Genres

Visitors Review

mouse_robot 2012-05-24 01:15:48

it just doesn't work for me

There are moments of Hannibal that are genuinely creepy and effective.But they are few and far between. For the most part, the over the topgore turned me off to this movie. It seemed almost comical. In reality,Silence of the Lambs was probably just as gory. Yet that movie wasgrounded in reality. Hannibal is more like a grand silly opera. It justdoesn't feel real or believable.But the real reason that Hannibal doesn't work is that I don't thinkthe character of Hannibal Lechter is scary when he's on the loose. I'mnot sure I can articulate why. Maybe he's frightening in Silence of theLambs because of all that potential is pent up in a tiny cell. But forwhatever reason, the idea of Hannibal Lechter on the loose is scary,but the reality of seeing it in a movie just doesn't work.

2012-05-23 13:42:30

Embarrassingly Bad

This is surely one of the worst wastes of talent ever served up by Hollywood. Ridley Scott shoots some pretty scenes. Julianne Moore is beautiful, as always. Hopkins is game. Unfortunately, their efforts don't add up to anything. Blame the writer. I've read Hannibal (I'm ashamed to admit it), and If there had been any oversized wild pigs around, I would have fed it to them gladly after turning the last page. Pretentious dreck. No surprise that Jodie Foster wouldn't have anything to do with this debacle. I'd be willing to bet that Julianne Moore wishes she'd stayed home as well.

Mauricio Macias 2012-05-21 17:28:15

A unique and excellent terror film.

Wow! If you are a fan of terror films, forget about Jason, Freddy and thewhole pack. So very different from the critically acclaimed "The Silence ofthe Lambs", this movie will take you into a journey you won't forget soon.Anthony Hopkins gives once again an eerie and wonderful performance. Ican'twait for the prequel to come out.

Dave Chaves 2012-05-21 10:15:24

Beautifully Disgusting

That ending. I will never get the way this movie ended out of my head. Notsince "The Exorcist" have I seen any image like Ray Liotta at the end ofthis movie.Wow.

2012-05-20 20:42:20

Ridley Scott Outdoes himself again

Worthy of a sequal. Ridley Scott again outdid himself. This movie was abit....messy, but itfit the movie like a glass slipper. So I'd recommend not bringing a dateorsomeone who hasa weak stomach. Even the humor and suspense can be a bit for some peopletohandle. If youliked the first 2 movies, this one is the icing on your cupcake.

mhajs 2012-05-20 00:47:26

Nice sequel, but much inferior to the silence of the lambs.

*** out of ****I wouldn't become bothered at all if this movie has never beenreleased. The Silence Of The Lambs already showed us everything. Thecharacters that are Hannibal Lecter and Clarice Starling, the greatperformances of Foster and Hopkins and... Buffalo Bill. Hannibal didn'tmanage to give us a story in the same level or higher than theSilence's. Hannibal is very less frightening than he truly is in thefirst movie. (Actually, the first one is Manhunter, but I'm talkingabout those which have Hopkins in the cast). And Starling, now playedby Julianne Moore is also less intriguing.I love the Ridley Scott movies, I won't deny this. But this is one ofhis few disappointing works. In Hannibal there isn't much characterdevelopment, instead, the movie takes too much time on characterstrying to find clues about where they can find Lecter. Moore listens topast recorded conversations with Lecter in headphones, a cop, played byGiancarlo Giannini, sits in front of his computer, believing that hehas already met Lecter in person. And there are other secondarycharacters, partners of Giancarlo, who do whatever must be done inorder to catch Lecter. And, also, there is a guy named Mason Verger,played by Gary Oldman.The movie, itself, is based on a plot where Verger wants Lectercaptured in order to torture him, like he never could believe, becauseof a personal vendetta. This is a good story, but no match to thesilence of the lambs. I wasn't too shocked either about the brainscene. For me, at most of times, what really counts for a scene to beshocking, is that there must be suffering. When Liotta has his head cutopen and eats his own brain, there's no suffering at all, only gore.This might be nasty and shocking too, but not as shocking as CatherineMartin trying to climb that well, screaming desperately, or MarvinNash, the tortured cop in Reservoir Dogs, when he's groaning like hell.Hannibal is a nice movie to watch, not a bad sequel at all. Its onlyproblem might have been that it simply is a sequel to one of the mostsuccessful movies ever made, a best picture motion picture, and it'shard to get to the same level, but it's worth watching it, anyway.

