Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Hannibal Rising

3

ChristopherW.May 30, 2007

High production values and evocative imagery and photography aside, this film should never have been made. The entire captivating Hannibal mythos is replaced by ennui and routine. It's just another gory slasher exploitation flick, High production values and evocative imagery and photography aside, this film should never have been made. The entire captivating Hannibal mythos is replaced by ennui and routine. It's just another gory slasher exploitation flick, nothing else. If you love gory slasher exploitation flicks, be my guest. Have at it! All others stay clear!… Expand

3 of 3 users found this helpful

7

Tss5078Feb 24, 2013

Contrary to popular belief, this movie is not about Anthony Hopkins experimenting with Viagra. In fact, the man who made Hannibal Lecter a household name, doesn't so much as have a cameo in this film. Hannibal Rising takes the story to whereContrary to popular belief, this movie is not about Anthony Hopkins experimenting with Viagra. In fact, the man who made Hannibal Lecter a household name, doesn't so much as have a cameo in this film. Hannibal Rising takes the story to where it's never been before, back to the beginning. We see a young Hannibal in Europe, during WWII, and we learn how he grew into the monster he became. What made this different from the other Lecter films, was that Hannibal is seen as a good guy for much of the film, just out seeking revenge. French film star Gaspard Ulliel is fantastic in his first American film and was the perfect choice to play a young lecter. As a fan of the film franchise, I found this movie fascinating, but as an outsider I can see how some people would find it a bit long and slow.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

Meth-dudeNov 8, 2015

The movie is long and even boring at bits,the acting is not always good and some CGI effects are pretty messy but the good scenario,the final act and the interesting story kind of redeem these defaults

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

spadenxDec 3, 2011

I liked this film just as much as the other films in the franchise. I think the acting was solid and it was rather graphic (but in a good way). I enjoyed it.

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

4

grandpajoe6191Sep 29, 2011

I thought about watching the whole Hannibal franchise. After watching "Hannibal Rising", I realized I should watch a different movie franchise that is NOT Hannibal.

2 of 4 users found this helpful22

All this user's reviews

10

SergioJ.Jun 1, 2007

I don't understand why this movie received very terrilbe reviews. It was one of the best recent movies I have viewed. Ive never seen the other two in the Lecter series but this sure is good.

1 of 3 users found this helpful

2

MovieManiac83Apr 24, 2015

Hannibal Rising is the funniest movie of the year - a true laugh riot. Viewers will be holding their sides to contain the laughter. Forget Borat - if you're looking for something hilarious, this is the movie to see. What's that? It's notHannibal Rising is the funniest movie of the year - a true laugh riot. Viewers will be holding their sides to contain the laughter. Forget Borat - if you're looking for something hilarious, this is the movie to see. What's that? It's not supposed to be a comedy. Oops.

First of all, who had the bright idea of making a Hannibal movie without Anthony Hopkins? That's like making a Pink Panther movie without Peter Sellars. (Yes, they did that and look at the result.) Frankly, after The Silence of the Lambs, the only reason to see the Hannibal movies was because of Hopkins. Secondly, using the critically panned novel by Thomas Harris as the template was another bad move. To his credit, Harris manages to make the screenplay worse than the novel.

Hannibal Rising effectively demystifies one of the 20th century's most iconic cinematic villains, stripping away his icy intellect and turning him into just another victim of a bad childhood. With its trifecta of bad writing, bad acting, and bad direction, Hannibal Rising is to Silence of the Lambs as Superman IV: The Quest for Peace is to Superman. Critical miscalculations at every turn have taken this latest (and hopefully last) Hannibal movie beyond the realm of camp and into that special hell reserved for only the most rancid of sequels.

Hannibal Rising is a gross excursion into bad melodrama, clumsily cannibalizing everything from war movies and vampire flicks to the previous Hannibal films. To call the film's tone uneven would be kind and to consider the lead actor's performance anything close to acceptable would require greater hyperbole than I can produce. There are, however, laughs to be had - all of which are unintentional. Even the movie's self-important style can provide chuckles, but the real humor comes from the overacting and the absurd plot contortions. Not since Kevin Costner's The Postman has a "serious" movie ventured so far into unintentional comedy. In the history of Dino DeLaurentiis motion pictures, this one is second-worst, beaten only by the crapfest of King Kong Lives.

Based on his performance in A Very Long Engagement, I would have never guessed that Gaspard Ulliel had it in him to act this badly. His performance careens from lifeless to campy with little ground in between, and there always seems to be a smile on his face. One might be willing to accept that he looks nothing like Anthony Hopkins had he brought anything except ridicule to the role. As for the other lead: I'm glad that Gong Li is getting more international exposure via English-speaking parts but I have to believe that her limitations with the language caused her to misread the script. There's no other explanation for why she would appear here, once again playing a Japanese woman. She is, however, Hannibal Rising's saving grace. Her acting is about as good as one could hope for in these circumstances and, at age 41, she is stunning. One other note: you know you're in trouble when comedic actor Rhys Ifans is one of the villains.

