Hannibal

Rating:
Summary: ...
Review: ...I thought this film was brilliant and to see it with the eyes I viewed it with, you really need to displace it from "The Silence of the Lambs." Comparing this sequel and "Silence" is like apples and oranges -- "Hannibal" isn't best picture material, but if you look close enough, you can see that its creators weren't looking to replicate the original (and what they did instead is unique and -- albeit gruesomely -- kind of inspired).

"Silence of the Lambs" was a crime thriller. "Hannibal" is more operatic and over the top, but earns five stars in my opinion because it is operatic and over the top brilliantly. My favorite published review of this film compared the original (gothic) "Frankenstien" film to "Silence" and its (campy) sequel "Bride of Frankenstien" to "Hannibal." Critics lambasted "Bride" for being funny and kooky rather than horrific like its predecessor was -- nowadays, the same variety of critics call "Bride" better and more original than its predecessor.

See "Hannibal" for its operatic elements. It isn't a thriller/suspense/horror film, but rather a drama and a twisted love story about a Devil named Lecter looking for the hand of the "bride" he knows he can't have.

Rating:
Summary: Hannibal is great
Review: I loved Hannibal. Anyone who went into it looking for Silence of the Lambs was probably disappointed, but in and of itself Hannibal was a fantastic movie. Hopkins, Moore, Liotta and Oldman were excellent, ESPECIALLY Julianne Moore. She is not Jodie Foster, and wasn't trying to be Jodie Foster, which was wonderful. In fact, I now prefer Julianne Moore to Jodie. She gave the character of Clarice a little more depth and made her a little more real. And one must keep in mind that the Starling in Hannibal is NOT the same Starling in SOTL.She has evolved in her career and been stalled, and the optimism is gone. I've seen the movie 5 times and will most likely see it at least once more. Some of the camera action was a little disconcerting, but overall Ridley Scott did a superb job. I loved the ending, but part of me wishes they had kept the original. Who are the studio execs to change Thomas' ending? Obviosly that's how he wanted the characters to end up. The book ends with Hannibal and Clarice as sort of vicious lovers...one would do good not to let them know they've been seen, because one is just as deadly as the other. Wonderful movie, though.

Rating:
Summary: Hopkins and Moore Shine in "Hannibal!!"
Review: Well Hello Clarice... I think Hannibal was a great follow up to SOTL. Moore was great in portraying Agent Starling. She has guts to go and take on a role that a great Oscar winning actress has done already. It was difficult at the beginning to actually place Moore in Foster's shoes but once the movie got rolling it never once occured to me that Foster was not there. Anthony Hopkins was as brilliant as ever. Sipping his Cianti, and wearing his slick suits. (may I mention his cool hats that he wore) In a way you want to fall in love with this man, he is warm, and may I add he looks ... good for 64... and in another was he totally terrifies you, this man kills people (rather gruesomely) and eats their internal organs. There is a mystique about Hannibal, people wish they could be like him, rich, intelligent, always a step ahead the the FBI, I know one thing- I wouldn't want to run into Hannibal into a dark alley- I would be safe only if I were Clarice. **The special effects in the ending scenes were absoluetly brilliant.**

Ta-Ta- H

Rating:
Summary: Oh Please....Read the book!
Review: This movie was terrible. I nearly walked out of the theatre before it ended. Most notable in many scenes was the descending boom mic that nearly hit the actors on the head and was never edited out....took me right out of the movie and made me laugh at the amateurishness of it. I would have given this one star except for the acting of Sir Anthony. He is a true actor but I was a little surprised that he took this role.

Silence of the Lambs was a psycological thriller --- it toyed with your mind and left much to our own horrific imaginations. This left nothing. You knew exactly what was going to happen before it happened (even if you hadn't read the book). It was all shoot 'em up action and gore with very little thought. Don't waste your time watching it

(I wonder if the boom mic will get nominated for any awards for so much screen time?)