Movies8586 2012-05-20 09:59:00

Absolutely brilliant movie!

HANNIBAL is the underrated sequel to SILENCE OF THE LAMBS, the story ofClarice Starling and Dr. Hannibal 'The Cannibal' Lecter.I don't see why so many people don't like this movie. The acting was great(you can't go wrong with Anthony Hopkins, Julianne Moore, Ray Liotta,Giancarlo Giannini, and Gary Oldman), the settings are incredible(especially Florence, Italy), and the direction is brilliant! The famous'gross-out' scenes aren't as graphic or disgusting as people say,though.Watch and enjoy!

David Ferguson 2012-05-19 22:59:08

Elegantly violent

Greetings again from the darkness. It is always disheartening when adirector, even a superb one such as Ridley Scott, mishandles a sequel to agreat movie. When the story involves one of the most fascinating charactersin movie history, it is all the more disappointing. Hannibal Lechtermesmermizes me. His elegance, his rationalization of his disgustingactions, his speech patterns, his humor, his obsession with beauty,properness, and especially Clarice, captivate my attention. Ridley Scottjust doesn't get it. Blood and guts are not what Hannibal is about. Although I must say any movie with a brief appearance by Spike Jonze(director of "Being John Malkovich") and a wonderful supporting performanceby Italian screen legend, Giancarlo Giannini gains some leeway! The role ofClarice is poorly written in this sequel, so it is not fair to compareJulianne Moore to Jodie Foster. The problem with this movie is script andexecution. The thrill of the chase in the original does not exist in thisone. There are no real mind games between good and evil. As a matter offact, Hannibal's evil is downplayed thanks to the twisted actions of anunrecognizable Gary Oldman. We even find ourselves rooting for Lechter. The obvious institutional corruptness is played by the usually fine RayLiotta. What a joke ... and a waste. Too much of a good thing is neverbest. Where's the tease? This is more cold slap in the face thanpsychological thriller. I hear a prequel is in the works. PLEASE find anew director. Return the evil of Lechter to the heights he deserves. Payattention to the remarkable score and use of music. It prevents the filmfrom being just another slasher.

lanie-6 2012-05-18 16:42:56

Down right boring film........

As a huge Silence of The Lambs film, I could not wait for this long awaitedfilm. My husband and I went,he fell asleep 20 minutes into the film. It washorrible for the first hour. Dragging on...and ......on...... with JulianneMoore TRYING to fill Jodie Fosters shoes. (Not a Chance). Finally after Dr.Lecter comes back to the US does it get a little better. Needless to say, Ifeel alot of money was wasted making this film. Lets just hope there isn'taTHIRD movie! Gesh, what a waste of money. We should have stayed home andrented something...anything better than seeing that movie!

Rustyegan 2012-05-18 09:23:40

I think this is an excellent movie

Despite a lot of users commenting that this movie is weaker then it'spredecessor (Lambs), this is my favorite in trilogy.Sound-music is excellent.Cinematography (especially scenes in Italy), is excellent, also.It is wrong to judge this movie based on criteria is it like "Lambs",because it is not intended to be like it. It has it's ownindividuality, it is not supposed to be like "Lambs", so, it's qualityshould not be judged based on similarity/continuity with "Lambs".I especially enjoy sound & atmosphere in this movie. Also, I likeJulian Moore more then Jodie Foster.

