Read User Reviews and Submit your own for Hannibal

10

tartNov 11, 2011

This movie is superb, i strongly believe that those that didn't enjoy
it did not or perhaps cannot appreciate its finer points. I don't know
what people were expecting but i watched this alone and still gave a round of applause when theThis movie is superb, i strongly believe that those that didn't enjoy
it did not or perhaps cannot appreciate its finer points. I don't know
what people were expecting but i watched this alone and still gave a
round of applause when the credits rolled.

Its a deep and interesting story because while Hannibal is a killer,
and of course a gruesome cannibal, everyone he killed in some way
deserved it, and if youve read the books you will know that the trauma Hannibal suffered as a child goes a long way to excuse him. So the films begs the viewer the question as to his
morality, and his punishment if any at all. The viewer perhaps will
grow to like Hannibal, and so will be presented with many philosophical
quandaries as the film progresses, would they rather see him jailed or
free, alive or dead?

Hannibals interaction with Agent Starling is a fascinating one, wrought
with sexual and psychological tension as agent Starling and the viewer
both *feel* that Hannibal wouldn't harm her, but you are never quite
sure and neither is she.

The pace of the film builds up to a climactic finish which doesn't give
itself away until the very end. You are always guessing, will they run
away together? will he kill her? will she kill him? will she hand him
into the police? will he escape? Watch it and see.

I would say that this film doesn't hold your hand, there are a lot of
finer details which may be unappreciable to those who haven't read the
books or at least seen the "dragon rising" movie which explains
Hannibals childhood. Many will be dismayed by the end because they
think that Hannibal is meant to be a cardboard cut out villain, he
isn't, and they're wrong, this is a fantastic movie.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

Tss5078Feb 23, 2013

The thing about Hannibal is that it was a good movie, but there was something just off about it. Anthony Hopkins was simply amazing as he is in most everything he does. The rest of the cast was equally as good, but the story was a bit odd.The thing about Hannibal is that it was a good movie, but there was something just off about it. Anthony Hopkins was simply amazing as he is in most everything he does. The rest of the cast was equally as good, but the story was a bit odd. Out of the four Lecter movies, this is the one that doesn't really fit. I didn't like the whole overseas aspect, although the manhunt was good. Clarice Starling was a completely different character and it had nothing to do with that fact that another woman was playing her. Juliana Moore did a great job, but Starling, wasn't the same Starling we came to love in Silence of The Lambs. Overall I liked the movie and it had some great parts to it, especially the end, but my feeling is that something just wasn't right about it.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

DrzewoplotMay 9, 2012

I would say: more action, less psychology. Lecter, as an aesthete and connoisseur of art, in some other delivery, with the brain in a box. There is nothing surprised: the relationship between him and Starling must be fascinating, and is alsoI would say: more action, less psychology. Lecter, as an aesthete and connoisseur of art, in some other delivery, with the brain in a box. There is nothing surprised: the relationship between him and Starling must be fascinating, and is also really tasty.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

talisencrwSep 19, 2014

I don't understand the absolute hatred for Hannibal. The script is understandable, considering the characters of the first two parts of the trilogy, and with Sir Ridley Scott, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman and Ray Liotta,I don't understand the absolute hatred for Hannibal. The script is understandable, considering the characters of the first two parts of the trilogy, and with Sir Ridley Scott, Sir Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Gary Oldman and Ray Liotta, things are always going to be both well acted and directed--and interesting to boot!… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

9

horcrux2007Sep 2, 2014

"Hannibal" isn't as good as "Manhunter" or "The Silence of the Lambs", but it's still just as dark, shocking and intense as its predecessors. It's highly underrated, and I recommend it if you enjoy the other Hannibal films.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