Rating:
Summary: A surefire studio hit, but it lacks something...
Review: Hannibal, the hype after silence of teh Lambs finally compelled writer Thomas Harris to write Hannibal, a sequel of sorts to Silence of the Lambs. I still remember the librarian's words when she checked out the book "Three words: this-is-terrible!" I still read it anyways, and the book seemed ok, until it got into the last 30 pages. It turned into a cross-country road trip where you crashed and burned just 20 feet fro your destination. But enough with the book ,we'll get on to that later.

Hannibal picks up 10 years after "Silence of the Lambs." We now find Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore, nuff said), on the receiving end of a supposedly botched assignment. Right now, her character and judgement are being bombarded and torn apart by the boys upstairs, notably her boss Paul Krendler (the moment this guy speaks, you will WANT to hate him). Soon after, Clarice is called to the estate of Mason Verger, one of Hannibal Lecter's victims who was disfigured due to some major brainwork by Lecter. Now horribly disfigured, Verger (Gary oldman sounding like a deformed Jimmy Stewart) wants to use Clarice to find Hannibal.

Meanwhile, in Italy, Hannibal Lecter has been living the good life, fine wine, breads and cheeses. Assuming the name of Dr. Fell, he is poised to take ona precedented seat on a board of art critics and the like. However, a noted Italian inspector named Pazzi has come to suspect that the Dr may in fact be the American killer Hannibal.

While the film stayed true to the book, the deviation of 20% of the soruce material was somewhat of a good thing. Jodie Foster backed out of both a huge paycheck and a changed ending as well. Also rerouted was a sideplot involving Mason Verger's sister, a steroid-enhanced lesbian (I didn't quite buy this plotpoint either in the book), and the disfigurement of Verger as well (in the book, his eyes were exposed and needed to be rewetted every 5-10 seconds, and his mobility was even more limited).

Julianne Moore was proclaimed up to the task, but for some reason, it sounds like she's trying to be like Foster. The way she handles herself around men in the FBI and life reminded me of Foster's take on Ellie Arroway in the film "Contact." Here, Clarice seems always one step away form taking the decisive factor from ever losing her temper. Just once, I wanted to see her breakdown in a fit of rage over the situation she is put in.

Hopkins has lost that mystery that surrounded that scene that became so memorable (I Ate his liver, with some faver beans, and a nice chianti...tphpthpthptphtphtphth!). It was almost like Hopkins was told "Here's $20million, now act like you're on vacation and got paid for nothing. Don't get me wrong, Hopkins is a great actor, but it got somewhat annoying when his jokes had a bit of food humor to them (the audience loved them).

Probably the main complaint would have to be towards director Ridley Scott. Up until Gladiator, i had never fully analyzed Scott's work on films. Here, it seems to border between mood and trying to jumpstart you form 0-60 in 2 seconds. There are Scott's trademark fast-camera shots that look like he shifted into overdrive while drunk, which leaves you wondering "what the heck was that?"

Hannibal was good, but in a marginal B average rating scale. Word now is that Hokins will reutrn as a yonge Hannibal in the novel that preceded his SOTL escape: "Red Dragon." Once again, Hannibal will be behind bars, and may'be, Hopkins can make that terror behind the glass memorable again.