Fabio Pirovano 2012-05-15 00:34:56

superficial

Another overstimate film by Ridley Scott,here at his first excursus on thegore/splatter films.The first been Gladiator,now the same exercise ofsuperficials direction are here.Not only boom mikes but also the screenplay ,soul of movies,is full ofboring,insignificant and free dangerus violence.I consider again Michael Mann's MANHUNTER the first and best movie of HarrisTrilogy about Dr Lecter and that must be a model for any sequels,Demme withthe Silence been close to the same quality but that trash named Hannibal isfar light year for be consider a classic.I advice Mr.Scott to take anytimes of pause and reflection,not always shooting using different times offrames can be the solution for win academy awards.

Julia-37 2012-05-14 12:47:20

Good movie, but still a disappointment

*********SPOILERS, though I've tried to be vague**************I went into this movie ready for a cheat regarding the violence. What Igotwas all the violence portrayed in vivid detail, but the back story andcharacter motivations were glossed over or left out completely. I think Iwould have enjoyed the movie more if I hadn't read the book.Surprisingly, it wasn't the absence of Jodi Foster that bothered me most,though when Clarice plays back taped excerpts from her talks with Dr.Lecter10 years before, I was mystifyingly irked that they had dubbed in JulianneMoore's voice. I don't know what I thought they would do, but it justseemed to take something away from Foster, and I don't think she deservedthat. I could see Foster in this role, I could not see Moore in the firstmovie. I don't think she could pull off that scene where Clarice iscrawling through the dark and we see her only in the night vision gogglesofJame Gumb.Another problem with this type of story is that there is no mystery. Weknow who all the bad guys are. It was missing that feeling of buildingtoward something.2 main characters, which provide motivation, are completely missing. Bothare sisters, one Mason's and one Hannibal's. I think in order tosuccessfully make Dr. Lecter a sympathetic character, and conversely tomakeMason a more effective bad guy, you'd have to keep them in.Finally, the final scene is just not believable in the context of thismovie. Given the building of their relationship in the book, I couldmaybebuy Lecter's self sacrifice, but not in the movie. It's just notbelievable.It's not the worst movie I've seen, but I was disappointed. If you can goin with an open mind you'll enjoy it.

Tomato-9 2012-05-12 04:30:08

Hannibal "The Cannibal" indeed!

To get right to the point, I loved "Hannibal". I consider it anhonorable sequel to The Silence of The Lambs. It kept it's two maincharacters, Dr. Hannibal Lector and Special Agent Clarice, the same. Butthis time, obviously by the title, the story revolves mostly around Lector.In The Silence of the Lambs, it was split two ways storywise, Clarice andBuffalo Bill. In The Silence of the Lambs, we understood Hannibal as a genius, amurderer, and a cannibal. But we never did quite understand his motives, hispast, or what he does in his leisure time. "Hannibal" clears all of that up.We begin to grow closer to Dr. Lector, and understand him a little bit more.We quickly learn who the villains in the movie are. In the end, you may be a little bit queezy from all that you have seen,but may I remind you, Braveheart,Starship Troopers, and Saving Private Ryanwere much more gory. This movie was very close to being excellent, but a fewflaws dragged it down. The Silence of the Lambs was better directed andwritten, but "Hannibal" was more entertaining. I wouldn't expect too manyawards. But I would expect an Oscar nomination for Best Actor and Actress,Best Cinematography, and Best Sound(Wow! The sound was excellent and veryclear).My rating for Hannibal is 9/10. See this gem at the theaters, then watchManhunter and Silence of the Lambs.Hannibal-Rated R for strong violence/gore, nudity, andlanguage.Starring Anthony Hopkins, Julliane Moore, Giancarlo Gianini, and GaryOldman.