It would be interesting to know how Peter Webber (Girl with a Pearl Earring) became involved in this misbegotten project. His work appears to be that of a director for hire. There's no style evident. Meanwhile, Hannibal's creator, Thomas Harris, has apparently elected to destroy his creation during this outing. Not only does he postulate an absurd reason for the character's later psychosis but he provides an individual who is so at variance with the Anthony Hopkins version that we can't believe they're supposed to be the same man. It would have been better to give the character another name. It wouldn't have made Hannibal Rising any better, but it would have prevented The Silence of the Lambs from suffering guilt by association.… Expand

1 of 3 users found this helpful12

All this user's reviews

1

EmoKidMar 5, 2007

My first R rated movie and it blew. I was a big fan of the Hannibal series up intill this movie. My simple question is why didn't they start with this movie first and keep them in order? Simple answer as well, If they would have done My first R rated movie and it blew. I was a big fan of the Hannibal series up intill this movie. My simple question is why didn't they start with this movie first and keep them in order? Simple answer as well, If they would have done that then no one would have bothered to pay and see them. I know I sure have wouldn't. I'm glad I didn't pay for my ticket.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

JonhB.Apr 7, 2007

This is one of the worst films i have ever seen, and the books not very good either. I think it only takes away the depth from hannibal lecter. The guy sounds french and the story does not fit in with anthony hopkins who sounds british. It This is one of the worst films i have ever seen, and the books not very good either. I think it only takes away the depth from hannibal lecter. The guy sounds french and the story does not fit in with anthony hopkins who sounds british. It is not worth seeing.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful

0

LordNasebySep 27, 2011

Hannibal Lecter is the greatest character ever committed to both screen and paper. As such, once Harris finished his other Lecter books, people wanted more. so, like an idiot, he made the biggest mistake he could make: He gave Hannibal LecterHannibal Lecter is the greatest character ever committed to both screen and paper. As such, once Harris finished his other Lecter books, people wanted more. so, like an idiot, he made the biggest mistake he could make: He gave Hannibal Lecter a back story. Not Hannibal Lecter is one of the most enigmatic characters ever. Why does he do what he does? Well, now we know. And boy, am I angry that I ever found out. Thomas Harris was stupid to write the book, and I was stupid enough to read it. By giving Hannibal Lecter a back story you take away the enigma of the character and by doing so, you take away a lot of what makes him great. I have learned this lesson over and over again: what you imagine is far more terrifying than reality. If you hear someone being ripped apart piece by piece on film, it is far more terrifying than if you see it happening. **** knew this. he was a master at it. so by giving Lecter a back story, you take away some of the terror. some of what made him great. He is still the greatest character of all time, but some of the mystery is gone. would you give Heath Ledger's Joker a back story? F*** NO! That's why he had different stories for how he got his scars. Imagining how he got them is far more terrifying than if they had told you. It seems obvious. So, why the F*** would you give Hannibal Lecter a F****** back story? A reason for the madness?

Acting: Horrible. And I'm not just saying that because I don't think this movie should exist. It was groan worthy. Gaspard Ulliel tried and failed to get Hannibal Lecter right. see, the character of Hannibal Lecter, emanates an aura of pure evil but at the same time, you are fascinated by him. Ulliel failed to capture that. Also, I didn't like the child actor who played Lecter at age 8. Not that he needed to be evil. He wasn't. He didn't need to be. But he annoyed me quite a lot. I generally don't like child actors that young. with a few exceptions of course. they don't do things right generally. He didn't. 0/10

Plot: I think I've said all I needed to say about the plot for this film. 0/10

Screenplay: it disgusted me at points. I mena come on, in one part, Lady Murisaki calls Hannibal "Han." I hated that. It was cheesy. The author, Thomas Harris, wrote the screenplay. well Mr. Harris, you can write books but you can't write screenplays. 0/10

Likableness: Well, the film has a 0/30 so far from me, I think you know what this is going to get. All I can do is warn you one last time, If you like Hannibal Lecter at all and can appreciate the character. Don't see this movie. Don't read the book. don't look up the plot. if someone is discussing this movie, leave the room. basically, pretend that this movie/book doesn't exist at all.

Final Score: 0/40. 0% (H) This is the Naseby stamp of hatred. I rarely award this. It is easier for a bad film to win a Razzie award then to get this. I don't give it out often.

