Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: It just doesn't make sense
Review: When this movie came out I just knew I had to watch it. I expected to see a thriller that would make me have nightmares for days. What I saw was pure crap.
This just doesn't make any sense AT ALL. Wild boars? Give me a break, that is just so absurd and pointless. It's just like the old and boring Batman TV series in which the villains tried to kill Batman with the most bizarre and stupid methods. I just laughed during the entire movie.
The only thing I liked? The brain thing. It actually sucked but hey, after an hour and a half of crap any change is good.

Rating:
Summary: Expecting another "Silence"? Don't apply here...
Review: "Silence of the Lambs" was one of the great movies of the decade, complete with superb acting, a solid script, fabulous directing, and just an all-around good crew. It won several oscars, including best picture, actor and actress. The movie was chilling thanks to the greatest performance of Anthony Hopkins' career, and poignant and redeeming thanks to Jodie Foster's.
But "Hannibal" has a different director, a new Starling, but the same old Hopkins. It has a distinctly un-American feel to it, what with the very un-American Lecter and the slimy Paul Krendler (played well by a paunchy Ray Liotta) and mishappen Mason Verger (Gary Oldman).
And though Lecter seems a ghost of his former self, one gets the feeling he's gotten soft since his heyday of the great escape, there are times when flashes of his old self are visible.
Overall, a worthwhile movie, with different themes than "Silence"...don't come expecting the latter and you won't be disappointed.

Rating:
Summary: Make That Four-And-A-Half Stars
Review: By now we know this is not on par with Lambs. Let's estabilsh this right now. Don't argue with me, you know I'm right.

But you've got to admire Ridley Scott's brass for even thinking about taking on the sequel to one of history's most memorable movies! And you have to be in awe of Julianne Moore's brass as well, for taking on what is one of cinema's most perfect performances - Jodie Foster as Clarice Starling.

For the most part, it works, but this movie skirts constantly on the border of parody. Hannibal Lector, as played by Anthony Hopkins, is probably TOO much of a superman. If this monster really existed, he'd never be captured, he's too damned smart. It's almost unbelievable in Lambs, and really IS unbelievable in Hannibal.

But the film is so skillfully made that you almost don't notice. And Anthony Hopkins has so much fun that it's infectious. This isn't brilliant acting on his part. It's much easier to play this part than what he does in Remains of the Day, but Hannibal is so fun. Never have we had such an elegant serial killer. Never has a fiend been so attractive.

I love Julianne Moore as much as Jodie Foster. She does a lot with the role, more than the script displays. I'm glad Jodie didn't do it this time, because it's not as good a part. Silence was about Clarice, Hannibal is more about Hannibal. I prefer Clarice's story. But I love Moore, I love Anthony, and I really like Ridley Scott. This is a fun, and very WIGGLY movie. Much more visceral than Lambs, if you know what I mean.

Sure, it skirts the border between parody and horror, but it pulls it off with a little tongue-in-cheek. This is skillful entertainment by people at the top of their crafts. Never has such a hideous movie been so much fun.

Rating:
Summary: The Cannibal
Review: "Hannibal" has to be the most twisted and sick movies that has ever been produced. That is not necessarily a bad thing. The vivid images captured on film in "Hannibal" will stick in my mind for the rest of my life. The whole movie was absolutely intriguing. Dr. Lecter is the most complex character in recent memory. He comes across as brutal, but at the same time, hilarious. I give this movie a raving "thunbs up!"
"Hannibal" is about an FBI agent named Clarice Starling tracking down the escaped mass-murderer, Hannibal Lecter. Mason Verger, one of Lecter's victims, also looks for Lecter for the purpose of revenge. This is the sequel to the film, "The Silence of the Lambs." It is difficult for a sequel to surpass the original, but "Hannibal" has come to a par with the original. The characters are much more interesting this time around.
Why is "Hannibal" so twisted? This is a question that I have had a lot of difficulty answering. By the end of the movie, you find yourself hoping that nothing happens to the doctor. Lecter commits gruesome acts of violence, yet he is irresistible as a person. He is not a bad person, just seriously demented. Dr. Lecter only harms people when he sees them as a drain on society. He is doing the world a favor by eating these "horrible" people. All of Lecter's murders have a reason behind the madness. Mason Verger was Hannibal Lecter's fourth victim, and a child molester. Mason used his smile to entice the little ones, so Lecter coerced him to feed that smile to the dog--in a scene that defies all imagination.
Hannibal Lecter is my favorite character of all time. Lecter spouts quick-witted comments to go with his deeds. His brand of humor is something that I have never seen before. Lecter makes it easy to laugh when someone is being mutilated, very graphically, on screen. This is not an easy thing to accomplish.
Anthony Hopkins gives a performance that embodies Dr. Lecter's character like no one else could. His performance is again fit for an Academy Award. Julianne Moore plays Clarice Starling in a less than perfect performance. In some of the scenes she seems too cocky, and cockiness hasn't characterized Clarice Starling's personality from either the first movie or the two books.
A major point that stuck out in "Hannibal" was the vivid depiction of the murders. Without the graphic nature of these scenes, "Hannibal" would have been a different movie. With these inages we are taken to the brink of insanity, the realm of Dr. Lecter. In this case, the violence is necessary to introduce a theme; "Sinners beware; Dr. Lecter is here."
There is no better entertainment that I can think of than to spend a night than in the grips of madness with the best-played character of all time. "Hannibal" is a movie that taxed my brain to no end. I think that everybody should see the derangement of Hannibal Lecter to see a new side of human nature. Hannibal is a film that I will be thinking about for a long time. If that doesn't denote a good movie, than I do not know what could.

