Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: The Silence is Broken!
Review: After ten years, the good Dr. is in. This time he resides in Venice, Italy. While he enjoys the view he so wanted from the first movie: Clarice is under fire from the F.B.I. and especially from Paul Kreibler, who is an authority type figure of Clarice's and is a real sexiest pig. Her one big break comes when she receives a letter from Hannibal himself, which then brings her back on the case, trying to track Lecter down. With that add a cop whose career is going down the flusher, because he messed up on solving the Il Monstro case: a serial killer in Venice. So this inspector agreed to help capture Lecter for a certain sum of money, paid by Mason Verger. Mr. Verger is only one of two of Hannibal's victims to survive. And the only thing in is mind is vengenace. This was a good sequel to Silence, but this one focused more on gore, than Silence of the Lambs; which focused on our mind, telling us but never showing us for most parts. Hannibal is a must buy, and I would recommend the book. Reading Hannibal and watching the it, reveal that the book goes into much more details which make the story even more delicious!

Rating:
Summary: What's The Point ?
Review: 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.

Rating:
Summary: Anthony Hopkins reprises Hannibal
Review: Hannibal is well made and thanks to Anthony Hopkins again playing Hannibal Lecter I get what I want. I understand that this might be a movie that many find disgusting or bad and that's fine. But trying to say that this was the sequel to the original "The Silence of the Lambs" is wrong, both as a movie and as a book.

The first book and film was "Red Dragon" filmed under the name "Manhunter" with Brian Cox (Braveheart) as Hannibal Lecter (retitled Lecktor in this film) and it is actually a pretty good adaptation of that first book. As with the second one, everybody knows that Anthony Hopkins made for one of the most memorable and dangerous serial killers in motion picture history so I don't blame that most people think of this as the real original. But what happened with the adaptation of "S.O.T.L" was that it actually became better then the book. More linear and fast paced. Now, "Hannibal" became much more violent and offensive as a book then compared to "S.O.T.L" but this is toned down in the movie. (If you don't belive me, read the book.) And "S.O.T.L" became more violent as a film. (Once again, if you don't believe me, read that book.)

So, is "Hannibal" a good film, yes, I would say so. But it isn't a good enough adaptation. It takes away some of the characters which could have made for a more important movie and it also takes away Hannibals background and the original ending. The only thing that I didn't like with the film was Julianne More as Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster is still much better). "Hannibal" lives on thanks to Anthony Hopkins once again being able to play the title role. The book is better.

Rating:
Summary: READ THE BOOK, THE ENDING KICKS ...
Review: First off, I absolutely hate Ridley Scott. His fetish for the acid trip-like dream sequences is annoying and usually they don't fit into the rest of his cinematography. That wasn't what really ruined this film. What did it in was the fact that it followed the novel beautifully until the last 3 or so chapters, when someone had the horrible idea of changing the ending! In the novel, Hannibal and Clarice just happen to run off together. She never tries to escape, he never cuts off his hand. It's supposed to end as if there will not be another sequal. But no, someone, be it Scott or whoever did the screenplay, didn't have the sack to use that ending. It would be too offensive for the public to handle, so it was changed so Hannibal still looks evil and Clarice still looks like the good "guy". In Hollywood, good and evil can not merge, it's just against all rules of filmmaking, right? Someone shouldn't have been as concerned with their paycheck, and more concerned with making a true adaptation of a novel.

Rating:
Summary: It was good, but....
Review: Definitely a good movie, great acting from Hopkins (Lecter), Oldman(Verger) and Moore(Starling). I have no clue why people are comparing it with "Silence.." or "Manhunter", agreed Hannibal Lecter is glorified, while in the previous one's he is more of a personification of evil, but this movie was about Lecter, who else do you want to be glorified Verger.

As, I was reading the reviews, one writer said the concept of man-eating pigs was taken from the movie "Snatch", get your facts correct, the book contains the concept, all Ridley Scott did is use it.