JaneaustenAndreApr 17, 2015

Although Sir Anthony portrayed a totally another side of Hannibal Lecter and his character now less mystic or scary, but much more bloody, I liked his performance here too. Hannibal Lecter is now sophisticated gentleman, who tries to protectAlthough Sir Anthony portrayed a totally another side of Hannibal Lecter and his character now less mystic or scary, but much more bloody, I liked his performance here too. Hannibal Lecter is now sophisticated gentleman, who tries to protect the woman he loves. Maybe he is a bit too romanticized, but I like it. In my opinion the soundtrack is one of the greatest and most beautiful ones that Hans Zimmer has ever made. Florence is wonderful and I wish I lived there.
It doesn't have the atmosphere or the quality of Silence of the Lambs, but it's still no bad, thanks to Sir Anthony, Hans Zimmer, Gary Oldman, and Julianne Moore.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

RalfbergsDec 12, 2019

I really liked this movie but maybe for me it is a bit different as I have actually read the book before watching and for me it was interesting how they depict it. Really liked it.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

timoneJun 23, 2020

So I had a look on this thinking this is going to be interesting since years ago I've heard about this knowing for the fact that my mum rented it from a video store along with Red Dragon, 28 Days Later and the remake of House on Haunted Hill.So I had a look on this thinking this is going to be interesting since years ago I've heard about this knowing for the fact that my mum rented it from a video store along with Red Dragon, 28 Days Later and the remake of House on Haunted Hill. The only thing I didn't notice is that it's actually a sequel to the critically acclaimed film, The Silence of the Lambs which came out about a decade ago not to mention that Manhunter which is directed by Michael Mann which are both based on the novels by Thomas Harris. Since I'm a huge fan of The Silence of the Lambs which is one of my favourite films of all time I have a feeling that Hannibal is gonna be as good as the first but hey, let's give it a try. Ten years ago after tracking down serial killer Jame Gumb aka Buffalo Bill, Special Agent Clarice Starling who is replaced by Julianne Moore is blamed for a shootout at the drug raid. Mason Verger played by Gary Oldman who is not recognisable but is recognisable with his voice whether he is paralyzed and brutally disfigured by Hannibal Lecter, played brilliantly once again by Anthony Hopkins, and the rest goes on. After the success of Gladiator, Ridley Scott decided that he can direct Hannibal and it became unclear Jodie Foster would return since she won an Oscar for her role but she decides she doesn't want to do it so she was replaced by Julianne Moore. So what do I think of Hannibal, the sequel? Hmm, It's actually quite good. I mean, again it's not as good as The Silence of the Lambs. Yes it is bloody in parts, in fact, it's even gruesome and sick and quite bizarre than the first film. I even found the brain-eating scene sick and twisted. However I prefer The Silence of the Lambs over Hannibal. It won five Academy Awards for Best Picture, Best Actor for Anthony Hopkins, Best Actress for Jodie Foster, Best Director and Best Writing. Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter is always something that gives people the chills whenever he kills his victims but doesn't want to kill Clarice Starling. He is such a great a great character. So since Hannibal came out a decade after The Silence of the Lambs and since it came out years ago many people love it or hate it, for me I go for the positive side. People love it for it's gruesome, sick twisted nature while some will find it lacking. If you really enjoyed The Silence of the Lambs like I do then you better bring your freshly baked liver with some fava beans and a nice Chianti for the sequel. "Ta-ta. H."… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

8

FilmClubMar 26, 2016

Ten years and a week after Hannibal Lecter was last seen sauntering off for a meal, he’s back, his enthusiastic eating habits quite intact. The public will likewise exhibit a ravenous appetite for the continuing saga of one of contemporaryTen years and a week after Hannibal Lecter was last seen sauntering off for a meal, he’s back, his enthusiastic eating habits quite intact. The public will likewise exhibit a ravenous appetite for the continuing saga of one of contemporary literature and cinema’s most fascinating villains, as played once again with exquisite taste and riveting force by Anthony Hopkins. Although “Hannibal” lacks several elements that made its predecessor, the Oscar-winning “The Silence of the Lambs,” so powerful — the surprise transformation of serial killer pulp fiction into a legitimate quality film, ever-escalating narrative tension and breathless encounters between the imprisoned Lecter and young FBI agent Clarice Starling, then but no longer played by Jodie Foster — “Hannibal” still delivers most of the desired goods.

