Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Far Too Violent
Review: The beauty of Silence of the Lambs was that most of the tension was psychological.
The flaw of this movie is that the 'terror' of the movie relied on visualizing the violence, it did so in excruciating detail, designed more to sicken the viewer than scare them.

Ick.

Rating:
Summary: Sick, disgusting...I loved it!
Review: I loved "Silence of the Lambs", the one of the handful of movies that scares the living daylights out of me. I read the book while the film version was still in its early stages. I was totally grossed out by what I read and I don't say that about just any book. The film version gave me the chills, not to mention repulsed me on the same level the novel did. I loved "Hannibal". Granted that I would have loved to have seen Jodie Foster reprise her classic film role, Julianne Moore gave a stellar performance as Clarice Sterling. I thought she was perfect for Jodie's replacement. "Hannibal" may not be nearly as perfect as "Silence of the Lambs" in terms of quality, I still found it thoroughly engaging and entertaining. Ray Liotta's performance as that jerk Paul Krendler was just perfect. His character was a jerk in the book and a bigger jerk in the movie. Anthony Hopkins was and is Hannibal Lechter. He was still riveting and compelling to watch as he was in "Silence of the Lambs". Gary Oldman as Mason Verger was priceless. He really gave me the creeps in the movie as the vengeful victim of Hannibal Lechter. For the most part, the movie stays faithful to the novel however for anyone who read the book before seeing the movie, you see the holes in the movie. Still it is rather difficult to make a film adaptation of a novel and keep it within a 2 hour limit. Despite the critics' desparaging reviews about the movie, I loved it and thought it was a worthy follow-up to a classic thriller.

Rating:
Summary: compelling film undone by grisly last third
Review: **1/2 Journey with us back into the dankest recesses of the human psyche in Ridley Scott’s “Hannibal,” the long awaited sequel to “The Silence of the Lambs,” one of the darkest films ever to be awarded a Best Picture nod by the Motion Picture Academy of Arts and Sciences. In pop culture terms, Hannibal Lector has, of course, become the modern incarnation of implacable evil. Not only do his cannibalistic acts represent the ultimate in human moral debasement and degradation, but his seeming indestructibility makes him all that much more horrifying. His escape at the end of the first film served as a perfect setup for this sequel, as we find Lector living a life of seeming “normalcy” in Florence, Italy, just waiting for the proper moment to come out of “retirement.” That moment arrives when Clarice Starling, the FBI agent who helped to save Hannibal’s last victim, is suddenly in the news again after an abortive and disastrous attempt to arrest a major criminal ends in the death of a number of her fellow officers. Lector begins communicating with Clarice again, vowing to restart the game of intellectual cat-and-mouse he so enjoyed in the previous film.

For most of its running time, “Hannibal” is a pretty enticing thriller. Anthony Hopkins repeats the brilliant work he did in “Lambs,” making this most evil of movie villains both chillingly unreachable and bizarrely compelling. With his clipped diction and often-incisive glimpses into the dark truths of the human psyche, he keeps the audience as emotionally off-balance as he does Clarice herself. Indeed, we understand why she is both repelled and strangely attracted to this man. Julianne Moore, who replaces Jody Foster in the role she originated ten years ago, brings an impressive reticence and hesitancy to this woman caught between her moral dictates and her desire to know more about the evil she is confronting. In fact, apart from this explanation, many of her actions later in the film would be inexplicable unless we were to consider her utterly incompetent at her job. My suspicion is that the filmmakers have something deeper in mind. In addition, writers David Mamet and Steven Zaillan have created an interesting subplot involving Giancarlo Giannini as an Italian detective who uncovers Hannibal’s identity and thinks he can outsmart the devilish mastermind, capture him, turn him over to the authorities and make a fortune by collecting the reward money. Giannini perfectly captures the subtle nuances that define this extraordinarily complex character, a man made up of many different, even conflicting moods and motives.

So far, so good. But then - inevitably perhaps with material of this nature - the filmmakers cannot resist going overboard into downright incredibility and gruesomeness as the film approaches its denouement. Even those familiar beforehand with the tenor of this story may well be appalled by some of the turns the film takes in its latter stages. In the past, one used to encounter scenes like these only in low budget exploitation films like “The Texas Chainsaw Massacre.” Now they are being fed – pardon the pun – to mass audiences in the guise of slickly marketed “entertainment.” Poor Ray Liotta – I will never be able to look at him from here on out without seeing him in the condition he ultimately ends up in at the close of this film. It is an image too indelible to ever be completely forgotten and goes well beyond the pale even for a film on this nasty a subject area. Moreover, whereas the first film ended on a note of clever, albeit macabre black humor, “Hannibal” closes with a scene that is simply sickening in its unbridled grotesquerie.

