where I will say Freeman gives a poor performance. He's just bad. Kasdan doesn't do anything obviously wrong, but the film's look is unimaginative and rather bland.


Hannibal

Why it should have been great:
No halfway intelligent person ever thought this was going to be better than its predecessor. But with the talent this project attracted, there was a great chance that the movie would be successful in its own right. The novel was weak source material, but the screenplay was being adapted by the David Mamet. Anthony Hopkins was returning to his Oscar-winning role, and while Jonathan Demme and Jodie Foster were not returning, one could certainly find much worse replacements than Ridley Scott (coming off his Oscar for Gladiator) and Julianne Moore. Add in supporting performances from Gary Oldman, Ray Liotta and Giancarlo Gianni, and there was certainly a lot of hope for this film.

Why it wasn't:
Of all the things that could have possibly gone wrong, who in their right mind would ever guess that the film's biggest problems would come from Hopkins? He flies straight past scene-chewing and jumps headlong into self-parody. Sure, Mamet's lazy adaptation in no way improves upon the dreadful novel (which also made Hannibal Lector into an evil cartoon), but you can hardly blame the writer for what was clearly a conscious acting choice. And it's such a pity, because Scott and the rest of the actors are bringing their A-game. Scott's direction is probably more haunting than Demme's. Moore proves up to the challenge of filling Foster's shoes, Oldman is always good, and Liotta plays an arrogant asshole in the way that only Liotta can. Even taking into account Mamet's quick-paycheck script, the film would have been decent if Hopkins wasn't running around like a demented clown, dragging the whole project down.