“Hannibal” is not as good as “Lambs”; as with Thomas Harris’ initially mesmerizing 1999 bestseller, the film reaches its peak in the Italian-set second act, becoming more routine in plotting and execution after that. Furthermore, Ridley Scott’s opulent, impressionistic direction, while striking on its own terms, doesn’t lend itself to the sort of sustained creepiness and complex character interplay delivered by Jonathan Demme’s carefully tooled craftsmanship.

Ultimately more shallow and crass at its heart than its predecessor, “Hannibal” is nevertheless tantalizing, engrossing and occasionally startling. Contrary to expectations given the possibilities offered by the book, the film is not terribly bloody and is gruesome only where it means to be. Just as Scott refrained from graphic displays of spurting blood and severed limbs in “Gladiator,” so here does he exhibit discretion by downplaying the overt gore, even if it’s always clear what’s going on.

As penned by David Mamet, then by Steven Zaillian, script is, for better or worse, quite faithful to the Harris blueprint; fans of the tome may regret the perhaps necessary excision of some characters, most notably that of Mason Verger’s muscle-bound macho sister Margot, as well as of the considerable fascinating academic detail, but will basically feel the book has been respected (yes, even the climactic dinner party is served up intact, with the only surprise twists saved for its wake).

As Starling, Moore acquits herself solidly in circumstances that don’t allow the sort of psychological revelations and heavy confrontations that Foster made the most of in “Lambs.” Although she gets considerable screen time, Starling is not quite as central here as she was in the previous picture, and the character spends a good deal of time being reprimanded and frustrated by her superiors. All the same, it would seem that Foster made a big mistake in turning down the reprise, as she could certainly now use the sort of hit “Hannibal” promises to be.

Supporting perfs are what they need to be, if one-dimensional. Big “secret,” given that his name appears nowhere in the front credits or in the final cast list, is that the faceless Mason Verger is played by Gary Oldman. Thesp’s involvement is only suggested by a mysterious “assistant to Gary Oldman” credit deep in the end crawl, and performance is one of those odd stunts that comes off; the character is so strangely deranged that to root for him against Lecter, no matter how heinous the latter may be, is utterly impossible.

Visually, Ridley Scott is clearly now in his Blue Period, as he and “Gladiator” lenser John Mathieson bathe the action in seas of blue light whenever possible. Spectacular locations, not only in Florence but at the ornate Biltmore Estate in North Carolina (as Verger’s palatial domicile) and James Madison’s former estate in Montpelier, Va., are abetted by Norris Spencer’s high-end production design and Janty Yates’ apt costumes. Pietro Scalia’s editing is expert, while Hans Zimmer’s effective score is dominated, in the end, by an original opera duet written by Patrick Cassidy.… Expand

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

7

JPKJul 4, 2019

Not As Good As Lambs
But, It still has a terrific performance from Hopkins and a good amount of creepiness.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

9

Cementer200Sep 24, 2020

Hannibal is a good movie it's a good sequel to Silence of the Lambs but not as good as the original. Hannibal is even more disturbing then Silence of the Lambs that's what makes such a good sequel.

2 of 2 users found this helpful20

All this user's reviews

5

R.DalviMay 2, 2006

The brain scene is awful and disgusting. But Anthony hopkins' terrifc performance almost lifts it from the pits of mediocrity. Moore's charcter sketch is very poor though. but her performance is very good. Not as suspenseful as The The brain scene is awful and disgusting. But Anthony hopkins' terrifc performance almost lifts it from the pits of mediocrity. Moore's charcter sketch is very poor though. but her performance is very good. Not as suspenseful as The Silence of the Lambs but has more gruesome violence than it. Also, Oldman is good but is not recognisable.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful

8

kamgeforceMay 10, 2021

Obviously as a film its not comparable to the Silence of the Lambs, but its a very competent and entertaining movie. I can see why Jodie Foster wasnt interested, because the character of Clarice was clearly sidelined and her role in the plotObviously as a film its not comparable to the Silence of the Lambs, but its a very competent and entertaining movie. I can see why Jodie Foster wasnt interested, because the character of Clarice was clearly sidelined and her role in the plot was very underwhelming. But the meat of the movie is Hannibal and Anthony Hopkins is as brilliant here as he was in the first one.… Expand

1 of 1 users found this helpful10

All this user's reviews

9

DRreLdeJcothenrAug 19, 2013

Hannibal wasn't as bad as some people write.Yes, this film was ,,a little" different then Silence of the Lambs but the developing relationship between Dr. Lecter and Clarice was awesome. I can´t describe my feelings but I know HANNIBALHannibal wasn't as bad as some people write.Yes, this film was ,,a little" different then Silence of the Lambs but the developing relationship between Dr. Lecter and Clarice was awesome. I can´t describe my feelings but I know HANNIBAL totally caught my attention. This was one of the best filmy I have ever seen.
(in its category)
90/100… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

9

eva3si0nJul 18, 2020

Hannibal is a great sequel. And although it is final in chronology, it should be immediately watched after The Silence of the Lambs. Because after him, every subsequent film was worse. Here is an excellent plot, which in suspense is notHannibal is a great sequel. And although it is final in chronology, it should be immediately watched after The Silence of the Lambs. Because after him, every subsequent film was worse. Here is an excellent plot, which in suspense is not inferior to the original. And the cast is great, and the actress changed to Julianne Moore. And Julianne Moore did not fully enter the image. But this is in fact the only drawback. Otherwise, it's a great thriller.… Expand

3 of 4 users found this helpful31

All this user's reviews

10

RobreikMay 24, 2011

Make sure you finish your popcorn early when viewing Hannibal for the first time. While most of this film is based on suspense, there is certainly plenty of gruesome horror by the end. Anthony Hopkins revisits his infamous role of HannibalMake sure you finish your popcorn early when viewing Hannibal for the first time. While most of this film is based on suspense, there is certainly plenty of gruesome horror by the end. Anthony Hopkins revisits his infamous role of Hannibal Lector in this disturbing sequel to Silence of the Lambs. Julianne Moore revises Jody Fosterâ… Expand

2 of 3 users found this helpful21

All this user's reviews

9

killsimonJan 12, 2013

I like the fact that it was different from it's predecessor because that's what sequels are for, continuing the storyline and not showing the same stuff over and over again (like in the butterfly effect 1, 2 and 3).

3 of 5 users found this helpful32

All this user's reviews

10

RottencoreJan 4, 2011

Hopkins portrayal of Lecter was not like it's predecessor (Silence of the Lambs)...Making Hannibal feel more like a pompous old geezer with a taste for hedonism and human flesh.

5 of 9 users found this helpful54

All this user's reviews

6

barnet42Oct 15, 2012

I like more if jodie foster was in this movie , julianne played Clarice badly and wasnt likeable like in the first movie , I understand that Foster dropped out, but they shouldn't have made it without. Moore sucked at this role.

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

3

FranzHcriticMay 29, 2016

I always thought the Hannibal Lecter films were a bit exaggerated. But this film lacks any of the suspense of 'Silence' (which I also thought was overplayed) and is unnecessarily gruesome. The death scenes were violent purely for the sake ofI always thought the Hannibal Lecter films were a bit exaggerated. But this film lacks any of the suspense of 'Silence' (which I also thought was overplayed) and is unnecessarily gruesome. The death scenes were violent purely for the sake of it, and the acting was bordering on hammy. I can't say much of this film. This is still an overrated film, even thought it already gave others mixed signals.… Expand