Of course, complaining about the level of gruesomeness in a film about a serial cannibal may smack one as a bit of a Pollyanish stance for a knowledgeable viewer to take. Still, the first two-thirds of the film, in which the writers and director exercise an admirable amount of restraint, prove that this material can be even more effective when it is dealt with through indirection than when it is all laid out for us in such grisly, graphic detail. There is much to recommend “Hannibal,” but unless you have a cast iron stomach and a very short memory span, you may well want to skip out before the final curtain is finally wrung down on the scene. That is if you ever want to eat again.

Rating:
Summary: Robin Hood of the World Cuisine
Review: Sir Anthony I love you again! After "LAmbs" I had enough of you, your mannerism was as borin as Gene Hakman's mannerism after "Unforgiven". But now Hopkins improved what seemed to be unimprovable!!
Did anybody recognize gary Oldman before cast was shown?? I would have bet it was Bruce Dern; he is now so ugly and old, that he would not have needed make up. Oldman's "performance" is as senseless as deVitto's "acting" in penguin costume in "Batman"... speaking of Batman, both Hannibal and Mason resemble Riddler a little bit, and a film is marred by these flaws as well as by clumsy ending - Hannibal's Hudini-like escape. But because this is one of two best films in 2001 (Amelie is the first), I give 5 stars...
Mamet wrote again a good script, and he followed the rules of the genre, and now we have the real thriller... He also "transcribed" the profound Harris' book to the motion pictures as much he could, within the limits of A-produstion, and the new spirit of time 1990s...
Julianne Moore was O.K., but she could have ben replaced by Nicole Kidman and Lindsey Frost.
Giancarlo Giannini was unbelievable good!
Francesca Neri showed her legs and feet (unlike Moore - I wonder why??), and no Italian beautiful woman can do any harm to a pictures...
Ray Liotta has just repeated himself from J. Demmie's "Something Wild" from mid1980s; he wasn't insipred at all.
Zimmer's music enchanting.
I would pint to clever parrallesm between Starlig and Kommendatore Pazzi: she washes baby covered with blood, while he washes his hands in Florence's fountain, after hee took a bracelet from dying pickpocket; thanks to Mamet this parallelism can be developed further througout the whole film. Hannibal had to become a little bit "gayish" in the harmony with new spirit of time, Clarise had to become at least spiritual aristocrat by the means of tumbler-pigeon metaphor, and TWO IDEAS WITH ONE BIRDS, two birds with one stone, mamet showed idea from the book - genetical predilections an redemption in the connection with great research on Italian art history and biblical motiffs...
Foster-type of outsiders had no chance.
Great film, greta book.

Rating:
Summary: Vile!
Review: The most repulsive film I've seen in a long time. You'd be better off just watching a 'snuff movie'. I've seen less disturbing and appalling material on the internet, and that's saying something. Not only was the violence gratuitous and sickening but the film was an insult to any intelligent moral person. Unlike the first film there was no story or plot, just the psycho Hannibal endlessly flirting with that most useless FBI agent 'Clarice', who does absolutely nothing in the whole film except sit on her arse, until the very end when she 'saves' the animal hannibal from a group of people who had every right to murder him. She should have been shooting him, not them. Then there was the ludicrously unbelievable fact that nobody ever seems strong enough to put up a fight against this short, tubby, bald man in his late 50's. But most insulting of all was the whole premise of this film. That this repugnant guy is supposed to be our 'hero'. That we're supposed to admire him and that all his poor victims got what they deserved. Personally I detested him and clarice and sympathised with his victims, but then maybe, unlike most of the other reviewers here, I've got a soul. My fellow Britons Ridley Scott and Anthony Hopkins have really gone down in my estimation after this foul film. Even the final scene on the plane was particularly twisted. Whoever thought up this film needs psychiatric help. I read with utter disbelief the comments by 'trevelyanmi6' of Salt Lake City who regards this film, and the animal hannibal in particular, as "beautiful and romantic". God almighty, If he's your idea of beautiful and romantic I'd hate to see your idea of a villain. I wouldn't want to bring you home for dinner. You probably would'nt think it 'romantic' enough - not unless brains were on the menu! You're the sort of person who writes to convicted psycho's like Manson, Dahlmer etc offering them your hand in marriage.

Rating:
Summary: Awesome!
Review: This is a great movie. It's full of suspense, action, drama, everything you might ever want in a movie.

Buy it today! It's a classic!