James Birtwhistle 2012-05-11 14:06:06

Good film, good look, good killings

In my humble opinion, ‘Hannibal' is as good as, if not better than, ‘TheSilence of the Lambs'. What? Burn him! It is, however, clearly different toit's predecessor in many ways. It's a lot more – I don't know – fun. Whichis presumable why people don't like it as much. I lie – people do like it,just not enough to immortalise it as a ‘classic'; it's a bit too ‘fun' forpeople to include in their mental top ten movie lists. This matters verylittle, except that comparisons are bound to be drawn between ‘Hannibal' and‘Silence…'.And already I've fallen into the trap of comparing the two. In an idealworld I would review ‘Hannibal' on its own merits rather than constantlycomparing it to ‘Silence…', but an ideal world this is not, and so I willcontinue…Stylistically the films are very different. ‘Hannibal' is just as dark as‘Silence…', but it's a different kind of darkness. It is a glossy darkness.The whole film has a very sleek, shiny feel to it. It would be very hard for‘Hannibal' to share the more gritty, realist appearance of ‘Silence…'considering the beautiful European scenery. Julianne Moore plays a differentClarice Starling to Foster – one that fits the sleek, shiny mould of thefilm. But enough of all this visually dynamic mumbo jumbo, let's get to the goodstuff – the killings. And this is where ‘Hannibal' excels. Not justkillings, but gruesome disfiguring as well. I won't go into details, you canwatch the film, but it is top stuff. But all the killings in the world couldnot satisfy me if they weren't done with the impeccable charms of theworld's favourite cannibal. Anthony Hopkins plays the part of Hannibalmagnificently. In conclusion ‘Hannibal' stands alone as a very good movie. Whether or notit's a very good sequel however, I really could not careless.8/10

Barbara Williams 2012-05-09 05:14:32

Hannibal Is Another Oscar Winner!!!!!!!!!

This is a tremendous movie. I think it is better than Lambs!! A must see foreveryone!! Anthony Hopkins is absolutely charming and flawless as ever!!Julianne Moore is great as Clarice Starling!!If you haven't seen it Go!! I sort of liked it. Saw it 4 times!!

2012-05-08 16:31:09

What's The Point ?

This film should have never been made in the first place. It didn't take the plot of "Silence of the Lambs" any further. I would have really like to have seen Hannibal eat Clarice. It would have been a nice and tidy ending. It would have made the whole thing worth while. Instead they had to keep Clarice alive so that they could do another sequel. The whole film is just random acts of violence. It left something to be desired. The reason I gave this 2 stars and not 1 is because of the great acting. Oh and one more thing, if you liked this film, you really have bad taste.

MF210 2012-05-06 19:56:53

I thought it was underrated

My Rating: *** out of ****. I am one of those people that thought Hannibal was unworthy of some of itsharsh reviews. Although I believe the movie to be flawed, I thought it wasgood. It does lack some things Silence had, but I was never that crazy aboutSilence anyway. The acting in Hannibal is good. Julianne Moore is fine, she did have somehuge shoes to fill and i do think it was hard for her to try to atleast bein the same range Jodie accomplished with the character. Anthony Hopkinsreturns and does a great job. Gary Oldman is very good as the creepy anddisgusting Mason Verger. Ray Liotta is also good. I will admit the ending is disgusting beyond all belief but with theexception of the ending I liked this movie. The Cinematography was beautifulin Italy and the scenes in Italy had a certain dark atmosphere that Iadmired. The Script does not match Silence's but it is a decent script.Hannibal is obviously not for everyone but fans of the book and HannibalLecter should give it a try.

Rob 2012-05-06 14:50:24

A "distasteful" film to say the least.