TRIVIA TIME: Actors screen tested for the role of Hannibal include: Hayden Christensen, Macaulay Culkin, Hugh Dancy, Rupert Friend, Dominic Cooper,Tom Sturridge, and Tom Payne.… Expand

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

6

imthenoobMar 12, 2012

It was ok. Not as bad as the critics say imo. The cast is alright, Gaspard Ulliel is a great choice as the young Hannibal. The plot was ok. It explained a bit more about Hannibal but it wasnt as insightful as I hoped it would be. It neverIt was ok. Not as bad as the critics say imo. The cast is alright, Gaspard Ulliel is a great choice as the young Hannibal. The plot was ok. It explained a bit more about Hannibal but it wasnt as insightful as I hoped it would be. It never really got interesting either, The little interest there was fades through out the film. Its also a little bit too long of my tastes as well. It was still a decent film though.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

kareOct 6, 2013

its ok...i mean is not awesome ..but is ok, I seen worse is the kind of movie that you watch in tv if you have nothing better to do but still is 50/50 i can't put it neither in the bad or good category

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

AdityaMookerjeeNov 13, 2013

The movie is a tragedy of humanity, as if we evolved as a society, to see more and more of the same. Hannibal Lecter is a very unusually gifted, and perceptive individual. He has no role model in society, and he has been led to believe, thatThe movie is a tragedy of humanity, as if we evolved as a society, to see more and more of the same. Hannibal Lecter is a very unusually gifted, and perceptive individual. He has no role model in society, and he has been led to believe, that individuality won the Soviets the war, and people didn't depend on anyone, but themselves, winning the war. In his experience, his small adorable child of a sister, is killed by people, who feel that he and his sister are the cause of they killing them. How he wins to survive, seems to be how everyone felt, in Stalingrad, in Berlin, in London, and everywhere. Who won the war for the victors, small children like Hannibal, or Stalin, or Churchill?
Hannibal can eat foie gras, and it seems that he is a cannibal, because he detests cannibalism, and perhaps he is condoning the perpetrators. He is asked by the associate of his sister's killer, whether he would feed the killer to his sister, but the associate forgets, that the killer gives the amulet that his victim wore, to his own daughter, and this means, he would have killed and eaten his daughter, in the circumstance, perhaps to Hannibal.
This is what society means, and what it portends, to many like Hannibal. The world war is justified to create a world order, that would have existed in a different way anyway. There is no role model to Hannibal, and even for the leaders, who rule nations. The Second World war had people who had the attitude of Hannibal, but were prudent not to act similarly.
Apparently, Hannibal negates all the bad and good that he does, he does good, if he does, to say that he is not associating himself, and he does bad similarly. He eats the frontal lobe, that part of the brain, which was removed by surgery, in the process of lobotomy, after he removes it, perhaps because he identifies the lobe in a certain way. It might be, that since he cannot perform lobotomy, he has to kill people to perform the procedure.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

TheArchetypesSep 9, 2016

Hannibal Rising is defter and more earnest than what the mass critical consensus reveals. The breadth of the photography and framing is adept and deliberate, the 20 minutes of the WWII prologue is imperative on the motivation of theHannibal Rising is defter and more earnest than what the mass critical consensus reveals. The breadth of the photography and framing is adept and deliberate, the 20 minutes of the WWII prologue is imperative on the motivation of the protagonist, and the detail generates possibility of grander actions to ensue. Subsequently, the crucial frailty of the movie is its perfunctory vengeance exemplar.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

BroyaxJan 10, 2017

Beaucoup d'invraisemblances dans cette jeunesse de Cannibal Lecter, beaucoup de justifications pour justifier la psychopathie de ce fin gourmet qui n'a pas digéré en Lituanie (pendant la guerre) ce qu'on lui a servi...

S'ensuit alors unBeaucoup d'invraisemblances dans cette jeunesse de Cannibal Lecter, beaucoup de justifications pour justifier la psychopathie de ce fin gourmet qui n'a pas digéré en Lituanie (pendant la guerre) ce qu'on lui a servi...

S'ensuit alors un parcours vengeur des plus banals pour le jeune Lecter qui se délecte de ses anciens bourreaux en France notamment (le pays de la gastronomie). Il est épaulé par sa tante japonaise immigrée adepte du katana (sic !) la magnifique Chinoise Gong Li... encore une invraisemblance grotesque comme le passage au détecteur de mensonges ou le fait qu'Hannibal ait toujours les yeux derrière la tête.

