Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Extremely weak story... Shame on you Hollywood...
Review: This is my explanation concerning "Hannibal". I totally dislike stories that are not plausible. Make no sense. Are just put together to justify another means.

Lecter came back to America to "help" Starling out with her dilemma regarding her suspension. Like he could really do anything. It makes more sense for him to have returned because of his "love" for her. Which he is. Now the infamous "dinner scene" was just an insult to my intelligence. First off, he "fixes" up Clarice and her bullet wound. Fine. Gave the appropriate drugs to help her pain and healing. She wakes up and finds, very nice and neat, on the desk all her stuff. Cuffs, money...etc. Too convienent. Lecter disconnects the phone because he knew Clarice's nature would be to try to call the police. Why did he not just rip the phone off the wall to ensure no outside intruders? He just disconnected it where a child could put it together very easily. Clarice make the call to the cops and that limits Lecter from having "quality" time with her, which he has been aching to have. Remember, he does love her in his own sick way. He literally has only minutes to be with her before he has to escape. WHY? He is so smart and in love with her. He would never let that happen where she would call for help. He wants to eat the guy's brain and talk with Clarice. If he is to convince her to love him, without the use of drugs, he needs TIME...period. Time he did not allow himself to have.

Now the cops are on their way. Time is short. He traps her with her hair and the fridge and ask if she could ever love him. The OBVIOUS answer is NO, NO, NO. Why would she? Dumb on Lecter's part. Makes no sense. He needed time and or drugs to get his way with Clarice. So he can hear the answer he longs for. If "no" is the obvious answer, maybe he never should of come to America, but I will talk about that in detail a little later in this writing. Let me go back a little now.

In "The Silence of the Lambs", the thing that I liked a lot about Jodie Foster's performance is that she was respectful of Lecter but, immensely afraid of him. Even between 6 to 10 inches of glass or steel bars separating them. She feared Lecter, which made me fear Lecter. Watch the movie again and see what I mean. Total fear yet controlled and respectful. I was scared everytime she spoke with him. In "Hannibal", Clarice is actually face to face with her worst nightmare and totally unafraid. This guy would in a second eat your face off and she attacks him like he is the bully neighbor you grew up with. She was drugged, I understand, but she was relentless the whole time. If a big dog chased me and I had a gun, I am brave because of the weapon yet I still would be afraid. The foreign cop guy in the beginning of the movie was afraid of him but, very greedy and it cost him his life. A great performance by him by the way. Clarice tried to get him with a knife and fist and then cuffs. She was relentless. It made me not afraid of Lecter. We all should be. He is capable of ANYTHING.

Finally, Lecter escapes by mere moments from the police, minus one left hand. We are talking moments. Seconds. He is on the 10 most wanted list. Everyone in America is after him. All the airports have his picture, the state line, the damn Mexican border. His likeness is out there plus the now distinguishing mark of a missing left hand. Yet, he is able to board a plane for overseas, no problem. I am to assume he is on the plane days later after the dinner scene. It's not like he was in hiding for a while to let the "heat" die down. No disguise and no left hand to the airport for a flight overseas. I defy you to walk across the street after robbing the local 7-11 and get you hand cut off and be able to board a plane for anywhere. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID. That part makes no sense. Even if he dressed like a priest, all people with cast, or splints, or missing left hands would be questioned by airport officials.

I like the beginning of the movie. It's after he arrived to America, the movie goes downhill. The writers take liberties and assume we must be on the slow side.

Here is an overview: 1) Lecter comes to America to help Clarice. (The writers needed a reason for Lecter to be in America to fight Gary Oldman's character, Mason Verger.) 2) Let's Clarice call the cops. (Writers needed a reason for him to flee the scene rapidly and escape for a another possible sequel.) 3) He asks Clarice if she could love him? ( This one the writers put there to explain the reason why he came for her. Bad choice as I have explained earlier. She is gonna say no. Why should she say yes? Hence, he never should of come to america or he should kidnap Clarice to have her do his bidding. ) 4) Clarice not being the least bit afraid. (Bad acting choice by Ms. Moore.) 5) Lecter's quick, "one handed" escape. (See #2) The writer's needed to wrap everything up nice and neat. "Let's make our opening weekend $59,000,000 and run to the bank." Whatever happened to solid stories and character motivations? By the way, him cutting off his hand is PROOF that he loved her. DEFINITIVE PROOF.) 6) All that extra gore was cool, but I believe that the writer's mentality is: "People will talk about the excessive gore more than they will about the weak plot points the movie has." There are many. Ask anyone about the movie and what is the first thing said? You know that answer. Gore, gore, brains and more gore.

