Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: Ridley Scott you did it again!
Review: It is truly an amazing film. Forget the sequal... to me this one is much better than the first! This movie drives you through a master piece of suspense and thriller.

The make up was brillaint and thrilling for the "deformed man"! Anthony Hopkins played his role well but the big credit I give to Ridley Scott!

The two things that got me not to rate it 5 stars was:

1. The story did not cover how did Dr. Lecter manage to do everything (job, escape, travel ..etc.) without any assistance!

2. The scene at the dining table at the end of the film was a bit over exaggerated!

Other than that, it was a movie not to be missed!

Rating:
Summary: hmmm...
Review: Well, all i can say (even though I'm about to say more) is that you must read the book first to get a full idea of how much the movie sucks, at least compared to the book. Above-average movie, but if it paid more attention to the book it would have been award-winning. For time saving, I assume, more than half the characters were cut, including Mason's bodybuilding sister, which would have been neat. If all the books 'scenes' were included, the movie would probably be over four hours long, but good hours, at least. And the exclusion of Dr. Lecter's Memory Palace was an incredibly stupid idea. And, of course, the ending in the book was much better. Just because some whinning feminists didn't like what happened to Clarice's character doesn't mean it should be ruined for the rest of us! READ THE BOOK

Rating:
Summary: What a letdown!!
Review: There is so much about this movie that is disheartening that I don't know where to start.

Jodie Foster couldn't have helped this movie even if she had decided to reclaim her role as Clarice.

There were characters and events that were left out (from the book) so much to the point that you almost don't even know what point the writers were trying to make. Not to mention the drastic plot change.

I think Hollywood just thought the fact that it was the sequel to Silence of the Lambs would be enough to make it do well, but it just doesn't go over at all.

Save your money on this one!!

Rating:
Summary: Disapointing as a psychological thriller....
Review: ...but pretty darn satisfying as a gross-out slasher movie. Nothing comes close to the eerie suspense and phychological drama of the the original -- and, in fact, it doesn't even seem that Hannibal is really trying to. While Julianne Moore adopts the southern accent and tough female agent devoted to her work attitude of Starling, she doesn't play the role with the same subtleness or intelligence as Foster did. Also, the relationship between the two isn't true to the original -- while in first Starling only fosters (no pun intended, har har) a trust with Lecter so to use him as a means to an end (and do her job), here it seems like they have forged an emotional bond and she wistfully and almost fondly remembers their time together. Also here we see the "he's a homicidal maniac but his heart is in the right place" side of Hannibal After all, he only kills people who are REALLY asking for it. However, the movie can be enjoyed as what it is, a gory but entertaining romp - that is, if you are entertained by seeing people disemboweled, gored by ravenous pigs, and eaten alive. Not only does the gross-out potential soar, but the cinematography is gorgeous (as you might expect from Ridley Scott) and Florence is an especially beautiful setting. So if all you want expect from the movie is a big-budget, pseudo intellectual, gory slasher flick, you won't be let down.

Rating:
Summary: Oh my God...
Review: For starters, I fully disagree with all the critics who blasted this movie for being different compared to Silence of the Lambs.

This is one of the best movies I've ever seen, and one of my favorite films of all time. The acting, directing, locations, and effects were suberb.

Giancarlo Gianni deserves a Best Supporting Actor Oscar. His performance was the most believable I've ever seen. Also, this movie deserves to win the Oscar for Best Makeup, for the character of Mason Verger.

Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore were excellent, the few scenes they were in together were excellent.

I just would like to say to everyone out there who avoids this movie because they hate the book: Don't let the book scare you away from the movie, the movie is much better than the book.

Rating:
Summary: A gutsy film thats better then the first.
Review: you heard me. this one is superior to the original. dont get me wrong the original is one of my favorites but this film is superior in every way. I think Juliane MOore is a better Starling then Foster. if you read the books Moore brings out Slarling characer brilliantly. she took a big risk to replace foster and pulled it off brilliantly. Hoplikins, who is one of the finest actors ever, steals the show. lector is still the man. killing. slashing. super cool. He is one evil motherf--ker and hopkins shows it. Ridley Scott is an awesome director and he proved it her. a beautifull film throughout. I think the reason this one is better is because its over the top in every way. and the film aknowledges that. lots of the scenes are sick but who cares. to close my aurgument as to why this film is better i will quote one of the actors working on the film " The first one was inside you head, this one is in your face". true.

