Read Mixed User Reviews for Hannibal

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

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

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

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

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