Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Better than most people say...
Review: ...and actually better than the book.. I much tighter thrill than the novel.

I liked this DVD.

Rating:
Summary: Mindlessly Gratuitous Glorification of Violence
Review: This is one of the worst films I've ever seen in my life. The script is tacky, the acting is uninspired, and the violence is completely gratuitous and is filmed in a highly distasteful way. It seems Scott wanted to glorify the good ol' American obsession with serial killers, but he has done so to a ridiculous degree. Like other of his films, the content is boring and ill thought out and the entire efforts of the filmmakers seem to have been spent on making it 'look good'. It does, but because the subject matter is so tired and uninteresting, as well as gratuitous, the film comes off as excessively distasteful. If you want to be scared, go see Texas Chainsaw massacre, where violence is TERRIFYING and well used. If you want a film that looks good afer this style, go see Gladiator - even though it too is overproduced and under-performed, at least IT has a story. This is just like a kind of overproduced car commercial with a lot of blood and guts being thrown about. It's embarrasingly poor.

Rating:
Summary: Brilliant!!!
Review: Harris is a literary genius. Scott is a cinematic genius. Hopkins
is one of the all time great actors. Put them together and it's
pure magic. I'm tired of all the sourpusses who didn't like the
book because it didn't have a happy ending. Well, guess what. Life isn't a happy ending. I think the reason so many were unhappy with "Hannibal"(the film) was they wanted another "Silence" and it didn't happen. This is an entirely different film and shouldn't be compared to the greatness of Demme's "Silence". No, I never got scared like I did during the original.
Who cares?! It's a bit campy but Hopkins and Oldman hamming it up
is a wonder to behold.

Rating:
Summary: I'm with Jodie - Not good enough
Review: After 15 re-writes of "Hannibal" by writers David Mamet and Steven Zaillian, actress Jodie Foster and director Jonathan Demme dropped out because they didn't think it was good enough. With the loss of two "Silence of the Lambs" principals, it was difficult to replace them. Eventually, MGM/Universal hired Julianne Moore to replace Foster as Clarice, and Ridley Scott to direct the film. Two veterans, indeed, but the end equation equals nothing close to "Silence of the Lambs". Thankfully, Anthony Hopkins continues his ability to scare us, no matter what age, as Hannibal Lecter. Gary Oldman (uncredited), who returns as Mason Verger, wanted top billing along with Hopkins and Moore, withdrew his credit altogether. "Hannibal" fails to really suspense you. Now true, there's gore, but it's right in front of you, without suspense. You don't know it's coming until *boom* there's a guy being hung with his intestines spilled all over the street. At least with "Silence of the Lambs" you know that it was coming. Julianne Moore tries too hard to accomplish the Oscar-winning performance of Jodie Foster, and Clarice's character suffers for it. Ray Liotta is added to the mix, and is part of one of the most gory (and funny) scenes in the movie. Ridley Scott adds his dry and cut directing ability to the film, but more is needed from that aspect. The only actor that shows his stuff is Hopkins, who shows everyone that he can still surprise you. With a great supporting cast and beautiful settings, the only thing that hinders "Hannibal" from being in the league of "Silence of the Lambs" is the plot.

Rating:
Summary: "Well, hello, Clarice... weren't you in 'Boogie Nights?'"
Review: After 10 years of anticipation, moviegoers around the country were hungry (pun intended) for their favorite classy cannibal to return. But after the film was released, bad word-of-mouth spread, and I was a little reluctant to pick the DVD up. But I did anyway, along with the newly released MGM edition of the original "Silence of the Lambs," which is far superior.

Anthony Hopkins, to me, seemed terribly out of character for his second outing as Hannibal Lecter. But all the fault can't lie on him, since the script isn't really that good. Jodie Foster realized this, which is why she turned down another shot at her Clarice Starling character. Julianne Moore stood in for her, and she does her job quite well, but it's just so hard to watch this film and not try to compare it to what made the original so good. Moore and Hopkins had little or no chemistry, and Jonathan Demme's go-for-broke style of filmmaking is sorely missed.

That's not to say that Ridley Scott hacked "Hannibal" up for all it was worth; it's a very beautiful looking film, but traces of "Gladiator" are rampant. Plus, the editing makes the film very confined for some reason. I like Scott as a director, but he just wasn't the right man for the job.

The only two moments of the film which really grabbed my attention was the opera scene and the notorious ending, so I'd say to at least rent the movie for those scenes alone. The DVD has plenty of extra features, but I really didn't care about the details of how this film was made. It's not a terrible movie, but it could have been much, much better.

Rating:
Summary: He's The Best!!!!
Review: I loved this movie! Anthony Hopkins is by far my favorite actor. He made us fall in love with Hannibal Lecter, even after we knew what he did. Although it was kinda far-fetched from the book, which I encourage anyone to read if they loved the movie(same goes with Silence of the Lambs)it was still just as moving. If your a hardcore romantic, who likes to find romance in anything, I suggest this movie. You will be scared to death and touched at the same time!

