Rating: 
Summary: Disappointed
Review: I am a huge "Silence of the Lambs" (SOTL) fan and was very disappionted when I learned the Jodi Foster would not be coming back to play Clarice in the sequal. I just knew this was going to be a great movie. I have not read the book so I had no idea what the story line would be. To say that the sequal was a let-down is an understatement. What was so great about SOTL, was the intriguing relationship between Clarice and Dr. Lector. The movie was suspensful and the story line kept you on the edge of your seat. After seeing this movie I understood completely why Jodi Foster did not replay her role as Clarice. Hannibal is an insult to the first movie. SOTL was a psychological thriller, Hannibal is nothing more than a disgusting Hollywood flop. I love action movies and don't mind the scenes where the violence gets a little gory but this movie is just gross.....VERY GROSS. The last 20 minutes of the movie are so gross that I had a hard time watching it and had to look away during some parts of it. The awesome personality of Dr. Lector in the first movie is not present in this one. Most of his scenes in the movie are him doing something disgusting. The second book was written for the sole purpose of making money. The plot is horrible....I'm sorry that I saw the movie.
Rating: 
Summary: Not worse. Just different.
Review: I don't agree that Hannibal is poor follow-up to Silence of the Lambs. In many ways it's better: has more depth, is beautifully photographed, has a Gothic horror feel to it and is a bit more, well, relaxed.
This stands up as a fine film in its own right. Long, yes, but not boring. Julianne Moore is, I think a great Clarice Starling (better I think - definitley much more sex appeal)) and her chemistry with Sir Anthony Hopkins is just right. To sum up: it's a different film to Silence of the Lambs and has a polished veneer courtesy of Ridley Scott. If Silnce was Friday night viewing then Hannibal is definitely Sunday afternoon.
Rating:
Summary: Jen Janes's thoughts on Hannibal
Review: I think that a lot of people go way too hard on Hannibal. Personally, I love it. Dr. Lecter is his usual awesome self, and Anthony Hopkins does his usual exceptional demonstration of gifted acting ability. Paul Krendler deserved whatever he got (I never liked him anyway), and I thought everything was very original. Who would have thought up man-eating boars!? Character development, which most people say sucked in Hannibal, with Clarice and the good doctor was for the most part done in Silence of the Lambs anyway, so whatever Hannibal lacked, it already had its foundation in Silence. I liked this movie very, very much.
Rating: 
Summary: One demerit for not bringing back the original Clarice ...
Review: which took a little of the edge off this movie in my eyes. There is only ONE Hannibal Lechter and thats Anthony Hopkins and there is only one Clarice and of course that's Jodie F. OKOK so I'm one of the dinasours that believes that theres only ONE James Bond and that is Sean Connery ...... Julianne Moore does an acceptabble job but she just seems to have that hardened edge of a street wise late 30's New York kind of woman. Jodie Foster, does not, she always looks counrty no matter how many guns she has in her hands..... Along the lines of mis-casting, I thought that Ray Liotta, as Clarices scheming miserable back stabbing boss, was poop.... he never convinced me as an FBI type that's for sure... The DVD is fabulous and, in most respect, true to the book. Matter of fact I preferred the movie since the ending was left wide open as compared to the book that had what I really considered was a completly shocking surprise ending. The movie also left out Mason Verger's sister almost completely ... HMMMM wonder why ... I thought she added a little intrigue to the show .... and well we won't talk about Vergers Micheal Jackson type of obsession for playing games with kids that were also omitted in the movie..... On a happy note, the pigs astounding and if they have an academy award for animals then these 550 pound beauties get my vote thats for sure .... I don't know if I would buy the movie with two major miscasts, but if you love Anthony Hokins slurping his toung while munching on fava beans the run to the store and get the DVD now .....
