Rating: 
Summary: Book is so much better
Review: Like many, I read the book before the movie came out. Despite the bad reviews for the book, I think it is better than "The Silence of the Lambs." Harris' writing is so eloquent and beautiful that it is quite easy to get past the lack of plot-development (i.e. the last 30 pages: Beautifully written but the story was lost). The movie, however, was disappointing. What was captured in the book was lost in the movie. The performances in the movie were good, but it seemed to move much slower than the book. I'd recommend to everyone to read the book, at the very least, then maybe, see the movie.
Rating:
Summary: Scott Missed the Opportunity to Make a Masterpiece...
Review: ....man! All the pieces were there but, it just did not come off right. My chance to play director...? Goody, goody!First, I would have skipped sections of Lector actually talking face to face with anyone in the early sections of the film and allowed his story to be told "Roshomon" like by Verger, by Barney, by Pazzi, by Florence denizens. I'd then have Lector shown in the Florence shadows, the darkened corners, the musty street markets and have Hopkins still do the creepy voice overs, like when Clarice listens to the tapes and his reading aloud the Dante cantos, but I would not have him real-time interact with any other characters til he somehow confronts Pazzi AFTER his Dante lecture. Then Pazzi's cell phone rings and it's...Clarice. Lector is supposed to be a man-myth, shrouded in mystery and danger...a bad actor infamous all over the world....like film antihero Kaiser Sose and Scott missed playing up on that. This from the man who scared the whatsis from me with "Alien". I also expected a cinematic moment a la Brett and Scarlett when Lector carries Clarice from the wild boar pit. Also missing was that Clarice was supposed to start to become as nefarious as Lector... Like I said, the pieces were there, but not connecting. The beautiful cinematography seemed to beg for a more masterfully told story. The music was operatic and appropriate but the libretto lacked the passion it should have delivered. In trying so hard not to become melodramatic, it ends up being melodramatic...
Rating: 
Summary: 'Hannibal' stinks!
Review: In short-gore does not equal scary. Sadism does not equal terror. This film is virtually suspense-free (in contrast to the taut-as-a-piano wire suspense of 'Silence Of The Lambs'), and instead relies on geek-show theatrics to shock you instead of terrify you. I think 'Hannibal' stinks. P.S. The book isn't any better, either.
Rating: 
Summary: It was Great!
Review: This movie was great. Anthony Hopkins and Julianne Moore both did a fantastic job. I thought Julianne was a good replacement. I liked the gore (im wierd like that). Umm.. Oh this movie did not really scare me. A few times, it was a bit scary because It was one of those suprising scenes where something or someone pops out and freaks you out. One thing I thought was unfortunate was a scene that they did not add that was from the book that would have been interesting. I would suggest you read the book before you see the movie because then you might get everything better. Overall though, I thought it was really good!
Rating:
Summary: IT IS BAD BUT GOOD!!
Review: I think that this movie, is no a movie you want to watch, with your little kids. This movie, has some very gross pictures in it! There is a scene that he opens a guys head and eats his brain!!! That is the worst one of all!! I like scary movies, but this is a SICK movie!! The begining of the movie is ok and i actually liked it for the most part until the end!!!!!
Rating: 
Summary: Better than liver and fava-beans - I can asure ya
Review: I read the book in the spring of 00 and could not wait till the movie was released in theaters. I went to watch it with my friends and although hannibal was in no way better than the silence of the lambs, it was - at least - a good way to get your funny bone tickled. this is one of the funniest movies I've ever seen. even the ending was a good laugh - hannibal giving paul krendler his on brains to eat. Jokes put aside, the movie is very good. it'll scares the hell outta you - most of all of the girls. it's is a gripping, very brutal movie, very true to the book (except the ending), very true to the characters. In six words: very rich, very scary, very disappointing. Ridley Scott knows what he's doing. In certain aspects I prefered the film to the book. For exemple the perverse sister of mason verger was left out - a good decision. she was a complete exaggeration, too much considered the other ill-minded characters of the story. My favorite part in the movie is when Hannibal kills the cop Pazzi who wanted to sell him to verger. Very cool scene - comparable to the one in silence of the lambs, when the swat team enters the room in which hannibal's cage is. the camera first shows us the cops securing the room, then it swerves, putting our eyes on the jesus-like figure suspended from the bars of the cage, arms spread to a perfect t, body ripped, guts hanging out. I think I will never forget this scene. I certainely will buy Hannibal on dvd and you guys reading this review should do exactly the same. and if you're a real hannibal "the cannibal" fan you'll read the book to.