Gaspard Ulliel n'est pas aussi mauvais que l'on s'y attendait mais reste plus à l'aise dans sa pub télé ; heureusement dans le rôle du flicard, Dominic West (Sur Ecoute) relève un peu le niveau. La réalisation s'avère néanmoins des plus soignées mais ne peut compenser l'aspect téléphoné de toute l'entreprise, diluée sur deux heures qui entraînent de ce fait un ennui certain.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

5

FilipeNetoMar 5, 2018

This film is a prequel to "Silence of the Lambs" and seeks to tell how the young Hannibal Lecter, affected by the dramatic events of World War II, became a dangerous cannibal. Directed by Peter Webber and written by Thomas Harris, this filmThis film is a prequel to "Silence of the Lambs" and seeks to tell how the young Hannibal Lecter, affected by the dramatic events of World War II, became a dangerous cannibal. Directed by Peter Webber and written by Thomas Harris, this film has a cast headed by Gaspard Ulliel, Gong Li and Rhys Ifans.

This film is not bad, but its too far from the success and quality of "Red Dragon" and "Silence of the Lambs". It cannot be analyzed as a horror film because never frightens us. Its closer to the thriller or police movies.

It has a dubious script, which explains the reasons why Hannibal is what he is in previous films. This is its first problem: it want to transform a perfect villain in a dubious antihero. The idea simply does not stick with anything that the character will do in the movies played by Anthony Hopkins. The idea of inserting Japanese elements in the story also seems a wrong option, something that does not fit properly, despite the good acting of Li Gong.

In fact, speaking of actors, she seemed to me the best performance of the film, discreet and elegant as called for her character. The actors who played the villains was reasonable. Gaspard Ulliel, in the leading role, is a casting error: although he managed to give its character lots of coldness and cynicism, he wasn't able to give it charisma and sense of taste, striking personality traits of Lecter that are quite visible in Hopkins movies.

The film contains several intense action scenes with moments that may hurt some people's sensibilities, so be warned. Still, its far from violence and gore visible in "Hannibal". Its a film that focuses on action and romance, not on blood. The special, visual and sound effects are good and get better as we approach the end. The soundtrack seemed to be regular, fulfilling its role without stand.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

2

Feels64Jun 15, 2018

God this was so bad. I couldn't even finish it. They changed some really crucial parts of Hannibal's story, the writing was absolutely horrible, the acting was even worse.. what a trainwreck. If you're trying to watch all the movies in orderGod this was so bad. I couldn't even finish it. They changed some really crucial parts of Hannibal's story, the writing was absolutely horrible, the acting was even worse.. what a trainwreck. If you're trying to watch all the movies in order by the story, SKIP THIS ONE. It will leave a bad taste in your eyes while you watch the others.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

0

TheKZOShowApr 4, 2020

Nothing about this movie makes any sense. Hannibal Lecter didn't need a backstory because you could never make anything fit that character when it isn't necessary. The casting of Gaspard Ulliel, though his physical appearance is fitting, isNothing about this movie makes any sense. Hannibal Lecter didn't need a backstory because you could never make anything fit that character when it isn't necessary. The casting of Gaspard Ulliel, though his physical appearance is fitting, is terrible in every way. His facial expressions are brutal to watch and there is no way you can think of him as being a clever, cunning and psychotic individual because it looks so forced and fake it could've been in a comedy. Rhys Ifans helps him out in the overacting department since that's what he does and outside of The 51st State it doesn't work.
We are supposed to start out in Lithuania which makes zero sense. Lecter wouldn't be a name in Lithuania for anyone, not even nobles and then off course Hannibal goes to Paris. A Journey of more than 2.000 kilometers, which in 1949 for a kid with no money is impossible. His aunt takes him in, for no reasn and off course she has samurai swords and all that **** so Hannibal can have his vengeance and ooohhh the man who forced him to eat his own sister is in Paris and Hannibal starts murdering people and every time there's a situation or a problem, bang Hannibal or stupidity fixes it and it leaves you thinking "Why the **** did this just happen?". Plot-holes are everywhere so save yourself the face you're gonna make every time something idiotic happens and don't watch this trash, cause you'll be sitting with that look on your face the entire movie.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

Cementer200Sep 24, 2020

Hannibal Rising is a bad movie. the story doesn't fit in the Hannibal Lecter movie series. what were they thinking giving Hannibal Lecter a backstory? if some told me this psychology thriller set in post world war II France and has nothingHannibal Rising is a bad movie. the story doesn't fit in the Hannibal Lecter movie series. what were they thinking giving Hannibal Lecter a backstory? if some told me this psychology thriller set in post world war II France and has nothing thing to do with Hannibal Lecter I would've liked this movie.… Expand

0 of 2 users found this helpful02

All this user's reviews

8

[Anonymous]Apr 5, 2007

The only main problem is that the movie has a slow pace. The acting is good. It is well adapted.