Rating:
Summary: Excellent!
Review: Ridley Scott's Hannibal is a film lover's film. The cinematography is eye candy, the score is brilliant, the acting superb, and the story hooks you right in. Recently viewing Silence of the Lambs again, I feel that Silence and Hannibal strive to be two totally different films. Jonathan Demme's opus was more about mood and psychological havoc, where Ridley Scott's is more about the scenery, physical pain, and shcoking suspense. Both films are brilliant in their own respects. But I find that Hannibal is more stylish and sleek. it has more showmanship pulsing through its maniacal veins. I can't praise the cinematography enough. I love every moment the film is in Italy. This will gain the respect it deserves in time. Virtually panned by many critics, this is destined to have itself a cult status. It is marvelous. Ridley Scott never ceases to impress me. Bravo!

Rating:
Summary: Jodie Foster Skipped Making This Movie for a Reason!
Review: I went to see this movie because "The Silence of the Lambs" was so great--the suspense, the acting, the atmosphere. Then, after a decade, they decided to make this sequel. Jodie Foster Passed as should anyone else who may think this is going to be anywhere close to the edge-of-your-seat presence that "Silence" had.

This film is all about gore. It's about how much blood can be splashed around the scenery, how many body parts can be thrown about, how many bodies can be cut up.

There is no real plot other than a millionaire, who happens to be one of Hannibal's few surviving victims, who searches and captures Lechter. Don't fret, Agent Starling (played unconvincingly in this film by a forgettable famous actress) saves him. He gets away in a nick of time, though, due to her stupidity (yes, stupidity--in "Silence" Starling was a bit naive, here she's just plain stupid), obviously hoping for another sequel (which is in the works).

If you liked SOTL for it's story, plot, characterizations, and believablility, then you will surely detest this film. I only with there was a zero on the scale.

Rating:
Summary: Its Just Not The Same
Review: Hannibal has an entertaining story line, but when compared to its predecessor, Silence of the Lambs, it just doesn't stack up.

One problem is that Anthony Hopkins acts too much like Anthony Hopkins and not the evil Hannibal Lecter we met in the first movie. This movie just isn't dark enough. It has the requisite gratuitous violence, but not the creepiness.

Silence of the Lambs made me feel uncomfortable. It was eerie and dark throughout; the movie had a sombre tone. That tone is missing in Hannibal. Dr. Lecter seems to have lost some of his pizazz in this movie.

It could have been better, soooo much better, but it isn't. Rent this movie, don't buy it. It is worth watching if you've seen Silence of the Lambs.

Rating:
Summary: Well...expectations were high
Review: When this film was released, every went expecting to be disappointed. Every was upset that there was no Jodie Foster, who was so excellent in 'Silence Of The Lambs'. Everyone had thought that Hannibal's role itself had become a little too camp. Everyone was worried about the ending...

Well, I went with everyone of those thoughts in my head and was very surprised. For one, I'm a fan of Julianne Moore and I'm not going to hear anything bad about her. The role she plays is very different to the one that Foster played in that for 'Hannibal' the anti-hero and heroine are kept apart throughout the majority of the movie. Although this makes for a lack of sexual chemistry until the very end, this fault is mostly that of the book and not that of the directors or actors. Still, I do confess to preferring Jodie Foster. Or perhaps I just liked the film better.

As for Hannibal himself. He's fairly likeable, which means that he's not remotely scary. Just funny. He is not remotely creepy here and his role has been severely watered down. Any part of the movie where you find yourself hiding behind your hands will be on account of gratuitous gore that punctuates the entire movie.

As for the ending, let's just say it's changed. It's not exactly satisfactory, but it's a great deal better than the cop-out at the end of the book. At the end of the day though, everyone was bound to like 'The Silence Of The Lambs' better. Ridley Scott did well to salvage anything from this. He's a talented director and he's employed talented actors. However, entertaining and quite absorbing at times as this is, it's not a patch on the prequel. It fades quickly from the memory but it's good whilst it lasts.

Rating:
Summary: Rarely Brilliant
Review: Shockingly excellent. Many people have put this film down, because they are comparing it with Silence of the Lambs. Yes, they are both brilliant movies but are completly different. You have got to see.

Rating:
Summary: Boring gore, nonsensical plot
Review: The gore in this movie is lame. I cannot fathom why some have a problem with it. The movie never felt believable for a second so why would anyone think the rubber and red sauce meant anything? Do you freak out when you see those rubber things on halloween?

Why the heck (...) is Hannibal magical, could someone tell me that? He gets away with absolutely ANYTHING, handles every situation with supernatural control and precision, not to mention always defying the limits of time, physics, and all that... It's boring. I did not feel a lick of suspense watching this movie. Add to that the fact the Hannibal is a man (...) who degrades and tortures every human being for no reason, with only the pretense of having some cultured ammoral mind -- well nothing adds up, and it is not worth watching. It doesn't horrify, doesn't really intrigue, just gives the impression of... stupidity. This is all really dumb.

This is a real piece of hollywood, served up on by the book production values and nothing else.