1 of 2 users found this helpful11

All this user's reviews

9

AdeptaSororitaSep 15, 2015

This is such a good movie, whilst my favorite is still Silence Of The Lambs, this film still shines. Gary Oldman is amazing, essentially playing two roles and on the whole the film is quite disturbing for some viewers and the brain scene isThis is such a good movie, whilst my favorite is still Silence Of The Lambs, this film still shines. Gary Oldman is amazing, essentially playing two roles and on the whole the film is quite disturbing for some viewers and the brain scene is quite uncomfortable to watch, but all in all it is a solid 9 out of 10… Expand

1 of 4 users found this helpful13

All this user's reviews

6

REDWOUNov 22, 2014

I would say it's pointless, but it was still thrilling, which is the only reason it's a 6 out of 10. Otherwise, Julianne Moore. WORST REPLACEMENT EVER!

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

2

Dragonfly44Nov 28, 2017

This movie was both bad and boring. Silence of the Lambs was amazing, so I was clearly in the wrong expecting this to be too. Jodie Foster dodged a huge bullet.

Rating- 26%

1 of 6 users found this helpful15

All this user's reviews

3

JonDocMay 15, 2020

Ponderous, slow moving sequel lacking the wit of the original. A shame given the caliber of writer and director. Of the five Hannibal films, this one clearly had the biggest budget and most polished production values, but it’s all style overPonderous, slow moving sequel lacking the wit of the original. A shame given the caliber of writer and director. Of the five Hannibal films, this one clearly had the biggest budget and most polished production values, but it’s all style over substance. Ridley Scott spends too much time concentrating on the look of a shot and not enough on the actual story. The first two thirds of the film looks like a travelogue with beautiful photography but without any engaging narrative. The story gets going near the end but by then it’s too late and the final ‘scary’ scene with Ray Liotta is just plain ridiculous!
During lockdown I rewatched all the movies in the series again and for my money the best is Red Dragon, even better than Lambs.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

wololoooJun 28, 2012

After finally getting around to reading the book I was truly excited to see the film adaption of Hannibal. Unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed. One of the most intriguing and important features of the book was Lector's background,After finally getting around to reading the book I was truly excited to see the film adaption of Hannibal. Unfortunately, I was pretty disappointed. One of the most intriguing and important features of the book was Lector's background, revealed through multiple flashbacks throughout the story. I see no logical reason for Ridley Scott and the screenwriters to cut out such an integral element. Anthony Hopkins second performance as Lector is just as focused and well-executed has his first, so full credit to him. Gary Oldman plays Mason Verger perfectly, and the rest of the supporting cast are also fine. Julianne Moore however, gave what in my opinion was the weakest and least charismatic performance of the entire cast. She's no substitute for the brilliant Jodie Foster, and it shows. Ridley Scott gives some stylish flair, with some impressive cinematography, but overall the film feels less focused and streamlined than Silence.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

TyranianSep 18, 2019

Hopkins is excellent but the plot of this film has so many issues that keep it from succeeding.

0 of 4 users found this helpful04

All this user's reviews

6

beingryanjudeAug 31, 2014

Yes, we are undoubtedly missing Jodie Foster; nevertheless, Anthony Hopkins in his definitive role is back and just as brilliant. Julianne Moore takes her turn as Agent Starling and does a fine job of it.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

ChrisFarnworthJul 17, 2012

Obviously this movie had a lot to live up to following its predecessor and to be honest it didn't really live up to expectation. The casting was pretty poor, however I did enjoy seeing Hannibal as the solo main bad guy in the film unlike theObviously this movie had a lot to live up to following its predecessor and to be honest it didn't really live up to expectation. The casting was pretty poor, however I did enjoy seeing Hannibal as the solo main bad guy in the film unlike the others. The ending was poor compared to the book and I was left disappointed with it. I would give this movie 6/10 and this is solely down to Anthony Hopkins yet again outstanding performance as Hannibal Lecter.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