Rating:
Summary: The Return Of Dr. Lecter
Review: One of the most disconcerting and unsettling criminals in the history of the cinema returns, in this long awaited sequel that finds him at large and free to pursue his own unique dining habits, in "Hannibal," directed by Ridley Scott, and starring the inimitable Anthony Hopkins as the infamous gourmet, Dr. Hannibal Lecter. The psychological games between Hannibal and everyone's favorite F.B. I. agent, Clarice Starling (Julianne Moore), that began in "The Silence of the Lambs," continues here, though the tension that permeated "Lambs" has been significantly reduced, mainly due to the fact that this film lacks the immediacy of the original. Though Hannibal's presence is still coldly threatening, he simply hasn't that same sense of urgency about him in his freedom that he did in captivity. Seeing him in a "normal" setting is just much easier to assimilate than seeing him in that ominous isolation cell in which he resided when first introduced to an unsuspecting audience in 1991. Probably the most chilling aspect of the film is the fact that someone as unsound as Hannibal can with such facility mask his true identity and compulsions and function so effectively within society. It's like living among snakes without knowing which ones are venomous. As a viewer, watching him interact with others-- knowing what we do about him-- is unnerving in itself; and when things begin to heat up and he at last shows his hand, it accords the audience some relief, in the same sense as having an illness finally diagnosed so that you can begin the treatment which precludes healing. And any respite from the ambiguous horrors of the story is welcomed, since Scott has done a superb job of creating an atmosphere and mood that poise the audience for the worst of the definite atrocities that are obviously coming. As for the performance of Anthony Hopkins, it goes without saying at this point that he IS Hannibal Lecter. In reviving the role that won him an Oscar for Best Actor, he brings that same icy countenance to the screen, that same reserved manner and eyes that reflect an emptiness of soul, all of which creates an illusion of invulnerability about him. He presents a portrait of someone who is quite capable of perpetrating acts so dark that even shadows could not prevail upon them. And taking into account the intelligence of Lecter, and the calculating methods he employs in carrying out his heinous deeds, it makes his presence all the more disquieting, more so even than that of Norman Bates (as played by Anthony Perkins) in Hitchcock's "Psycho." If at all a case could be made that there is a weak link in the film, it would have to be the presence of Julianne Moore; but it would be a tough case to make inasmuch as Moore cannot be held directly responsible for it. She simply had a nearly impossible task in attempting to fill the shoes of Jodie Foster, who made such an indelible impression as Clarice in "Lambs," for which she received the Oscar for Best Actress. Moore is a gifted actress, and her performance here is quite capably realized, but she doesn't quite capture that spark of intimacy that Foster's Clarice had with Hannibal, and consequently what passes between them does not evoke that same sense of dread and apprehension that was so vividly felt before. Moore must be given credit, however, for a noble effort-- she does give a good performance here-- but taking over a part that Foster had made so intrinsically her own was a task that was just too insurmountable. The supporting cast includes Giancarlo Giannini (Rinaldo Pazzi), Francesca Neri (Laura Pazzi), Gary Oldman (Mason Verger), Ray Liotta (Paul Krendler), Alex Corrado (Piero), Zeljko Ivanek (Dr. Doemling), Spike Jonze (Donnie) and Frankie Faison (Barney). There are some fairly graphic scenes in this film, but with the exception of one near the end, they all play out very quickly; this is not, after all, merely another "slice 'em and dice 'em" slasher film. Scott presents the story in such a way that the audience is psychologically and emotionally primed to see more than is actually shown; this is simply good filmmaking. But be advised: Some of it will be a bit too strong for some. In the end, "Hannibal," though falling short of the level of excellence of "Silence of the Lambs," is still a film that makes the ten years or so it took to bring it to the screen worth the wait. Not for the squeamish nor those with a fragile psyche, it is a film, however, for those who would sojourn into regions beyond the known; if it is the dark places you seek, this one should more than fit the bill.

Rating:
Summary: The Gobbling Of The Pigs
Review: Did Thomas Harris fall asleep writing this story or Ridley Scott did directing it? I certainly almost did watching it.

The movie starts with the hackneyed plot of our star agent bungling a drug bust through no fault of hers and then a pseudo hotshot investigator tries to take advantage of her situation. Lots of bullets, lots of bodies, our hero gets unjustifiably suspended and then takes matters into his own hands, or her hands in this case. Please, this corny theme has been used countless times in TV serials and cheap action movies - I am surprised Thomas Harris could even bring himself to write this!

Then comes the ridiculous deformed character in wheelchair who somehow is super rich and powerful and who has such a superb network of intelligence and runners that they can manage to catch Hannibal Lecter when for years the FBI fail despite him being on their ten most wanted list - Wah, am I watching a James Bond movie or what?!

The story moves at a tedious pace with Ridley Scott crafting his pseudo artistic style more suitable to a reflective drama then a crime thriller. And the suspense, if there is any, is as flat as walking through your neighbourhood grocery store.