Rating:
Summary: Why Clarice...
Review: I thought this movie was spectacular. Ridley Scott did a great job with the film location and the directing. Anthony Hopkins, yet again, did a great job as the bone-chilling Dr. Hannibal Lector. I also believe Julianne Moore did a good job acting out Clarice Starling. The Italy scenes were wonderful and Mason's home was beautiful. The movie had some spots that were gory but what can you do, it helped in understanding those parts. So if you dont want to make Hannibal mad, go buy this movie which has a great dvd. The dvd includes just about 15 deleted scenes, multi-angle views of how they shot certain scenes, behind-the-scenes featurettes, and much much more. It's the best two-disc dvd this year(2001)!

Rating:
Summary: bit disappointing.
Review: I watched this movie after reading the novel. May be this is why I was a bit dissappointed. I would be a fool to compare a movie with the novel it is based on. But about Hannibal I would say this: I actually miss Hannibal himself in this movie. The book presents a mind place or memory place created inside Hannibal's head which is completely omitted in this movie. The makeup of Mason disappointed me. The description in the book moved me more and really the gShock comes with the recognition that this is a human face with a mind behind it.h This is not the case in this movie. Anthony Hopkins is my favorite actor and I wonder if anyone could play the Hannibal role better. Julian Moore was okay. But I think the silence of the lambs was far better in every aspect and the present movie cannot stand for a sequel to that.

Rating:
Summary: Misses the essense of Harris' novel
Review: I am not one to expect Hollywood to follow a book's plot to the letter. In fact I am usually openminded with movie portrayals of novels as long as they remain true to the ESSENCE of the story. Unfortunately, the writer of this screenplay was obviously unable to comprehend Harris' work.The novel _Hannibal_ is essentially the story of Dr. Hannibal Lecter's redemption. It is not a tale of morality nor is it another tale of good vs. evil. In the novel we, the readers, come to learn exactly WHY Dr. Lecter is a cannibal. Sure, at first glance we can label him evil because of what he does. However, is what a person DOES really an indication of what they ARE? Annoyingly, Lecter's past, one of the most important plot points, is an element totally ignored in the film. In fact, Hollywood decided to sanitize the story to the point where it is barely recognizable except for the action and violence sequences. For instance, Mason Verger's character in the movie, though hideous and hateful, is nothing like the vile monster in the book. In the movie, Verger is portrayed as having reformed and given up his pedophilic ways. In the novel he still abuses children though not physically... but just as horribly. And his ultimate demise in the movie was not quite as satifying as the book's.The ending is another big problem in the movie. What happens to Starling in the movie is a far cry from the fascinating interaction that Harris intended. Yes, Dr. Lecter 'counsels' her in an attempt to manipulate her, but it backfires and they are both healed... and they discover that underneath everything they are the same. All that aside, do you honestly believe Hannibal, being the genius he is, would leave a working telephone anywhere that Clarice could get to it? Puh-lease! (Because of the way this movie ended I expect a string of straight-to-video gorefests detailing the further adventures of Dr. Lecter.)I'm sure you've noticed that inspite of my critical review I gave this DVD 4 stars. Well, to be honest, I did like this movie. For the acting and cinematography, the movie deserves three stars. Except for the choice of Ray Leoda to play the sleaze (I'm sorry but that gorgeous man can sexually harass me anytime he likes, they should have gotten someone like Christopher Walken to play the part... he would have been believable) I thought the cast was perfect, even without Jodie Foster. The extra star is for all the extra "good stuff" on the DVD.Is this movie worth watching? Yes! But it lacks the depth and emotion that made me love the novel.

Rating:
Summary: a very deacent film
Review: Hannibal is not as good as it's preddesessor The Silence Of The Lambs, but is still a very worthy sequal and very deacent deacent film. When I saw it the first time I wasn't very impressed. I didn't think it had a very strong plot. After veiwing it a second time though, had different feelings I payed a little bit more attention and by the end was pleased. You have to realize the plot is in the title "HANNIBAL" and that is exactly what it is about just Hannibal Lecter. This is a film for those who are interested in Hannibal Lecter and wanted to see more of him after "The Silence Of The Lambs."They threw in the plot to keep it interesting this might not have been the novelists goal but it was the sense of the movie. Their are memorable lines like in The silence Of the Lambs. So for those of you who are interested in hannibal ,which I am, should enjoy this film. I warn you though If you got sick during the first film or thought it was to gory do not see this film. It has a few degrees more gore than silence of the lambs and can be bad for those of you who have weak stomachs. Besides that it is a good movie andI advise you to see it.