SpangleJan 30, 2014

Much, much more graphic than its predecessor, this follow-up to the classic (and my personal favorite film) The Silence of the Lambs is all kinds of disappointing. Beyond the fact that Jodie Foster is clearly not replaceable as ClariceMuch, much more graphic than its predecessor, this follow-up to the classic (and my personal favorite film) The Silence of the Lambs is all kinds of disappointing. Beyond the fact that Jodie Foster is clearly not replaceable as Clarice Starling as the makers of this film believed, the excessive and gratuitous gore and horror elements that were not present in the prior film are ever present here and serve no purpose. The great part about The Silence of the Lambs was how it could cover such horrific violence and spare you the viewing of it, but its description of it was good enough for you to get the full picture. Here, I do not know if it just lazy writing or what, but here, everything is shown in every gory detail. In addition, another major issue is the lack of dialogue between Clarice and Hannibal. In the prior film, that was a major part of the story and what made the film so great. Here, however, that is simply not the case. Finally, Clarice is not who she was in the first film. There was much more depth to her. Now, they seemingly made her a carboard cutout of a cop in film/television. There is no originality to her character, she no longer felt like a real person. There are positives, though, that really help this film out. Firstly, Anthony Hopkins is phenomenal as expected. It is hard to imagine anyone else playing Hannibal Lecter for me, as he seems to capture the character so beautifully and really does a fantastic job. In addition, Ridley Scott does a fine job in the director's chair and really helps boost this film up a bit. Finally, the suspense elements are good and help keep you interested and on the edge of your seat waiting to see what happens next. Overall, a solid film, but as a follow up to a classic, it was always going to look bad, but I was still hoping for more.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

Compi24Mar 25, 2018

It's interesting to see a film where the powers-that-be in Hollywood took a look at a film -- "The Silence Of The Lambs" -- upgraded the writing and directing team -- Jonathan Demme for Ridley Scott and both David Mamet and Steven ZaillianIt's interesting to see a film where the powers-that-be in Hollywood took a look at a film -- "The Silence Of The Lambs" -- upgraded the writing and directing team -- Jonathan Demme for Ridley Scott and both David Mamet and Steven Zaillian for Ted Tally -- for the sequel, and then ultimately ended up with an inferior product; "Hannibal." Honestly, this might've just skirted by the societal stain of being one of the most disappointing sequels of all time. To take a Best Picture winning film that's so highly regarded for being one of the most intense, intriguing, and high-stakes thrillers of all time, and then follow it up with something so sluggishly paced, plain, and languid ought to be thrown more shade. Still, the tone and air of everything present helps give the audience just enough to stay in their seats. Shout-out to some really creepy score work from Hans Zimmer and a really brilliant set of opening credits.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

JohnnyStephensAug 30, 2013

It was not like the first and classic one. It is still watchable though and the fact that Hans Zimmer composed the soundrack of Hannibal makes the movie better.

0 of 6 users found this helpful06

All this user's reviews

4

Supersaiyan9000Oct 3, 2014

While Anthony Hopkins once again puts on a stellar performance, "Hannibal" unfortunately lacks the general character interaction that made the first film so good, and seems to focus solely on being more graphic.

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

MovieManiac83Apr 24, 2015

It's a safe bet that Ridley Scott's Hannibal is one of the most anticipated motion pictures of 2001. MGM, which owns the North American distribution rights, expects the film to have the biggest opening of any movie in the company's historyIt's a safe bet that Ridley Scott's Hannibal is one of the most anticipated motion pictures of 2001. MGM, which owns the North American distribution rights, expects the film to have the biggest opening of any movie in the company's history (beating out The World Is Not Enough). It has taken ten years for the sequel to The Silence of the Lambs to reach the screen (much of the delay due to the length of time it took novelist Thomas Harris to pen the book), and, sadly, it's not worth the wait. Hannibal isn't a terrible movie, but it is a disappointment, and more than a small step down from the level of its predecessor.