Rating:
Summary: Gruesome and very very good
Review: I would first of all like to say for all those critics out there who said the movie was bad that it is very very good. This is the first Hanibal Lecter movie I went to watch . I havntseen silence of the lambs yet an i thoroughly enjoyed it .

The film was brilliant in every department . In the acting all the actors especially Anthony Hopkins played an excellent and believable roles and it was truly amazing to see so much good acting in one movie. Visual effects was excellent as all the gruesome parts looked as real as they could get. Makeup was excellent particularly in making Mason Vergers face and sound was also very good. so as you can see this film was good at everything.

Having read the book Hannibal before i saw the movie I thought that i was to be dissapointed because usually movies based on books are poorly made but i was proved wrong. the film was exceptionally good and so was the adaptation from tghe novel to film.

The film is not just about a man eating people like amny critics have written but it is more in depth and complex about the relationship of a phsycopathic phsycologist and an F.B.I agent. The film is about Hannibal Lecter who is found to be living in Venice after he escaped the U.S and Mason Verger his fourth victim is trying to get justice done by himself by catching Hannibal and making him suffer himself.I will not carry on because im afraid that i might give too much away like the trailer did for this movie.

All i have to say is that if you havnt seen this movie then you should definitely go see it and i would like to praise Ridley Scott for making an even better film than Gladiator.

Rating:
Summary: Well Done
Review: This movie is not as good as "Lambs" but is fine in its own right. Sir Anthony Hopkins outdoes himself, as usual. Critics trash this movie because its a sequel. But that only amounts to bad reasoning. You should judge a movie on its own merit, not what comes before or after.

Rating:
Summary: Back Again!
Review: Well he's back!One of the creepiest characters-Hannibal Lecter that is,is back for a third time and he's as charming,witty,intellectual and unfortunately rather violent as usual.

To set the scene,the story is set 10 years after the Silence Of The Lambs.Clarice Starling,now played by Julianne Moore is having her troubles in the F.B.I.-between bothched up shoot outs and a very chauvinistic co-worker-played by Ray Liotta.Dr. Lecter has now assumed the name Dr. Fell and is working in the beautiful city of Florence.He's working as a sort of curator in a museum and this is it appears anyway to be satisfying his cultural and intellectual appetite.It isn't long before he gets his other more famous appetite back but it is intriging to see him converse with people normally and not be caged in a high security setting.Once again the main plot of this film is how much Hannibal needs Clarice and vice-versa.

The sub-plot concerns one of Hannibals few surviving victims,a multi-millionaire by the name of Mason Verger-who is played by a virtually unrecognisable Gary Oldman-top marks should go to those working in the make up department.He is hell bent on capturing Lecter and has carefully planned a brutal revenge upon his capture.The film starts off at a fairly slow pace and the scenes in Italy are shot beautifully-the local tourist board would certainly have been proud of the amazing lighting used to show these amazing sights.There is always a great deal of underlying tension as you wait for Lecter to turn nasty again.The way this tension is teased out is excellent.

One of the main aspects of the last film that Lecter was a fascinating and very creepy character in the few 'show-stopping' scenes he was in.The thing is that in this film he plays a much bigger role and he begins in my opinion to lose much of his mystique.It's like the more familiar you become with him the less interesting and scary he becomes.The relationship between Clarice and Lecter also seems to have lost some of it's mystique-after a while it almost reaches farcical levels.

The film gathers pace gradually,especially when the story moves over to the States.The hunts for Lecter by the F.B.I.and by Verger's cohorts reaches a climax.I have to say I was a bit dissappointed by the ending of this movie.Many people said that the last scenes were almost unwatchable-I have to say that yes though it was gory,it was so preposterous it was hilarious.

This is a good movie and quite enjoyable.I just think it lacks the drama and tension of the last film,but then that was always going to be a very hard act to follow.

Rating:
Summary: Very disappointing
Review: I was sorry to read that Jodie Foster had decided not to appear in the sequel to the classic "Silence of the Lambs." After having seen the film, my only question is: Why didn't Anthony Hopkins pass on it, too? Rarely has so much talent been wasted. The pacing was slow and the characterization was weak. Julianne Moore was fine as Clarice Starling, but the character was much too passive. Basically, all she did was get dumped on by her superiors while waiting around for Hannibal to show up. I'm one of those who enjoyed the book, and I'd like to read more about these characters. However, as far as film goes, I'll just be satisfied with "Silence".