Rating: 
Summary: "Is It good?" "Yes it's Very Good...Open Up"
Review: I was prepared upon walking into "Hannibal" I, like everyone else had the pleasure of viewing "Silence of the Lambs" in order to prepare myself for the upcoming sequel. After watching "Silence" I was looking forward to it, and I wasn't disappotinted. Because upon watching it I realized the this was Hannibal's movie. He was no longer going to be the madman confined away, spouting eerie rhetoric. Now The cannibal is loose and you'd better brace yourself if you intend to follow him. I think the problem people had with "Hannibal" was that they were expecting another "using Hannibal to track another serial killer" movie. Well I knew that it was going to nothing of the sort. I knew that if we're tracking Hannibal, we were going to be playing an all new ball game. We follow him from Florence, Italy, living the quiet life as Museum curator Dr. Fell. Story-wise I couldn't think of a more appropriate place to find him. It was elegant, beautiful, but yet bears a darker side, traits that equate that of Hannibal Lecter. Even the movie itself has those traits. Director Ridley Scott obviously knew what he had in mind when he took on this project, because the whole film I felt as if I were peering into his being. The look of Hannibal is sleek, delicate, and intense. Ridley Scott knows how to create the atmosphere. Take for example. Probably the most standout scene in the film is the dinner scene. The camera working was simple. It didn't require Matrix-like cinematography. But the one shots were all bust shots looking at each characters from the shoulders up. It displays the energy passing between Starling, Lecter, and Krendler as the shots switch from character to character, and in the middle of it all you have sadistically slow shots of Hannibal digging into Paul Krendler's cerebrum and cooking the pieces. The sequence in itself made me squirm numerous times in my chair. It's a beutiful thing when a film can affect you in so many ways. But don't get me wrong, it wasn't just that little blip that made this film great. The film as a whole is unique in it's fashion. And tread a completely different path than the previous outing. Even Hopkins himself take the role down new avenues. Throughout "Silence" Hopkins is confined in a cell for most of the way. Well, as previously stated, HE'S OUT! Hopkins flawlessly managed to show us Lecter's taste, his style, his beaming intelligence, and ultimately his lethal nature. I was charged to watch what would ensue when Clarice and Hannibal would meet face to face, without glass in between. I was not disappointed. All of a sudden the same feelings I had watching those classic scenes from "Silence" but then there's the additional sense of Alert and caution because now he could do anything. Hannibal is an unpredictable man so don't bother trying to read him. Though the most controversial change was Julianne Moore. What controversy? She is one of modern cinema's most solid and professional actresses. Try watching her in "Magnolia" and tell me you were not moved in any way. If you weren't then you must be dead. So I knew she'd do the role justice. Fact of the matter is the nature of "Hannibal" differs from "Silence" Jodie Foster, though as talented as she is would not have fit in with the tone and the pace of "Hannibal." I feel that Moore's personality, her look and her acting ability, on the other hand fit like a glove. So I was never afraid of the role being sullied. Fact of the matter is people need to destroy any expectations, when it comes to going to see a sequel, especially when it's a sequel to one of AFI's top 100 films. But in the End "Hannibal" is a film that stands on it's own and doesn't need the hype of it's predecessor to strive. To sound like a cliche critic. "It's a thrilling, intense, emotional powerhouse that can't be missed!"
Rating:
Summary: Absolutely delicious.