Hannbal's journey from the printed page to celluloid has been a tumultuous one. Early on, Jonathan Demme (who directed Silence) bowed out. Producer Dino De Laurentiis replaced him with Ridley Scott. Soon after that, celebrated playwright David Mamet's script was rejected and Steven Zallian was brought in to do an overhaul (as a result of WGA rules, Mamet's name remains in the credits although none of the final product is his). Then, publicly citing a busy schedule while privately displeased with the screenplay, the original Clarice Starling, Jodie Foster, elected not to return. The role was re-cast, with Julianne Moore winning the sweepstakes. The only constant from The Silence of the Lambs to Hannibal is Anthony Hopkins. While that's a sizeable ace in the hole, the advantage doesn't turn out to be big enough.

Having seen Hannibal, I can understand why Jodie Foster wasn't interested. The Clarice Starling of The Silence of the Lambs was a psychologically complex individual who remained squarely at the center of the storyline. Her relationship with Hannibal Lecter was endlessly fascinating, a game of mental chess between two evenly matched players who were drawn together by a perverse attraction. That Clarice is missing in action in Hannibal. The character has been emasculated and reduced to little more than a plot device. This is Lecter's movie; Clarice's role is secondary, and there's little in the way of interesting character development. Almost nothing is done with Silence's most compelling aspect, the Hannibal/Clarice relationship; these two have only a handful of scenes together. Julianne Moore, doing the best she can with the limited material, admirably fills her predecessor's shoes. It's just that Hannibal offers her a far less meaty bone to gnaw on than Silence gave to Foster.

In a way, it should not come as a surprise that the psychological depth of Hannibal is so far below that of The Silence of the Lambs. Scott is known for visual artistry and storytelling prowess (both of which are evident in his three best-known works: Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator), but not character complexity. Consequently, the individuals wandering across Scott's landscape in Hannibal function as mere pawns for the director to move around as he sees fit. Secondary characters like Verger, Pazzi, and racist politician Paul Krendler (Ray Liotta) lack even a semblance of three-dimensionality. Actually, the only reason we see Clarice as a fleshed-out person is because we got to know her so well in The Silence of the Lambs.

Stylistically, Hannibal is everything one would expect from a Ridley Scott film. It doesn't have the claustrophobic feel of Silence, but that lack is compensated for with innovative shots and an abundance of gothic-drenched atmosphere. (My favorite moment is when Lecter turns from the camera and walks away with his cape billowing behind him. It's pure style.) One area where Scott goes over the top is in his frequent use of religious (specifically Christian) iconography, including a scene in which Hannibal appears like Christ on the cross. The problem is that there's no reason for this - ultimately, all of the Christian symbolism is meaningless. It doesn't contribute to the movie from a thematic or story-related perspective.

Fans of The Silence of the Lambs will surely flock to see Hannibal during its first weekend of release, and far be it from me to dissuade them. The movie is not a hack job - it contains moments of genuine suspense, always looks good, and has the virtue of Anthony Hopkins returning to the greatest role of his incredibly diverse career. But there's a lot missing from the sequel, and many of those absent elements are the things that differentiated Silence from so many run-of-the-mill serial killer thrillers. What's left is at times depressingly ordinary and almost never memorable.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

6

TheArchetypesSep 9, 2016

The brain scene is awful and disgusting. But Anthony Hopkins' terrific performance almost lifts it from the pits of mediocrity. Moore's character sketch is very poor though. but her performance is very good. Not as suspenseful as The SilenceThe brain scene is awful and disgusting. But Anthony Hopkins' terrific performance almost lifts it from the pits of mediocrity. Moore's character sketch is very poor though. but her performance is very good. Not as suspenseful as The Silence of the Lambs but has more gruesome violence than it. Also, Oldman is good but is not recognisable.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

5

FilipeNetoMar 5, 2018

This film is a sequel to "Silence of the Lambs": This time, Hanibal will need the agent Clarice Starling to get rid of a powerful enemy. Directed by Ridley Scott and written by David Mamet, this film has a cast headed by Anthony Hopkins andThis film is a sequel to "Silence of the Lambs": This time, Hanibal will need the agent Clarice Starling to get rid of a powerful enemy. Directed by Ridley Scott and written by David Mamet, this film has a cast headed by Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore.