Rating:
Summary: Unworthy Sequel To Silence
Review: I can see why Jodi Foster turned it down.

Rating:
Summary: A VERY GOOD SEQUEL
Review: I know that there are alot of fans of the book who might just disagree but the thruth is there is no other director in the world who can make this type of a movie with style and substance.I can't even imagine The Silence Of The Lambs Jhonathan Demme doing this cos it's nothing like the first film.

You have to agree with the fact that Lecter(Hopkins) is no longer behind bars so therefore heavy locations have to be used to show the kind of life he would like to be in.Clarice Starling(Moore) also has gone through some changes and I did manage to believe the fact that she could actually shoot someone in cold blood aswell as be very intelligent,now when you put these two elements and bring in a supporting cast with the likes Gary Oldman(Verger) and Ray Liotta(Paul) makes the entire film worthwhile.

The film is detailed to all of Ridley Scotts standards and you know it instantly when the movie starts and you beemed into a mansion and while the people talk about Lecter and Starling your immediately shown a disfiguered man.I haven't seen such an exciting opening sequence since The Omen.It has some superb sets and beautiful locations and you instantly fall in love with Rome(even if you are not a cannibal).

The film centres around Clarice looking for Lector once again and leading grusome murders and mayhem Hopkins is in top form to reprise his role and I am happy to se him paly the part with a certain ease rather than another over top roayal shakespearan performance.Julianne Moore who takes over Jodie Foster is exceptionally good aswell considering Foster did win her second Oscar for this part in Silence of The Lambs.

This is not a movie for the usual action film fan nor is it for the impatient as you may have noticed that most of Ridley Scott's films take a very long time to finish.

Rating:
Summary: The Thinking Man's Guide to Lunch
Review: When "Hannibal" was released as a book, I was one of the people who lined up to buy it. At that time I felt it was a let down from "Silence of Lambs." While it was quite readable it lacked some fundamental level of excitement. Because of that I did not go see the film when it was first released. Now I find myself having mixed reactions to the DVD release, and for reasons almost the exact opposite of those I held against the book.

Don't get me wrong. The film is really much better than the book. The casting of Hopkins and Julianne as Lector and Starling is perfect. The script is riveting and all the other qualities are almost too good. In fact I would be tempted to give this every star possible except for one thing. Ridley Scott, as director, has chosen to base the film on the book, but he deviates from the novel at several key points. Scott himself admits that he was trying for a new interpretation of Lector the anti-hero.

Viewers will have to decide whether this is an issue for them. It didn't really bother me until the ending itself, which is simply not what writer Tom Harris has intended. I felt it was completely out of character with the rest of the film as well. It is clear from Scott's commentaries on the film that this ending is exactly what he wanted. Oddly enough, the extra material includes an alternative ending which I think is much better, even if it doesn't follow the book either.

What's good? Almost everything else. I've already mentioned the great acting, but what really makes the film is the great cinematography and a mindboggling score. Right from the beginning you are confronted with a film too serene and beautiful to be a simple horror movie. It has a lean and solemn poetry that, perhaps, gives us a glimpse into Lector's own mind. From out of the most nerve-wracking of pieces and fragments Scott has created a romance that has no physical components - a tragicomedy where we expected a horror film.

Despite of my dislike for the ending I still would label this film a must see. The Special Edition includes omitted scenes and trailers, Multi-Angle Vignettes, a series of 'the making of...' discussions and all the other paraphernalia of the gimmick overladen DVD issue. Two discs of shivers and fun.

Rating:
Summary: Corny Camp.
Review: Sometimes art gives us a villian that is more memorable and interesting than the hero. Witness for example the villians of STAR WARS: Darth Vader, Boba Fett, and Darth Maul; or the man-eating shark in JAWS; or Shakespeare's MacBeth or Iago. In 1991 another villian entered the collective group conscience and grew into a larger figure in the fabric of American pop culture. That villian's name is Hannibal Lecter and SILENCE OF THE LAMBS marked the beginning of his dynasty. Now he's back in a sequel that bears his name, HANNIBAL.

In the film it has been ten years since Lecter escaped from prison. He is now living in Italy as a Renaissance scholar named Dr. Fell. However, he is eager to come out of "retirement". The heroine of LAMBS, Clarice Starling, has been publicly humiliated by a botched drug raid and is put back on the Lecter case after the Justice Department gains new information concerning the cannibal's whereabouts. Starling chases the lead and the game begins anew.

Anthony Hopkins is wonderful as Lecter and Julianne Moore fills Jodie Foster's shoes well as Starling. Ridley Scott's direction is once again masterful and the other performances and crafts of the rest of the cast and crew are just as excellent.

With that said, HANNIBAL is a major disappointment. The movie starts off suspenseful, but soon falls into predictability. Sure there are a few gory twists and turns, but you know Lecter is going to escape and that he won't harm Clarice.

The movie started a controversy because of the violent, campy, gore. Certain individuals will want to see it just for those "cool" scenes. However, as much as I like Anthony Hopkins and as intriguing a character Hannibal Lecter is, the movie was a big let down. Just not enough substance.