The other comment, too much gore, well again blame the book, that in fact contains more detailed gore.

The places that I felt were short-coming of this movie, were in the character development of the character played by Ray Liotta (Krendler), the book depicts him to be a totally sleazy and slime ball, it also details out the reason he has a grudge against and what exactly does he consider her to be?? But the movie didn't actually delve too deeply in Krendler's characterisation and resulting, a good actor like Liotta was wasted.

The other area, was no Margot Verger, Mason's sister, that was a colossal disappointment for me, that would have given the movie a more meaningful ending.

Hence, I would say its a good movie, but not a great one. You want to see Hannibal, forget the Lecter of Silence and embrace the Lecter of Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Talk about not meeting the hype
Review: This movie did not even begin to meet the hype that it was given. Infact, I am almost convinced that Silence of the Lambs was an accident. Manhunter was bad and Hannibal was worse. The story in this movie made little sense to me. The entire last sequence with Ray Liota was just simply for shock value and to me added absolutely ZERO to the plot or the story line. Another funny thing is this. When the police arrived at the end Jullianne Moore had no handcuffs on even though the keys to them were missing and Hannibal had to cut off his own hand to get away. Overall this movie was a complete miss. Silence of the Lambs is the premier movie in this series. Infact, it is the only one worth watching.

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal
Review: Granted I'm tired with the phrase the book was better. However, in this case the movie did a grave injustice to the character Clarice. What happened to her in the book was the best surprise ending I have read or seen in a long time and the movie made sure to change it and ruin the spirit of the novel; in order to ensure that sequels will follow. But what else should we expect from Dino De Laurentis. Ridley Scott was shown up in the Alien series and he dropped the ball again here too.

Rating:
Summary: The murders compete with one another for grossness
Review: In this sequel to "The Silence of the Lambs," Anthony Hopkins is still Hannibal Lecter. He has escaped and is living in a dark and decadent Italy. People use cell phones and computers but the theme is the same. Only now there are many more murders, each competing with each other for grossness. Hopkins' performance is good, but this is not a surprise. He has been so typecast as a villain that it doesn't seem like he's acting.

Julianne Moore plays Clarice Starling. Alas, she is no actress. Her performance is wooden. But then again the writing didn't create much sympathy for her character. Ray Liotta is also in this film, over-playing his role as a manipulative FBI chief. Ridley Scott did a good job of directing. There was constant action and the scenes all contained the shock value which was intended. Good cinematography too.

All that said, my feelings about this movie can be summed up in one word: "YUCK". It was mildly interesting to me just to see how far a film can go to shock audiences. I sure couldn't fall asleep in this one. But unless you, like me, are just curious, I'd recommend you avoid this one.

Rating:
Summary: Nothing To Sink Your Teeth Into
Review: I'm sure most people will agree with me that "Silence of the Lambs" was one of the greatest movies of all time. Be reassured, this movie was not! It was boring, all of the scenes just dragged on and on and on. What could've been a repeat of "Scilence" turned out to be a big flop. Ridley Scott amazes with "Gladiator", don't expect the same from this. What turned out to be a 2 hour 20 minute movie should've been about 50 minutes long. BORING! (The only thing that made me give it 2 stars were a few cool death scenes, in case you were wondering.)

Rating:
Summary: Don't compare "Silence" with "Hannibal"
Review: The first mistake critics and audiences made with Hannibal is comparing it to "Silence of the Lambs." It can't be done. "Silence" was an academy award winner in virtually every meaningful category...It was a masterpeice. "Hannibal" is not "Silence", and should not be compared to it. Obviously if you compare the two, it just doesn't measure up. You have to look at "Hannibal" as its own film rather than a sequel. If you look at it like that you will find that "Hannibal" is a very well written, acted, and directed movie. Give it a chance and take a second look and don't think about "Silence" for awhile. I think you'll enjoy it more.