Surprisingly accurate to the novel by Thomas Harris. Hannibal was a bigletdown. Dr. Lecter didn't seem as EVIL as in the Silence of the Lambsbecausehe was free. Free to kill and escape from anywhere. Starling is playedbyJuilliana Moore and she just doesn't do the trick. She isn't as innocentand nieve as Starling played by Jodie Foster. Granted a decade can changeacharacter, but that's no excuse. Angent Starling just isn't as likablethistime.The end is a major jip. In the book Hannibal and Starling run offtogetherand get married and live like royalty forever after, going to operas andeating what ever delicacies Lecter craves(not just human flesh we learn).And in the book, Mason Verger's death is much more spectacular(his bodybuilding sister uses an electric eel as a weapon on him). Also a partthatexplains Lecter's childhood is also missing(Nazis eat hissister).But these things shouldn't have been included anyway if it is still goingtobe rated R. However, this movie deserves an NC-17 anyway. Scenes of a mancutting off his face and feeding it to dogs, a man being hanged with hisintestines falling out, and two people being devoured alive by huge boars.The violence is the worst in any rated R movie I have ever seen.It gets a 4 out of 10 from me.

the thorn of Thurisaz 2012-05-06 08:37:23

What in the Hell were they thinking? *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS* *SPOILERS*

They wanted to follow up a great piece like Silence of the Lambs withthis?A lot of people will say, "you went into this wanting to hate this", or "itshouldn't be compared to Silence of the Lambs.' To those people, shut up. Iwent into this wanting to like it a lot more then I did when I walked out.As for the comparison; fine, let's compare it to something else and itstillwon't make this any better of a film. I can only compare it to Halloween 2.Both had predecessors that were great horror films (both also had greatBritish actors who played doctors) and turned out sequels that were notneeded and were made with meaningless gore. None of it in Hannibal wasfocused with the right kind of attention and detoured itself away from whatcould have been a great cinematic piece. It was a greatly missedopportunity, but it doesn't come close to good.First things first, the story itself: The thing with Mason should haveplayed a bigger, more significant role in this film. In Silence they usedthe Buffalo Bill thing much more effectively. Before I even went in, I wasthinking of (and hoping against) an all Hannibal absorbed story line and Iwasn't very disappointed in that area. The Buffalo Bill, Clarice, Hannibalstories all supported each other in Silence of the Lambs. Buffalo pushedtheClarice story as it pushed the Hannibal story and then Hannibal pushedBuffalo Bill and so on. Hannibal was nothing but a compile of storiesrunning neck and neck hoping to finish out as the end of the movie. Theywere like characters in a slasher. Each one was sent out and each getshacked off until the last one is left. Nothing moved anything here but thecomponents of what needed to be moved to get to where it wanted to wind up.Silence of the Lambs wasn't even about Hannibal and it gave us something towatch and feel for, but Hannibal gave us nothing.The camera work: Two words - "crap" and "py". What the Hell was half ofthat? When Clarice finds Hannibal's letter, that's really lame. And worsewas when she sees him in the video and they do a slow motion on her. Ithought "Are they serious? They can't be, can they?"There some things that was just confusing. Like why did Paul Krendler walkup into Clarice's house like he owned? As if she would even want him nearwhere she lived. And some of the shots were like `how twisted is this',likeit was trying to duplicate Fight Club or something. And I swear to God, itgot to a point that if I had heard one more cigarette being inhaled ormouseclicking, I was going to snap and kill everyone in that theatre. No Oscarshould be handed out for best sound. I'm only willing to let it go for bestcinematography cause I have to admit that was only one of the two goodelements about this film.Now, I'm not a big fan of Jodie Foster's work nor am I going to rant thatshe's the greatest actor of all time, but I will say that Julianne Moore isno Jodie Foster. I was more interested in watching Foster's Clarice thenMoore's. And that really says something because of that annoying southernaccent Jodie carried. Moore didn't carry that and it kind of lost me. Ididn't believe she was this character for a minute. Plus the killing of thewoman in the beginning should have played more on a character who lost afather in the line of duty. Something else that was almost completelypointless.As for Hannibal himself: What a waste of a perfectly good villain. We knewnothing about him but that with all his sophistication, he killed with thegoriest of class. I liked him better when he was kept back in confinementand yet still retained control of his situation by using his mind games.What was really scary is that a man who can't touch you can get into yourmost personal place. It showed how ingenious he was and because a mad mancould manipulate what's supposed to be a safe environment. That was veryhorrendous to ponder. That's why the only part that I liked was when in thevideos, we see Hannibal attack that nurse whose attack was only insinuatedat in Silence of the Lambs. There was something disturbing about seeing himattack in an environment that is supposed to be controlled. Other thenthat,Hannibal didn't use any of his intellect, just his humble graces andmanners. In Lambs, he was very into getting into people's heads. Here healmost became annoying to listen to after awhile.Over all: People will remember Ray Liotta with his skull open and chewingona piece of his own cerebellum, but will anyone know what it severed to thestory or as a piece of cinema? I don't think so. If they had used theoriginal ending, it would have put Liotta's brains, not to mentionHannibal's, to work. I would have loved to see him use his brilliance intoseducing Clarice into consuming on a living person's brains. It would havemade the film build to something and something to ponder on, but withoutit,it was all pointless.Cinematography is great. I think that's where some get confused and mistakethis for a masterpiece. I'm not going to deny that it was great, but thatand the scene I mentioned above are all this film is worth in contrast tothe price of admission. It was nothing but a gore show. I could have donewithout more then half of what I saw. If anyone is reading this and wondersif they should see it, do yourself a favour and pass.

