Hannibal
Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer (MGM) | Release Date: February 9, 2001
7.1
USER SCORE
Generally favorable reviews based on 281 Ratings
USER RATING DISTRIBUTION
Positive:
174
Mixed:
83
Negative:
24
Watch Now
Stream On
Buy on
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Stream On
Expand
Review this movie
VOTE NOW
 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Check box if your review contains spoilers 0 characters (5000 max)

User Reviews

User scoreBy dateMost helpful
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
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
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
More From This Movie

57 Critic Reviews

7.1 User Reviews

Details & Credits|Trailers

Current Movie Releases
By MetascoreBy User Score
1 81 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple
2 77 Project Hail Mary
3 75 Send Help
4 73 Hoppers
5 71 The Sheep Detectives
SEE ALL
Essential Links
New on Amazon Prime Video
New on Netflix
Coming Soon to DVD/Blu-ray
SEE ALL