Review: When I saw this movie for the very first time, on DVD,I was expecting to see a revolting piece of drivel, What I saw instead, was an excellent movie, with excellent performances all round, excellent photography, and a beautiful score. Sir Anthony Hopkins gives his usual nuanced performance, Gary Oldman is excellent as Mason Verger, and I found Julianne Moore to be eminently acceptable as a replacement for Jodie Foster in the Starling role. Giancarlo Giannini (Emperor Shaddam IV in "Frank Herbert's Dune") turns in a fine performance as the Italian detective Inspector Pazzi, and Francesca Neri (Senora Pazzi) is absolutely gorgeous. A lot has been made of the gore in this movie, but I for one didn't find it all that bad. Sure, the "dinner" scene at the end of the movie (main ingredient - Ray Liotta's brain) is somewhat disturbing, but... it's only special effects! I really don't see what the big deal was about. One of the other complaints I've seen levelled at this movie concerns Lecter's freedom of movement. After all, they say, he's supposed to be on the FBI's Ten Most Wanted List! How can such a notorious criminal just traipse around Italy the way he does in this movie? The simple answer is that, until very recently at least, foreign police agencies didn't really pay much attention to who the FBI wanted to catch. The Italian police for instance had much bigger fish to fry, namely the Mafia and the Red Brigades, just to name a couple. I can't imagine they'd be that concerned about scouring Florence for some guy who's wanted for murder and cannibalism is the United States. In summary, I enjoyed this movie more than The Silence of the Lambs. If people just ignore the negative reviews, and watch it without any particular expectations or preconceived notions stemming from Lambs, they will enjoy it.
Rating:
Summary: Well, they fixed the ending
Review: The only reason I watched this video was because it proported to have a different/better ending than the book. What I can say about Hannibal is the it is a well done movie for its genre. To be faithful to the book (which is the weakest of Harris' works) the movie depicts most of the violence and bloodshed, but Ridley Scott's direction spares the audience of most of this - working the scene the way it should be done: giving sufficient hints and gore to communicate what happened without making us watch it happen. Visual effects, blurred slow motion sequences and other techniques make the gore bearable. The exception is the final "dinner" scene that, while true to the book, is particularly disturbing and frankly without literary purpose. So there are two things to say about this work - it is spendid to watch, lovely and expertly crafted, but still unable to prop up the lacking story which in the end delivers nothing. Unlike Silence and Red Dragon there is no mystery to solve, no mcguffin, and we end the story with things just about the same. A mostly empty story that's pleasing to watch and with an ending that quenches the bitter after-taste of Harris' version.
Rating:
Summary: Decent Follow up.
Review: I think that if you enjoyed the first one you will enjoy this one. No I don't mean Red Dragon, I mean Silence of the Lambs. Anyway Hannibal is back and he is hungry, I thought the most effective suspence with the film is the whole cat and mouse game the Italian detective played with Hannibal, there were some very effective suspence building scenes. It was a little gory for my tastes but it was done in a humourous sort of way.
Rating:
Summary: Everything you hoped it isn't.
Review: "It's not thrilling enough." "I hated the ending." "The book was much better." Well -- of course! Hannibal is a five-star movie, precisely for the reasons most people seem to hate it. Silence of the Lambs was a thriller. Hannibal is a character study. So of course it isn't as thrilling. But what about the pure voyueristic thrill of spending time deep inside the skull of our favorite Good Doctor? I'll take that over a basement gunfight (ala Silence) any day. The ending. Yes, this is controversial. But the book ending (I won't give away anything here) simply couldn't be done in a movie. There's just no way for Clarice The Pursuer of the movies to make the same character leap as Clarice The Rescuer of books. Given that, you simply have to admit the new ending is clever, fun, exiting, and oh-so-appropriate. Watch it again and tell me you're not squirming, trying to decide who is predator and who is prey and who you want to "win." "The book was better." Can't argue there. Name any movie better than the book. So why should that complaint count? Watch Hannibal again.
Rating:
Summary: Not the same
Review: The makers of this film did not to justice to either the book it is based on, or its theaterical precurser, Silence of the Lambs. Its difficult not to enjoy Anthony Hopkins in any role, and particullarly that of Hannibal Lecter, but this movie was not nearly as interesting as the first. Perhaps we were expecting Jodi Foster, and instead got Julianne Moore. The DVD itself offers several alternate endings, and I was really hoping one of them would validate the movie. Don't be fooled. They are merely reshootings of the current ending, with a word or two thrown in or neglected. I suggest you rent it before you buy it.
| 