Its one of the most interesting thrillers of the decade and brings again to the big screen the iconic Hannibal Lecter. However, there is no love like the first and, so, this film is never able to rub shoulders with its predecessor, despite the remarkable quality it has. It's a good movie, entertains the audience, leaving them quite uncomfortable and causing some chills especially in the stronger scenes. This is also a warning for sensitive people: this film has several shocking scenes.

The script is quite reasonable but its very predictable and only heats in the end, in the only scenes which can create real tension, in which the public is in anticipation of what will happen. Julianne Moore looks like it hasn't adapted to the role of Starling. The work of the actress is cold and devoid of depth. However, I don't know if that was a casting error or a writing error. The special, visual and sound effects, although discrete, are competent. The makeup also deserves congratulations, especially because of the appearance of the character Mason Verger and some more shocking scenes, where the skillful hand of the makeup artist was valuable. The soundtrack, by Hans Zimmer, is also very good and fits perfectly to the film, making it much more dense than it really is.

In short, its a good movie, despite failures. Its worth seeing it, mainly for the pleasure of reviewing Anthony Hopkins, again in one of the most famous roles of his career. Unsurpassed, the actor gives the necessary support to the film. He really has made the difference.… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

3

Tyrant719Aug 28, 2021

This movie is for simpletons who didn’t quite understand what Silence of the Lambs was all about and just thought that Hannibal guy was “bad ass”. Jodie Foster knew exactly why she didn’t want to be apart of this mess. The Hannibal characterThis movie is for simpletons who didn’t quite understand what Silence of the Lambs was all about and just thought that Hannibal guy was “bad ass”. Jodie Foster knew exactly why she didn’t want to be apart of this mess. The Hannibal character is meant to represent what serial killers idealize themselves to be, while Buffalo Bull represented the unorganized, imperfect way serial killers actually operate and, eventually, get caught. It’s not a beautiful opera, it’s a chaotic mess. The Hannibal character behind bars was perfect in exemplifying that. Trying to make a backstory for this plot device of a character does nothing but weaken his purpose. Now he has to become superhuman in order to actualize the idealized manner of his murders instead of it just being a puzzling mystery that the audience is meant to wonder about. But I’m sure you all just think “It’s cool that he eats that guy from Goodfella’s brains! Oh, and there are no gay scenes of guys tuckin their dicks in while looking in the mirror! I’m totally not gay, bro! All this movie was missing was Clarice’s **** But 9/10 regardless!”… Expand

0 of 1 users found this helpful01

All this user's reviews

4

BroyaxMay 23, 2023

L’ambiance est bonne malgré la réalisation en demi-teinte de Ridley Scott ici et là : rien de problématique mais on le sent inutilement maniéré sur bien des plans au gré d’un scénario déjà assez casse-gueule qui abuse des raccourcis… DesL’ambiance est bonne malgré la réalisation en demi-teinte de Ridley Scott ici et là : rien de problématique mais on le sent inutilement maniéré sur bien des plans au gré d’un scénario déjà assez casse-gueule qui abuse des raccourcis… Des longueurs sont à déplorer également, la plupart du temps compensées par quelques scènes délicieuses (la dégustation, quel régal !).

Le film tient encore debout tant bien que mal -ou à peu près- grâce à la prestation d’Anthony Hopkins mais pâtit de la pâle performance -pour ne pas dire très médiocre- de Julianne Moore ; on n’en attendait pas plus de cette actrice de seconde zone à dire vrai.

Cet « Hannibal » laisse en tout cas l’impression d’un rendez-vous manqué : sans être mauvais, il n’est pas à la hauteur des attentes. ‘Le Silence des Agneaux’ continue de dormir sur ses deux oreilles, très au-dessus de la mêlée de toutes ces ‘suites’ qui ne donnent pas grand-chose !… Expand

0 of 0 users found this helpful00

All this user's reviews