There is even such cheap thrill as hungry pigs eating humans. And the climax where Hannibal does a haute cuisine of human brain, instead of being stomach churning as it was intended to be, actually looks delicious as watching a French master chef preparing his signature dish - it truly got me thinking of having pig brain for dinner, no kidding.

And yeah, you may half expect Hannibal Lecter to break out in "Nighttime sharpens, heightens each sensation..." when he bends over Clarice Starling.

This movie is a prime example of the kind of products we get when greedy Hollywood executives try to cash in on a successful film by pushing the creation of a sequel. In the process, quality becomes trash, and The Silence Of The Lambs has become The Gobbling Of The Pigs.

I really could not bring myself to give this film anything higher than 4/10. If you are game for it, pig brain stew would be better value.

Rating:
Summary: All the suspense of a Scooby Doo cartoon
Review: Yes, the slaughter scenes were creative and worthy of all the hype. But good suspense films are all about chase and capture, which was perfunctory at best in this film. Getting to know the avuncular, behind-the-scenes Hannibal (who appeared to be living in peaceful exile as an art teacher before being sniffed out by the feds) didn't help much with the suspense either.

The film was not without texture and dimension. Its smart script, striking ambiance and mesmerizing chemistry between Hannibal and Clarice makes it more cerebrally satisfying than its predecessor.

Rating:
Summary: Don't get such a big box of popcorn!
Review: I went to see this movie with my family and my cousin, and I was utterly surprised, when the movie was over, that everyone in our party loved it!

I, personally, totally enjoyed it. I agree that The Silence of the Lambs had much more plot and flowed more smoothly than Hannibal, but you have to admit that this is kind of a fun movie (yes! fun!). There was only one flaw that I thought took away from the movie: Irrelevency. There wasn't anything in it that was completely irrelevent, but the writers came pretty close. When I say it was "irrelevent", I'm not saying it to convey the thought of the movie being just a time-filler. No. what I mean is that there were a couple of things that happened toward the beginning of the movie that were never brought up again. One: What happened to Barney? Did they get him for selling the goods?

The movie's actors were something to brag on! Anthony Hopkins was, as usual, amazing. He played Dr. Lecter/Dr. Fell to a T. He made his character almost "loveable", which is good and bad at the same time. Good: it makes the movie more fun and suspensful to watch. I don't like watching movies where I HATE the main character. Bad: you find yourself feeling guilty for actually LIKING this evil thing that has no mercy for anyone, except Clarice. Julianne Moore was also VERY GOOD. Only one thing took away from her performance and made me want Jodie Foster back: the accent. In SotL, Foster kept her strong accent throughout the entire movie. In Hannibal, Moore, had it a little sometimes and none at other times. Maybe she shed it, finally...I don't know. You have to admit, though, Moore is one brave lady for attempting to fill Foster's shoes, and she does a great job of it!

I didn't find the violence and gore in this movie unbearable. I can think of many movies, along with Made-For-TV-Movies that had more violence and murder than this one. Saving Private Ryan comes to mind first.

One last note to those of you who were disgusted at Lecter's affection to Starling and Starling's respect to Lecter...don't read the book. You'll burn it after reading the ending! I loved it, but, then again, I found the bond between the two in the movie impressive.

All in all, this movie is one to see. Maybe not twice, but still open your mind up and buy a ticket!

Rating:
Summary: HANNIBAL- did it 4 me
Review: Hannibal - was an interesting epic of a movie, the shere presence of adrenalyn , gore and great acting made this film a pleasure to watch. T he script was exellant and may of the phrases will be remembered as much as the T2 lyrics "i'll be back" but i will let the audience find that out 4 themselves. Anthony Hopkins is a star adding quirky, black comedy into places where he is tempting the audience to guess at what happens next. The first film was horrifying but the final 10 minutes of Hannibal was pure gore. The cliffhanger ending is leaving a sequal open so the fans may enjoy another Hopkins Masterpiece.