Rating: 
Summary: Hype Rules...and fools
Review: I am not going to compare this film to either of the others that have gone before because that would be the wrong thing to do. Taking it as a stand alone film, in which the principal player is one of the most sinister characters in movie murder history, it was just very poor. There was nothing particularly wrong with the acting, the sets, the direction or any aspect of production really, it was just a bad story. With the potential of weaving a superb tale around Hopkins excellent character, it instead turned into a total wasted oppotunity. I had actually read the book beforehand and thought that the story was poor. Unfortunatly, poor books translate into even poorer films. Don't beleive the hype, see it before you buy it. It is very likely you will save your money.
Rating:
Summary: TAKE ME TO THE DARK SIDE
Review: Like the novel, Ridley Scott's Hannibal is a journey into Lecter's universe. Julianne Moore said it best: this film is like an "hallucination". The hallucination of a madman (in this case an almost godly-superhuman madman not your real-life serial killer) in which the madman is the hero. The Silence of the Lambs was basically about Clarice Starling. Hannibal is more than ever about Hannibal Lecter, and so the movie must be as morbidly perverse as the doctor himself, because this is his world. It's his movie. Starling had her chance to be the star in Silence of the Lambs. Now Lecter gets his in Hannibal. Director Ridley Scott is able to capture the essence of Hannibal's universe, FIRST through beautiful, luscious visuals (this film is much more beautiful than Demme's Silence - hope John Mathieson will not be forgotten come next year's Oscars), THEN through classical music (without sounding pretentious I think Hans Zimmer's original score also has a very classical root - hope Zimmer is not forgotten come next year's Oscars - this is a masterful score), and FINALLY through gruesome, shocking images. I'm sorry but the violence was necessary for this film, because, again, it is Lecter's world we are entering. Frankie Faison (who plays Barney) also said something interesting that brings further understanding of this film: "Silence of the Lambs was more in your head, while Hannibal is more in your face", and that's exactly right. Since this is a madman's hallucination it wouldn't make sense to hide us from its true horrors. I'm disappointed, not by the movie, but by the reaction of most critics (but thank you Mr. Corliss). I'm not going to use that old excuse and say critics didn't understand it, but your enjoyment of a movie depends on the way you perceive things. My only problem with the film is that the supporting characters lack the depth of the novel, particularly Cordell Doemling and Krendler. I would have liked to see Mason's sister Margot who was erased for the film. The film's ending is an interesting one, although very different from the novel. As different as the ending is the last two minutes WERE in the book, only it doesn't occur at the same time in the story. Hannibal has flaws, but it remains a strong, moving (I was moved by the dynamic between Lecter and Starling, especially when it all comes together in the end), sensory experience. Hopkins remains hypnotic in most scenes (the Academy, remember this). Julianne Moore delivers the goods, particularly in the emotional scenes. Gary Oldman as Mason Verger is chilling with his rusty, raw voice (hope the makeup for this film is not forgotten come next year's Oscars, that would be a crime). ...let Hannibal haunt you!!! And don't compare it too much to Silence of the Lambs, because it's not the same kind of movie and its aims are not the same. Note: Hope the studio goes all out on the DVD and make it the ultimate Hannibal Lecter collector's edition. Documentary, deleted scenes (I think there's an hour of unused footage, so put it there please), in-depth commentaries, behind-the-scenes photos, maybe a little word from Thomas Harris (that would be a dream come true Mr. Harris), and so on, and so on.
Rating:
Summary: Stop Comparing!
Review: To anyone out there who preaches, "Read the book," or "Silence of the Lambs was better," you need to realize the Hannibal is a movie that is totally independent of Silence of the Lambs. Hannibal is designed around a completely different plot from the other film which so many talk about when Hannibal is even mentioned. And about the book business, Is a book and a movie even remotely the same thing? How can you even compare the two. A hint to anyone who has yet to see Hannibal, before you go to the theatres to see the movie (which I would encourage you to do) completely forget anything you remeber from Silence of the Lambs or Hannibal the novel. If you have never seen Silence or read Hannibal, all the better. Just enjoy the movie from start to finish, no more, no less.
Rating:
Summary: Masterful!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Review: A GREAT MOVIE JULIANNE MOORE WAS MARVOLOUS AS CLAIRICE(REPLACING JODIE FOSTER FROM THE ORIGINAL).ANTHONY HOPKINS IS GREAT AS PLAYING A PSYCHOPATH.I LOVED IT ALOT OF PEOPLE ARE DISSING THIS MOVIE BECAUSE OF THE GORE BUT IF YOU CAN'T TAKE IT JUST BOW YOUR HEAD IN SILENCE TILL IT'S OVER.IT DOES DRAG IN A FEW SPOTS BUT I STILL LOVED IT."THUMBS UP"!!!!!!!!!!!
|