I like stories that make sense. Please make sense. Keep it simple and honest and consistent to real life regardless of the extreme circumstances.

Rating:
Summary: Doesn't stand on its own
Review: My biggest problem with this movie is that it requires you to read the book to make sense out of it. Neither Silence of the Lambs or Manhunter required to read the book to follow the story satisfactory. I read the book and was able to understand what was going own but my father left the movie not understanding much of the details from the story like- why was Mason so hung on pigs? or what was that whole Il Monstro they mentioned and let go? The movie also changed so much near the end that it makes no sense. Mason's end makes no sense since they never used his character's sister for the movie (it looks like Hannibal developed some Jedi mind power at the end this way). Many important facts like the why Pazzi was acting that way make no sense without seeing the book since so many vital clues are given quickly in a one linner that most people miss or find no connection to anything.

When I read the book I thought it was good but impossible to make a movie out of it. The story required a very deep analysis of too many characters to work in less than three hours. I think Ridley Scott realized that and choose a more visual approach to the material. That makes the material more [unfulfilling] though and Hannibal lost so much of his charm in his movie (you see that's going to happen by how he deals with the initial gunfight). In Silence of the Lambs when he (Lecter) talked he appeared to understand Clarice in a dangerous and painful way. In this movie he just mumbles on and on with no impact (this is more due to the way the scenes were cut than to Hopkins acting). But as someone said before we just see so much of Lecter that he loses his charm... instead of a line about eating livers his great one liner in this movie seems to be Okey dokey!? The movie is certainly really [graphic]. I guess they were trying to give the movie something memorable... the dinner scene requires you to take the kids out of the room.

Maybe the in the DVD they can add extra scenes that would flesh out the characters a little bit more (specially anything dealing with Lecter's youth that they removed completely from the movie and is crucial in the book).

Rating:
Summary: reviews are ok, but....
Review: reviews are ok but, sometimes they tell too much. By this I mean, they tell too much that when you do see the movie you are anticipating what you read instead of being totally surprised. I would ask that you not tell as much. Leave more for the imagination. Good idea though.

Rating:
Summary: deserves more credit then it gets
Review: You know what im sick and tired of? reading bad reviews for "Hannibal" on the net or in the paper. it was "a dissappointment" here and it was "done poorly" there. My God--it wasn't as bad as all those critics are saying it was. What they lack to mention is the fact that MOST sequels are not as good as it's previous movie. There are two things im reading that people are most dissappointed with: Julianne Moore taking Jodie Foster's place, and when Lecter fried Krendler's brain. So Foster didn't play Clarice Starling--big deal! I actually think it took balls for Moore to go up there and play her after Foster's Oscar-winning performance in "Silence". She did very well too. You have to admit, only she could've pulled off wearing that dress in the end. Everyone's disturbed with the fact that Lecter fried the brains. it was in the book, for christ's sake! Actually, the book went further: Lecter cut four slices and he, Krendler AND Starling eat those pieces! The writers were just following the book. I can't stand that they followed the book with "Silence" and they won 5 Oscars for it! They follow the book for "Hannibal" and they get eveything but good reviews in the paper! I hate that! It was not that bad!!!! I loved it, and you know there's also going to be memorizing lines from it, just like "Silence". Instead of "Having an old friend for dinner," its gonna be "If so GOODIE GOODIE" or something like that.

Rating:
Summary: Enjoy It for what it is.
Review: I was a little disappointed with the movie adaptation of the book. I think they left out some very crucial elements from the book that should have been left in the movie. Despite the poor adaptation from the book I still really enjoyed the movie alot. This movies is not Silence of the Lambs and in now way does it pretend to be. This movies has a whole different style story to tell. I think the first movie was more Good v.s. Evil where in Hannibal all the characters other than Agent Starling are all evil in their own ways. I thought the movie was very enjoyable. I would give it 5 stars if I had not read the book, but only 3 to 4 since I read the book first. The movie is good by itself but the book was far superior.