dicekid3 2012-05-05 15:27:36

Continuity, Mr. Mamet, continuity.

I watched Hannibal when it opened in theatres on February 9, 2001. Lastnight I rented it on DVD and was perplexed at what I saw as a pretty poorplot flaw. What's more annoying is that the screenplay was co-written byDavid Mamet, one of the best writers in the business. I can't be assed withall this spoiler pedantic nonsense so if you haven't seen the film or readthe script go and put the kettle on.Hannibal has been traced to Uffizzi Galleria in Florence by a local corruptcop Pazzi. Outside waiting to bundle him into a truck and into the fiendishhands of Gary Oldman are Pazzi's own two professional henchmen. Pazzi iskilled in a historical yet ironic fashion, which prompts said henchmen torush into the Galleria, whereupon Hannibal slices and dices Hairy Henchman#1 with his usual panache. Henchman #2 (bald) trips over the body and has anano second of screen time as he grieves for Hairy Henchman #1, with whomheobviously has a closer relationship than baddy buddies. wink,winkFlash forward and yet again we find Hannibal trapped and cornered bynemesisOldman and assorted Italian Henchmen. But wait, who is this familiarhenchman amongst them? Why, it's our old bald baddy buddy from the Galleriawho has had no previous connection with the Oldman gang. Needless to say,Hannibal goes on the old bite and flight routine, yet manages to throw in aquip to bald henchman about him wearing same disgusting after shave as hisdead brudder, before garrotting him with his usual culinarypanache.Now there's nothing to indicate that the bald buddy baddie has fallen inwith the Oldman gang, yet he manages to make the flight from Florence toWashington, hook up with the Oldman gang, and nobody stops to ask, 'Who'sthe bald geezer?' Now, obviously I am pedantic in the way I watch films.It's been a long time since I was able to willingly suspend my disbelief,but this jarred out as a sore thumb to me. My best friend Jimmy, not themost dedicated of cineastes, also spotted the flaw, with the immortalphrase"When did HE join the man eatingpig gang?" So it can't just be me and my pal, which begs the question whatthe chuffing fudge was going on with the studio, the writers, the scripteditor, the continuity girl/bloke and the director that no one thought,"Oops, that doesn't quite play right. Should we go back and fixit?"Otherwise, it's a brilliant movie. It's in all-time favorite top three. Ijust wish they kept the part about Hannibal's sister. It explains a lotabout him and the way he connected with Clarice. My advice: read the book,then watch the movie. I like the movie ending a lot better than the book.Itagrees with the characters and makes more sense. For the uninitiated thisreview probably doesn't make much sense, so I suggest you go read the book,watch the movie and come back and reread it. Ya hear?