Rating:
Summary: THIS IS NOT SUPPOSE TO BE A SEQUEL!!
Review: Ok... for all you people out there. This movie was to be based on the book alone. Not "Silence of the Lambs." This may have the same characters, but this movie was to be taken as any other NEW movie out in Hollywood. The movie, in my opinion, was wonderful. The background that I did have from "Silence of the Lambs" helped by knowing the characters. The movie stayed true to the book except for the over-testosteroned woman that was Verger's sister.( I didn't wan't to see that anyway.) Plus, all you people out there who didn't understand the part in the book about the pigs, SEE THE MOVIE!! It explains it. Watch the movie with a clear head. Don't go expecting the same performance as SOTL. It's just not the same. Also, read the book afterwards. It will help explain some of the things that you don't understand in the movie. My hat goes off to the cast and crew who made this movie. It was an excellent horror film of all times. I practically took my friend's arm off. Thanks for the spooks!! Oh, and Harris, Write another good one...

Rating:
Summary: A Magnificent Film, On An Epic Level
Review: Hannibal is probably the most underrated sequels I have ever seen. The reason being is that everyone expected to see a sequel, when all they really saw in this film was a movie that was totally unique and stand on its own. I think many of the people who saw this movie and didn't like it, were simply disappointed by their own shallow sense of expectation. This time round it is Hannibal's film, and that being said, of course it is going to be much darker than the first two films, which were essentially great crime thrillers. But Hannibal is more of a drama and character study into the mind of a man, a witty cultured, romantic, sophistocated man, who just happens to be a homicidal sociopath, and his obsession and love for a woman(Clarice) who admires and respects him, but can never return the love he feels for her. I was also surprised by the epic feel the movie carried with it as well, almost on a very grand scale. I guess you make an epic film with any any type of subject matter, you don't need it to take place over a long period of time, or have it be about some great historical leader, or even include a war or a famous sinking ship, as long as you have the right script(intriguing and original storyline), the right actors(the acting all around was first rate), and excellent directing(kudos to Ridley Scott who gives an epic feel to all his movies). This film is destined to be a classic. If not than surely a cult classic. But in my mind I will always hold this film in the same high regard as its predecessor.

Rating:
Summary: it deserves 5 stars
Review: ok, im getting sick and tired of reading bad reviews for "Hannibal". it was a "dissapointment" here and it was "done poorly" there! My God--it wasn't as bad as everyone (everyone meaning the critics) say it was! What they all lack to say is that sequels are usually never as good as the first. So, Jodie Foster didn't play the role as Clarice Starling--big DEAL! I actually think it took balls for Julianne Moore to go up there after the Oscar-winning performance Forster gave us in "Silence". She did VERY well too! And everyone is sickened by the whole frying brains and eating it. It was in the book, for christ's sake! in a matter of fact, the book went even farther. Clarice ate some of Paul Krendler's brain too. But they couldn't do that in the movie because it would scar Starling's "goodguy" image. The writers were just following the book. What I don't like is the fact the writers followed the book for "silence" and won an Oscar--5 Oscars! They do the same thing for "Hannibal" and what do they get? Mean reviews saying is was a waist of Sir Hopkin's talent. It really pisses me off! Now, I will be reasonable; the movie's ending was different from the books and that dissapointed me a little because I wanted the sparks to fly between Lecter and Starling, but I DID like what they did. It does exactly what the first one did--lets U know there's gonna be another sequel. If I was a movie critic, I would give "Hannibal" % starts, because it was a great film!

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal RULES!!
Review: This is a great show people! Please don't listen to critics who say it isn't! Some people just have no 'taste'! Anyway, Hannibal's great, and Anthony Hopkins is fantastic- AS USUAL!! Oh, and I got to be an extra in it!! And, while I was there I go to meet Mr. Hopkins himself! I just want to say that even though I was acting completely hysterical, he was so sweet to me! Thank you Mr. Hopkins! I'm determined to meet you again! Sorry, I just felt like sharing that with you all.

Rating:
Summary: I Thought It Was Great....
Review: I think we should see 'Hannibal' and 'Silence of the Lambs' as two different films. We shouldn't expect the same style as in the 'Silence of the Lambs'. Even the books were different.